Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I just don't get it. How did 'climate change isn't real/that bad' turn into 'pedophiles'.

TorqueDog said Richmond is a dump, and he got called a racist.
Bluejays said Kimmel isn't funny, and he got called a fascist.


It's all become a stupid joke.

Yiiiiikkkkeesss…. Who brought up pedophilia?????????

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Doctorfever's climate ignorance is generating pedophilia implications?

This is why you see CPers turn to sh*t-posting styles, and not caring one bit about what the CP dirty dozen have to say - it's all become so meaningless.

"you're at fault for my sh*t posting not me!"

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yiiiiikkkkeesss…. Who brought up pedophilia?????????

Seems like it started right about here.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

They do seem to be obsessed with underage kids.

Definitely an ‘obsession’.

[Looch City]

You see?

This is why Canada, as know it, is basically over.

Can't even debate "climate change" without being called a pedo.

No wonder the great minds like Jordan Peterson have basically renounced their citizenship and moved south. The brain drain is real!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yiiiiikkkkeesss…. Who brought up pedophilia?????????

It’s odd that the first thought they have is that an obsession with kids is automatically sexual.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s odd that the first thought they have is that an obsession with kids is automatically sexual.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

They do seem to be obsessed with underage kids.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Something about 15 year old girls that sends them into either a state of arousal or anger.

This is how the conversation went.

I replied to it with something actually relevant to federal politics.

[The Fonz]

It’s fine, as long as we stay consistent with this kind of retort as being an acceptable response to a post/opinion you view as stupid.

Surely there won’t be any screams when I use this same tactic?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Aside: What the hell, man? What part of what I said implied a racial component? Why would that even enter into your mind, never mind be the first conclusion you jump to?

It came about because of the context of the conversation I was having. I think disliking Richmond is fine. Calling it a dump after a poster implies it being designated as acknowledged unceded territory will somehow suddenly make it worse is why I felt compelled to respond the way I did. Don't know you well enough to know which way that joke was meant to be taken, so I asked. You were essentially just caught in the wake of the previous ####ty comment, so I apologize for misunderstanding.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

It’s fine, as long as we stay consistent with this kind of retort as being an acceptable response to a post/opinion you view as stupid.

Surely there won’t be any screams when I use this same tactic?

Yeah it’ll be brand new that’s for sure!!!!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It came about because of the context of the conversation I was having. I think disliking Richmond is fine. Calling it a dump after a poster implies it being designated as acknowledged unceded territory will somehow suddenly make it worse is why I felt compelled to respond the way I did. Don't know you well enough to know which way that joke was meant to be taken, so I asked. You were essentially just caught in the wake of the previous ####ty comment, so I apologize for misunderstanding.

Apology accepted. I've been here long enough (2010!) that I'd hope it was known that I'm not that sort of person.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

It’s fine, as long as we stay consistent with this kind of retort as being an acceptable response to a post/opinion you view as stupid.

Surely there won’t be any screams when I use this same tactic?

Why is an obsession with a teenage girl activist with autism inherently sexual to you?

Do you think Conservatives that obsess over the bodies and body rights of pre-pubescent and pubescent children are also doing so in a way that is inherently sexual?

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

It’s fine, as long as we stay consistent with this kind of retort as being an acceptable response to a post/opinion you view as stupid.

Surely there won’t be any screams when I use this same tactic?

You're excellent at being a victim

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

PLEASE shoot down the budget and have another election for Boxing Day!!!

As hilarious as it would be to see PP get demolished again, which is exactly how it would play out at this point… I don’t think anyone wants another election right now, particularly the CPC, NDP, or the Canadian public in general. If I were a betting man, I’d say we’re likely to see a couple of abstentions which will allow the budget to pass. I’m also guessing that May will cave and vote in favour.

[Locke]

Solid work CBSA. Solid work.

A prominent academic and former UN special rapporteur says he was detained by customs agents in Toronto while on his way to speak at a conference on human rights violations against Palestinians.

