Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post Reply
Nedroj
Übergod
Posts: 1828
Joined: Apr 10th, 2014, 2:36 pm

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by Nedroj »

1) 10.5 million to known terrorist Omar Khadar - admitted by Trudeau
2) Luxury Vacation paid by Canadian tax dollars - admitted by Trudeau and found to violate Canadian law
3) Big businesses provide 10,000's of jobs/careers and VERY important to keep in Canada
4) Trudeau specifically said that Veterans will never have to fight their country for compensation then prioritizes payment to terrorists over our Vets.
5) Freedom of Speech and basic human biology was essentially thrown out the window by Bill C-16.
6) M103: (Unfortunately I can't find the exact wording but other sources have indicated the following)

a)Condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.
b)Compel the Commons heritage committee to develop a government-wide approach for reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia.

First of all Islam is NOT a Religion and it is not a race. It is a ideology and a violent one at that but I will admit that all religions have horrible pasts including atheists. All the more reason to have them all OPENLY debated and highly criticized.

- A survey published Thursday by the Angus Reid Institute suggests that 42 per cent of Canadians would vote against the m103 motion, while just 29 per cent would vote in favor of it and 29 per cent were not sure or would have abstained.
- Another 31 per cent felt it was a threat to freedom of speech, while 12 per cent believed it would help "reduce anti-Muslim attitudes and discrimination."
- Interestingly — given that M-103 is sponsored by a Liberal MP — support among those who voted Liberal in the 2015 election is rather tepid with just 38 per cent of Liberal voters saying they’d support M-103 versus 33 per cent of Liberal voters who oppose it and 28 per cent with no opinion.

New Democrat voters are the strongest group of supporters with 44 per cent in favour versus 33 per cent opposed.

Those who voted Conservative in 2015 want nothing to do with M-103: 68 per cent of that group would vote down M-103 with just 14 per cent voting in favor.
'I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand' - Confucius
User avatar
justincase
Board Meister
Posts: 366
Joined: Jan 19th, 2009, 12:27 pm

Conservatives picked a dud!

Post by justincase »

Andrew Scheer, leader of the Conservative Party Of Canada and former life insurance salesman is riding around on an infants toy, playing beer pong and telling Canadians he was a drug abuser in college! No wonder it took Andrew 2 tries to complete his BA and then went no further.
Taken from Andrew's Facebook wall- Getting to know Andrew.
https://www.facebook.com/VCBuzz/videos/2197444476963461/
User avatar
CapitalB
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 846
Joined: Nov 14th, 2017, 11:27 am

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by CapitalB »

Nedroj wrote:1) 10.5 million to known terrorist Omar Khadar - admitted by Trudeau Captured by american military at age 15(Child soldier much?), spent the next 12 years at guantanamo(which our intelligence operatives were aware of) illegally detained under no charges and obviously tortured because guantanamo. We paid him because a whole bunch of that violates canadian law and our Supreme Court said we had to. So yeah maybe a brainwashed child soldier that admitted to shooting a soldier in a shoot out after being tortured for a decade: Terrorist? :up:
2) Luxury Vacation paid by Canadian tax dollars - admitted by Trudeau and found to violate Canadian law Obviously not a good move, looks a bit silly next to the other things though doesn't it? Gives money to terrorists, crushes our freedoms, abused government money for a vacation?
3) Big businesses provide 10,000's of jobs/careers and VERY important to keep in Canada And? You just state a thing about the economy as if thats a point. Are you saying he isn't "servicing" the business' enough? Our economy is doing pretty well right now but ok.
4) Trudeau specifically said that Veterans will never have to fight their country for compensation then prioritizes payment to terrorists over our Vets. I don't know if I'd say he prioritizes terrorists, more like he finally finished off a court battle the conservatives had been losing for a really really long time.
5) Freedom of Speech and basic human biology was essentially thrown out the window by Bill C-16. You mean this C-16 the bill that restricts your freedom to publically hate trans people? Oh no your poor liberties are being restricted. Yeah right.
6) M103: (Unfortunately I can't find the exact wording but other sources have indicated the following)

a)Condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.
b)Compel the Commons heritage committee to develop a government-wide approach for reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia. The including part means its talking about all systemic racism and religious discrimination PLUS islamophobia not just islamophobia.

