LIBERAL SOFT ON CRIME STRIKES AGAIN: Man Attacks And Almost Kills Woman After Being Released Earlier In The Day For Another Violence Assault

[Chrissy1979]

How come people who think government is useless and ineffective also think government is in control of every element of their lives?

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

People unable to function peacefully in society are not rabid dogs.

Yeah. They are that's pretty much exactly what they are.

It's not the dogs fault that it has rabies. It is not the dogs fault that it cannot control it's anger and violence at that moment. The dog is innocent.

But the dog is still extremely violent and deadly and you cannot allow that to exist in your society.

Quote

Should they be kept out of society? Yes, of course. There's the safety of all the rest to consider. But crazy things can happen to the human mind, and I am not here to judge. 

It has nothing to do with judgment. My granddad Had a beautiful dog, he loved that dog like one of his children. It got rabies. It's not the dogs fault, it messed with the wrong skunk and that happens in rural Manitoba. But he still had to kill the dog. He wasn't mad at the dog if anything he was sad and desperate that he couldn't help the dog. That didn't change the fact that the dog was a threat and needed to be put down.

And that in essence is all I'm saying. If somebody is violent and they cannot control it they need to be removed from society and locked up and you need to have sympathy for their victims both past present and future. They don't need to be locked up because I'm angry at them, but if they can't be non-violent people then they need to be taken and locked away until somehow that changes

Edited Thursday at 01:33 AM by CdnFox

[Legato]

18 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

People unable to function peacefully in society are not rabid dogs. Should they be kept out of society? Yes, of course. There's the safety of all the rest to consider. But crazy things can happen to the human mind, and I am not here to judge. 

 

[Radiorum]

8 minutes ago, Legato said:

 

 

Yeah, your guy Rothbard, opposed egalitarianism and the civil rights movement, and blamed the welfare state on the right of women to vote. He was friends with Holocaust deniers. He's better left to the dustbin of history.

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

How come people who think government is useless and ineffective also think government is in control of every element of their lives?

In your case is probably just your delusional inability to cope with reality.  I don't know, ask your shrink

33 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

 

Yeah, your guy Rothbard, opposed egalitarianism and the civil rights movement, and blamed the welfare state on the right of women to vote. He was friends with Holocaust deniers. He's better left to the dustbin of history.

So ad hominem then. You can't actually address what he said or the quote so you're going to try and dredge up some sort of history that means that you don't have to

What were you saying about knowing things about academia?

[Legato]

43 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

 

Yeah, your guy Rothbard, opposed egalitarianism and the civil rights movement, and blamed the welfare state on the right of women to vote. He was friends with Holocaust deniers. He's better left to the dustbin of history.

Take a Diazepam. Then and only then study and absorb his quote.

[Radiorum]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You can't actually address what he said

Here's what he said:

"It's easy to be conspicuously compassionate if others are forced to pay the cost."

 Several assumptions here. First, the use of the word "conspicuous" questions one's true motivations without basis. And saying others are forced to pay the cost - not founded in reality. We all pay our taxes, and our taxes support those less fortunate, and I am glad to contribute my taxes for other Canadians in need.

His quote is skeptical of the true compassion people feel for others, and is a cynical point of view meant to turn others from the generosity society needs to function well. It's a dark statement on humanity that I do not agree with.

It's really rather ugly.

[Chrissy1979]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

In your case is probably just your delusional inability to cope with reality.  I don't know, ask your shrink

Now that we've established you were lying with your fanciful claims that you absolutely must sit and listen to all the secrets they have once you pass a security check, ask yourself why he didn't get the security check last week just to prove to the voters he could. He was losing and that might have been all he needed to give skeptical voters confidence in him 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Now that we've established you were lying with your fanciful claims that you absolutely must sit and listen to all the secrets they have once you pass a security check, ask yourself why he didn't get the security check last week just to prove to the voters he could. He was losing and that might have been all he needed to give skeptical voters confidence in him 

No, we established you were lying

Did you have that proof you were talking about yet? Any documentation that you said must exist to back up your point

No? So you were just lying. Well no surprise

So you can't get your security clearance and then not take the security documents. That's not how it works, And if you thought about it for 3 seconds you'd see why

So now that we've established that he's had his security clearance, he was willing to get it again when he became prime minister because you have to, and but you can't get it without being gagged, why in god's name would you get it and be gagged?

