From the people who brought you covid lockdowns, All people banned from wilderness (now with snitch line!)

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Getting the vaccine wasn't mandated to everyone..  

it was through coercion. If you don't get the vaccine you lose your job. Sorry but that's coercion. If I point a gun at your head and say give me your wallet or die, I'm not actually giving you a choice. This issue has been resolved 100 times over in the courts for many long years.

The government doesn't argue that it didn't compel this Behavior through coercion, it argues that it was justified in doing so.

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Of the G10 countries Canada managed the pandemic second best behind Japan so the government did their job....protecting its citizens.

Research has shown that's not really the case. We largely benefited from some fortuitous circumstances including the cold  (warmer places did worse for some reason), A much much lower population density overall compared to most nations, and by luck of the draw our first infections started much later than many of the others which meant we had a bit of a head start on how to treat the issue.

And the research is absolutely not convinced that lockdowns specifically made any real difference

The problem is that every tyrant in history and every corrupt government and every loss of freedom tends to begin with somebody declaring an emergency. I mean to a large degree that's what trump is doing right now with the illegal aliens right? He's claiming that fentanyl is an urgent emergency situation and that's why he has to go after Canada as well.

Letting the government take away your rights instead of letting you make your own choices under the guise of it being an emergency is a very Risky Business

[LinkSoul60]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If you don't get the vaccine you lose your job.

If your job was one that is or could be in contact with a compromised person/s and could potentially harm them, either get a shot or find another job.  It was the right thing to do during that time.  

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

If your job was one that is or could be in contact with a compromised person/s and could potentially harm them, either get a shot or find another job.  It was the right thing to do during that time.  

Why? In  those places where they didn't it made no difference. Especially after the first few months, the vaccines did almost nothing to prevent you catching the illness they only made sure you didn't have severe symptoms.

Thanks to all the layoffs in British Columbia for people who wouldn't take the job who worked in the medical industry we had to start closing emergency rooms. It has led to hundreds of deaths some of them quite tragic. So for you it's a case of how ever many peoole need to die in order to pretend we're saving people? That makes sense 🙄🙄

"i'm deeply concerned about people's lives and i'm willing to kill to prove it!! Derp!!!!"

Nice hypocrisy there big guy   

[LinkSoul60]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Why?

Why...because they didn't entirely know what they were dealing with.  The most important job of any government, company, school or anything else is to protect its people.  They errored on the side of caution as they should have.  

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So for you it's a case of how ever many peoole need to die in order to pretend we're saving people?

WTF are you talking about?  

 

Playing expert while having hindsight is pretty easy isn't it....

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

If your job was one that is or could be in contact with a compromised person/s and could potentially harm them, either get a shot or find another job.  It was the right thing to do during that time.  

 

40 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Why...because they didn't entirely know what they were dealing with.  The most important job of any government, company, school or anything else is to protect its people.  They errored on the side of caution as they should have.  

WTF are you talking about?  

 

Playing expert while having hindsight is pretty easy isn't it....

But that doesn't argue for taking action. And they did know what they were dealing with well enough. They were aware that taking the vaccine didn't stop people from catching or spreading the virus, they were well aware there were other methods that were more effective, and they absolutely could have made accommodations. They could even have allowed the people to test every couple of days and that was proposed as a viable solution. Certainly they could have done that for the truckers who drove across the country in isolation yet we're somehow forced to lose their job if they didn't want to take the vaccine

There was no reason to force people to take the vaccine at all. But for the federal government it became a political issue and they impressed that upon other governments. Justin Trudeau who originally claimed no one would ever be compelled to take the vaccine turned it into a wedge issue for the election and tried to weaponize the vaccine against everybody who he saw was an opponent. He tried to divide Canadians as much as humanly possible along those lines with reasonable success

It was political, not science. It was well understood at the time that it didn't have to happen that way, trudeau impressed upon the provinces that they shouldn't make concessions and led the way by being the worst offender and claiming anyone that didn't see things his way was a bigot and misogynist and a waste of space. Like, he literally said that.

So no, it wasn't that they didn't know what they were dealing with or they didn't have other solutions. That's absolutely false

[Barquentine]

14 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Ever been to Nova Scotia, most of those outdoor sports are in the country which is in the woods, unless your in the middle of the lake somewhere

You didn't get from my posts about Acadians that I live in NS? From my house: 2 min. walk to a trail I walk quite often,(but I can refrain for a few weeks 'til it rains), also 2 min walk from my house is an ocean inlet, 5 min drive to a lake with a beach where we can swim or launch boats, 10 min.drive to a sandy ocean beach to walk or swim, lots of low traffic roads to walk, lakes you can drive up to to fishing without going through the woods.

