Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich denied bail
Comments
-
Shitty human being says what?HHusky said:
No anarchists are on my team. Too bad you can't say the same.PurpleThrobber said:
You gave zero fucks while the US burned under BLM and Antifa rioters.HHusky said:
Whether you think Canada's Emergency Powers Act is a good law or not, it is a lawfully enacted statute, and we are well removed from its 1988 passage, so it isn't some hastily erected device designed to give Justin Trudeau supreme and perpetual power. Those powers have to be renewed by Parliament, as I understand it. These things alone make the situation very much unlike Vlad Putin signing a bill he asked for that makes Vlad Putin President for Life. What we have in Canada is not tyranny and it may even be wise to have such a law on the books. Whether there were better options than invoking the law in any particular case is a fair question, of course.Swaye said:
I will not go into the summer of love and your position on that, but instead will pivot and say that I actually agree with you on one vital point - the truckers should not have been allowed to shut down city and bridge movement indefinitely. I think they should have made their point for a week, made a lot of discomfort, then gone and parked the trucks legally somewhere and continued their peaceful protest complete with bouncy castles on the streets, but sans illegally parked trucks. I actually believe just not delivering supplies to the cities for about a month would have made their point way better than the bridge fiasco to be completely honest.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here.
See I can't be a "law and order" guy and say anything else. Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest. This is how I would have done things.
So, since we are all being honest now, will you concede that labelling them all as terrorists and freezing their bank accounts is an enormous overreach and tyrannical act? Couldn't some tow truck providers have been compelled to tow the trucks without stealing the bank accounts? And what about the people who sent them 100 bucks? Should they be labelled terrorists and have their bank accounts stolen as well? I mean that is what is happening. Or is Trudy acting like a fascist and a liar? I am wondering what your honest opinion is about BOTH sides.
@HHusky
"Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest." I strongly agree.
I was as weary with the "Summer of Love" as anyone. Cops kill too many people unnecessarily in this country. We get it; I've said it myself. But I still don't want my town to be a war zone, and I voted against any candidate who thought we could solve society's ills by cutting some arbitrary percentage of funding from the police. If anything, we need to make becoming a police officer a more competitive process, attracting better candidates. That would imply more funding, not less.
Freezing accounts? I prefer it to open warfare, and it is one of the emergency powers the Canadian statute provides, not something the current government invented on the spot. Freezing accounts is much different than seizing them. The former is potentially a useful, temporary emergency power; the latter should require due process. As with most harsh measures, the devil is in the details.
Fuck off. -
Hey, tossing Japanese Americans into camps was no big deal. It was lawfully enacted.HHusky said:
Someone is arguing none of this is a big deal? Take it easy on the strawman, blob.
Shitty human being says what? -
Shitty human being says what?HHusky said:
Oscar Wilde?RaceBannon said:
Fuck off fascistHHusky said:
I didn't, but please add it to the list of my imagined sins.RaceBannon said:
You cared so much you stayed silent for the year of 2020HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here.
Fuck off -
Shitty human being says what?HHusky said:
Quiet kids! Swaye and I are having an adult conversation.hardhat said:
Preferable to open warfare.SFGbob said:
Hey, tossing Japanese Americans into camps was no big deal. It was lawfully enacted.HHusky said:
Whether you think Canada's Emergency Powers Act is a good law or not, it is a lawfully enacted statute, and we are well removed from its 1988 passage, so it isn't some hastily erected device designed to give Justin Trudeau supreme and perpetual power. Those powers have to be renewed by Parliament, as I understand it. These things alone make the situation very much unlike Vlad Putin signing a bill he asked for that makes Vlad Putin President for Life. What we have in Canada is not tyranny and it may even be wise to have such a law on the books. Whether there were better options than invoking the law in any particular case is a fair question, of course.Swaye said:
I will not go into the summer of love and your position on that, but instead will pivot and say that I actually agree with you on one vital point - the truckers should not have been allowed to shut down city and bridge movement indefinitely. I think they should have made their point for a week, made a lot of discomfort, then gone and parked the trucks legally somewhere and continued their peaceful protest complete with bouncy castles on the streets, but sans illegally parked trucks. I actually believe just not delivering supplies to the cities for about a month would have made their point way better than the bridge fiasco to be completely honest.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here.
