Jump to content

BC NDP government using Communist ideology to distribute carbon tax rebate


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, herbie said:

No you get yours straight. The PARTY says, not the leader.

MOF you are a man, and abortion doesn't affect you personally, so blab all you want but you've no moral right to decide for women.

You ascribe zero rights to the unborn and bring zero perspective to the debate.  We already know that “My body, my choice” is the law of the land on abortion rights in Canada, without any legal restrictions or protections for the unborn child up to the expected delivery date.  You’re a femme supremacist who places a mother’s rights above a child’s rights in a zero sum way, with zero rights for unborn children.  We won’t agree on this.

I don’t expect any thoughtful debate on abortion.  You’re like my “Destroy the patriarchy” NDP aunt.  However, any political party that refuses allowing its members to vote with their conscience is fundamentally bad.  Trudeau has destroyed the Liberal Party of Canada for this reason, though there are certainly other reasons.  It’s the attempt to dictate belief and end pluralism that I’m taking particular issue with here.

It’s part of a pattern of wanting to control how we all live and think.  It’s the same overreach we saw with the vaccine mandates and banning of protests against them.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Baloney.

You praise Canada no matter how dictatorial and unconstitutional our government behaves, repeating the same anti-American refrain I’ve heard my whole life.  Well guess what, American rights are more protected and there are more rights in America than Canada.  I know that doesn’t fit your anti-American narrative, but it’s true.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that's exactly right. Women have always had the ultimate decision and they always will. You can pretend all you want you should have a say,

And as far a MPs go, you're not elected to make your own choice, you're elected to do what your electors asked. If you insist on holding socially conservative don't run as a Liberal. Join the Conservatives, they think those issues matter above all else (or so it seems).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Neither Canada nor the US has ever experienced "tyranny."

Depends how you define "tyranny" and who you ask.  If the approximate 100,000 per year of unborn babies who were aborted were able to answer that question, I think they might consider it tyranny.  People who consider medically-assisted suicide of ten thousand people per year and increasing every year might consider that as tyranny.  People who are victims of the soft-on-crime approach of the liberal justice system might consider it tyranny.  Just ask the relatives and friends on the James Smith Cree nation in Saskatchewan what they think of the murder of their loved ones in September by a violent offender released by the parole board.  You might also ask the former students and survivors of the residential schools whether they think the residential school system was tyranny.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Depends how you define "tyranny" and who you ask.  If the approximate 100,000 per year of unborn babies who were aborted were able to answer that question, I think they might consider it tyranny.  People who consider medically-assisted suicide of ten thousand people per year and increasing every year might consider that as tyranny.  People who are victims of the soft-on-crime approach of the liberal justice system might consider it tyranny.  Just ask the relatives and friends on the James Smith Cree nation in Saskatchewan what they think of the murder of their loved ones in September by a violent offender released by the parole board.  You might also ask the former students and survivors of the residential schools whether they think the residential school system was tyranny.

You have a very unconventional definition of tyranny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You praise Canada no matter how dictatorial and unconstitutional our government behaves, repeating the same anti-American refrain I’ve heard my whole life.  Well guess what, American rights are more protected and there are more rights in America than Canada.  I know that doesn’t fit your anti-American narrative, but it’s true.

So far, no Canadian Government has behaved in a dictatorial manner. If you believe they have acted unconstitutionally, retain a lawyer and take them to court. That is the arena for determining constitutionality.

I am not anti American. I believe they have a disfunctional system that grew out of the American Revolution that, at that time, violated every right they claimed to embrace. At that time, many of the leaders of the American revoulution were avericious and violent. 

That was then. Today, the United States is populated by people who's generosity to people in other nations is unprecedented in world history. They are the best world power ever. I don't always agree with their policies, but they always seem to try to help others.

Every "right" must be accompanied by responsibility. We have every "right" that Americans have except for the curious right to have a gun. We can still own a firearm in Canada, but it is not a right. It is a privilege that is accompanied by a responsibility to use it in a safe and legal manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So far, no Canadian Government has behaved in a dictatorial manner. If you believe they have acted unconstitutionally, retain a lawyer and take them to court. That is the arena for determining constitutionality.

I am not anti American. I believe they have a disfunctional system that grew out of the American Revolution that, at that time, violated every right they claimed to embrace. At that time, many of the leaders of the American revoulution were avericious and violent. 

That was then. Today, the United States is populated by people who's generosity to people in other nations is unprecedented in world history. They are the best world power ever. I don't always agree with their policies, but they always seem to try to help others.