Even here in the Maritimes we have plenty of options for outside activities without going through the woods.

During an extreme drought don't take any chances with fires. Forests burn, houses burn, people die, firefighting is an expensive thing.

For Christ' sake, stop whining about your 'rights' (many of which are just priveleges) and think about your responsibilities.

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not a total band like this. Restrictions maybe but nothing like this. Name one province that banned is people from going into any of the woods for any reason

CBC News · Posted: Jun 17, 2025
Want to travel in Manitoba? While most jurisdiction bar backcountry travel near actual fires, Manitoba enacts provincewide bans

Nova Scotia: Previous bans in 2023, 2016 and 2001This is not the first time wooded areas of the province have been shut down to the public. Travel and activity in the woods was also banned in May 2023 while the province battled two major wildfires that destroyed hundreds of homes.

In recent years, British Columbia has faced several temporary travel bans related to woods and wildfire safety. These bans are often implemented during periods of high fire risk to prevent human-caused wildfires. In the past, these restrictions have included hiking and vehicle use in forested areas, as well as restrictions on campfires. 

Oops, it took you exactly one sentence to look like a complete tard  not a record for you but very competitive!

 

Edited August 8, 2025 by Barquentine
adding text

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure, there's all kinds of aTV riding on the streets and people frequently fish inside the cities. 🙄 Are you trying to set some sort of record for stupid?

Again, you don't know WTF you're talking about.

Lots of ATVS on roads around here. But they're actually banned from a lot of public trails year round.

Lots of lakes in and around the city here. The gov't even stocks some of them with trout.

Oops, it took you exactly one sentence to look like a complete tard  not a record for you but very competitive!

ID!OT!

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL triggered commie is triggered  

I'm going out in the woods, you'll be the one enjoying your basement. Well, your mom's basement but still

Commie? How original! And I actually own a very small piece of woodland. Deer, pheasants, rabbits, even a bear on the back porch once.

[Venandi]

On 8/7/2025 at 1:13 AM, CdnFox said:

...you just tell people that they are denied access to the entire wild world seems so uncanadian it's not even funny

In general and in principle I agree with you... can't quite get there as a matter of practicality though and the reason is people like Flyerfool and Roboturd.

I live in an area where these critters "recreate," I'm also the guy who picks up the beer cans these MFs leave strewn around behind them. As you've seen on this very forum, there is no talking to them, polite conversation is impossible, common sense elusive... they spout slogans in person and memes on the internet. They're non compliant, uncooperative and pretend to "know their rights."

You don't have to live in a (semi) isolated area and you don't have to be a cop to experience them either, a single week as a security guard in the hospital or simply doing access control is all you need.

So, what do think of the idea that I want some protection under the law too? 

 

As a PS, I've always felt the same way about the intrusion of pervasive video surveillance, even so, they've forced me into that against my will too. I now have dash cams in every vehicle and a small fortune worth of trail cams... they're not for hunting or trapping either.  

Here's another "aside" that concerns me and (I think) it tends to support your position. The restrictions themselves and the media blitz in support of them may serve as motivation for bad actors. Some fool with matches may want to see the effect of his buffoonery on the evening news, others might see arson as a protest against the very rules designed to keep their dumb a$$es out of the bush and climate warriors might set the world ablaze to show the effects of ignoring their cause. Passive aggressives are the type to toss butts out the window when no one is there to see them.

It seems to me that some of them are dedicated (maybe addicted is a better word) to their own buffoonery and I'll cite cut and paste memes and repetitive BS (designed to incite a response) as a symptom of the delusional thinking I now worry about. 

Edited August 8, 2025 by Venandi

[User]

8 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

If your job was one that is or could be in contact with a compromised person/s and could potentially harm them, either get a shot or find another job.  It was the right thing to do during that time.  

But you will be dishonest and frame that as a "choice"

These were not the only people mandated either. 

When 80% of the people are in professions that mandate a vaccine, it isn't very ethical to then try to claim that 80% chose the vaccine as if they just chose it all on their own...

Like, sure, you have a choice, get shot in the head or take this vaccine. See, they chose the vaccine!

 

 

 

8 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Playing expert while having hindsight is pretty easy isn't it....

Just like it is easy to lie and say there were no outdoor restrictions and then moments later when called out say oops, I meant on large gatherings. 