See I can't be a "law and order" guy and say anything else. Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest. This is how I would have done things.
So, since we are all being honest now, will you concede that labelling them all as terrorists and freezing their bank accounts is an enormous overreach and tyrannical act? Couldn't some tow truck providers have been compelled to tow the trucks without stealing the bank accounts? And what about the people who sent them 100 bucks? Should they be labelled terrorists and have their bank accounts stolen as well? I mean that is what is happening. Or is Trudy acting like a fascist and a liar? I am wondering what your honest opinion is about BOTH sides.
@HHusky
"Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest." I strongly agree.
I was as weary with the "Summer of Love" as anyone. Cops kill too many people unnecessarily in this country. We get it; I've said it myself. But I still don't want my town to be a war zone, and I voted against any candidate who thought we could solve society's ills by cutting some arbitrary percentage of funding from the police. If anything, we need to make becoming a police officer a more competitive process, attracting better candidates. That would imply more funding, not less.
Freezing accounts? I prefer it to open warfare, and it is one of the emergency powers the Canadian statute provides, not something the current government invented on the spot. Freezing accounts is much different than seizing them. The former is potentially a useful, temporary emergency power; the latter should require due process. As with most harsh measures, the devil is in the details. -
This isn’t helping the discord46XiJCAB said:
Shitty human being says what?HHusky said:
Quiet kids! Swaye and I are having an adult conversation.hardhat said:
Preferable to open warfare.SFGbob said:
Hey, tossing Japanese Americans into camps was no big deal. It was lawfully enacted.HHusky said:
Whether you think Canada's Emergency Powers Act is a good law or not, it is a lawfully enacted statute, and we are well removed from its 1988 passage, so it isn't some hastily erected device designed to give Justin Trudeau supreme and perpetual power. Those powers have to be renewed by Parliament, as I understand it. These things alone make the situation very much unlike Vlad Putin signing a bill he asked for that makes Vlad Putin President for Life. What we have in Canada is not tyranny and it may even be wise to have such a law on the books. Whether there were better options than invoking the law in any particular case is a fair question, of course.Swaye said:
I will not go into the summer of love and your position on that, but instead will pivot and say that I actually agree with you on one vital point - the truckers should not have been allowed to shut down city and bridge movement indefinitely. I think they should have made their point for a week, made a lot of discomfort, then gone and parked the trucks legally somewhere and continued their peaceful protest complete with bouncy castles on the streets, but sans illegally parked trucks. I actually believe just not delivering supplies to the cities for about a month would have made their point way better than the bridge fiasco to be completely honest.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here.
See I can't be a "law and order" guy and say anything else. Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest. This is how I would have done things.
So, since we are all being honest now, will you concede that labelling them all as terrorists and freezing their bank accounts is an enormous overreach and tyrannical act? Couldn't some tow truck providers have been compelled to tow the trucks without stealing the bank accounts? And what about the people who sent them 100 bucks? Should they be labelled terrorists and have their bank accounts stolen as well? I mean that is what is happening. Or is Trudy acting like a fascist and a liar? I am wondering what your honest opinion is about BOTH sides.
@HHusky
"Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest." I strongly agree.
I was as weary with the "Summer of Love" as anyone. Cops kill too many people unnecessarily in this country. We get it; I've said it myself. But I still don't want my town to be a war zone, and I voted against any candidate who thought we could solve society's ills by cutting some arbitrary percentage of funding from the police. If anything, we need to make becoming a police officer a more competitive process, attracting better candidates. That would imply more funding, not less.
