After they get your guns, they take your words

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

That's just incredibly sad. You actually like being a subject, unable to control your own life?

Do you get the sense we live like Syrians under Bashar Assad up here or something? I mean, King Charles is about as harmless as Mr Dressup.

Being a subject is probably the farthest thing from my mind. I have tons of control over my life.

I'm even referred to as the Master at work.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it's just a matter of time until you leftists are hung from the yardarm with your own rope therein

I've been hearing this forever. I've probably got a couple hundred fathoms of rope coiled up in the shed so...fill yer boots.

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it's not me

I no longer defend nor uphold the Laurentian Elite ruling class in so called "Canada"

they are on their own, with no friends, no allies, and no soldiers

Not even Mr Dressup?  Now that's sad.  

[WestCanMan]

Poilievre will be the PM before the date that we have to comply with the latest round of commie BS from the PMO:

• Accompanying the prohibition is an amnesty order, which expires on October 30, 2025, that protects businesses and owners while they come into compliance with the law. 

[BeaverFever]

14 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Even for a shìt posting, that's pathetic.

 

This whole thread a shitpost, started by a devoted worshipper of Trump, the shitpost king

[herbie]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

I mean, King Charles is about as harmless as Mr Dressup.

But, but they overthrew a tyrannical King and elect their own tyrant every 4 years.  250 years of brainwashing, their still taught Monarchs are tyrants.

FFS a background check and training course is tyranny, just like a driver's license?

Speaking of tyrants...

[Army Guy]

On 12/9/2024 at 9:22 PM, DUI_Offender said:

She is 100% correct. Disinformation has been the greatest threat to democracy in the past decade. We really need to pass laws and regulations, that punish the people that spread blatant disinformation. We have seen first hand at what damage it has done, especially during the COVID pandemic.

Canada Proud is a perfect example of a "media" entity that has ties to Russia, and it's misinformation campaign.

Liberal government is perhaps the largest source of misinformation in the country....their lies and deception is right there for everyone to see daily...Just count how many governmental committees their are today looking into liberal/NDP corruption, not mentioning all the other misdeeds like not being able to tell what their ethnic background is after claiming to have indigenous backgrounds to curry favor in governmental contracts...or to curry favor with votes...funneling money to their own companies, the list goes on and on...and if you support this type of behavior one should be able to question your own moral values...

You got a source on that or is this just more BS coming out of your orifice, or is it, just that this organization just does not like the liberals and they are using there right to free speech to voice their opinions...I've looked and can't find anything that ties them to Russian misinformation...I mean if it was a perfect example why is their nothing on them in the media? 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

...and if you support this type of behavior one should be able to question your own moral values...

It's been going on for decades and decades. The fact it has been should have caused you to question the convictions and dedication never mind the competence of conservative politicians to do anything about it by now. They've had ample opportunities but can't produce anything more substantial then wet toilet paper.

 

 

[suds]

On 12/10/2024 at 11:46 AM, User said:

The problem with the authoritarian crowd that wants to control and silence disinformation is and has always been, who gets to decide what is disinformation?

The 'Ministry of Truth' of course. I mean, what else is there other than something the same but with a different name? However, according to Orwell, his Ministry of Truth was more concerned with the manipulation of information for government's own selfish purposes. Orwell was quite the envisionary.

Edited December 11, 2024 by suds

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Orwell was quite the envisionary.

Not quite visionary enough or he might have prescribed something more concrete than simply saying "Don't let it happen. It depends on you" without saying how. He never seems to have given the opposite of Big Brother - public oversight - much thought. He just seemed to imagine the solution to totalitarianism and the manipulation of information would emerge on its own naturally.

Maybe this is all still supposed to happen in the future. When will we know we've arrived? I feel like I've been there a long time already myself. Did I miss something?

[August1991]

On 12/10/2024 at 9:26 AM, Michael Hardner said:

But the disinfo problem goes hand in hand with the poor ecology of the public in shooting down ridiculous claims.  It should be a common habit for people to shoot down extremists from their own side of the fence, IMO.  Liberals shoot down radical claims by leftists, Red Torys shoot down alt-right weirdos.

Clean up the mess and disinfo will stand out like a piece of sh!t on the floor of a pastry shop.

-----------------

Forums like this represent a potential space for true discussion, but for the people who treat discussion like it's an all-or-nothing bloodsport, and who think their enemies are subhumans whose ideas need to be eliminated.

So let's legalize militias and ban individuals from owning firearms less than 250 years old ?  Maybe you have a germ of an idea, Auguste.  

I appreciate your posts.

These guys "framers" were trying to create a civilised society, according to the Enlightenment.

The Second Amendment makes no sense today.

Yet these same guys did not create an independent monetary authority.

===

True, they created an amendment mecahnsim and even showed how to do it. Sorta.

