good news for liberals....

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

I request you stop posting to me, stop responding to me. I do not want to discuss anything with you. You are a waste of my time.

Ignore is a button as well as a verb.

[Moonbox]

7 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Liberal government has made an entire career out of doing immoral acts, i really think it is hard for Justin to tell the truth, or stay between the lines of good moral behavior regardless of topic, and he has been caught so many times it is really comical...supporting this immoral government means that one has a poor chioce in someone's character, not very smart or really is immoral themselves.

You know what you're literally saying here?  "Trudeau is BAD MAN.  Liberal government is EVIL."  Come on...

Edited May 9, 2023 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You know what you're literally saying here?  "Trudeau is BAD MAN.  Liberal government is EVIL."  Come on...

In what way would that be wrong?

[ExFlyer]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ignore is a button as well as a verb.

It's there but, they can still respond to you.

[Moonbox]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

In what way would that be wrong?

It's meaningless.  When you start labelling people who disagree with you as evil or "immoral", you may as well be blackbird waving your Bible at everyone.  

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's meaningless.  When you start labelling people who disagree with you as evil or "immoral", you may as well be blackbird waving your Bible at everyone.  

I think if you're just throwing it around indiscriminately then that can be true but i don't think it's "meaningless' if you are addressing legitimate actions and patterns of behavior.  I would agree that at some point you cross a line into meaningless rhetoric. 

But certainty there is more than enough evidence out there to make a very real case that Trudeau is a bad man who will continue to do bad things. Not just things "we dont' like" or such, but demonstrably criminal or unethical. He's got a fairly extensive track record.  It would be like arguing that trump is a good communicator to say otherwise .

Saying the liberals are "Evil" is a little hyperbolic but saying they are a corrupt party who regularly supports immoral actions is no stretch.

Aside from the slight exaggeration (and who doesn't do that) the position is fairly defensible. I don't see a problem with calling a spade a spade, in fact i would argue it's important as long as it's a defensible position and not just short hand for "i don't like them".

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

It's there but, they can still respond to you.

I also ignore dog barks if I don't know the dog.

[Army Guy]

15 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

OK.

I understand your opinion. Any discussion on this only becomes a personal opinion against a personal opinion.

That is all.

Not sure how opinion even plays a role in this, basic morals good or bad have been decided well before you and me where on the planet. and while some change everyday, the basics stay the same through out. 

[ExFlyer]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Not sure how opinion even plays a role in this, basic morals good or bad have been decided well before you and me where on the planet. and while some change everyday, the basics stay the same through out. 

Yes, some change every day.

Murder, torture, incest, to name a few do not change.

Peoples perspectives and therefore what was considered immoral last year, may not be today. Cancel culture and wokeness prove that regularly. We treated a conquered people one way for several hundred years and today it is considered immoral.

Politics and opinions about corruption are not a morality issue.

Demeaning spmeone because they do not agree with some things being said does not make them an immoral person, just means they disagree with what, or the way someone else portrays things.

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You know what you're literally saying here?  "Trudeau is BAD MAN.  Liberal government is EVIL."  Come on...

Thats your interpretation, NOT mine.... here is mine so there is no confusion or guessing, Justin Trudeau is a lair when it suits him or his party which is often. He is one of many contributors to false news in the country... He has out right lied to Canadians on "hundreds" of occasions. Not sure what world this would be considered normally behavior, or expected behavior of the PM, you know the man that represents Canada both here and abroad...

Does that make him a BAD MAN, you decide, I think he is an habitual liar hands down, do you except others for constantly lying to you, perhaps your kids or wife, would that be acceptable behavior.... and if not why are we excepting it from our PM...

No where did i say the Liberal government is evil, NAZI's where evil, KKK is evil, Liberals government thinks the average Canadian is stupid, not capable of tracking all their shit...the lies, the deception and i find it insulting, and so should you.

 

 

 

 

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes, some change every day.

Murder, torture, incest, to name a few do not change.

Peoples perspectives and therefore what was considered immoral last year, may not be today. Cancel culture and wokeness prove that regularly. We treated a conquered people one way for several hundred years and today it is considered immoral.

Politics and opinions about corruption are not a morality issue.

Demeaning spmeone because they do not agree with some things being said does not make them an immoral person, just means they disagree with what, or the way someone else portrays things.