Freezing accounts? I prefer it to open warfare, and it is one of the emergency powers the Canadian statute provides, not something the current government invented on the spot. Freezing accounts is much different than seizing them. The former is potentially a useful, temporary emergency power; the latter should require due process. As with most harsh measures, the devil is in the details. -
Shitty human being says what?HHusky said:
Quiet kids! Swaye and I are having an adult conversation.hardhat said:
Preferable to open warfare.SFGbob said:
Hey, tossing Japanese Americans into camps was no big deal. It was lawfully enacted.HHusky said:
Whether you think Canada's Emergency Powers Act is a good law or not, it is a lawfully enacted statute, and we are well removed from its 1988 passage, so it isn't some hastily erected device designed to give Justin Trudeau supreme and perpetual power. Those powers have to be renewed by Parliament, as I understand it. These things alone make the situation very much unlike Vlad Putin signing a bill he asked for that makes Vlad Putin President for Life. What we have in Canada is not tyranny and it may even be wise to have such a law on the books. Whether there were better options than invoking the law in any particular case is a fair question, of course.Swaye said:
I will not go into the summer of love and your position on that, but instead will pivot and say that I actually agree with you on one vital point - the truckers should not have been allowed to shut down city and bridge movement indefinitely. I think they should have made their point for a week, made a lot of discomfort, then gone and parked the trucks legally somewhere and continued their peaceful protest complete with bouncy castles on the streets, but sans illegally parked trucks. I actually believe just not delivering supplies to the cities for about a month would have made their point way better than the bridge fiasco to be completely honest.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here.
See I can't be a "law and order" guy and say anything else. Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest. This is how I would have done things.
So, since we are all being honest now, will you concede that labelling them all as terrorists and freezing their bank accounts is an enormous overreach and tyrannical act? Couldn't some tow truck providers have been compelled to tow the trucks without stealing the bank accounts? And what about the people who sent them 100 bucks? Should they be labelled terrorists and have their bank accounts stolen as well? I mean that is what is happening. Or is Trudy acting like a fascist and a liar? I am wondering what your honest opinion is about BOTH sides.
@HHusky
"Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest." I strongly agree.
I was as weary with the "Summer of Love" as anyone. Cops kill too many people unnecessarily in this country. We get it; I've said it myself. But I still don't want my town to be a war zone, and I voted against any candidate who thought we could solve society's ills by cutting some arbitrary percentage of funding from the police. If anything, we need to make becoming a police officer a more competitive process, attracting better candidates. That would imply more funding, not less.
Freezing accounts? I prefer it to open warfare, and it is one of the emergency powers the Canadian statute provides, not something the current government invented on the spot. Freezing accounts is much different than seizing them. The former is potentially a useful, temporary emergency power; the latter should require due process. As with most harsh measures, the devil is in the details.
Shitty human being says what?HHusky said:
"The people you voted for . . . " typically signals the futility of trying to engage.RaceBannon said:
BLM and Antifa are your teamHHusky said:
No anarchists are on my team. Too bad you can't say the same.PurpleThrobber said:
You gave zero fucks while the US burned under BLM and Antifa rioters.HHusky said:
Whether you think Canada's Emergency Powers Act is a good law or not, it is a lawfully enacted statute, and we are well removed from its 1988 passage, so it isn't some hastily erected device designed to give Justin Trudeau supreme and perpetual power. Those powers have to be renewed by Parliament, as I understand it. These things alone make the situation very much unlike Vlad Putin signing a bill he asked for that makes Vlad Putin President for Life. What we have in Canada is not tyranny and it may even be wise to have such a law on the books. Whether there were better options than invoking the law in any particular case is a fair question, of course.Swaye said:
I will not go into the summer of love and your position on that, but instead will pivot and say that I actually agree with you on one vital point - the truckers should not have been allowed to shut down city and bridge movement indefinitely. I think they should have made their point for a week, made a lot of discomfort, then gone and parked the trucks legally somewhere and continued their peaceful protest complete with bouncy castles on the streets, but sans illegally parked trucks. I actually believe just not delivering supplies to the cities for about a month would have made their point way better than the bridge fiasco to be completely honest.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here.