First of all Islam is NOT a ReligionIt is. and it is not a race. It is an ideologyit is this to because they aren't mutually exclusive concepts. and a violent one at that but I will admit that all religions have horrible pasts including atheistsAtheists doing horrible things, absolutely.
They are human beings. Atheists doing horrible things in the name of atheism? Not so much.
. All the more reason to have them all OPENLY debated and highly criticizedAbsolutely..

- A survey published Thursday by the Angus Reid Institute suggests that 42 per cent of Canadians would vote against the m103 motionBecause people clearly only see one word on the bill and totally ignore everything else it contains, while just 29 per cent would vote in favor of it and 29 per cent were not sure or would have abstained. Smart people who aren't informed on a subject, know it, and choose not to react ignorantly about it
- Another 31 per cent felt it was a threat to freedom of hatespeech, while 12 per cent believed it would help "reduce anti-Muslim attitudes and discrimination."
- Interestingly — given that M-103 is sponsored by a Liberal MP — support among those who voted Liberal in the 2015 election is rather tepid with just 38 per cent of Liberal voters saying they’d support M-103 versus 33 per cent of Liberal voters who oppose it and 28 per cent with no opinion.doesn't matter, its a stupid issue created by people that want to defend their ability to discriminate against people for a thing. I discriminate against your right to discriminate.

New Democrat voters are the strongest group of supporters with 44 per cent in favour versus 33 per cent opposed.

Those who voted Conservative in 2015 want nothing to do with M-103: 68 per cent of that group would vote down M-103 with just 14 per cent voting in favor.Sounds about right.
So much of the violent push-back on everything progressive and reformist comes down to: I can see the future, and in this future I am not the centre of the universe and master of all that I survey, therefore this future must be resisted at all costs.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 84759
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by The Green Barbarian »

CapitalB wrote:
The UNRWA is not a terrorist organization, and they don't support terrorist organizations.


Not completely false. They are not a terrorist organization, but their funds and materlals are used by terrorist scumbag organizations like Hamas. Like when they took a whole bunch of cement they were given by UNRWA and used it to build terror tunnels into Israel rather than schools and hospitals as intended. And the dumb dumb liberal media just looked the other way, as usual. SO FREAKING STUPID.

I guess you could try to blanket label all palestinians as terrorists,


You could, but that would be stupid. Better to blanket them as they are, political pawns being used by the half-wit left as "victims".

or make the argument that some of their humanitarian works may have helped terrorists


Like using cement destined for schools and hospitals for terror tunnels. Like that.

but thats either racist, religious discrimination, or just a bad argument.


Actually, it's none of those things, but thanks for turning on the spin machine and using the same kind of method of debate that got Donald Trump elected, ie - if you don't believe my distorted and downright insane version of the "truth", then you are a racist. Such a load of crap. Just total crap.

So ohh no our government gave money to a humanitarian group that helps people without judging them for the actions of other people in their country.


you are right, when it comes to not judging Hamas for being terrorist scumbags, UNRWA gets a gold star. Good job enabling pure evil guys!!

I guess you can try calling HAMAS a terrorist group but they mostly seem to be trying to position themselves as the sovereign government of the palestinians.


You guess you can try calling scumbags "scumbags"? Really? They are trying to position themselves in the same spot as Fatah and the PLO, in that they can suck the well-meaning yet stupid West into funneling billions into their Swiss bank accounts. Which is why the "election" of Hamas was such a farce. Ask yourself this - why did Yassar Arafat die with billions of dollars in foreign bank accounts? Did he just win the Israeli lottery a few thousand times? Give your head a shake. You've bought into a completely false version of actual events, and you look really naïve and silly.

Which causes obvious problems since palestine is under martial law, trade and travel sanctions, etc which is run by the authoritarian israely government.


