2022 Freedumb Convoy(s) Thread

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

yes, wouldn't want to set a precedent talking to protestors that way.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/us/ju...rnd/index.html

Not taking sides, just pointing out hypocrisy.

comparing apples to pineapples

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

comparing apples to pineapples

So, if you agree with a protest it ok, but if you don't it is bad. Got it! My position is that both should be treated the same.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

So, if you agree with a protest it ok, but if you don't it is bad. Got it! My position is that both should be treated the same.

If a hundred neighbors showed up at your door with an effigy of you hanging from a noose, an air horn in his hand constantly blairing, "##### Just a Guy" flags, with the goal of you shutting your furnace off because they don't believe in furnaces, would you invite them in for coffee?

Also nice you see you comnig out of your shell and finally admitting what it is you are all about, instead of all the evasion you used to do. It's good to be honest.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Oops.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1596158105070768128

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ber...-act-1.6663792

Honestly that was a pretty reasonable and cordial phonecall between the two. It's somewhat hopeful that Bergen was playing it up a bit for her base, but her recollection of a phonecall from months ago isn't particularly damaging and fairly accurate.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

So, if you agree with a protest it ok, but if you don't it is bad. Got it! My position is that both should be treated the same.

ugh,

One was about a historical & ongoing injustice

One was about a perceived injustice

Both were broken up by police with individuals being jailed.

By memory, one was broken up a day or two after it started and one was broken up weeks after it started.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

yes, wouldn't want to set a precedent talking to protestors that way.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/us/ju...rnd/index.html

Not taking sides, just pointing out hypocrisy.

Seriously?

You think there is any similarity between showing solidarity for a cause like BLM, and making concessions for people who have shown up to blockade Ottawa, and, among other things, actually came with a Manifesto that was demanding the overthrow of the government?

yeah, both sides....both sides.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

yes, wouldn't want to set a precedent talking to protestors that way.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/us/ju...rnd/index.html

Not taking sides, just pointing out hypocrisy.

Did you read the transcript? Rhetorical question because of course you didn't.

"I'm worried about setting a precedent where if anyone wants something they can set up a blockade on wellington st."

He has no issues with protests, it's blockading urban centers that he was talking about.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If a hundred neighbors showed up at your door with an effigy of you hanging from a noose, an air horn in his hand constantly blairing, "##### Just a Guy" flags, with the goal of you shutting your furnace off because they don't believe in furnaces, would you invite them in for coffee?

Also nice you see you comnig out of your shell and finally admitting what it is you are all about, instead of all the evasion you used to do. It's good to be honest.

Coming out of my shell by stating I wasn't taking sides but don't like hypocrisy. The tunnel vision of people on these threads is amazing. I think Trudeau plays major politics and if he agrees with something he treats it differently. The PM is supposed to represent all of us. but that is just the naive me.

If he had met with these people and just listened to them as he did with the BLM protest it could have been over. Not saying he had to change policy or anything else. If you are going to meet one you should meet the other or neither.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Did you read the transcript? Rhetorical question because of course you didn't.

"I'm worried about setting a precedent where if anyone wants something they can set up a blockade on wellington st."

He has no issues with protests, it's blockading urban centers that he was talking about.

Read it. My point is that he treated one group different than the other. Do you disagree that things could have been different if he treated them the same?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

If you are going to meet one you should meet the other or neither.

Which protest called for the removal of a democratically elected gov't?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Read it. My point is that he treated one group different than the other. Do you disagree that things could have been different if he treated them the same?

One group is fighting for a legitimate and righteous cause. The other is fighting because they’re white and not used to being inconvenienced.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Coming out of my shell by stating I wasn't taking sides but don't like hypocrisy. The tunnel vision of people on these threads is amazing. I think Trudeau plays major politics and if he agrees with something he treats it differently. The PM is supposed to represent all of us. but that is just the naive me.

If he had met with these people and just listened to them as he did with the BLM protest it could have been over. Not saying he had to change policy or anything else. If you are going to meet one you should meet the other or neither.

Are you suggesting the Prime Minister should meet with everyone who has a beef with laws?

Keep in mind what these illegal occupiers were demanding was the removal of health measures that were keeping our medical system from collapsing, and saving lives. They were wanting the PM to do harm to Canadians. That was their demand. Well that, and he step down after being democratically elected.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Which protest called for the removal of a democratically elected gov't?

Which called for defunding the police? Again, not taking sides because that only serves to divide. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Read it. My point is that he treated one group different than the other. Do you disagree that things could have been different if he treated them the same?

