The Only Patriotic Choice for President

[Deluge]

52 minutes ago, myata said:

Sanity is even more basic than patriotism. It's great to be a patriot, and one has to be sane as well. There's only one sane choice here. Everybody has seen that. Everybody knows that. And there's no escaping that, except at the cost of sanity itself.

That message is approved by the queen of word salads. 

[SkyHigh]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You said your friends I Ottawa told you the truckers did another more than just speak...or protest. I said I worked with a lot of those people and know what sort of people they are. I remember the stories from that time and doubt those self-absorbed jack-asses were put out at all.

I didn't support the convoy, but don't support Canadians having their bank accounts frozen (well at least not until they've had the opportunity to defend themselves in court).

But the idea that it was a free speech issue isn't true. When you park your truck and remove the wheels, you're no longer just expressing your free speech. They should have been removed by force much earlier.

[SkyHigh]

10 minutes ago, Deluge said:

No, liberalism is defined as being broad-minded and tolerant. The problem with that is it's a gateway to leftism and that is what is running the democrat party. 

Now, for some jackass reason, you think your text book understanding supersedes what is actually going on, and that is not the case. The democrat party right now IS left, therefore it is NOT American.

- Democrats are always crying about the rich; is that a Karl Marx thing or is it an Adam Smith thing? 

- Democrats are always trying to f*ck with gun rights. Is that a 2nd Amendment thing, or is that an anti-2nd Amendment thing?

- Democrats want open borders. Is that an American thing, or is it an anti-American thing? 

- Democrats want to force legalized abortion on all 50 states. Is that a Communist thing, or is it a State's rights thing? 

What do you think? 

I think you're an idiöt , with no grip on reality, that would greatly benefit from reading a few textbooks. They're written by unbiased, truth seeking people, not the partisan hacks that you get your "information" from.

To be clear partisan hacks exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Deluge]

7 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I think you're an idiöt , with no grip on reality, that would greatly benefit from reading a few textbooks. They're written by unbiased, truth seeking people, not the partisan hacks that you get your "information" from.

To be clear partisan hacks exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

Sorry, Poindexter, but your head is in a bubble - or rather - your head is up the left's ass. 

I wish I could do more for you, but you're up past your shoulders now, so you may need surgery. 

Edited October 15, 2024 by Deluge

[myata]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

That message is approved by the queen of word salads. 

appending an essential conclusion of this sentence: "because cracks like us have no regard for the sanity and just can't get what it is and why it exists".

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

I didn't support the convoy, but don't support Canadians having their bank accounts frozen (well at least not until they've had the opportunity to defend themselves in court).

But the idea that it was a free speech issue isn't true. When you park your truck and remove the wheels, you're no longer just expressing your free speech. They should have been removed by force much earlier.

Then we disagree on this. The trucker convoy was a protest. Nobody was hurt and nothing was destroyed.

[SkyHigh]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

doubt those self-absorbed jack-asses were put out at all.

Self absorbed Jack asses? 

First, you've just confirmed the assertions I made about your character. I have been nothing but civil. I mentioned people in Ottawa who's lives were disrupted ( Note: nowhere did I ( or the friends I spoke of)even suggest that they weren't completely within their rights and I would even go as far as to say that, it was a great way to demonstrate and shake up the system,regardless of if I agree with the underlying argument or not. (See that's what real freedom lovers do) in that it was done peacefully and without violence. But 

Second, it was not a simple matter of free speech. 

Personal anecdote, shortly after the end of the blockade (for lack of a better word) I stopped at Herb's going between MTL and Ottawa. There were dozens of vehicles with Fùck Trudeau, and even more inside having some sort of pow wow to gripe (they took up almost half the restaurant) Now mind you there were no mask laws at the time.

So how again was their speech restricted?

Edited October 15, 2024 by SkyHigh

[Deluge]

52 minutes ago, myata said:

appending an essential conclusion of this sentence: "because cracks like us have no regard for the sanity and just can't get what it is and why it exists".

You mean "Crackheads like us have no regard for the United States and its constitution". 

I think we can both agree on that one. 

[myata]

45 minutes ago, Deluge said:

for the United States and its constitution". 

Do constitutions apply to our beloved orange non-stop-lying idols? Can one agree to something they have little clue about?