See I can't be a "law and order" guy and say anything else. Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest. This is how I would have done things.
So, since we are all being honest now, will you concede that labelling them all as terrorists and freezing their bank accounts is an enormous overreach and tyrannical act? Couldn't some tow truck providers have been compelled to tow the trucks without stealing the bank accounts? And what about the people who sent them 100 bucks? Should they be labelled terrorists and have their bank accounts stolen as well? I mean that is what is happening. Or is Trudy acting like a fascist and a liar? I am wondering what your honest opinion is about BOTH sides.
@HHusky
"Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest." I strongly agree.
I was as weary with the "Summer of Love" as anyone. Cops kill too many people unnecessarily in this country. We get it; I've said it myself. But I still don't want my town to be a war zone, and I voted against any candidate who thought we could solve society's ills by cutting some arbitrary percentage of funding from the police. If anything, we need to make becoming a police officer a more competitive process, attracting better candidates. That would imply more funding, not less.
Freezing accounts? I prefer it to open warfare, and it is one of the emergency powers the Canadian statute provides, not something the current government invented on the spot. Freezing accounts is much different than seizing them. The former is potentially a useful, temporary emergency power; the latter should require due process. As with most harsh measures, the devil is in the details.
Fuck off.
Why the need to lie so much?
The people you voted for cheered them on as well. So did Mini Castro in Canada
The internet is forever. Tough on liars like you -
You know it's not meant to.greenblood said:
This isn’t helping the discord46XiJCAB said:
Shitty human being says what?HHusky said:
Quiet kids! Swaye and I are having an adult conversation.hardhat said:
Preferable to open warfare.SFGbob said:
Hey, tossing Japanese Americans into camps was no big deal. It was lawfully enacted.HHusky said:
Whether you think Canada's Emergency Powers Act is a good law or not, it is a lawfully enacted statute, and we are well removed from its 1988 passage, so it isn't some hastily erected device designed to give Justin Trudeau supreme and perpetual power. Those powers have to be renewed by Parliament, as I understand it. These things alone make the situation very much unlike Vlad Putin signing a bill he asked for that makes Vlad Putin President for Life. What we have in Canada is not tyranny and it may even be wise to have such a law on the books. Whether there were better options than invoking the law in any particular case is a fair question, of course.Swaye said:
I will not go into the summer of love and your position on that, but instead will pivot and say that I actually agree with you on one vital point - the truckers should not have been allowed to shut down city and bridge movement indefinitely. I think they should have made their point for a week, made a lot of discomfort, then gone and parked the trucks legally somewhere and continued their peaceful protest complete with bouncy castles on the streets, but sans illegally parked trucks. I actually believe just not delivering supplies to the cities for about a month would have made their point way better than the bridge fiasco to be completely honest.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here.
See I can't be a "law and order" guy and say anything else. Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest. This is how I would have done things.
So, since we are all being honest now, will you concede that labelling them all as terrorists and freezing their bank accounts is an enormous overreach and tyrannical act? Couldn't some tow truck providers have been compelled to tow the trucks without stealing the bank accounts? And what about the people who sent them 100 bucks? Should they be labelled terrorists and have their bank accounts stolen as well? I mean that is what is happening. Or is Trudy acting like a fascist and a liar? I am wondering what your honest opinion is about BOTH sides.
@HHusky
"Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest." I strongly agree.
I was as weary with the "Summer of Love" as anyone. Cops kill too many people unnecessarily in this country. We get it; I've said it myself. But I still don't want my town to be a war zone, and I voted against any candidate who thought we could solve society's ills by cutting some arbitrary percentage of funding from the police. If anything, we need to make becoming a police officer a more competitive process, attracting better candidates. That would imply more funding, not less.
Freezing accounts? I prefer it to open warfare, and it is one of the emergency powers the Canadian statute provides, not something the current government invented on the spot. Freezing accounts is much different than seizing them. The former is potentially a useful, temporary emergency power; the latter should require due process. As with most harsh measures, the devil is in the details. -
Your knowledge and comprehension re: the workings of the criminal justice system and criminal law couldn’t fill a thimble, Counselor. Stick to business law or whatever the fuck it is you allegedly do.HHusky said:Public bail hearing is fascist too? You gals do get hysterical.