Well the two groups were acting very differently.

Treating everyone exactly the same is not the same as treating everyone fairly.

If a kid comes to your door and tries to sell you cookies would you treat them the same as someone who is trying to sell you an alarm system, or someone who is there to yell at you because they don't like your lawn?

Of course you wouldn't and that doesn't make you a hypocrite, it makes you a rational person who assessed what level/type of engagement is reasonable to a given situation.

Let's assume both groups had real grievances, because in their minds they did.

BLM was there asking to be heard, acknowledged, and to start a dialog on how to make positive change to address their goals. They were there to work with people to make change.

The "Convoy" said their stated goal was to illegally kick a sitting government out, and they did that by disrupting the lives of thousands of people who had no say in the matter.

When you come with a reasonable position, and use reasonable methods, and at least try to limit the impact to regular citizens, you will be treated one way.

When you show up with unreasonable demands, and use unreasonable methods to get them, all while explicitly stating you don't care about, and actively antagonize the surrounding citizens, you will be treated very differently because you are not acting in good faith.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Which called for defunding the police? Again, not taking sides because that only serves to divide. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

Do you honestly think these two positions are equivalent?

1) We demand the overthrow of a sitting government because we oppose measures that are supported by a majority of Canadians, and backed up by real science

2) We think Police are deployed in too many situations they are not properly trained for, which is resulting in too many preventable deaths, and would like to see funds diverted to alternative methods of addressing societal issues such as trained mental health and crisis support professionals to attend to non criminal behavior by people who are having drug/mental health issues.

Hell, even if "Defund the police" meant what you think it means, do you think #1 is equivalent to:

2a) Spend less on a specific government service that we think is abusing it's power, resulting in too many innocent deaths.

[terryclancy]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Which called for defunding the police? Again, not taking sides because that only serves to divide. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

JFC, where does CP even find these guys?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Which called for defunding the police? Again, not taking sides because that only serves to divide. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

"The non-picking side", I would just own it. Not meant as bad comment toward you, just my 2 cents. You will deflect, but it reads like you are pro-convoy. So fine, just own it. This "not picking side", "just pointing out the hypocrisy", etc comes across as a bit of a charade...

That said, I'll bite a bit. Putting aside the big picture issues already raised, consider some of the practical considerations:

-Meet with who, exactly? There's already been commentary from some of the more notable convoy individuals that they weren't in charge, or they couldn't organize things, or only certain segments could be met with, etc. I.e. there was, effectively, no one to meet with.

-You are making a major assumption that, even if you could figure out "who" to meet with, that they even wanted to meet. Portions were talking about changing the government via some weird scheme with the Governor-General and Queen for example or through violent means.

-Violence and threat of violence. You think they should be met with when they are calling for people to be hung for treason, etc? Constant vandalism, threats, disrespecting war memorials, etc.

-Public opinion, polls after polls showed that the majority of canadians opposed the the convoy and that people should go home and stop it.

-even though they are dancing around it, it looks like recently even the official opposition had some potential "doubts/quams" of meeting with the convoy.

-disrespect for the residents and businesses in the City of Ottawa. This wasn't a protest for a day or two, or a couple of hours here and there over a week. This was long-term, sustained, etc. You can quibble and say "it was just a few trucks honking their horn the odd time" but you need to look at the reaction most people and businesses in the City of Ottawa were giving at the time of the convoy and after. I mean really, come on?

-hypocrisy. I bet a large portion of convoy were against the measures taken by BLM protestors, etcc, "throw them in jail", "get off my streets", "that's wrong"...yet now instead we don't do that with the convoy? Heck there was even a law passed in Alberta about the supposed protection of critical infrastructure etc.

-conspiracy theories, I mean look at this last bit about the convoy lawyer picking out the wrong guy at the hearing or whatever about some big weird theory. I just.

The list is endless. I just mean, really?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by terryclancy

JFC, where does CP even find these guys?

Sadly they find us.

[Fuzz]

Aw man, I was so looking forward to Lionel Hutz interviewing the PM. Freedom Corp sent up a lady lawyer instead! I'd be really interested why Hutz isn't doing it, he's done every other one.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I agree with Just a Guy.

It's the same reason why I think Bo Jackson is the most overrated athlete in history.

Bo Jackson didn't play against all his opponents the same.

He treated the players on the Detroit Lions *drastically* different than the players on the Chicago White Sox. Like all athletes should be treated the same.