Other than you would prefer to see your precious left-wing liberals protected by a gag order because democracy is not to your liking

[Chrissy1979]

Even if you weren't lying (and you know you were because your premise makes no sense), you have to admit he should have gotten the clearance because he was so close to winning and that would likely have put him over the top. 

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

How come people who think government is useless and ineffective also think government is in control of every element of their lives?

Good point. Let's blame the janitor's union for this, Chrissy. 

Keep those gems coming.

[Chrissy1979]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Good point. Let's blame the janitor's union for this, Chrissy. 

Keep those gems coming.

God knows you wouldn’t blame the perpetrators. That would be believing too much in personal responsibility. It’s gotta be the ineffective yet omnipotent government!

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

God knows you wouldn’t blame the perpetrators. That would be believing too much in personal responsibility. It’s gotta be the ineffective yet omnipotent government!

You're so stupid you shouldn't be allowed to vote ffs.

Yes, the perps commit the crimes, Chrissy.  

Here are some question for you Chrissy, along with the answers, because I can't listen to any more of your stupid crap today:

1) Who is more likely to commit a violent crime: someone who has committed violent crimes in the past, or someone who has never committed any crimes of any kind before? 

• violent criminals are more likely to commit violent crimes than non-criminals, Chrissy. By a massive margin. 

2) Is there anything that we can do, as a society, to protect vulnerable women and children from these violent criminals, who have a nasty habit of re-offending? 

• yes. We can lock violent offenders in jail where there are no women and children to harm. 

3) Is it bad to let violent criminals out of jail?

• It depends on your moral compass. Some people think that beating or raping women is bad, some think that it's something that we should just live with as a society. Conservatives say "violence against women and children is bad, and we should protect them when possible", liberals say "violent crime is part of life, so criminals should be free to walk our streets, and the safety of women and children is of secondary importance".

4) Who lets the violent criminals out of jail?

• The janitors union, Chrissy. Only you and I know that though, so let's keep it our little secret. 

 

Is there something that you still don't understand?

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Even if you weren't lying (and you know you were because your premise makes no sense), you have to admit he should have gotten the clearance because he was so close to winning and that would likely have put him over the top. 

So now that we know that you're lying let's work on your basic comprehension and logic

What I've said is that once he became prime minister as part of that process he has to Get his security clearance again.

You seem to have concluded that because he must do something if something happens then he should have done something if something might happen.

That's not how logic works. That says stupid as saying all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat. 

Obviously he had no problem with getting his security clearance or he wouldn't have been running for prime minister. But when he became prime minister, That's when he gets his security clearance.

If it's still confusing I can get the crayons out for you. Did you need me to get the crayons out for you?

[blackbird]

On 4/26/2025 at 9:43 PM, eyeball said:

First of all though we need to improve public attitudes and awareness of mental illness.

We need to learn that many people with mental illness should not be on the street at all.

Medical hospitals are not for the mentally ill patients.  

There have always been places for the mentally ill that have staff that are properly trained to deal with them.

You probably wouldn't believe if I told you there is no one kind of mentally ill person.  There is a wide range or spectrum of types of mental illness.

There are some who are dangerous to others in varying degrees and it is often impossible to tell what kind of danger these people represent.  That is proven by the fact that mentally ill people have been released for outings on day passes and have committed assaults on other people.

There are some mentally ill people who are so dangerous even to themselves they must be kept in a fully padded room or they will harm themselves.  They may even need to be restrained with straight jackets that keep their arms tightly controlled.  They also may need endless injections to keep them calm.  These kind of people are not something that normal hospitals are equipped to deal with either.  They may need to be in a padded cell and physically restrained for the rest of their life. They require very specialized staff to handle them.  Doctors or science cannot necessarily change a defective brain in that state.

Edited Thursday at 04:33 PM by blackbird

[User]

15 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

How come people who think government is useless and ineffective also think government is in control of every element of their lives?

They are not mutually exclusive things. 

The government can wield immense power and control over our daily lives AND be useless and ineffective. 

[User]

3 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

God knows you wouldn’t blame the perpetrators. That would be believing too much in personal responsibility. It’s gotta be the ineffective yet omnipotent government!