Every "right" must be accompanied by responsibility. We have every "right" that Americans have except for the curious right to have a gun. We can still own a firearm in Canada, but it is not a right. It is a privilege that is accompanied by a responsibility to use it in a safe and legal manner. 

You don’t have property rights in Canada.  You can’t plead the 5th.  You don’t have protected right of protest.  You don’t have protected medical discretion.  Canada has become more dictatorial and communist in these past several years.  Attempts at removing free speech from the internet are well underway.  Our leadership now promotes shaming and silencing of political opponents.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You can’t plead the 5th.

"You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay...

You need not say anything. You have nothing to hope from any promise of favour and nothing to fear from any threat, whether or not you say anything. Anything you do say, may be used as evidence."

So, when you are asked a question that may incriminate you, you say "It is my usual practice to exersise my right to reatai and instruct counsel without delay." Then you shut up. Actually that is the only phrase you should say. You say it once and then you do not say another word other than to give your name and date of birth. You let your lawyer speak for you and you follow her instructions to the letter. 

We do have the right to protest provided you do so legally and do not impede on the rights of others. You do have protected medical discretion, provided you respect the rights of others to be protected from your actions. It is the same in the US. They actually used the National Guard to clear protesters from in front of the Whitehouse and enforced their public health orders.

What sort of property rights are you looking for? If you violate some laws, the "proceeds of crime" come into play. Ownership of a firearm is a privilege not a right. Like Public Health orders, that is for the safety of others. Remember what happened to the Rough Rider visiting the US. Some one took offence to a black man driving in a manner they didn't like, so the shot him dead. He, and almost 20,000 Americans are killed by firearms in the US every year. Perhaps, it is they who need to re-visit the 2A...but that is for another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So far, no Canadian Government has behaved in a dictatorial manner. If you believe they have acted unconstitutionally, retain a lawyer and take them to court. That is the arena for determining constitutionality.

tyranny definition - cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control:

The Supreme Court is made up of liberal appointees.  It is nothing more than a branch of the Liberal government.  They approve of the killing of unborn babies.  They were the ones that ordered the government to implement doctor-assisted suicide. They are the ones who order that many violent prisoners should not be held in prison.   They are the ones that decreed that a life sentence for murderers is 25 years and after that, every prisoner must have a parole hearing every few years, putting the victims families through hell.   So they are not protecting Canada from tyranny.  Quite the opposite.  If widespread violence in public schools in Toronto, Vancouver, Surrey and other places is tyranny, we have it.  If widespread immorality falls under the definition of tyranny, then we have it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, blackbird said:

They approve of the killing of unborn babies.  They were the ones that ordered the government to implement doctor-assisted suicide.

These are laws that most Canadians want. The Supreme Court makes it's decisions based on the law, not partisan politics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

These are laws that most Canadians want. The Supreme Court makes it's decisions based on the law, not partisan politics.

 

So basically your rights aren’t protected in Canada if the government of the day with the blessing of the courts decides to violate them.  There can always be a “crisis” to justify actions.  “Keeping people safe” is another great excuse to oppress. This was the excuse police used in China for beating up a BBC journalist. No, we need stronger constitutional protections.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

a life sentence for murderers is 25 years and after that, every prisoner must have a parole hearing every few years, putting the victims families through hell. 

So, we should just release them without any hearing to determine their likelihood of re-offending? There is no mechanism be 100% accurate, but it is the parole boards who have to make that judgement. What is the alternative? The law says 25 years before consideration. That was the compromise when we abolished Capital Punishment. As a Christian, I am sure you would agree that hanging is not something any Christian could approve of. The problem is that Canadians do not want to pay the taxes that should pay for rehabilitation of prisoners.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

So basically your rights aren’t protected in Canada if the government of the day with the blessing of the courts decides to violate them.  There can always be a “crisis” to justify actions.  “Keeping people safe” is another great excuse to oppress. This was the excuse police used in China for beating up a BBC journalist. No, we need stronger constitutional protections.  

Your rights are protected by the charter. The government of Ontario just discovered that the "not withstanding" clause is any kind of an easy out.

Are you actually saying "Keeping people safe" is wrong? In China, they go by a different philosophy. Their government believes that democracy is bad becaue it is mob rule...not unlike some of those ultra-right Americans who are adament that they are a Republic that stands against mob rule in a democracy.