-
Mostly the Dazzler just focuses on being a shitty human being.trublue said:
Your knowledge and comprehension re: the workings of the criminal justice system and criminal law couldn’t fill a thimble, Counselor. Stick to business law or whatever the fuck it is you allegedly do.HHusky said:Public bail hearing is fascist too? You gals do get hysterical.
-
I think it would have been fairer to say that the effort was being substantially funded by foreign contributors. I totally get freezing the accounts if that's the case. I do mean if, because I've seen that reported, but I haven't seen a lot of detail. "Terrorists"? I don't know. some of them probably fit some definition of the term, but honestly, I'd rather talk about what they did than what label to apply.Swaye said:
I appreciate you answering clearly. Only question you didn't answer, and this gets to the root of it for me, is *should* bank freezes be used in *this* instance. I disagree with you that Emergency Powers should exist, but I can see how reasonable people can disagree on this.HHusky said:
Whether you think Canada's Emergency Powers Act is a good law or not, it is a lawfully enacted statute, and we are well removed from its 1988 passage, so it isn't some hastily erected device designed to give Justin Trudeau supreme and perpetual power. Those powers have to be renewed by Parliament, as I understand it. These things alone make the situation very much unlike Vlad Putin signing a bill he asked for that makes Vlad Putin President for Life. What we have in Canada is not tyranny and it may even be wise to have such a law on the books. Whether there were better options than invoking the law in any particular case is a fair question, of course.Swaye said:
I will not go into the summer of love and your position on that, but instead will pivot and say that I actually agree with you on one vital point - the truckers should not have been allowed to shut down city and bridge movement indefinitely. I think they should have made their point for a week, made a lot of discomfort, then gone and parked the trucks legally somewhere and continued their peaceful protest complete with bouncy castles on the streets, but sans illegally parked trucks. I actually believe just not delivering supplies to the cities for about a month would have made their point way better than the bridge fiasco to be completely honest.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here.
See I can't be a "law and order" guy and say anything else. Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest. This is how I would have done things.
So, since we are all being honest now, will you concede that labelling them all as terrorists and freezing their bank accounts is an enormous overreach and tyrannical act? Couldn't some tow truck providers have been compelled to tow the trucks without stealing the bank accounts? And what about the people who sent them 100 bucks? Should they be labelled terrorists and have their bank accounts stolen as well? I mean that is what is happening. Or is Trudy acting like a fascist and a liar? I am wondering what your honest opinion is about BOTH sides.
@HHusky
"Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest." I strongly agree.
I was as weary with the "Summer of Love" as anyone. Cops kill too many people unnecessarily in this country. We get it; I've said it myself. But I still don't want my town to be a war zone, and I voted against any candidate who thought we could solve society's ills by cutting some arbitrary percentage of funding from the police. If anything, we need to make becoming a police officer a more competitive process, attracting better candidates. That would imply more funding, not less.
Freezing accounts? I prefer it to open warfare, and it is one of the emergency powers the Canadian statute provides, not something the current government invented on the spot. Freezing accounts is much different than seizing them. The former is potentially a useful, temporary emergency power; the latter should require due process. As with most harsh measures, the devil is in the details.
My issue is in it's application. Even Canadas version of the ACLU (not a conservative organization) has said this is an overreach. I think most rational actors see these emergency powers being used for some 9-11 type situation, not some trucks blocking a road (incidentally that is why I believe we SHOULD not have these type of powers - they are ripe for abuse). So, fair enough that you think these powers should reside with the federal government. But do you, in this instance, think the truckers are actual terrorists? Trudy said they are, and the financial instruments being used were cited as being available to stop "terrorist networks." Are a bunch of working class truckers parked on a bridge *really* an existential threat to democracy in Canada?