I agree for the most part, but just becasue your in politics does not mean your free from doing immoral things , out right lying and deceiving people is immoral... and if you support that behavior , What does that make the supporter ? Well it encourages more of the same which is what we have seen in the last 8 years.

Let me ask you . if you had a soldier lie to you constantly would that behavior be awarded, or disciplined. Would you consider lying to be immoral or acceptable behavior? 

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Thats your interpretation, NOT mine.... here is mine so there is no confusion or guessing, Justin Trudeau is a lair when it suits him or his party which is often. He is one of many contributors to false news in the country... He has out right lied to Canadians on "hundreds" of occasions. Not sure what world this would be considered normally behavior, or expected behavior of the PM, you know the man that represents Canada both here and abroad...

Does that make him a BAD MAN, you decide

Evasive, secretive governments that lie are all normal behaviour everywhere you go in the world.

Personally I think this says a lot more about people who are governed, especially in democracies.

[ExFlyer]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I agree for the most part, but just becasue your in politics does not mean your free from doing immoral things , out right lying and deceiving people is immoral... and if you support that behavior , What does that make the supporter ? Well it encourages more of the same which is what we have seen in the last 8 years.

Let me ask you . if you had a soldier lie to you constantly would that behavior be awarded, or disciplined. Would you consider lying to be immoral or acceptable behavior? 

Look, I am not a liberal, party member or supporter. I find, especially on this forum, one seems to have to be identified as supporting one political party or another and if not, you are a nazi, communist or other derogatory thing.

I believe, all politicians "lie". Be they white lies, broken promises, by omission or misinterpretations. They are not exclusively owned by any political party. I have no doubt that any politician that has anything to say does not have a CYA factor.

If I had a subordinate (and I have) that was constantly  BSing about him (or her) self, I could not care less. Now, if it was BS about the condition or state of an aircraft or harmful to others, then certainly there would be harsh discussions and consequences. Thing is, you need to have very solid and positive proof of accusations. Not opinions, hearsay and conjecture.

"Depending on the moral theory used, lying in special circumstances (for example, “white” lies or lies that benefit others or avert harm) might be morally justifiable. Other lies, as lying about one's age in order to get access to age-restricted goods, are most often immoral.

https://daily-philosophy.com/is-lying-ethical/

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Look, I am not a liberal, party member or supporter. I find, especially on this forum, one seems to have to be identified as supporting one political party or another and if not, you are a nazi, communist or other derogatory thing.

 

That's about the third time. I let it slide with me but enough.  That is enough of your bullshit.

He did not say you were a liberal.  I also did not say you were a liberal.  But every time someone points out something about the liberal party YOU have a HISSY FIT as if someone called you a liberal.  But nobody has.

Get your head out of your ass and don't be so dishonest.

IF - IF  you voted liberal - you voted to support corruption and immoral behavior no matter how you want to dance around it.   IF that makes you uncomfortable then vote for someone else next time

IF you did NOT vote liberal then it really doesn't apply to you.

But enough bad mouthing other people just because YOU obviously have some guilt issues to work through.

You're being disrespectful of others who are being QUITE respectful of you - dishonest and childish. Knock it off. You are NOT on the moral high ground here.

[Moonbox]

59 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Thats your interpretation, NOT mine.... here is mine so there is no confusion or guessing, Justin Trudeau is a lair when it suits him or his party which is often.

So is Poilievre and so was Harper, but you seem to hold them in high regard.  The difference is your bias, and thus your "interpretation".  

59 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

No where did i say the Liberal government is evil, NAZI's where evil, KKK is evil,

No, you called them immoral.  That this isn't the same word as evil, and that you don't think they're as bad as the Nazis is noted, but you're just a step down on the hyberbole scale.  

59 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Liberals government thinks the average Canadian is stupid, not capable of tracking all their shit...the lies, the deception and i find it insulting, and so should you.

I do.  The difference is that I actually feel that way because what Trudeau has done and said, rather than just because he's a Liberal.  While you complain that Trudeau thinks the average Canadian is stupid, you (seemingly) support the angry know-nothing populism of Poilievre.  

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

So is Poilievre and so was Harper, but you seem to hold them in high regard.  The difference is your bias, and thus your "interpretation".  

really.  So - give us a couple of examples of when PP and Harper lied. Not just were wrong  but actually lied.

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

No, you called them immoral.  That this isn't the same word as evil, and that you don't think they're as bad as the Nazis is noted, but you're just a step down on the hyberbole scale.  