Blame?

Who holds the person accountable for their wrongdoing and actions here? -> The government.

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

You probably wouldn't believe if I told you there is no one kind of mentally ill person.  There is a wide range or spectrum of types of mental illness.

You likely wouldn't believe that mentally ill people are attacked and abused by healthy people far more often than the other way around.

It takes all kinds.

[blackbird]

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You likely wouldn't believe that mentally ill people are attacked and abused by healthy people far more often than the other way around.

It takes all kinds.

How could that be?  Give some examples.  I thought criminals were claiming they acted because of their mental illness and couldn't help what they did when they killed a lot of people.

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You likely wouldn't believe that mentally ill people are attacked and abused by healthy people far more often than the other way around.

It takes all kinds.

oh well that TOTALLY makes it ok for them to run over children.  What was i thinking?

[Chrissy1979]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So now that we know that you're lying let's work on your basic comprehension and logic

What I've said is that once he became prime minister as part of that process he has to Get his security clearance again.

You seem to have concluded that because he must do something if something happens then he should have done something if something might happen.

That's not how logic works. That says stupid as saying all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat. 

Obviously he had no problem with getting his security clearance or he wouldn't have been running for prime minister. But when he became prime minister, That's when he gets his security clearance.

If it's still confusing I can get the crayons out for you. Did you need me to get the crayons out for you?

You made up some fanciful crap that someone with security clearance is obliged to hear all secret information. It’s a package deal, you said.  😂 Even if that were true, it still no reason not to hear the details about how your own leadership campaign was orchestrated by the Indian government.

I’m glad you guys are stupid enough to keep this clown as your leader, even though he’s so untrustworthy and unlikeable he lost 30 points in the polls as soon as people heard him speak. 😂

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

You made up some fanciful crap that someone with security clearance is obliged to hear all secret information. It’s a package deal, you said.  😂 Even if that were true, it still no reason not to hear the details about how your own leadership campaign was orchestrated by the Indian government.

I’m glad you guys are stupid enough to keep this clown as your leader, even though he’s so untrustworthy and unlikeable he lost 30 points in the polls as soon as people heard him speak. 😂

So you admit you lied. I appreciate that but we all knew it already.

And of course if they're really actually was a serious threat from India Trudeau absolutely had the right to advise him. Harper advised a number of liberals and NDP about security threats and concerns back in the day. The pm has the right to do that. So if there was anything in those reports that indicated a serious threat to the leadership race from interference should I could have told him. As we now know there wasn't any

And we are happy with your being happy at our choices   Frankly the fact that you think keeping him is a mistake is all the proof in the world that it's the right choice

[Chrissy1979]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you admit you lied. I appreciate that but we all knew it already.

And of course if they're really actually was a serious threat from India Trudeau absolutely had the right to advise him. Harper advised a number of liberals and NDP about security threats and concerns back in the day. The pm has the right to do that. So if there was anything in those reports that indicated a serious threat to the leadership race from interference should I could have told him. As we now know there wasn't any

And we are happy with your being happy at our choices   Frankly the fact that you think keeping him is a mistake is all the proof in the world that it's the right choice

If there is a rule that you must hear all too-secret information once you have clearance, you could prove it. The fact you can’t shows you’re just a bad, very longwinded liar.
How am to prove there isn’t such a rule? That’s proving a negative, which is impossible. 
Happy to help you with the basics of debate, rapist-loving liar.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

If there is a rule that you must hear all too-secret information once you have clearance, you could prove it. The fact you can’t shows you’re just a bad, very longwinded liar.
How am to prove there isn’t such a rule? That’s proving a negative, which is impossible. 
Happy to help you with the basics of debate, rapist-loving liar.

If there wasn't a rule you could prove it. All you would have to do is post the rules And laws around Top secret clearance in Canada.

I mean you must have read them. Otherwise you wouldn't know one way or another you would just be lying through your ass. Ohhhh... wait.... 

Sorry Chrissy, he gets his clearance he reads the docs and whether he reads him or not the lawsuit he has.

Apparently you fired your therapist. I think you should find a new one and go back on your meds as soon as possible, this is obviously having a very negative effect on you

 

[Moonlight Graham]

Lefty activist judges are also a menace to society.