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Well, I have friends that live downtown Ottawa and from their perspective, what they did was a heck of a lot more than just speech. So not relevant.

 

Its still relevant.  When the truth came out, it turns out they didn't damage property, they didn't threaten people. all they did was make noise and  block a road, and when the judge told them to stop making noise they did. 

Did you notice how not once did the gov't ever try to get a court order for them to stop? They absolutely stopped honking when a judge told them to.  At every other protest gov'ts tend to get a court order or injuction forcing them to stop, but they didn't.  The gov't has no authority to say if a law has been broken, only a judge does.  Yet they didn't ask one. 

Since then a judge has rules that it absolutely WAS an abuse of power. 

So entirely relevant. 

Their freedom of speech and their right to protest absolutely was violated. According to the judge anyway. 

we have to be very careful in Canada that we don't fall into this idea that there's some sort of really good and socially acceptable repression of people's rights and bad ones. All suppression of people's rights are bad. The truckers definitely have their rights abused, but even more importantly people that weren't involved with the protest had their bank accounts seized for no better reason than they had an opinion that the truckers protest was legitimate. They committed no crime and yet suffered a consequence because of their opinion.

It's kind of a side issue, but it's why I think we do have to address as a country. The next time a first nations group blockades a road can we seize all of their assets or declare the emergencies act and freeze the bank accounts of anyone who's dealt with that band before? Where do we draw that line?

[SkyHigh]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Its still relevant.  When the truth came out, it turns out they didn't damage property, they didn't threaten people. all they did was make noise and  block a road, and when the judge told them to stop making noise they did. 

Did you notice how not once did the gov't ever try to get a court order for them to stop? They absolutely stopped honking when a judge told them to.  At every other protest gov'ts tend to get a court order or injuction forcing them to stop, but they didn't.  The gov't has no authority to say if a law has been broken, only a judge does.  Yet they didn't ask one. 

Since then a judge has rules that it absolutely WAS an abuse of power. 

So entirely relevant. 

Their freedom of speech and their right to protest absolutely was violated. According to the judge anyway. 

we have to be very careful in Canada that we don't fall into this idea that there's some sort of really good and socially acceptable repression of people's rights and bad ones. All suppression of people's rights are bad. The truckers definitely have their rights abused, but even more importantly people that weren't involved with the protest had their bank accounts seized for no better reason than they had an opinion that the truckers protest was legitimate. They committed no crime and yet suffered a consequence because of their opinion.

It's kind of a side issue, but it's why I think we do have to address as a country. The next time a first nations group blockades a road can we seize all of their assets or declare the emergencies act and freeze the bank accounts of anyone who's dealt with that band before? Where do we draw that line?

Honestly, I never really got into the weeds on this, but agree things were done incorrectly by the govt. I will say that taking money from foreign donors could (again not sure) violate some financial laws

My point was that by just blocking a road , it negates the ability to call it a simple infringement free speech 

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

 

My point was that by just blocking a road , it negates the ability to call it a simple infringement free speech 

 

I guess that would seriously depend on how you're defining free speech. If we're taking it more literally then you're correct, an action isn't necessarily speech. However the right to protest has long been considered to be part of free speech in all of North America and much of Europe. So if you consider the right to protest your government as being part of your free speech then for certain that was a violation of free speech. If you consider it to be separate then obviously it isn't.

The discussion about when a protest crosses the line from being a protest into being something more akin to civil Disobedience or even terrorism is actually a very interesting one in and of itself and it's one we haven't had in this country. Will probably need to do that sooner or later

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I guess that would seriously depend on how you're defining free speech. If we're taking it more literally then you're correct, an action isn't necessarily speech. However the right to protest has long been considered to be part of free speech in all of North America and much of Europe. So if you consider the right to protest your government as being part of your free speech then for certain that was a violation of free speech. If you consider it to be separate then obviously it isn't.

The discussion about when a protest crosses the line from being a protest into being something more akin to civil Disobedience or even terrorism is actually a very interesting one in and of itself and it's one we haven't had in this country. Will probably need to do that sooner or later

First, I would in no way classify the trucker convoy as anything resembling terrorism. Civil disobedience maybe, but a civil disobedience I would support and to make it clear I think that what the "truckers" were "fighting for" by the time the convoy arrived in Ottawa was silly, and that's without negating the original problem of border crossings that was legitimate

That being said, when you disrupt the free flow of commerce in a capitalist society, justified or not then you must be willing to accept the consequences.