Yes, the "authoritarian" Israeli government that gave up the Gaza strip even though they didn't have to, and were then subjected to mass suicide bombings due to intafadas, most of which were coming from Gaza. Your version of events is just so distorted, wrong, and dumb. It really reflects poorly on your argument.

Thats an ugly quagmire full of antisemitism, islamophobia, and broken politics.


Islamaphobia is a completely invented word, but AntiSemitism is not. There is a lot of anti-Semitism at the UN level, and it's good to hear you admit it.

Kadhr was captured when he was 15 and tortured for a decade breaking a number of national and international laws. This whole line of discussion is totally blatantly ignorant and people need to stop bringing it up.


I agree 100%. Those in favor of paying a murdering terrorist 10.5 million in secret to avoid having most of it claimed by his victim's widow really need to stop bringing up their support for this clown as they do look blatantly ignorant, and just plain horrble. So sickening how anyone could get behind Khadr's pay-out. And sad.
Last edited by The Green Barbarian on Feb 14th, 2018, 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The woke narcissists who make up the progressive left are characterized by an absolute lack of such conscience, but are experts at exploiting its presence in others." - Jordan Peterson
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 84759
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by The Green Barbarian »

CapitalB wrote: illegally detained under no charges and obviously tortured because guantanamo.


Tortured because Guantanamo? Do you know how dumb that sounds? And he wasn't illegally detained. He killed a US soldier. He was a prisoner of war. He should have been left to die, but instead his life was saved by the US military, a fact that the brainless left never mentions.

We paid him because a whole bunch of that violates canadian law and our Supreme Court said we had to


No, "we' (ugh I hate using "we' in this context as it doesn't include "me") paid him because we are idiots. End of story. No one had to pay anything. He was repatriated to a country that he and his family were using as a country of convenience to launch terror attacks from. Great job Canada - the number one landing spot for terrorist scumbags.
"The woke narcissists who make up the progressive left are characterized by an absolute lack of such conscience, but are experts at exploiting its presence in others." - Jordan Peterson
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 40046
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Conservatives picked a dud!

Post by Glacier »

Wow, playing beer pong of all things! I would NEVER want to ever associate with anyone who has ever played beer pong before, let alone be Prime Minister. I know for a FACT that none of you have EVER played beer pong.

So it looks like our options are to choose between a guy who likes beer pong and a guy who likes his reefer bong.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
User avatar
justincase
Board Meister
Posts: 366
Joined: Jan 19th, 2009, 12:27 pm

Re: Conservatives picked a dud!

Post by justincase »

Actually, if you spend a second and watch Andrew's video it clearly states he's the one playing reefer bong!
1) People forget conservatives used to be fiscally conservative. After harper, they have become fiscally liberal and socially racist. Fascism is the only thing they wish to conserve.
HorganIsMyHero
Board Meister
Posts: 448
Joined: Aug 5th, 2017, 2:49 pm

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by HorganIsMyHero »

The Green Barbarian wrote:No, "we' (ugh I hate using "we' in this context as it doesn't include "me") paid him because we are idiots. End of story. No one had to pay anything.


The payment would have been a lot less if Harper had done his job properly.
hobbyguy
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 15046
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by hobbyguy »

Glacier wrote:Hobbyguy, your bigotry and hatred are blinding you. You make sense criticizing the NDP provincially for their reckless spending, but for some odd reason, you love Trudeau for doing the same and worse. Sheer could be promising to be the biggest cutter of spending ever, and you'd still be saying how the Conservatives just want to spend like drunken sailors. I think the reason for this is that you hate Harper (and I can't blame you either, so most of us were sick of him), but this weird obsession with Harper and his record is getting old. It's like how people on the right like to keep bringing up the sins of the 1990s NDP or how people on the left don't like the BC Liberal's new leader because of hatred of Gordon Campbell or Christy Clark.

Every politician stands on their own, and they are not responsible for past failings of the party. What I'm reading from your posts is that Sheer is a dud because he hasn't disavowed Harper strong enough for your liking.

P.S. In my opinion, it's too early to say whether or not the Conservatives picked a dud. Most governments defeat themselves, so his fortunes are probably more determined by Trudeau's perform than whether or not he's a dud.