[Legato]

8 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

If your job was one that is or could be in contact with a compromised person/s and could potentially harm them, either get a shot or find another job.  It was the right thing to do during that time.  

What a bunch of claptrap. Every person I know who took the vaccine caught covid, there was no protection.

Every forest path walkway in my area was blocked off with concrete barriers or temporary iron gates.

"Uniformed" Gestapo wannabes patrolling those said paths.

Your penchant for half truths is staggering..

[Nationalist]

18 hours ago, herbie said:

OUCH!!! MY FREEDUMB!

Talk about first world problem. Might have to stay out of the woods until it rains.... so unbearable.

Here.

http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/13345/900.jpg

Now...bend over.

That's a good Libbie.

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, User said:

But you will be dishonest and frame that as a "choice"

These were not the only people mandated either. 

When 80% of the people are in professions that mandate a vaccine, it isn't very ethical to then try to claim that 80% chose the vaccine as if they just chose it all on their own...

Like, sure, you have a choice, get shot in the head or take this vaccine. See, they chose the vaccine!

 

 

 

Just like it is easy to lie and say there were no outdoor restrictions and then moments later when called out say oops, I meant on large gatherings. 

Of course... fools like you bought into the narrative that a virus is political.   Vaccines do nothing and the earth is flat too.... 😂

56 minutes ago, Legato said:

What a bunch of claptrap. Every person I know who took the vaccine caught covid, there was no protection.

Every forest path walkway in my area was blocked off with concrete barriers or temporary iron gates.

"Uniformed" Gestapo wannabes patrolling those said paths.

Your penchant for half truths is staggering..

Life must be very easy for you waking up to obliviousness each day....   At least try to find a recent conspiracy to occupy your mind.

[LinkSoul60]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

But that doesn't argue for taking action. And they did know what they were dealing with well enough. They were aware that taking the vaccine didn't stop people from catching or spreading the virus, they were well aware there were other methods that were more effective, and they absolutely could have made accommodations. They could even have allowed the people to test every couple of days and that was proposed as a viable solution. Certainly they could have done that for the truckers who drove across the country in isolation yet we're somehow forced to lose their job if they didn't want to take the vaccine

There was no reason to force people to take the vaccine at all. But for the federal government it became a political issue and they impressed that upon other governments. Justin Trudeau who originally claimed no one would ever be compelled to take the vaccine turned it into a wedge issue for the election and tried to weaponize the vaccine against everybody who he saw was an opponent. He tried to divide Canadians as much as humanly possible along those lines with reasonable success

It was political, not science. It was well understood at the time that it didn't have to happen that way, trudeau impressed upon the provinces that they shouldn't make concessions and led the way by being the worst offender and claiming anyone that didn't see things his way was a bigot and misogynist and a waste of space. Like, he literally said that.

So no, it wasn't that they didn't know what they were dealing with or they didn't have other solutions. That's absolutely false

Facts are facts so talk all you want.  Knowing what they knew about the virus at the time the Canadian government did a good job of protecting its people the best they could.  

[User]

55 minutes ago, Legato said:

What a bunch of claptrap. Every person I know who took the vaccine caught covid, there was no protection.

Well, there was some statistical evidence showing it made the disease less deadly for those who did get it, but even worse, all the claims about how it helped prevent spread were wildly over exaggerated. 

In the end, if you were in a high-risk group, it would help mitigate death and severity, but for just about everyone else, it was next to worthless. 

 

[User]

26 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Of course... fools like you bought into the narrative that a virus is political.   Vaccines do nothing and the earth is flat too.... 😂

I love how you didn't actually respond at all to your dishonesty. 

Instead, you lie again and make up crap I never said. 

 

 

[LinkSoul60]

39 minutes ago, User said:

I love how you didn't actually respond at all to your dishonesty. 

Instead, you lie again and make up crap I never said. 

 

 

Everyone lies and everything is a lie to you if it doesn't fit into your twisted ideals.  Ignorance is bliss....

[User]

25 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Everyone lies and everything is a lie to you if it doesn't fit into your twisted ideals.  Ignorance is bliss....

No, not everyone nor everything. Very specifically, you are right here, right now, saying exactly the lie you did here. 

 

[Legato]

5 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Life must be very easy for you waking up to obliviousness each day....   At least try to find a recent conspiracy to occupy your mind.

What's your room number at Toad Hall?