[Deluge]

42 minutes ago, myata said:

Do constitutions apply to our beloved orange non-stop-lying idols? Can one agree to something they have little clue about?

Biden isn't orange; he's white, and he's out of his mind.

But yes, I believe that that old piece of shit had no business being in the WH in the first place. 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Self absorbed Jack asses? 

First, you've just confirmed the assertions I made about your character. I have been nothing but civil. I mentioned people in Ottawa who's lives were disrupted ( Note: nowhere did I ( or the friends I spoke of)even suggest that they weren't completely within their rights and I would even go as far as to say that, it was a great way to demonstrate and shake up the system,regardless of if I agree with the underlying argument or not. (See that's what real freedom lovers do) in that it was done peacefully and without violence. But 

Second, it was not a simple matter of free speech. 

Personal anecdote, shortly after the end of the blockade (for lack of a better word) I stopped at Herb's going between MTL and Ottawa. There were dozens of vehicles with Fùck Trudeau, and even more inside having some sort of pow wow to gripe (they took up almost half the restaurant) Now mind you there were no mask laws at the time.

So how again was their speech restricted?

Like I said...I have practical experience with bureaucrats. That their protest was disbanded by police was an infringement on free speech. That their bank accounts were frozen demonstrates a lack of personal freedom. 

[SkyHigh]

37 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Like I said...I have practical experience with bureaucrats. That their protest was disbanded by police was an infringement on free speech. That their bank accounts were frozen demonstrates a lack of personal freedom. 

First, The people I know aren't bureaucrats, but even if they were, you attacked them on a personal level and that's just a dick move 

Second, still nothing to do with free speech.

Based on the fact that all you're doing is trying to go down semi related rabbit trails and don't seem able to have a conversation without resorting to adhom attacks (on people you don't even know), I see no path forward to a fruitful discussion 

Take care 

 

[Nationalist]

37 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

First, The people I know aren't bureaucrats, but even if they were, you attacked them on a personal level and that's just a dick move 

Second, still nothing to do with free speech.

Based on the fact that all you're doing is trying to go down semi related rabbit trails and don't seem able to have a conversation without resorting to adhom attacks (on people you don't even know), I see no path forward to a fruitful discussion 

Take care 

 

Sure...I'll be fine but thanks.

Do you run away all the time? Or just when someone stands up to you?

Just wondering...

[SkyHigh]

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Sure...I'll be fine but thanks.

Do you run away all the time? Or just when someone stands up to you?

Just wondering...

Nah, more slowly walking away, and not from someone standing up to me, but the crazy dude standing in the corner yelling at the wall.

I used a study by two right wing think tanks about financial mobility and targeted it to just one aspect, health care and you  responded with, the US has EI and completely ignored everything else I said.

Then when I was trying to differentiate between speech and actions, I mentioned some people I know that were disrupted by the actions of the people we were speaking about and all you had was to insult them.

You sir are not capable of participating in good faith conversations.

So you keep ranting, but at least give the kids their ball back 

[Nationalist]

20 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Nah, more slowly walking away, and not from someone standing up to me, but the crazy dude standing in the corner yelling at the wall.

I used a study by two right wing think tanks about financial mobility and targeted it to just one aspect, health care and you  responded with, the US has EI and completely ignored everything else I said.

Then when I was trying to differentiate between speech and actions, I mentioned some people I know that were disrupted by the actions of the people we were speaking about and all you had was to insult them.

You sir are not capable of participating in good faith conversations.

So you keep ranting, but at least give the kids their ball back 

I don't just believe "studies" anymore. I might have had an easier time with that a couple decades ago, but experience has taught me to follow my father's adedge...

'Believe half of what you read, and none of what you hear.'

Social programs can and do both contribute and detract from "freedom". That's just a fact of life.

My concern in Canada, is the idea that we can impose more and more regulation on people. We're regulating ourselves right into financial ruin.

The population just came through a devastating social shutdown. It damaged our prosperity significantly. Yet Canada puts its government's foot on the throat business and stunts any potential recovery.