Actually, my distaste for the federal Conservatives evolved as the federal Conservatives moved from a party that was FOR things to a party that was AGAINST things, and simply became peanut chuckers ( a la Skippy Poilievre) and negatively divisive. There is a reason that the "red tories" abandoned the Conservative party, and I think that negativity and move away from forward looking policy is a big part of it.

There is nothing other than fact in the record of the last two Conservative governments on fiscal matters. Both the Mulroney and Harper governments ran a LOT of deficits, and Mulroney in particular. It is therefore highly disingenuous for Conservatives to speak of deficits and complain.

In fact, I find the Conservative rhetoric on this to be counter productive. By and large, Canadians want more services, and those that I converse with are prepared to pay some more taxes (not a lot) to pay for them. But, the Conservative approach would be to yammer on about Reaganesque nonsense if such moves were made - or at least that appears to be the case.

IF, for example, Canadians want full tilt pharmacare, and a tax proposal to pay for it is put forward, AND they are willing to accept the package, should not the government proceed? The current crop of Conservatives would be howling at the moon and chucking peanuts as fast as they could.

I am firmly against the silly NDP (and especially BC NDP) vote pandering rhetoric of "you can have everything you want for free". But I am also firmly against the Conservative anti-government rhetoric that boils down to "you can't have it, even if you are prepared to pay for it". Between those two positions, which I see as too far left on side, and too far right on the other, the end result is paralysis and permanent mediocrity.

That's why I don't like politicians who are quick to criticize, and offer no alternative direction/suggestions.

Oddly enough, it is one of the things I like about Dan Albas, he usually (not always) lays out an alternative path/choice if he is criticizing - in other words, he offers constructive criticism.

Isn't that what being in opposition should be about? Not chucking peanuts, but offering constructive criticism. ( And yes, the Liberals have been guilty of chucking peanuts too, we should not accept that from any politician, we are paying them to do a job, not play games.)
The middle path - everything in moderation, and everything in its time and order.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 40046
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by Glacier »

hobbyguy wrote:There is nothing other than fact in the record of the last two Conservative governments on fiscal matters. Both the Mulroney and Harper governments ran a LOT of deficits, and Mulroney in particular. It is therefore highly disingenuous for Conservatives to speak of deficits and complain.


I appreciate what you said. It's like every time there's a new shooting, and critics scream about doing something, but don't offer solutions. Conservatives are not very good at offering solutions to complex problems sometimes. The part I don't agree with is the quoted paragraph here. First of all, Mulroney was before my time, and since Scheer is my age, before his too. It's not his doing or his problem. Mulroney screwed up bad, although, much of the fiscal mess was the result of Trudeau the first. Chretien is good, and we agree that he fixed the mess.

When it comes to Harper, he was not running against Chretien. He was running against Liberals who were promising FAR more spending and fiscal deficits and waste than Chretien or Harper. Relative to Trudeau, he was far more fiscally prudent. A lot of conservatives were not happy about the deficits, but hey voted for Harper anyway because the alternative was even bigger deficits. Harper's failings in the end were not fiscal (I can't think of a single person who voted against Harper because he was too lose with the money strings), but of controlling politicians and the media and questionable ethics (Duffy affair, etc.).
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
hobbyguy
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 15046
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by hobbyguy »

Glacier wrote:
hobbyguy wrote:There is nothing other than fact in the record of the last two Conservative governments on fiscal matters. Both the Mulroney and Harper governments ran a LOT of deficits, and Mulroney in particular. It is therefore highly disingenuous for Conservatives to speak of deficits and complain.


I appreciate what you said. It's like every time there's a new shooting, and critics scream about doing something, but don't offer solutions. Conservatives are not very good at offering solutions to complex problems sometimes. The part I don't agree with is the quoted paragraph here. First of all, Mulroney was before my time, and since Scheer is my age, before his too. It's not his doing or his problem. Mulroney screwed up bad, although, much of the fiscal mess was the result of Trudeau the first. Chretien is good, and we agree that he fixed the mess.

