You are still going on and pretend an article calling Poilievre a fascist comparable to Hitler and Mussolini (but not exactly like them, since that would be tooooo extreme ) is a legitimate point of discussion, even after it was revealed it was written by a commie using commie perspective? I guess I didn't get my point across. Maybe this will?
That you had to use quotes on "far left" and it's later revealed it was written by a full blown commie sympathetic to the CCCP and still decide to continue does that mean you...
Are you using commie rhetoric ?
This bring us to this question. How and why did you find that article so quickly as a rebuttal to Cowboy89's genuine statement about fascist parties in Canada to counter your own false assertation? You never even bothered to consider the source? It appears you have a specific viewpoint and chose to find ways to affirm your point of view no matter the source versus having an informed point of reference.
How is that any different from 10 minute city folks? It's just another extremist view. What is there to debate here?
Do you understand that some facts continue to be facts no matter who wrote them? Is it not a fact that PP is leveraging populism for votes and saying one thing and doing another, as presented by the FACTS in that article? Is that not also a feature of facists?
And ya, I did consider the source, looked up who they were, then read the article again because of that, and you know what? It didn't matter. Because what was written is true. So if you have such a problem with commies writing articles, maybe you could actually point to false facts presented? or is it just easier to jump up and down like you've achieved something?
Since you seem incapable of actually tackling anything with any substance, why don't I get you started with a paragraph that captures his own words, and what I see are some fair points.
Quote:
It has been well reported in Canada’s left-of-centre press that Poilievre has disingenuously been attempting to appeal to the country’s working class. One of his main rhetorical strategies is to lament Canada’s woes, propose half-baked solutions, and then act as though he has solved the problem. Inflation, one of the big issues facing Canadians today, has been a hot topic for the Conservative leader. During the inflationary crisis of the past year, Poilievre repeatedly spoke about how Canada ought to nail down this problem. He claimed to be speaking for the working and middle classes, which were suffering from this economic crisis; however, his solutions are anything but friendly to Canadian workers. Cuts to welfare and social services, though they might decrease inflation, would only shift the economic problems that Canadians have been facing to other areas. Although grocery prices might return to a lower baseline, vital public services would be fewer and more expensive.
What do you strongly disagree with that was written by this commy scum?
And I found it with a quick Google search, just to head off any accusations I'm part of an underground Canada commie ring with access to newsletters and red paint.
I assumed that a prohibition like this would also be qualified by something like "if incorrect or misleading". It does not. That's bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
This is almost word for word a copy of the same regulations that apply to Tobacco.
The NDP are basically comparing Fossil Fuels to Tobacco in regards to the risks.
Good, we need to jail the disgusting people who posted about vaping as some nonsense option to smoking. Fine those monsters that might prescribe patches or other medically and scientifically researched routes. Disgusting doctors.
Though maybe this banana republic nonsense about forbidding scientific discussion about energy options means we start jailing moms posting on social media about their kids and vacations that involved a car or a plane it'll be worth it. Jail these disgusting people talking about furnaces or the monsters fixing or installing them in your home.
And the enviromental rapists destroying planet with their travels to visit family for the holidays. $500,000 fine for posting Christmas pictures promoting such vile usage of fossil fuels. Or better yet, jail.
Do you understand that some facts continue to be facts no matter who wrote them? Is it not a fact that PP is leveraging populism for votes and saying one thing and doing another, as presented by the FACTS in that article? Is that not also a feature of facists?
The bolded lies the entirety of your problem, and why your viewpoint (and other usuals) is nonsensical and why you are constantly running into a fallacy.
Populism != fascism. Fascism can include populism as a strategy. Populism is a tool. Jean-Luc Melenchon from La France Insoumise for example is seen as a populist-left party.
Populism: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Poilievre is guilty of using populist rhetoric. Giving citizens what they want to hear and stoking the flames of angry Canadians at times. I recall one individual preaching for election reform, open and transparent government, ending unfair tax breaks, affordable housing. I wonder what came of it and what that type of leveraging would be called?
All you have provided is that Poilievre uses populist rethoric, and that fascists have also used populism in the past. It takes an enormous stretch to go from there to "Poilievre is a fascist" and why your google search failed to yield mainstream results and landed you in commie land.
Quote:
And I found it with a quick Google search, just to head off any accusations I'm part of an underground Canada commie ring with access to newsletters and red paint.
Thanks for confirming, I was getting worried there the way you were going. .
Pretty uninspiring extremely dubious results. You didn't click and link the "The dangerous rise of Pierre Poilievre" from Spring Magazine? That's why having a prejudiced and extreme politically fueled viewpoint is bad and gets you in trouble.