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Barquentine said:

CBC News · Posted: Jun 17, 2025
Want to travel in Manitoba? While most jurisdiction bar backcountry travel near actual fires, Manitoba enacts provincewide bans

Nova Scotia: Previous bans in 2023, 2016 and 2001This is not the first time wooded areas of the province have been shut down to the public. Travel and activity in the woods was also banned in May 2023 while the province battled two major wildfires that destroyed hundreds of homes.

In recent years, British Columbia has faced several temporary travel bans related to woods and wildfire safety. These bans are often implemented during periods of high fire risk to prevent human-caused wildfires. In the past, these restrictions have included hiking and vehicle use in forested areas, as well as restrictions on campfires. 

Oops, it took you exactly one sentence to look like a complete tard  not a record for you but very competitive!

 

Awww swing and a miss kiddo  

The manitoba bans were fairly extensive but no where near as far reaching as the current one, were for certain motor vehicles only (not hiking etc)  and were for a very short time, and you could still get a permit, they were allowing people provided they were acting safely. So it wasn't a "ban" like we're talking about here. 

Nice try  

Likewise the previous bans in nova scotia were not total bans.  And were for a very short time. This is till mid October,   

 

But its' typical of you to try to lie your way out of it rather than address the issues. 

 

9 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Again, you don't know WTF you're talking about.

Again, you'll say any lie that pops into your brain rather than address the issues, 

Quote

Lots of ATVS on roads around here. But they're actually banned from a lot of public trails year round.

And?

Quote

Lots of lakes in and around the city here. The gov't even stocks some of them with trout.

So no real fishing then.

Oops, it took you exactly one sentence to look like a complete tard  not a record for you but very competitive!

Looks like that's still true   

 

[Legato]

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Commie? How original! And I actually own a very small piece of woodland. Deer, pheasants, rabbits, even a bear on the back porch once.

LOL once!!!! Wow, that's pretty impressive city boy  

You sound like the typical left-wing sort, the drives there sUV Into the Woods in the summer, sees a fawn nibbling at the dew kissed grass in the mornings with the sun filtering through, drives home thinking he's communed with nature, parks his vehicle and goes and jumps on the internet to complain about climate change and explain how he really knows nature   LOLOL

 

The bottom line is that severe and totalitarian restrictions for extended periods of time crossing entire provinces is not something people should be accepting lightly. The only reason you do is you're 90% communist anyway and appreciate totalitarianism  

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Venandi said:

In general and in principle I agree with you... can't quite get there as a matter of practicality though and the reason is people like Flyerfool and Roboturd.

I live in an area where these critters "recreate," I'm also the guy who picks up the beer cans these MFs leave strewn around behind them. As you've seen on this very forum, there is no talking to them, polite conversation is impossible, common sense elusive... they spout slogans in person and memes on the internet. They're non compliant, uncooperative and pretend to "know their rights."

You don't have to live in a (semi) isolated area and you don't have to be a cop to experience them either, a single week as a security guard in the hospital or simply doing access control is all you need.

So, what do think of the idea that I want some protection under the law too? 

 

As a PS, I've always felt the same way about the intrusion of pervasive video surveillance, even so, they've forced me into that against my will too. I now have dash cams in every vehicle and a small fortune worth of trail cams... they're not for hunting or trapping either.  

Here's another "aside" that concerns me and (I think) it tends to support your position. The restrictions themselves and the media blitz in support of them may serve as motivation for bad actors. Some fool with matches may want to see the effect of his buffoonery on the evening news, others might see arson as a protest against the very rules designed to keep their dumb a$$es out of the bush and climate warriors might set the world ablaze to show the effects of ignoring their cause. Passive aggressives are the type to toss butts out the window when no one is there to see them.

It seems to me that some of them are dedicated (maybe addicted is a better word) to their own buffoonery and I'll cite cut and paste memes and repetitive BS (designed to incite a response) as a symptom of the delusional thinking I now worry about. 

All valid points

I can see restrictions, and when Manitoba had a really bad situations they shut things down for a very short. Of time until they got it under control but people were able still to apply for a permit. So local people could still go out and enjoy their local woods and as long as there was some accountability and knowing who was in the woods at what time accommodations were made.

That's kind of a reasonable attitude where it's like we have to have restrictions and we want to know who's in the woods just in case they do start a fire but at the same time we want to make sure that we don't overwhelmingly destroy everybody's access to the province they love just because there's a fire.

[Barquentine]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The bottom line

You've got more bottom lines than an octagenarian stripper. (Probably look like one too.) Jealous because I own and live in a beautiful semi-rural area surrounded by nature? I'm sure there's a little plastic slide in the playground you go to.