I believe casting thousands of hard working people who are pissed off about Covid policies as terrorists bent on the overthrow of the government is a sad state of affairs. And clear tyrannical overreach.
edit: I am ASSUMING Canadas ACLU that came out against these action are liberal - I should be fair and say that was an assumption. I don't really know what their political bent is. Poont of clarification.
edit 2: It appears the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is a liberal group (no deep research here), and I just realized they have sued Trudy to have the Emergency Powers stopped. Interesting. I did not know that. -
Shitty human being says what?HHusky said:
I think it would have been fairer to say that the effort was being substantially funded by foreign contributors. I totally get freezing the accounts if that's the case. I do mean if, because I've seen that reported, but I haven't seen a lot of detail. "Terrorists"? I don't know. some of them probably fit some definition of the term, but honestly, I'd rather talk about what they did than what label to apply.Swaye said:
I appreciate you answering clearly. Only question you didn't answer, and this gets to the root of it for me, is *should* bank freezes be used in *this* instance. I disagree with you that Emergency Powers should exist, but I can see how reasonable people can disagree on this.HHusky said:
Whether you think Canada's Emergency Powers Act is a good law or not, it is a lawfully enacted statute, and we are well removed from its 1988 passage, so it isn't some hastily erected device designed to give Justin Trudeau supreme and perpetual power. Those powers have to be renewed by Parliament, as I understand it. These things alone make the situation very much unlike Vlad Putin signing a bill he asked for that makes Vlad Putin President for Life. What we have in Canada is not tyranny and it may even be wise to have such a law on the books. Whether there were better options than invoking the law in any particular case is a fair question, of course.Swaye said:
I will not go into the summer of love and your position on that, but instead will pivot and say that I actually agree with you on one vital point - the truckers should not have been allowed to shut down city and bridge movement indefinitely. I think they should have made their point for a week, made a lot of discomfort, then gone and parked the trucks legally somewhere and continued their peaceful protest complete with bouncy castles on the streets, but sans illegally parked trucks. I actually believe just not delivering supplies to the cities for about a month would have made their point way better than the bridge fiasco to be completely honest.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here.
See I can't be a "law and order" guy and say anything else. Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest. This is how I would have done things.
So, since we are all being honest now, will you concede that labelling them all as terrorists and freezing their bank accounts is an enormous overreach and tyrannical act? Couldn't some tow truck providers have been compelled to tow the trucks without stealing the bank accounts? And what about the people who sent them 100 bucks? Should they be labelled terrorists and have their bank accounts stolen as well? I mean that is what is happening. Or is Trudy acting like a fascist and a liar? I am wondering what your honest opinion is about BOTH sides.
@HHusky
"Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest." I strongly agree.
I was as weary with the "Summer of Love" as anyone. Cops kill too many people unnecessarily in this country. We get it; I've said it myself. But I still don't want my town to be a war zone, and I voted against any candidate who thought we could solve society's ills by cutting some arbitrary percentage of funding from the police. If anything, we need to make becoming a police officer a more competitive process, attracting better candidates. That would imply more funding, not less.
Freezing accounts? I prefer it to open warfare, and it is one of the emergency powers the Canadian statute provides, not something the current government invented on the spot. Freezing accounts is much different than seizing them. The former is potentially a useful, temporary emergency power; the latter should require due process. As with most harsh measures, the devil is in the details.
My issue is in it's application. Even Canadas version of the ACLU (not a conservative organization) has said this is an overreach. I think most rational actors see these emergency powers being used for some 9-11 type situation, not some trucks blocking a road (incidentally that is why I believe we SHOULD not have these type of powers - they are ripe for abuse). So, fair enough that you think these powers should reside with the federal government. But do you, in this instance, think the truckers are actual terrorists? Trudy said they are, and the financial instruments being used were cited as being available to stop "terrorist networks." Are a bunch of working class truckers parked on a bridge *really* an existential threat to democracy in Canada?
