Zeitgeist Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) They appointed a Liberal to assess Liberal decisions. That’s Canada now. The courts and media are run by the same people. There’s no critical distance from government. Canada is an echo chamber of government policies and talking points. Edited February 17, 2023 by Zeitgeist 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Posted February 17, 2023 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: They appointed a Liberal to assess Liberal decisions. That’s Canada now. The courts and media are run by the same people. There’s no critical distance from government. Canada is an echo chamber of government policies and talking Kangaroo court system. Should we be surprised? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said: Why did the convoy deserve to have their bank accounts frozen and other rights curtailed but indigenous protestors parking their trucks, plows, dumptrucks, big rigs, buses etc on railways nationwide did not? They were blocking trains carrying food, fuel/oil, and many other goods from being shipped and causing economic damage also. If only there was a judicial review and a report about enacting the Act that would answer these questions…. What kind of tyranny is this? Why can’t Canadians have a public inquiry led by a judge to get to the bottom of this? oh wait…. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/read-the-full-transcript-of-emergencies-act-inquiry-commissioner-paul-rouleau-s-statement-1.6278743 Maybe the Emergencies Act would have been appropriate for the rail blockades as well? or, maybe there is a difference between blockading a train track versus a city? Didn’t they end up removing rail blockaders? I’m pretty sure they’re not there any longer. Edited February 17, 2023 by TreeBeard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: Nope. It's Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau. That was the stated goal of the Ottawa Protest: to get Trudeau to step down and form some kind of cracked provisional government. Democracy right ? That means if all my friends support something we get our way.... Zero violence from protesters, but you know, protests that try to change policies are “concerning”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 hour ago, Boges said: I less support him then oppose terrorists who took our Capital city hostage for 3 weeks. DoFo did the same thing in Windsor. “Terrorists”? You’re lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: “Terrorists”? You’re lost. noun noun: terrorist; plural noun: terrorists a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Seems about right. Not lost then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 29 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said: What was the difference? Scale and risk. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, bcsapper said: noun noun: terrorist; plural noun: terrorists a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Seems about right. Not lost then. Name one protester who committed violence. I only know of police violence. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Name one protester who committed violence. I only know of police violence. Don't forget the intimidation bit. Edit> Oh, and all those guns they found in Coutts. Edited February 17, 2023 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 Just now, bcsapper said: Don't forget the intimidation bit. I’m waiting for your cite. Honking and bouncy castles? Yeah okay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 Just now, Zeitgeist said: I’m waiting for your cite. Honking and bouncy castles? Yeah okay. Don't be bloody silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Don't be bloody silly. You’re talking to yourself I hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: You’re talking to yourself I hope. Let's see. Do you limit the actions of the truckers convoy to honking and bouncy castles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: Let's see. Do you limit the actions of the truckers convoy to honking and bouncy castles? The blockades were the worst of it and they were removed when the EA was declared. Court injunctions had already limited the honking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 Just now, Zeitgeist said: The blockades were the worst of it and they were removed when the EA was declared. Court injunctions had already limited the honking. So what? We're attempting to ascertain whether or not there was intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. You're just explaining how it was eventually stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: So what? We're attempting to ascertain whether or not there was intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. You're just explaining how it was eventually stopped. Apparently views people disagree with are intimidating. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: Apparently views people disagree with are intimidating. No they aren't. I don't find your views intimidating at all. Wrong, but not intimidating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 Reality really triggers the peanut gallery doesn't it? As someone who's seen several real riots where baton wielding cops charged on horseback I get a suoreme laugh at the limp wristed freedumbers definition of being bumped into as being trampled. And point out how just like the tribunal found, due to the chickenshit response of the Ottawa cops, the actual majority of freedom loving, law abiding Canadians were only mad at Trudeau for taking so long to act. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 13 minutes ago, bcsapper said: No they aren't. I don't find your views intimidating at all. Wrong, but not intimidating. What if @Zeitgeist and his buddies were parked outside your home with trucks blasting horns 24/7, screaming obscenities, blocking your home and business, and vandalizing local businesses? I think that goes from “disagreeing” to “intimidating”…. It doesn’t even seem all that nuanced to me…. but some folks still have a hard time understanding the difference. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvnd4v/canada-ottawa-anti-vax-trucker-convoy 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: What if @Zeitgeist and his buddies were parked outside your home with trucks blasting horns 24/7, screaming obscenities, blocking your home and business, and vandalizing local businesses? I think that goes from “disagreeing” to “intimidating”…. It doesn’t even seem all that nuanced to me…. but some folks still have a hard time understanding the difference. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvnd4v/canada-ottawa-anti-vax-trucker-convoy The difference between views and actions. People can believe whatever they want. The actions I've already compared to terrorism. Edited February 17, 2023 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 hour ago, TreeBeard said: If only there was a judicial review and a report about enacting the Act that would answer these questions…. What kind of tyranny is this? Why can’t Canadians have a public inquiry led by a judge to get to the bottom of this? oh wait…. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/read-the-full-transcript-of-emergencies-act-inquiry-commissioner-paul-rouleau-s-statement-1.6278743 Maybe the Emergencies Act would have been appropriate for the rail blockades as well? or, maybe there is a difference between blockading a train track versus a city? Didn’t they end up removing rail blockaders? I’m pretty sure they’re not there any longer. The truckers didn't blockade a city. They blockaded a few blocks of streets in front of Parliament Hill downtown. Quote Didn’t they end up removing rail blockaders? I’m pretty sure they’re not there any longer. Astonishingly they did it without invoking the Emergencies Act. THis is what the Act stipulates: Quote National emergency 3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. The city of Ottawa and Ontario refused to enforce the laws already on the books. Its illegal to illegally park on the street, and against Ottawa bylaws to honk car horns throughout the night. They're causing a public disturbance. The streets of downtown Ottawa are their jurisdiction, not the feds. So at most why not use some law to order them to enforce the laws under the books already instead of using this act to curtail the Charter Rights of citizens? For the Windsor bridge, why not just enforce the law and remove the trucks and charge or fine those involved? We have no guaranteed rights in this country. Its a joke, its an elected monarchy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 21 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: What if @Zeitgeist and his buddies were parked outside your home with trucks blasting horns 24/7, screaming obscenities, blocking your home and business, and vandalizing local businesses? I think that goes from “disagreeing” to “intimidating”…. It doesn’t even seem all that nuanced to me…. but some folks still have a hard time understanding the difference. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvnd4v/canada-ottawa-anti-vax-trucker-convoy They'd be arrested. Because laws against those things are already on the books. The truckers in Ottawa weren't being violent, and even if they were, the cops should have arrested them. The state doesn't get to take away their Charter rights just because they think they're alt-right chuds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Posted February 17, 2023 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said: They'd be arrested. Because laws against those things are already on the books. The truckers in Ottawa weren't being violent, and even if they were, the cops should have arrested them. The state doesn't get to take away their Charter rights just because they think they're alt-right chuds. Should take out those who are not abiding by the law. Not suspend everyone else's rights to express their views. But Trudeau is sick and demented so that would never happen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: They appointed a Liberal to assess Liberal decisions. the Natural Governing Party has finally come to its death throes the Liberals are orchestrating their own diminution to being just another party, no different from the rest rejoice 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 17, 2023 Report Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 hour ago, bcsapper said: noun noun: terrorist; plural noun: terrorists a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Seems about right. Not lost then. Are you on crack !!!...thats what we are calling them terrorist now... thats a huge leap of logic... no arrests for terrorism, no JTF called out, well there was a call for tanks, good thing we only have 4 in working order...or there would be blood in the streets... good thing we are all Canadians... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.