Richard Falk, a retired Princeton University professor who was a special rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, was on his way to Ottawa to speak at the Palestine Tribunal on Canadian Responsibility on Friday and Saturday.

But upon arriving at customs at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport on Thursday with his wife, he says border agents took their passports and led them to an interview room.

He said border agents told him they needed to determine whether he and his wife were a national security threat to Canada.

“That never happened to me in my long life,” said Falk. Thursday also happened to be his 95th birthday, he said.

“It's disappointing that Canada — after having acknowledged Palestinian statehood — would take such a hostile attitude toward a very forthright conference that really explained to a public, that hasn't been so well-informed, the nature of the objections to what Israel has been doing,” he said.

“One expects Canada to be a model of free speech and liberal democracy and it's not as bad as the U.S., but it's not as good as I would hope.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/richa...ence-9.6980514

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by direwolf

As hilarious as it would be to see PP get demolished again, which is exactly how it would play out at this point… I don’t think anyone wants another election right now, particularly the CPC, NDP, or the Canadian public in general. If I were a betting man, I’d say we’re likely to see a couple of abstentions which will allow the budget to pass. I’m also guessing that May will cave and vote in favour.

Oh for sure the NDP will abstain. They would be blown into smithereens if they went into another election.

It would make is so much easier to give Carney a majority though.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

By “them” you must mean the Liberal party and those who support it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sup...aphy-9.6961728


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/arti...d-pornography/

Since demographically by almost every measure there is more overlap in the circles of a conservative and child-predator venn diagram than a liberal. More men are conservatives, more people of visible majority, more religious people.... and all of the same are true of predators. That you are evoking this topic to distract from something else.

I'll make one comment about the point made in these articles not related to the obvious distraction. I think in every instance that the notwithstanding clause has ever been used or mused about, it would have been better if it required a supermajority in the 65%-70%, just like Peter Lougheed would have wanted.

Also conservatives should back off the culture wars and come up with a salient economic plan, then maybe they could be seen as a viable option in Canada. Sometimes we really could use a viable conservative option, rather than having to backdoor a conservative economist into the job, by making him leader of the liberals. Conversations that aren't about that should not really move the needle for the overall political landscape.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by #-3

Since demographically by almost every measure there is more overlap in the circles of a conservative and child-predator venn diagram than a liberal. More men are conservatives, more people of visible majority, more religious people.... and all of the same are true of predators. That you are evoking this topic to distract from something else.

I'll make one comment about the point made in these articles not related to the obvious distraction. I think in every instance that the notwithstanding clause has ever been used or mused about, it would have been better if it required a supermajority in the 65%-70%, just like Peter Lougheed would have wanted.

Also conservatives should back off the culture wars and come up with a salient economic plan, then maybe they could be seen as a viable option in Canada. Sometimes we really could use a viable conservative option, rather than having to backdoor a conservative economist into the job, by making him leader of the liberals. Conversations that aren't about that should not really move the needle for the overall political landscape.

I would have been happy with the notwithstanding clause used in this case.

No brainer.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why is an obsession with a teenage girl activist with autism inherently sexual to you?

You’re a funny man. Remind me a lot of Bill Cosby, for more reasons than just the humour.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by BigThief

You're excellent at being a victim

I feel pretty good, dare I say great. Not victimized at all.

Stop projecting onto me.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I would have been happy with the notwithstanding clause used in this case.

No brainer.

Why? To overrule a law for mandatory minimums? This doesn't give criminals any freedom, or shorter sentences, or anything like that. It just gives the decision back to judges, who still have other sentencing guidelines to follow. Essentially by supporting it you are saying you have no faith in our justice system to handle criminals on a case by case basis and that the law is so wrong it must be forced. The justice system must be broken, right? Is our country broken and needs Pierre to save it by overriding charter rights? I guess he must know better than the Supreme Court. Why not approach it from a different angle? To me this does not at all call for the notwithstanding clause, because the alternative isn't just letting child predators do whatever they want.


And if you try to call me a pedo for this post, you may as well just ban yourself, because I'll be reporting it immediately.