When it comes to Harper, he was not running against Chretien. He was running against Liberals who were promising FAR more spending and fiscal deficits and waste than Chretien or Harper. Relative to Trudeau, he was far more fiscally prudent. A lot of conservatives were not happy about the deficits, but hey voted for Harper anyway because the alternative was even bigger deficits. Harper's failings in the end were not fiscal (I can't think of a single person who voted against Harper because he was too lose with the money strings), but of controlling politicians and the media and questionable ethics (Duffy affair, etc.).


We agree on a number of things. I could not vote for the Stephane Dion approach, nor the Ignatieff approach. Harper was ok when he had a strong character like Jim Flaherty to keep him balanced. Chretien would not have succeeded without Paul Martin.

Harper's failing, in the end, was economic, in that his economic policies were far too narrow regionally, and confrontational (which in part is at Joe Oliver's feet).

But that is where the leadership of Scheer is questionable, he isn't giving folks anything to vote FOR, and Skippy as his right hand man doesn't help. Skippy is just the ultimate peanut chucker.

I think Lisa Raitt would have been a far better choice.
The middle path - everything in moderation, and everything in its time and order.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 84759
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by The Green Barbarian »

HorganIsMyHero wrote:
The payment would have been a lot less if Harper had done his job properly.


and the payment would have been zero if Trudeau had done his job properly.
"The woke narcissists who make up the progressive left are characterized by an absolute lack of such conscience, but are experts at exploiting its presence in others." - Jordan Peterson
Nedroj
Übergod
Posts: 1828
Joined: Apr 10th, 2014, 2:36 pm

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by Nedroj »

[quote="CapitalB"][quote="Nedroj"]1) 10.5 million to known terrorist Omar Khadar - admitted by Trudeau Captured by american military at age 15(Child soldier much?), spent the next 12 years at guantanamo(which our intelligence operatives were aware of) illegally detained under no charges and obviously tortured because guantanamo. We paid him because a whole bunch of that violates canadian law and our Supreme Court said we had to. So yeah maybe a brainwashed child soldier that admitted to shooting a soldier in a shoot out after being tortured for a decade: Terrorist? :up:

He was caught fighting for terrorists and killed american soldiers, so america did with him what they do will all terrorists they caught, sent them to the bay for interrogation. i dont care if he was 15 or 50 he is a terrorist and should have any information extracted forcibly. He should be lucky they didnt executed him.

2) Luxury Vacation paid by Canadian tax dollars - admitted by Trudeau and found to violate Canadian law Obviously not a good move, looks a bit silly next to the other things though doesn't it? Gives money to terrorists, crushes our freedoms, abused government money for a vacation?

Yes it was only a mere few dollars (sarcasm)but that money could have be put towards something better than our celebrity prime ministers vacation. like dying children having one last wish or maybe start a fund to put towards post secondary education for a single father or mother living in poverty. You know the old saying "teach a man how to fish and you'll feed him for life" there are so many ways this money could have actually helped down and out Canadians.

3) Big businesses provide 10,000's of jobs/careers and VERY important to keep in Canada And? You just state a thing about the economy as if thats a point. Are you saying he isn't "servicing" the business' enough? Our economy is doing pretty well right now but ok.

No im not saying he isnt "servicing" them enough. you stated that big businesses are greedy and im saying that they employ such a huge population of Canada that raising taxes on them would only hurt our economy and our unemployed rate. Yes our economy is doing alright but not because of anything trudeau has done.

4) Trudeau specifically said that Veterans will never have to fight their country for compensation then prioritizes payment to terrorists over our Vets. I don't know if I'd say he prioritizes terrorists, more like he finally finished off a court battle the conservatives had been losing for a really really long time.

So you are "OK" with Trudeau taking our vets to court to prevent them from being fairly compensated but you are all for Trudeau NOT taking a terrorist to court so that he DOESNT get millions of our tax dollars? If you ask me Trudeau has his priorities backwards.

5) Freedom of Speech and basic human biology was essentially thrown out the window by Bill C-16. You mean this C-16 the bill that restricts your freedom to publically hate trans people? Oh no your poor liberties are being restricted. Yeah right.

