The Lock Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, RupertKBD said: An outright lie....as usual..... .....and as usual, nothing will happen to him. In fact, the more likely scenario is that you get a warning for saying what anyone being accused of something like that would say.... It does get a little tiring when so much misinformation gets spread from people who are clearly stuck in an echo chamber and unable to think for themselves. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The Lock said: It does get a little tiring when so much misinformation gets spread from people who are clearly stuck in an echo chamber and unable to think for themselves. What exactly was the misinformation? PP said he wants to take away the ability for "violent repeat offenders" to receive bail via the NWC. A poster said the following: We have a Charter, but if you don't see how detaining a person without trial isn't a violation of rights I can't help you there. Please explain the misinformation that I posted. Does a rapist and a murderer not fall under the category of "violent offender"? Do you think PP is going to use the NWC on criminals who steal your bike? Edited May 7 by Elias Pettersson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 2 minutes ago, The Lock said: It does get a little tiring when so much misinformation gets spread from people who are clearly stuck in an echo chamber and unable to think for themselves. I think it's what you meant anyway, but it's actually disinformation. The liar in question knew that wasn't what Joey was saying, but claimed it was anyway. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 6 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: What exactly was the misinformation? PP said he wants to take away the ability for "violent repeat offenders" to receive bail via the NWC. A poster said the following: We have a Charter, but if you don't see how detaining a person without trial isn't a violation of rights I can't help you there. Please explain the misinformation that I posted. Does a rapist and a murderer not fall under the category of "violent offender"? Do you think PP is going to use the NWC on criminals who steal your bike? Think about it. Just use your brain. Detaining a person without trial means they didn't do it or they don't have enough evidence. Imagine if someone detained you right now. How would you feel? Constitutional? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 38 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Joey is concerned that rapists and murderers will lose their rights under PP. How tragic that would be. I’d lose sleep over it too really. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Just now, The Lock said: Think about it. Just use your brain. Detaining a person without trial means they didn't do it or they don't have enough evidence. Imagine if someone detained you right now. How would you feel? Constitutional? PP said he wants to use the NWC for "repeat" offenders. Doesn't that mean they have already offended and were found guilty the first time? The poster was replying to the argument that PP shouldn't have the right to use the NWC clause. PP has stated that he only wants to use it for "repeat" violent offenders. So why bring it up at all if PP was only referring to repeat offenders? The argument that he is going to use the NWC endlessly and take away everyone's rights is a bunch of bs with zero proof. The talking point that he is Trump 2.0 and everyone that votes for him is a red neck MAGA supporter is also bs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, King Heffy said: A tactic, by quite a few posters, over many threads. Build a strawman, out of something that wasn't even being said. try to win, using the strawman, and usually lose anyway. This tactic is not just used in the 'off topic' forums, but through out this whole place. Rinse and repeat, again, and again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Just now, Elias Pettersson said: PP said he wants to use the NWC for "repeat" offenders. Doesn't that mean they have already offended and were found guilty the first time? The poster was replying to the argument that PP shouldn't have the right to use the NWC clause. PP has stated that he only wants to use it for "repeat" violent offenders. So why bring it up at all if PP was only referring to repeat offenders? The argument that he is going to use the NWC endlessly and take away everyone's rights is a bunch of bs with zero proof. The talking point that he is Trump 2.0 and everyone that votes for him is a red neck MAGA supporter is also bs... Because people don't trust PP to avoid using it for other things as well. Given his history of misconduct, it's not unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: PP said he wants to use the NWC for "repeat" offenders. Doesn't that mean they have already offended and were found guilty the first time? The poster was replying to the argument that PP shouldn't have the right to use the NWC clause. PP has stated that he only wants to use it for "repeat" violent offenders. So why bring it up at all if PP was only referring to repeat offenders? The argument that he is going to use the NWC endlessly and take away everyone's rights is a bunch of bs with zero proof. The talking point that he is Trump 2.0 and everyone that votes for him is a red neck MAGA supporter is also bs... So let me try and understand what you're saying. I'm legitimately trying to figure this out... So are you saying that. if you do 1 crime, get tried and found guilty, then serve your time, you can now be immediately labelled as a repeat offender if you're deemed as committed a crime again you can just be thrown in jail? Would this even be the case if you were falsely accused the 2nd time? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 5 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Because people don't trust PP to avoid using it for other things as well. Given his history of misconduct, it's not unreasonable. You can say the same thing about Trudeau as well. He used an Act that was never used before other than at a time of war... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: You can say the same thing about Trudeau as well. He used an Act that was never used before other than at a time of war... Because the capital of the country and multiple international border crossings were occupied by domestic terrorists. Edited May 7 by King Heffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maninthebox Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 2 hours ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said: We have a Charter, but if you don't see how detaining a person without trial isn't a violation of rights I can't help you there. Posts hyperbolic nonsense... 51 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Joey is concerned that rapists and murderers will lose their rights under PP. How tragic that would be. I’d lose sleep over it too really. ...yet is offended by hyperbolic nonsense. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Just now, The Lock said: So let me try and understand what you're saying. I'm legitimately trying to figure this out... So are you saying that. if you do 1 crime, get tried and found guilty, then serve your time, you can now be immediately labelled as a repeat offender if you're deemed as committed a crime again you can just be thrown in jail? Would this even be the case if you were falsely accused the 2nd time? Denying bail is not denying a trial. If you are a repeat offender, then you shouldn't be out on bail if it is a violent crime, i.e. rape, murder. A repeat offender is someone who has been convicted of a crime on more than one occasion. In other words, it refers to an individual who has committed the same type of offense multiple times A repeat offender is one who fits the above definition. Let me correct myself. "Multiple times"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Today's bat shit crazy from the axe the tax media ( PP's cheering team ) Now stating as fact that Truduea has or will soon impose.a 25k fee on any Canadian moving out of Canada Second .... Truduea has been doing sky dusting ( spreading of chemicals to trigger cloud dispersement ). Once Truduea is removed all drought and wildfire issues will end as the fake weather issues will stop And ... Apparently,in 1924 Canada had a law to execute politicians by hanging If we don't like them .... They want to return to 1924 again and ask.about collecting wood to build gallows ( don't worry no money needed as the old Ottawa jail still has a gallow on display apparently ) Spoiler alert .... If you need to be told all of the above is fake ( other than the old Ottawa jails gallows ) .... You need help lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 10 minutes ago, Sapper said: Today's bat shit crazy from the axe the tax media ( PP's cheering team ) Now stating as fact that Truduea has or will soon impose.a 25k fee on any Canadian moving out of Canada Second .... Truduea has been doing sky dusting ( spreading of chemicals to trigger cloud dispersement ). Once Truduea is removed all drought and wildfire issues will end as the fake weather issues will stop And ... Apparently,in 1924 Canada had a law to execute politicians by hanging If we don't like them .... They want to return to 1924 again and ask.about collecting wood to build gallows ( don't worry no money needed as the old Ottawa jail still has a gallow on display apparently ) Spoiler alert .... If you need to be told all of the above is fake ( other than the old Ottawa jails gallows ) .... You need help lol Well that crowd already wants medical treatment, women's rights, and racial equality to be moved back to 1924 standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 23 minutes ago, Maninthebox said: Posts hyperbolic nonsense... ...yet is offended by hyperbolic nonsense. Some people have their head soooo firmly buried in the sand it's impossible for them to see their biases and hypocrisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: Yes it was proven in a federal court of law. Are you actually serious that every court ruling needs to have Supreme Court verification before the ruling is accepted? Armchair judges? Only the ones that don’t rule in your favour are considered armchair right? Not every court ruling. But those that are appealed have every right to be and are in limbo until the final decision. This particular case is too big, too political, to be left to one judge. I won't answer the last question. I think it's dumb. Edited May 7 by Satchmo sp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 20 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Denying bail is not denying a trial. If you are a repeat offender, then you shouldn't be out on bail if it is a violent crime, i.e. rape, murder. A repeat offender is someone who has been convicted of a crime on more than one occasion. In other words, it refers to an individual who has committed the same type of offense multiple times A repeat offender is one who fits the above definition. Let me correct myself. "Multiple times"... So then why didn't you respond to the person you were mocking, stating PP was talking about bail rather than being on trial? If he's wrong, then respectfully show how he's wrong? State why it's alright for the NWC to happen. Instead, you lose any hope of convincing the person by mocking them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 4 minutes ago, Satchmo said: Not every court ruling. But those that are appealed have every right to be and are in limbo until the final decision. This particular case is too big, to political, to be left to one judge. I won't answer the last question. I think it's dumb. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poec-report-released-friday-1.6750919 Of course this is conveniently ignored by those who don't want the Klown Kar Konvoy to be held accountable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: Some people have their head soooo firmly buried in the sand it's impossible for them to see their biases and hypocrisy Well, if you mock the other side while not providing evidence, then yes. You're not going to convince anyone. It's hard being engraved in 1 side, and this is with both left and right. Keep in mind that your statement is exactly what the other side thinks of you. Edited May 7 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Anyway, I've said my piece and I'm not in the right headspace for debate at the moment. But I'm very neutral on the NWC stuff. I do think we can use tougher punishments but I fail to see how we need to do it through a constitution override. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, King Heffy said: Because the capital of the country and multiple international border crossings were occupied by domestic terrorists. Is our government really that weak they had to invoke something not used since war times to remove protesters? Don't answer that. I already know. It's absolutely pathetic anybody thinks invoking that was necessary to have them removed. Also what domestic terrorist list is the freedom convoy on? I'm not up to date on that. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Canada need to revamp its political system, is it too much to ask for more than a drama teacher to run our country for 10 years. There should be a max term of 8 years and should be education requirement of a masters degree in a related field (ie economics or law). If Canada and US dont figure out their shit, the BRICS countries will continue to close the gap on our quality of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, The Lock said: Keep in mind that your statement is exactly what the other side thinks of you. I will say though how comical it is when Pot keeps telling Kettle, "Yo, man, you're black!" without having the presence of mind (or maybe there is no mind to speak of?) to look in the mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 26 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: Is our government really that weak they had to invoke something not used since war times to remove protesters? Don't answer that. I already know. It's absolutely pathetic anybody thinks invoking that was necessary to have them removed. Also what domestic terrorist list is the freedom convoy on? I'm not up to date on that. Some might say it's pathetic to think we should not deter anyone from anything unless they are already on a list. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.