That doesn't sound like "freedom" to me.

It sounds...stupid and down right mean.

Edited October 16, 2024 by Nationalist

[SkyHigh]

26 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I don't just believe "studies" anymore. I might have had an easier time with that a couple decades ago, but experience has taught me to follow my father's adedge...

'Believe half of what you read, and none of what you hear.'

Social programs can and do both contribute and detract from "freedom". That's just a fact of life.

My concern in Canada, is the idea that we can impose more and more regulation on people. We're regulating ourselves right into financial ruin.

The population just came through a devastating social shutdown. It damaged our prosperity significantly. Yet Canada puts its government's foot on the throat business and stunts any potential recovery.

That doesn't sound like "freedom" to me.

It sounds...stupid and down right mean.

I don't share those concerns.

I've started, ran and sold two different companies (the second admittedly not subject to many regulations) there was often redundant forms and such to get permits, insurance, etc.. but,not only didn't I  feel the government's foot on my throat I found many gov't services to help me start up, maintain and even close my businesses.

Do you have a specific regulation you're referring to? There are of course many I'm unfamiliar with.

[Nationalist]

56 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I don't share those concerns.

I've started, ran and sold two different companies (the second admittedly not subject to many regulations) there was often redundant forms and such to get permits, insurance, etc.. but,not only didn't I  feel the government's foot on my throat I found many gov't services to help me start up, maintain and even close my businesses.

Do you have a specific regulation you're referring to? There are of course many I'm unfamiliar with.

This article explains housing regulatory issues quite well.

https://financialpost.com/real-estate/housing-market-canada-unaffordable-high-cost-regulation

We can start with that.

[SkyHigh]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

This article explains housing regulatory issues quite well.

https://financialpost.com/real-estate/housing-market-canada-unaffordable-high-cost-regulation

We can start with that.

Since you don't trust studies I'm not sure which half of this you believe. Hahahaha 

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see who the "less regulated economies" they were comparing construction costs with (did you notice) but I'd be interested in seeing the entire basket as it pertains to the "real" numbers associated with all that is  encompassed in buying a house.

This article also proposes solutions, so at least there are possible measures that can be taken.

As far as the lack of developable land, I'm not sure that's legitimate, I think it's more a matter of people wanting the benefit of being in the city but aren't willing to pay for it. I was in Abitibi for the summer and there was lots of developable land and you could get a 2000 square foot house on an acre of land for 170'000.

Edited October 16, 2024 by SkyHigh

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Since you don't trust studies I'm not sure which half of this you believe. Hahahaha 

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see who the "less regulated economies" they were comparing construction costs with (did you notice) but I'd be interested in seeing the entire basket as it pertains to the "real" numbers associated with all that is  encompassed in buying a house.

This article also proposes solutions, so at least there are possible measures that can be taken.

As far as the lack of developable land, I'm not sure that's legitimate, I think it's more a matter of people wanting the benefit of being in the city but aren't willing to pay for it. I was in Abitibi for the summer and there was lots of developable land and you could get a 2000 square foot house on an acre of land for 170'000.

Cool. Perhaps all the "newcomers" should be sent there?

It's true that I haven't compared these regulations with US regulations. But you asked for specific regulations and I provided a bunch.

[SkyHigh]

49 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Cool. Perhaps all the "newcomers" should be sent there?

It's true that I haven't compared these regulations with US regulations. But you asked for specific regulations and I provided a bunch.

Yes, newcomers should be encouraged to move to smaller towns to not overburden the resources in big cities.

I didn't actually see any specific regulations in that link, more just a realization of the higher cost of construction. Ergo higher costs for those buying a house.

Maybe I missed it. Could you just give me a particular, specific regulation you think is a restriction of our freedom? Cheers 

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Yes, newcomers should be encouraged to move to smaller towns to not overburden the resources in big cities.

I didn't actually see any specific regulations in that link, more just a realization of the higher cost of construction. Ergo higher costs for those buying a house.

Maybe I missed it. Could you just give me a particular, specific regulation you think is a restriction of our freedom? Cheers 

No. You wanna lookup all the various regulations, be my guest. The link I posted clearly explained the additional costs that hinder housing construction.