But a huge step up on the accuracy scale. They are actually immoral. They actually do engage in corruption and bad ethics. That's not 'theory' or 'opinion' they've been caught at it many times.

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

I do.  The difference is that I actually feel that way because what Trudeau has done and said, rather than because he's a Liberal. 

Did anyone say he's immoral because he's a liberal?  But it is true that the party itself has behaved immorally many times.

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

 

While you complain that Trudeau thinks the average Canadian is stupid, you (seemingly) support the angry know-nothing populism of Poilievre.   

Ahh - so anyone who thunks different than you is stupid.  In other words you think trudeau is right. Nobody intelligent could possibly support PP.

I support PP. Are you suggesting my IQ is below average?

And all this in your response demanding that hyperbole be dropped.

[ExFlyer]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's about the third time. I let it slide with me but enough.  That is enough of your bullshit.

He did not say you were a liberal.  I also did not say you were a liberal.  But every time someone points out something about the liberal party YOU have a HISSY FIT as if someone called you a liberal.  But nobody has.

Get your head out of your ass and don't be so dishonest.

IF - IF  you voted liberal - you voted to support corruption and immoral behavior no matter how you want to dance around it.   IF that makes you uncomfortable then vote for someone else next time

IF you did NOT vote liberal then it really doesn't apply to you.

But enough bad mouthing other people just because YOU obviously have some guilt issues to work through.

You're being disrespectful of others who are being QUITE respectful of you - dishonest and childish. Knock it off. You are NOT on the moral high ground here.

Look, I cannot control how you perceive a post or discussion but it is clearly with a jaundiced eye.

To call someone elses post bullshit only indicated your disagreement, as I said.

Read your post, full of accusations and If's.

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Look, I cannot control how you perceive a post or discussion

Yes - you can. You can do so with your words and by not acting like an ass.  Give that some thought while you contemplate your 'morals'.

[Moonbox]

Just now, CdnFox said:

really.  So - give us a couple of examples of when PP and Harper lied. Not just were wrong  but actually lied.

We've already had that debate in previous threads.  You responded like a true partisan and proved the point.  ?

Just now, CdnFox said:

But a huge step up on the accuracy scale. They are actually immoral. They actually do engage in corruption and bad ethics. That's not 'theory' or 'opinion' they've been caught at it many times.

No.  Well-intentioned and morally engaged people are perfectly capable of ethics violations.  It could be due to misguided loyalty, bad judgment, survival instincts or just a wholly compromised environment, but good people will end up doing bad things throughout their lives -  without fail.     

Just now, CdnFox said:

Did anyone say he's immoral because he's a liberal?

Nobody said that, but a long history of one-party partisanship is its own implication.  

Just now, CdnFox said:

Ahh - so anyone who thunks different than you is stupid.  In other words you think trudeau is right. Nobody intelligent could possibly support PP.

There it is!  The strawman again!  That you can't seem to avoid this despite the number of people who've called you on it is concerning.

Regardless, it's not-so-curious that you'd jump on that comment, while giving a pass to the one about Trudeau thinking Canadians are stupid.  The difference (once again) is that one was about your tribe, and the other was about theirs.  ?

Just now, CdnFox said:

I support PP. Are you suggesting my IQ is below average?

I'm saying that PP's rhetoric so far has been focused on rallying the dumbest and/or most ignorant part of the CPC base.  Perhaps that's the ugly-but-necessary path to conservative leadership and he'll pivot away.  Harper did it, and he was a decent PM.  I'd support a Harper clone (or some reasonable facsimile), but not the angry clown we've seen so far.  

[eyeball]

50 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

If I had a subordinate (and I have) that was constantly  BSing about him (or her) self, I could not care less. Now, if it was BS about the condition or state of an aircraft or harmful to others, then certainly there would be harsh discussions and consequences. Thing is, you need to have very solid and positive proof of accusations. Not opinions, hearsay and conjecture.

So in your case I'm guessing there are procedures and a process that ensures evidence and proof can actually be  obtained so discussions, investigations and consequences are relevant. A process that can be audited to validate, verify and separate opinions, hearsay and conjecture from facts, testimony and conclusions.  This is a process that I have to adhere to as well in my profession and at times the process involves using cameras, GPS and human observers to keep it honest.

This is what's missing in our governance.