 

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's been going on for decades and decades. The fact it has been should have caused you to question the convictions and dedication never mind the competence of conservative politicians to do anything about it by now. They've had ample opportunities but can't produce anything more substantial then wet toilet paper.

 

 

If your trying to make excuses for this Liberal /NDP government you can stuff it....everyday it seems there is another scandall one after another , they know they are done, and stealing as much as they can before it is time for them to go....

BTW Conservatives are not in power and they are not robbing this country blind, and you seem good with that the left is getting theirs..., as the witch doctor told you your di*k would fall off if you voted conservative., well sir i'm here to tell you that ain't true and if you change your vote from left to right your balls grow back as well .......i know it's magic...

[Army Guy]

On 12/10/2024 at 6:09 PM, eyeball said:

Do you get the sense we live like Syrians under Bashar Assad up here or something? I mean, King Charles is about as harmless as Mr Dressup.

Being a subject is probably the farthest thing from my mind. I have tons of control over my life.

I'm even referred to as the Master at work.

Masturbator is not a title eyeball.

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

If your trying to make excuses for this Liberal /NDP government you can stuff it....everyday it seems there is another scandall one after another , they know they are done, and stealing as much as they can before it is time for them to go....

Sure they're done. I'm just wondering how far Conservatives will leave the door open for the next crew. They always have in the past, why should that change?

58 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

BTW Conservatives are not in power and they are not robbing this country blind

What reason do you have for believing that still doesn't leave the door open to abuse?  Remember when Poilievre said lobbyists should take their cases directly to Canadians? He said they're overpaid and useless and the only way "any business lobby has born fruit" has been through "undue handouts, privileges and protections" that "Justin Trudeau has been all too willing to grant."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-fundraiser-lobbyists-1.7196143

Hmmmm...

Look at the dates he's been lobbied and the date's we were informed of the meeting and the date on which he said businesses will "get nothing from me unless they convince the people first."  What sort of excuse does Poilievre have for saying one thing while doing the very opposite?

https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&comlogDocsStart=0

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Masturbator is not a title eyeball.

It's pretty much pointless after a radical prostatectomy. 🙁

[CdnFox]

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure they're done. I'm just wondering how far Conservatives will leave the door open for the next crew. They always have in the past, why should that change?

 

Wow you're back to the old lie that it's all harper's fault that you know commits crimes.

The conservatives didn't leave the door open. The conservatives closed a lot of doors. In fact justin got caught by many of the laws harper brought in to try and stop that kind of abuse. And as always you blame harper until it's pointed out that that stupid and then you say well I guess Justin's a little bit to blame... But it's harper's he could do it in the first place.

The conservatives have never left the door open. If anything they tighten the rules and make it harder for the liberals. But there's only so much you can do

The problem is when liberals break the law supporters like you still vote for them. Until that stops there's no real law you can pass that's going to resolve the problem. The left wing has to learn to hate corruption instead of embracing it, at that point left-wing governments will be very very cautious because they know they can get thrown out. Right now they don't believe you'll vote against them and they're right

[NAME REMOVED]

"USA is about 8.5x larger in population than Canada. Pee CTV News, in 2023, Canada had 778 homicides whereas USA had 19,252, approximately 25x more than Canada. In Canada there are many restrictions on guns. In USA there are practically none. So much for the 2nd Amendment."

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The conservatives didn't leave the door open. The conservatives closed a lot of doors. In fact justin got caught by many of the laws harper brought in to try and stop that kind of abuse.

Ah, I guess that explains why Trudeau is in prison.

Good job.

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Ah, I guess that explains why Trudeau is in prison.

Good job.

Sure. It's harper's fault Trudeau isn't in prison 🙄🙄🙄 

It's certainly harper's fault trudeau got caught and wasn't able to bend the law for SNC like he wanted, but hey.  As long as harper bad you're happy right?

[User]

6 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

"USA is about 8.5x larger in population than Canada. Pee CTV News, in 2023, Canada had 778 homicides whereas USA had 19,252, approximately 25x more than Canada. In Canada there are many restrictions on guns. In USA there are practically none. So much for the 2nd Amendment."

Over the last 100 years, Canada has implemented about 10 major pieces of gun control legislation. Can you point to where the homicides in Canada were somehow more compatible to those in America before?

No. You can't. 

This is a dumb game of comparing vastly different cultures, histories, demographics, density of large cities... and other political factors. 

America per capita has more violent crimes across the board than other western civilizations, 1st world countries, whether we have guns or not has next to nothing to do with it. 

 

[suds]

22 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not quite visionary enough or he might have prescribed something more concrete than simply saying "Don't let it happen. It depends on you" without saying how. He never seems to have given the opposite of Big Brother - public oversight - much thought. He just seemed to imagine the solution to totalitarianism and the manipulation of information would emerge on its own naturally.

Maybe this is all still supposed to happen in the future. When will we know we've arrived? I feel like I've been there a long time already myself. Did I miss something?