Oh probably. But he’d have to engineer a dramatic turnaround in Liberal fortunes to win an election. Otherwise he’d be tarred with the same brush as the rest of Trudeau’s circle and his political career would be over before it started. And I don’t get the sense the Canadian voting public is in the mood for an establishment technocrat at the moment. Better to keep his powder dry and build up his profile in opposition.
Both Scheer and O'Toole had big leads against Turdeau before the election. how did that turn out?
__________________ Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
Both Scheer and O'Toole had big leads against Turdeau before the election. how did that turn out?
I don't think they had as big of leads as you think they did.. some polls had them push 6-8% lead, but they were mostly "one ofs". The polls are showing a double digit lead for the CPC for the past 10 months.. there really is going to have to be something dramatic to shift the direction now.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
The bolded lies the entirety of your problem, and why your viewpoint (and other usuals) is nonsensical and why you are constantly running into a fallacy.
Populism != fascism. Fascism can include populism as a strategy. Populism is a tool. Jean-Luc Melenchon from La France Insoumise for example is seen as a populist-left party.
Populism: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Poilievre is guilty of using populist rhetoric. Giving citizens what they want to hear and stoking the flames of angry Canadians at times. I recall one individual preaching for election reform, open and transparent government, ending unfair tax breaks, affordable housing. I wonder what came of it and what that type of leveraging would be called?
All you have provided is that Poilievre uses populist rethoric, and that fascists have also used populism in the past. It takes an enormous stretch to go from there to "Poilievre is a fascist" and why your google search failed to yield mainstream results and landed you in commie land.
Thanks for confirming, I was getting worried there the way you were going. .
Pretty uninspiring extremely dubious results. You didn't click and link the "The dangerous rise of Pierre Poilievre" from Spring Magazine? That's why having a prejudiced and extreme politically fueled viewpoint is bad and gets you in trouble.
You've got started, but missed the next step. And that's where he is saying one thing, but his political history is showing otherwise.
A few common traits of facist leaders:
Opposition to Marxism - big check.
Opposition to political and cultural liberalism - that's a check
Conservative economic programs - you may debate this(feel free!) but that's also a check from me
Alleged equality of social status("Rather than attacking upper-class wealth, fascists attacked upper-class snobbism." - yar
The leadership principle - Pierre has said he'd fire the governor of the BoC, so presumably he knows better and wants someone doing his bidding there, so I'm gonna soft check that one.
The “new man”("fascists aimed to transform the ordinary man into the “new man,” a “virile” being who would put decadent bourgeoisie, cerebral Marxists, and “feminine” liberals to shame.") -I think Pierre embodies some of this stuff
Scapegoating - Trudeau! WEF! - check
Populism - big check
I'll stop there, but you get the idea. Feel free to review others on the list! These are facist tendencies, and I think you'd have to be a bit naive to write all of this off. It doesn't make him a facist, but it does help understand who he is.
I don't think they had as big of leads as you think they did.. some polls had them push 6-8% lead, but they were mostly "one ofs". The polls are showing a double digit lead for the CPC for the past 10 months.. there really is going to have to be something dramatic to shift the direction now.
Those were closer to the election than at this point now.
I mean Ontario will have to save us from the Manning Inst Testtube baby. Just run a few ads about how PP will turn CPP into a provincial thing like Alberta and there goes your double digit lead!
I mean it would be a lot easier if piece of kyit Blackface would just resign.
__________________ Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
Fear mongering about future potential maybe governments if they maybe get voted into power. Current actual in power government just ramming this through.
More than 15 civil society groups are urging the justice minister to hive off proposed changes to the Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act from a bill aimed at tackling online harms.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council were among the signatories to an open letter released Tuesday.
One troubling aspect of Bill C-63 is the vast authority bestowed upon a newly established body, comprising government appointees, to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury, and executioner.
Furthermore, the bill’s provisions which include sweeping new search powers of electronic data with no warrant requirement, pose significant threats to privacy rights. The bill provides for unacceptable intrusions into individuals’ digital lives.
Bill C-63 risks censoring a range of expression from journalistic reporting to healthy conversations among youth under 18 about their own sexuality and relationships. The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism. The bill imposes draconian penalties for certain types of expression, including life imprisonment for a very broad and vaguely defined offence of “incitement to genocide”, and 5 years of jail time for other broadly defined speech acts.
The bill also re-introduces a speech restriction within the Canadian Human Rights Act, which CCLA has previously opposed. The new provision has the potential to censor strong opposition to political authorities.
The Following User Says Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
Good, we need to jail the disgusting people who posted about vaping as some nonsense option to smoking. Fine those monsters that might prescribe patches or other medically and scientifically researched routes. Disgusting doctors.