The issue isnt with the trans people. I dont care what people identify as. i do have an issue with being forced to refer to people with the 30+ fictional pronouns that dont even look or sound like anything from the English language. there is something morally wrong with compelled speech laws. and yes it does restrict my freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I think all religions are completely false and are just a 1,000 year old method of controlling the population with fear from an imaginary "god" in the sky. I believe we evolved from single celled organisms to the complex society we have now.

6) M103: (Unfortunately I can't find the exact wording but other sources have indicated the following)

Lets look at the definition of Islamophobia shall we?
"Islamophobia is a rational fear or criticism of, or logically against, the Islamic religion."

A RATIONAL FEAR or CRITICISM of, or LOGICALLY AGAINST the islamic religion.
Seen as how Islam calls for the death penalty for numerous crimes including being gay, stealing, criticizing muhammed, alah or the quran, leaving the islamic faith, leading others away from the islamic faith, committing adultery, (apparently marrying/having sex with a 9 year old is ok) etc. but my point is I CANT CRITICIZE ISLAM openly in a debate without possibly breaking m103. I can however criticize any other religious faith without breaking laws. Although i might be sued by tom cruise if i publicly criticize Scientology.
'I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand' - Confucius
User avatar
justincase
Board Meister
Posts: 366
Joined: Jan 19th, 2009, 12:27 pm

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by justincase »

LET'S GET THE FACTS CORRECT, RHETORIC ASIDE
- Omar never killed anyone, in fact, evidence shows that it would have been impossible for Omar to have thrown the IED that killed Chris Speer

- Justin Trudeau vacationed with an old family friend.The Lapdog conservative appointed ethics commissioner Mary Dawson, ruled that the Aga Khan was not Justin's friend since there had been no contact between them since his father's death. Do you have any old family friends that you haven't seen in 20 years? The ethics rules clearly state that gifts from family or friends do not have to be declared! (there is no legal definition of friend in the rules.)
-Ethics rule----- Part 2) Public declaration — gifts
25(5) If a reporting public office holder or a member of his or her family accepts any single gift or other advantage that has a value of $200 or more, other than one from a relative or friend, the reporting public office holder shall, within 30 days after accepting the gift or other advantage, make a public declaration that provides sufficient detail to identify the gift or other advantage accepted, the donor and the circumstances under which it was accepted.
Lapdog Mary Dawson refuses to investigate ANY of the Conservative Cabal's obvious ethics violations

http://democracywatch.ca/ethics-commiss ... lear-case/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... le4487715/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/po ... e37517088/

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/is-trudeaus-e ... 06926.html

https://ipolitics.ca/2015/03/12/the-con ... t-go-away/


- Trudeau never prioritized Veterans over maintaining our Constitutional rights, both are of equal value. That being said, Justin Trudeau has allocated $10 billion (Ten thousand million dollars) in brand new spending for the veterans. Justin reopened the 9 scuttled VA offices, plus an additional office to help with overflow from the back up left over from the Conservatives mismanagement, They have restored the lifetime pension option plus a host of educational retraining and rehabilitation commitments. The Veterans still want more. I say No, the rest of Canada says no....ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Many other priorities need monies too, like seniors, and our military needs new jets and boats!

- Hate speech is not free speech, even if you are allowed to say it, people get hurt when people say it.
1) People forget conservatives used to be fiscally conservative. After harper, they have become fiscally liberal and socially racist. Fascism is the only thing they wish to conserve.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 40046
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Did the Conservatives pick a Dud?

Post by Glacier »

justincase wrote: LET'S GET THE FACTS CORRECT, RHETORIC ASIDE
- Omar never killed anyone, in fact, evidence shows that it would have been impossible for Omar to have thrown the IED that killed Chris Speer

That's not what the military judge ruled in the case.

Also, what do you mean by "hate speech"? I have a friend I've been arguing with over this for the past week. He basically says that All new atheists (Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc.) and Islamic critics of any religious stripe including even some Muslims are all guilty of hate speech because it's bigoted to say anything other than "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam."
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
Post Reply

Return to “Canada”