Rights are not a licence to break the law, and they must always be paired with responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, we should just release them without any hearing to determine their likelihood of re-offending? There is no mechanism be 100% accurate, but it is the parole boards who have to make that judgement. What is the alternative? The law says 25 years before consideration. That was the compromise when we abolished Capital Punishment. As a Christian, I am sure you would agree that hanging is not something any Christian could approve of. The problem is that Canadians do not want to pay the taxes that should pay for rehabilitation of prisoners.

There should be capital punishment for 1st degree murder.  The idea that murderers should get out after 25 years is repugnant to anyone who believes in justice and the protection of society.  The way the liberal mind works is convicted murderers still have rights and have the right to be rehabilitated at any risk and released back into society.  The conservative and Christian believes the protection of society comes before a criminals so-called right to be free.  Apparently you just don't get it.

Many Bible-believing Christians would approve of capital punishment for murder because as I have told you before that is what the Bible teaches.  See Genesis 9:6 KJV and Romans ch13.   Why should taxpayers have to pay for a lifetime of keeping a convicted 1st degree murderer behind bars or even 25 years at over 100,000 dollars per year?   What did the taxpayers do to deserve this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, herbie said:

Yes that's exactly right. Women have always had the ultimate decision and they always will. You can pretend all you want you should have a say,

And as far a MPs go, you're not elected to make your own choice, you're elected to do what your electors asked. If you insist on holding socially conservative don't run as a Liberal. Join the Conservatives, they think those issues matter above all else (or so it seems).

You need to thank God that your mother did not decide to abort you.  If you were in the womb, would you really think or say it is your mother's choice or are you just saying that for other people?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Your rights are protected by the charter. The government of Ontario just discovered that the "not withstanding" clause is any kind of an easy out.

Are you actually saying "Keeping people safe" is wrong? In China, they go by a different philosophy. Their government believes that democracy is bad becaue it is mob rule...not unlike some of those ultra-right Americans who are adament that they are a Republic that stands against mob rule in a democracy.

Rights are not a licence to break the law, and they must always be paired with responsibility.

Are you actually using China as an example to prove your point?  That country is blatantly oppressive.  Safety is no excuse to imprison populations.  Canada tried to do something similar to Zero Covid.  Thank God the trucker convoy pushed back against attempted totalitarianism.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You have a very unconventional definition of tyranny. 

There are other examples of tyranny in Canada.  When the federal government passes laws which violate or infringe on provincial jurisdiction that is tyranny.  That is being discussed right now with Alberta bringing in a Sovereignty Act to resist or fight back against federal laws that they consider violate provincial rights.  For example, if the federal government brings in a law to reduce the use of fertilizer in the provinces such as 30% reduction by 2035 if that is what it is, Alberta may debate that in the legislature and decide to refuse to comply because they consider it an act of tyranny against provincial jurisdiction over natural resources and agriculture. 

Such a reduction in the use of fertilizer could result is a massive reduction in the agricultural production of food for Canada and the world if actually implemented.  The price of food is already getting very high for millions of Canadians.  I think it has gone up something like 14% or more in the past year.   Taking the use of fertilizer out would do great harm to Canada.  That is tyranny.

It could then play out in the court if the federal government decides to take it to court.

Trudeau is talking right at this moment and says we cannot be a country unless all Canadians build an inclusive country where all Canadians are contributing and benefiting equally referring to Canadians with disabilities.  What exactly does that mean?

Does it mean for example that every Canadian should have exactly the same income, the same standard of housing, the same food on the table, and same of everything one can imagine? This sounds more like a declaration of Communist or Marxist ideology if you take what he says literally.   That is tyranny.   Socialism and Communism has always failed wherever it has been tried.  

Trudeau obviously believes that the federal government's job is to use any and all imaginable measures to implement his Marxist ideology to build some kind of Orwell's 1984 utopia.  If that is not tyranny, I don't know what is.  He grew up with a silver spoon and does not live in the real world but in some kind of alt reality where he goes around giving out millions of dollars, actually tens of millions of dollars almost every day of taxpayer's money as if it were his own.  Free everything for everyone.  Only the most simple-minded liberals could possibly take what he says as rational.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Are you actually using China as an example to prove your point?  That country is blatantly oppressive.  Safety is no excuse to imprison populations.  Canada tried to do something similar to Zero Covid.  Thank God the trucker convoy pushed back against attempted totalitarianism.  

You misunderstood. I was using the murderous tyrannical government of China to point out what happens when some government thinks it is smarter than the people. Xi thinks he knows best. He is an arrogant psychopath.