Though maybe this banana republic nonsense about forbidding scientific discussion about energy options means we start jailing moms posting on social media about their kids and vacations that involved a car or a plane it'll be worth it. Jail these disgusting people talking about furnaces or the monsters fixing or installing them in your home.
And the enviromental rapists destroying planet with their travels to visit family for the holidays. $500,000 fine for posting Christmas pictures promoting such vile usage of fossil fuels. Or better yet, jail.
Ahhhhhh, now I see why PP thinks he's a normal dude.
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
In power Canadian government proposing bills with life imprisonment for online posts they don't like without the need for warrants. But loosing bail restrictions for actual criminals.
In 2022, there were 256 people charged with homicide while on some kind of release, including house arrest and parole. With 874 homicides in 2022, the 256 people charged while on release would equate to 29% of all homicides.
“The Liberals have to know that bail is a problem, and they’re doing so little about it,” Caputo said.
In 2019, there were 182 people charged with homicide while on release; in 2020, the total was 198; in 2021, there were 171; and in 2022, the number came in at 256. Caputo calls it part of a disturbing trend of this government.
Under Bill C-75, judges and justices of the peace were instructed by changes to federal law to practice restraint on the matter of bail. The changes specifically said that those considering the case should, “give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances.”
Under intense pressure from the opposition and provincial governments across the country, the Trudeau Liberals agreed to toughen up bail but only for the most serious violent, repeat offenders. That means the vast majority of people proceeding through the system still receive release at the earliest possible time with the least onerous conditions.
British Columbia's premier says the province worked with the federal government to change its bail rules, so he is not sure why a man with a long and violent criminal history was released from jail weeks before the stabbing death of a woman in her Surrey, B.C., home.
David Eby called the murder "horrific," saying the reformed federal rules should have prevented Adam Mann's release.
"This never should have happened," Eby said on Tuesday.
"It's just awful, and understanding why it didn't work in the Dunn case will help us protect other families going forward," he added, referring to the bail rules.
Fear mongering about future potential maybe governments if they maybe get voted into power. Current actual in power government just ramming this through.
More than 15 civil society groups are urging the justice minister to hive off proposed changes to the Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act from a bill aimed at tackling online harms.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council were among the signatories to an open letter released Tuesday.
One troubling aspect of Bill C-63 is the vast authority bestowed upon a newly established body, comprising government appointees, to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury, and executioner.
Furthermore, the bill’s provisions which include sweeping new search powers of electronic data with no warrant requirement, pose significant threats to privacy rights. The bill provides for unacceptable intrusions into individuals’ digital lives.
Bill C-63 risks censoring a range of expression from journalistic reporting to healthy conversations among youth under 18 about their own sexuality and relationships. The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism. The bill imposes draconian penalties for certain types of expression, including life imprisonment for a very broad and vaguely defined offence of “incitement to genocide”, and 5 years of jail time for other broadly defined speech acts.
The bill also re-introduces a speech restriction within the Canadian Human Rights Act, which CCLA has previously opposed. The new provision has the potential to censor strong opposition to political authorities.
I haven't dug into this bill yet, but a couple of questions. First, how is the government "ramming this through"? What does that mean (especially in the context of a majority government)?
Second, I think you should take the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's position with a grain of salt. I've had a couple of legal battles with it. Its an legitimate and important organization, but it views problems through only one very narrow (important but very narrow) lens.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
From the second linked news article. All those civil society unions, various lawyers and opponents asked them to carve out the justice and human rights section from the bill and create a separate piece of legislation in order to address the concerns. They refused and have tabled regardless.
From the second linked news article. All those civil society unions, various lawyers and opponents asked them to carve out the justice and human rights section from the bill and create a separate piece of legislation in order to address the concerns. They refused and have tabled regardless.
Yeah, well, they're the government. That's their prerogative. And they can't make everyone happy. I'm not outraged.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
How many actual Marxists are there in this country? Are Marxist ideas any threat to any Canadian values?
Communists. Is there anything wrong with being a communist? Is a a communist less valuable than a trans person or a lesbian or a member of a visible minority? I don't get it.
And party politics? Please. Let's get serious. This is Canada. We are due a new government after a decade of Liberal governments. But don't kid yourself. It isn't because of anything other than the normal cycle of Canadian Federal politics. 10 years of Liberals followed by a short Conservative run. For most of our history it's the same pattern. Guess what? Not a big difference between the two parties. Certainly not worth getting in a twist over.
There's an inordinate amount of froth about irrelevant things. Must be a heat wave or something.
You are still going on and pretend an article calling Poilievre a fascist comparable to Hitler and Mussolini (but not exactly like them, since that would be tooooo extreme 
) is a legitimate point of discussion, even after it was revealed it was written by a commie using commie perspective? I guess I didn't get my point across. Maybe this will?
?
. 