In the past swearing on a Bible was enough to satisfy most of society that someone or something was keeping an eye on politicians and protecting the public interest. These days...the old adage 'in God we trust all others pay cash' couldn't be more appropriate in the case of politicians, and especially lobbyists.

 

[blackbird]

12 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You know what you're literally saying here?  "Trudeau is BAD MAN.  Liberal government is EVIL."  Come on...

How would you know what is evil and what is not?   What is your guide or reference as to what is right or wrong?

[eyeball]

37 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

really.  So - give us a couple of examples of when PP and Harper lied. Not just were wrong  but actually lied.

Income trusts really stand out given how many seniors lost thousands of dollars over it.

But wait, there's more!

Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence

An omnibus of sins, topping 50. Tell us ones we’ve missed, we’ll add to the PM’s rap sheet.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/06/Stephen-Harper-Abuses-of-Power-2/

I can only speculate how many times PP might have told lies or reiterated them when asked about his bosses lying.

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

How would you know what is evil and what is not?   What is your guide or reference as to what is right or wrong?

Speaking for myself the best guide and reference to what is stupid or not were comparisons of things like Trudeau to Hitler and action taken to end the trucker's convoy to those used in Tiananmen Square.

I don't know if it's evil to take these ridiculous things seriously but other than a belly laugh no good can come from it.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

We've already had that debate in previous threads.  You responded like a true partisan and proved the point.  ?

You mean where you coudln't come up with a single example of either lying 

Thats not me being partisan. Thats just you being wrong.

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No.  Well-intentioned and morally engaged people are perfectly capable of ethics violations.  It could be due to misguided loyalty, bad judgment, survival instincts or just a wholly compromised environment, but good people will end up doing bad things throughout their lives -  without fail.     

Accepting bribes from the aga khan is not a 'survival instinct'. Interfering in the country's justice system isn't 'misguided loyalty'.

i'll grant you that people who are normally or primarily 'ethical' can make a mistake once in a blue moon and behave in an unethical fashion. IN such cases such people usually regret it and resolve to do better.  But that is NOT the case here. IT's not 'once in a while', it's every four months or so. And that's just what we know of. And he has no regrets

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nobody said that, but a long history of one-party partisanship is its own implication. 

I think you're reading into it.  And logicaly that wouldn't mean justin is corrupt because of the party, but rathter that as a corrupt person he joined the liberals because they are corrupt as well

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

There it is!  The strawman again!  That you can't seem to avoid this despite the number of people who've called you on it is concerning.

Nobody has called me on it - and that is not a "strawman". A strawman would be something else.  That is an accurate account of what you said. Anyone who agrees with PP is stupid. That would be you demonizing all those who disagree with you on the matter and in a thread where you're calling people out for that behaivor.

You should be more concerned about your own bad behavior.

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Regardless, it's not-so-curious that you'd jump on that comment, while giving a pass to the one about Trudeau thinking Canadians are stupid.  The difference (once again) is that one was about your tribe, and the other was about theirs.  ?

The difference is i'm not talking to trudeau directly, and trudeau isn't here saying we shouldn't engage in negative generalizations while at the same time engaging in negative generalizetions.

You get him to log on and talk like that and I guarantee i'll have things to say to the boy

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I'm saying that PP's rhetoric so far has been focused on rallying the dumbest and/or most ignorant part of the CPC base. 

And that would be your own bias showing.

"We have to get rid of red tape and gate keepers".  That's dumb is it? You think more bureaucracy will solve our problems?

Our people need access to housing.  Another "appeal to stupidity'?

"we have to conrol our spending" -  OBVIOUSLY only retards control spending.

Yeah - i can see what you mean now.  Things like reducing inflation is just an appeal to the weak minded.  PFfft.

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

Perhaps that's the ugly-but-necessary path to conservative leadership and he'll pivot away.  Harper did it, and he was a decent PM.  I'd support a Harper clone (or some reasonable facsimile), but not the angry clown we've seen so far.  

 

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Speaking for myself the best guide and reference to what is stupid or not were comparisons of things like Trudeau to Hitler and action taken to end the trucker's convoy to those used in Tiananmen Square.

I don't know if it's evil to take these ridiculous things seriously but other than a belly laugh no good can come from it.

Comparisons like that don't really serve as a guide as to what is right or wrong though.  Do you have any way to determine right from wrong?