Orwell's novel '1984' was published in 1949. He had witnessed two world wars (where truth is always the first casualty) and periods of fascism and Stalinism (think 'Animal Farm'). He lived in a time when public discourse was relatively limited and no one could possibly imagine the emergence of the internet, social media, algorithms, or artificial intelligence. Perhaps he was more reactionary than visionary. Whatever, 1984 was a warning to all of us especially in the West. So was Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipelago'. So we all took a big sigh of relief when 1984 came and passed, but now it seems that we are standing at the precipice and our liberties are at stake. Public oversight eh? Now where is that in our constitution?

Edited December 12, 2024 by suds

[eyeball]

43 minutes ago, suds said:

He lived in a time when public discourse was relatively limited and no one could possibly imagine the emergence of the internet, social media, algorithms, or artificial intelligence. Perhaps he was more reactionary than visionary.

Sure so the question then is how would he react to or better yet with that technology if he had access to it? He was an avowed social democrat and loathed tyranny and dictatorships.  Would he have used these technologies to aim the Telescreens the other way and effectively put the sort of oversight governments enjoy into the hands of ordinary people?

I get it that forcing a 1984 depth of transparency on politicians would probably just lead to another wierd dystopia but there's nothing preventing politicians from volunteering to make themselves more transparent to the public.

44 minutes ago, suds said:

Public oversight eh? Now where is that in our constitution?

I think the nod to God at the top of the Constitution, like the Cross looming over Parliamentarians, can be taken/given as a sort of acknowledgement that God and his all seeing nature would keep them in line.

Between that and swearing on a stack of Bibles politicians have long since been used to the idea that someone's keeping an eye on them.

Maybe a few cameras and microphones would help.

 

[suds]

On 12/12/2024 at 6:24 PM, eyeball said:

Sure so the question then is how would he react to or better yet with that technology if he had access to it? He was an avowed social democrat and loathed tyranny and dictatorships.  Would he have used these technologies to aim the Telescreens the other way and effectively put the sort of oversight governments enjoy into the hands of ordinary people?

Please explain how 'ordinary people' could possibly distinguish between truth and disinformation? Or even artificial intelligence for that matter?  How often does the professional media get it wrong?  I'm also not so sure that 'ordinary people' couldn't be persuaded to arrive at certain conclusions if you paid them enough. Or that their political beliefs wouldn't interfere with their judgements. I would say leaving things the way they are would be the better of two evils. We the people are also social media. Let them debate it out, not behind closed doors but in the public sphere as they (we) do now. I tend to believe that Orwell would have preferred it that way.

Edited December 14, 2024 by suds

[suds]

On 12/12/2024 at 6:24 PM, eyeball said:

I think the nod to God at the top of the Constitution, like the Cross looming over Parliamentarians, can be taken/given as a sort of acknowledgement that God and his all seeing nature would keep them in line.

Between that and swearing on a stack of Bibles politicians have long since been used to the idea that someone's keeping an eye on them.

Maybe a few cameras and microphones would help.

Ok, so this 'nod to God' in the preamble of the Constitution will keep our politicians in government in line while they're screwing around with our rights? You're kidding of course. 😜

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, suds said:

Please explain how 'ordinary people' could possibly distinguish between truth and disinformation?

I'm hoping for an effect that will be felt more by politicians.  Many people can't distinguish between truth and disinformation simply because they're to busy doing other things. Despite that you can count on there always being people that are interested and who do take the time to know what governments are doing. If everyone knew, especially politicians, there was a record and human observers/witnesses to what they and their influencers and lobbyists were discussing behind behind closed doors disinformation wouldn't have much of a chance against it.

29 minutes ago, suds said:

We the people are also social media. Let them debate it out, not behind closed doors but in the public sphere as they (we) do now. I tend to believe that Orwell would have preferred it that way.

What about when politicians are behind closed doors, you think Orwell would have preferred that be maintained?

33 minutes ago, suds said:

Ok, so this 'nod to God' in the preamble of the Constitution will keep our politicians in government in line while they're screwing around with our rights? You're kidding of course. 😜

Of course I am, that olde tyme magic just doesn't fly anymore and only people who can't distinguish between real and unreal would imagine otherwise. I'm simply pointing to it because there was time when people didn't kid about it and truly believed there would be an accounting for politicians/rulers, especially those who couldn't or wouldn't better distinguish between right and wrong behaviour.

They really believed they were under God's watchful eye and so did ordinary people. This provided them with something they trusted would oversee the honesty and integrity of their governments. Politicians didn't just swear on a stack of Bibles for effect, at least in public.

Obviously that wore off and the media stepped into the role of oversight and provided the public with something they could trust to be their witnesses. Politicians definitely noticed but now that's wearing thinner and so we need something even more direct.

So do politicians if they ever expect to be trusted.