Pam Popper, Fight for Health Rights |526|

Please do me the very big favour of NOT telling me how I feel and what I think? It's a very authoritarian way of communicating.
You do not understand what I believe until I tell you in my own words. People are individuals. We certainly have societal tendencies, but that
doesn't mean we all walk lock-step together.

Your dream is that they be in lockstep for the greater good. I know how you think a) because you've already said enough b) you're not very original

argument that the American forefathers were suspicious of government is a beautiful fiction.
They never intended the unwashed masses to rule themselves. That much is true.

Your use of the word "rule" confirms my opinion of you. The word "rule" never entered entered the founders' minds except as an example of what they didn't want.

American forefathers created very structured Republican governmental systems. If they were truly suspicious of government, they would have never given the President the power that he has. In Canada, there's no way a Prime Minister could declare war OR "police actions" in other nations on their own. For a government that wanted to be as "small as possible," they have a much larger government than most social democracies. America spends MUCH more money on social programs than Canada does per capita. The difference is they give it to massive corporations- corporate socialism.

Nope. The government has grown uncontrollably over time and became a real monster recently. It started with Licoln's illegal invasion of the South. There was no law saying that states couldn't leave the union. Indeed the states tacitly agreed to be members of a union as long as it was working for them. Then Johnson Great Society programs really expanded the evil that is centralized big govt. As De Toqueville observed, the US would remain a free and functioning republic until the politicians figured out they could bribe the people. He was most prescient.

2nd Amendment gun argument was all good when you have several thousands of people in the 17th century. Fast forward to even the
20th century, and such an amendment is a joke.
If you don't believe me. Ask how David Koresh did.
Do you HONESTLY think that the greatest military the world has ever seen with weapons that can kill you from remote drones without you even knowing will be defeated by a gang of people shooting their AK-47's from their Durango trucks?
Seriously?There is zero chance that guns will stop a government that has decided to take over its citizenry.

Spoken like a true sniveling big government leftist.

I'll let the Vietcong and the Taliban know that they and their AK-47s and pick-up trucks have no chance against the greatest military in the world.

And 40 million or more armed insurgents with control of the food producing regions of a geographically large country, and the enemy bottled up in a few big cities controlled by supply choke points, is something neither the VC or Taliban had in their favor.
You are also assuming,most incorrectly, that the military would just follow orders and fire on their neighbors. FYI, most of the military in combat arms (the fighters, not motor pool, supply, etc) would be on the freedom fighters side.

You obviously know nothing of military matters and should put a plug in your pie hole before speaking to such. Unless you like appearing ill educated and moronic.

is why GOOD GOVERNMENT as a requirement would be a smarter decision than hoping that guns will kill all the people you hate.
Instead, what you get is more people dying who are regular citizens because of ridiculous numbers of guns.
In fact, multiple studies show that the average American is more likely to kill themselves or their families than even bad guys let alone a corrupt
government.

Yeah sure. You and your lefty pals have figured out what good government is when all through history the answer to that question has been debated and fought over. Sheesh. Fantasize much?
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to.
I'm interested in honest conversation.
If you're not, please move on.
uh huh.

I addressed your arguments, such that they are, and you realized you are talking to someone with some background and you collapsed and fell back on "ad hominem" as a response.
 
No you called me a bunch of names and made a bunch of slurs.
If you can respond to the issues without doing so. I'll be happy to continue the conversation.
I deal with bad behavior in my job every day. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
J
 
No you called me a bunch of names and made a bunch of slurs.
If you can respond to the issues without doing so. I'll be happy to continue the conversation.
I deal with bad behavior in my job every day. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
J
Boohoo. You want to spew nonsense and then cry when someone comes back at you hard.

Please tell me you're not a damn govt system 3rd grade teacher.You sound like it. I don't trust people that don't drink.
 
The 2nd Amendment gun argument was all good when you have several thousands of people in the 17th century. Fast forward to even the
20th century, and such an amendment is a joke.
J
The US 2nd Amendment is the only thing protecting Canada from a full communist censorship.
The same year that the US 2nd amendment is removed, Canadians will no longer be allowed to criticize their government. I guarantee it.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
I'm so tired of the nonsense argument that make Thom Frank so angry here. Because it IS nonsense.
The argument that the president can't do anything. That government can't do anything.
Roosevelt proved very clearly it could. Trump won in 2016 by effectively wearing the mask of populism until he didn't need it anymore and then went about plundering the American people's pockets (as he always does) and now Joe Biden giving the same nonsense argument that was given to Obama.
No one believes this crap who actually understands history. And this is why Thomas Frank's books are kind of necessary to extricate oneself from the mindworms that are the talking points of "government is corrupt there is nothing to be done", attitudes.
 
The US 2nd Amendment is the only thing protecting Canada from a full communist censorship.
The same year that the US 2nd amendment is removed, Canadians will no longer be allowed to criticize their government. I guarantee it.

Be careful what you wish for.

Where do you get that idea?
How do you think Americans owning guns has anything to do with domestic Canadian policy?
J
 
Global News has a rebuttal of Dr. Nagase's claim
https://globalnews.ca/news/8401613/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-stillbirths-pregnancy/
I was interested that Dr. Nagase lost his license for the sin of prescribing Ivermectin.

Global News is also spreading misinformation, from their story "Ivermectin is used to treat livestock for parasites"

"Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

There was a campaign at CNN to claim that Joe Rogan took a horse dewormer. This was a misinfo campaign. Rolling Stone magazine went a step further and invented a story about gunshot victims not being treated a hospital as it was claimed the hospital was overwhelmed with people "poisoned" by ivermectin. This story was false but Rolling Stone failed to retract it.

As Austria and potentially Germany look to implement mandatory "vaccination". It might be interesting if someone could explain why countries with low vaccination rates like Nigeria (1.7%) and Bangladesh (22.6%) are doing better than countries like Germany (68.7) and Austria (67.3) in terms of per capita mortality and daily covid infection rates?
 
Back
Top