I believe casting thousands of hard working people who are pissed off about Covid policies as terrorists bent on the overthrow of the government is a sad state of affairs. And clear tyrannical overreach.
edit: I am ASSUMING Canadas ACLU that came out against these action are liberal - I should be fair and say that was an assumption. I don't really know what their political bent is. Poont of clarification.
edit 2: It appears the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is a liberal group (no deep research here), and I just realized they have sued Trudy to have the Emergency Powers stopped. Interesting. I did not know that. -
Guys the judge thinks this hardcore criminal might “re-offend” so no bail. It’s not like she’s only been accused of murder.
SHE STARTED A GOFUNDME DAMMIT!
It resulted in a BLOCKADE! -
I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
-
Link?TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
You're just here to dodge and deflect your hypocrisy
I affirm my position with facts and logic. Stop gaslighting. This is your team -
WTF are you taking about? Example?TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
-
You're OK when they loot it empty then burn it to the ground as that's not permanent is it? Fucking moron.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here. -
Oh look, the retarded boy made a funny.Sledog said:
You're OK when they loot it empty then burn it to the ground as that's not permanent is it? Fucking moron.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here. -
Never answered my question bottom boy.HHusky said:
Oh look, the retarded boy made a funny.Sledog said:
You're OK when they loot it empty then burn it to the ground as that's not permanent is it? Fucking moron.HHusky said:
I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.hardhat said:Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?
Ann Davison voter here. -
You’re to stupid and dishonest to understand the difference between breaking up a protest and freezing the bank account of a single mom that donated $50 to feed people.TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
You and Dazzler are both shitty people. -
Begging the question: assumes a debatable part of an argument is already agreed upon.TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
Ad hominem: distracts from argument by attacking the person or persons making the argument.
Hasty generalization: reaching a generalized conclusion from too little evidence.
-
Argument from fallacy.Sources said:
Begging the question: assumes a debatable part of an argument is already agreed upon.TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
Ad hominem: distracts from argument by attacking the person or persons making the argument.
Hasty generalization: reaching a generalized conclusion from too little evidence. -
I’ve heard people should just comply with the police and there’d be no problem.TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
-
It’s the law.HHusky said:
I’ve heard people should just comply with the police and there’d be no problem.TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
-
I missed it where people were resisting arrest. Got a link?HHusky said:
I’ve heard people should just comply with the police and there’d be no problem.TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
-
They were told to leave. You can’t have missed that. It was in all the papers.SFGbob said:
I missed it where people were resisting arrest. Got a link?HHusky said:
I’ve heard people should just comply with the police and there’d be no problem.TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
-
Told to leave is now resisting arrest. Got it.
Hey Dazzler these people were also told to leave. I guess we now know which side you were on.
https://images.wisconsinhistory.org/700099990013/9999000743-l.jpg
-
What’s this obsession with resisting arrest, blob? Just comply and there’s no arrest.SFGbob said:Told to leave is now resisting arrest. Got it.
Hey Dazzler these people were also told to leave. I guess we now know which side you were on.
https://images.wisconsinhistory.org/700099990013/9999000743-l.jpg -
But they weren’t resisting arrest. Have you forgotten so soon? It’s why you went straight to the Kunt act when you were asked to provide a link of people resisting arrest.
They were told to leave just like the people who refused to sit at the back of the bus. -
Reminds me of when ANTIFA in Portland for 100+ days were told to leave.HHusky said:
They were told to leave. You can’t have missed that. It was in all the papers.SFGbob said:
I missed it where people were resisting arrest. Got a link?HHusky said:
I’ve heard people should just comply with the police and there’d be no problem.TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
-
Just because I didn't burn down the neighborhood doesn't mean I thought the junkie deserved to dieHHusky said:
I’ve heard people should just comply with the police and there’d be no problem.TheKobeStopper said:I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.
You guys made Floyd a Saint and looted across America
You can't whitewash that
You cheered an unarmed woman being shot
You support the torture of puppies
You cheered the economy being destroyed
But suddenly you're law and order
Fuck off