We didn't imprison our populations. We used a variation of quarrantine to limit people's exposure to a deadly disease. How would you suggest we limit the spread? Our death rate is one half that of the UK and one-third that of the US. That was accomplished by all the provincial and the federal governments working together, including all parties. 

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

reduce the use of fertilizer in the provinces

That is for protecting the environment. It will help give people not yet born, the right to life. 

You seem to see a communist under every bed. 

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You misunderstood. I was using the murderous tyrannical government of China to point out what happens when some government thinks it is smarter than the people. Xi thinks he knows best. He is an arrogant psychopath.

We didn't imprison our populations. We used a variation of quarrantine to limit people's exposure to a deadly disease. How would you suggest we limit the spread? Our death rate is one half that of the UK and one-third that of the US. That was accomplished by all the provincial and the federal governments working together, including all parties. 

That is for protecting the environment. It will help give people not yet born, the right to life. 

You seem to see a communist under every bed. 

The best way to reduce climate change today is to lower the cost of living so that populations become more educated, improving technology and lowering population (as educated people generally have fewer kids).

With regard to Covid, people must be free, period.  China has a lower Covid death rate and is an oppressive nightmare. We locked down primarily to protect our failed healthcare system.  That’s why poor infrastructure (healthcare, long term care, etc.) and high costs (on energy, etc) actually make you less free.  People should be free to make medical decisions for themselves and risk a shorter life if a better life is more important to them.  This is about our way of life.  Freedom has tremendous value, as evidenced by the millions of immigrants who seek it.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You misunderstood. I was using the murderous tyrannical government of China to point out what happens when some government thinks it is smarter than the people. Xi thinks he knows best. He is an arrogant psychopath.

We didn't imprison our populations. We used a variation of quarrantine to limit people's exposure to a deadly disease. How would you suggest we limit the spread? Our death rate is one half that of the UK and one-third that of the US. That was accomplished by all the provincial and the federal governments working together, including all parties. 

That is for protecting the environment. It will help give people not yet born, the right to life. 

You seem to see a communist under every bed. 

Ridiculous.  Reducing fertilizer use would be disastrous to agriculture.  Anybody should be able to understand that fertilizer is critical to growing crops for food and animal feed.  Reducing its use would do nothing for the environment but would sure hurt Canadians and the world.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is for protecting the environment. It will help give people not yet born, the right to life. 

Millions of people are starving in Somalia and other countries.  Cutting back on the use of fertilizer by 30% is clearly the wrong thing to do as it would drastically cut the production of food for the world by a huge amount.  It could greatly increase the number of people who starve to death.  The use of fertilizer is directly related to the amount of grains and other food that Canada produces.

LAU: Trudeau government accepts and parrots climate misinformation (msn.com)

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

That is for protecting the environment. It will help give people not yet born, the right to life. 

 

If you want to help people who are starving and millions are starving, you need to change your thinking.  Fertilizer is necessary to produce food to help the millions of starving people in Africa and other places.

Seven million people in Somalia don't know where their next meal is coming from and 213,000 are facing catastrophic starvation.  One woman on the news lost four of her eight children to starvation.  She is in a desperate situation as are millions of others.  Please help them by not letting our government harm agriculture and food production. 

We have relatives on the prairies that produce various grain crops on 2,000 acres.  Their grains are shipping to Canada and to the world along with many other grain farms.  They need to keep fertilizing their farm for the grains to keep producing a good quality and quantity of grains.  This is essential for everyone.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2022 at 12:11 PM, blackbird said:

There should be capital punishment for 1st degree murder.  The idea that murderers should get out after 25 years is repugnant to anyone who believes in justice

I see you're a stereotypical pro-lifer, eh? 25 years is not enough punishment, we have to KILL THEM

Not that any of that, like most of these deflection posts, has dick all to do with WHO rebates get sent to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, herbie said:

I see you're a stereotypical pro-lifer, eh? 25 years is not enough punishment, we have to KILL THEM

Not that any of that, like most of these deflection posts, has dick all to do with WHO rebates get sent to...

You think someone who pre-meditates the murder of someone else should just do his time and walk free?  God says in his word in Genesis 9:6 KJV basically a life for a life.  That recognizes the sanctity of human life.  The victim can never get his life back but you think the guilty person should get to live on and be free on top of that.  That is also offensive to the victim's relatives.  Doing time and then walking free does not sound like the punishment fits the crime.  But you as a liberal wouldn't understand that anyway.

I see you do a lot of deflecting yourself in your comments and don't stick strictly to the topic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...