Case in point:
"Somebody who tells you he hates corporate lobbyists, while meeting with corporate lobbyists, and hiring corporate lobbyists, thinks you are an idiot."
2024 Canadian Political Thread
- Thread starter licks2nite
- Start date
- Status
"Somebody who tells you he hates corporate lobbyists, while meeting with corporate lobbyists, and hiring corporate lobbyists, thinks you are an idiot."
I said that there were no bills that banned or otherwise restricted abortion. And your "evidence" of Bill C-225 proves that. Because that bill DID NOT propose to ban abortion and/or limit abortion. Which is why you moved on to claiming (i.e. moved the goal post) to "it gives rights to a fetus." And that may be correct as it relates to Bill C-225 and a fetus being harmed during a crime. But again, that too, is not evidence of your original claim (i.e. that the CPC is going to ban abortion).
This is your opinion. Not a statement of fact. Which is fine, again, it's a free country and you are allowed to have an opinion. However, what you TRY to do is support your opinion with statements of facts (i.e. evidence). I attack your evidence - because your evidence is flawed. You claimed Bill 225 as evidence of an abortion ban or restriction on abortion - I showed you why it is NOT a bill that proposes to ban or restrict abortion. Again, I challenged the veracity of your EVIDENCE and NOT your OPINION. But instead, you then claim all sorts of nonsense simply because you cannot (for reasons unknown) understand the difference between statements of opinion and statements of fact. You are entitled to your opinion, you are NOT entitled to your alternative/incorrect/delusional/erroneous/non-sensical facts. Moreover, those that continually spew off about their opinions (like you do), granted are allowed to spew off as much as you like. That said, it should be no surprise to anyone, when eventually you are challenged to support your opinion with evidence. And if that evidence is flawed (in your case, often) - then it is fair game to attack that evidence. If your evidence does NOT support your opinion, then you have a very flimsy opinion. As evidence to this point, you now claim (as evidence) something that cannot be be verified - "CPC is going to ban abortion, even when they said they won't, even though there is no example of a bill that proposed to ban abortion, and I know this because politicians lie"! LOL Yes, you are correct, sometimes, we can only see a lie when a promise is broken. And if your opinion hinges on evidence that cannot be known until after the fact (i.e. a broken promise), well, I guess that's like saying "well anything is possible" - and that would be piss-poor logic/evidence to support any claim/opinion.
Do you still wear a mask while driving alone in your car? Just curious.
Given what we have learned since the pandemic about the information we were given I think if anti vaxxers are actually a fringe minority they feel they made the correct choice and are ok with being one. Its certainly a fringe minority I wish I belonged to.
I think that there's a good chance that the OP hasn't left his mom's basement since Covid started.
Giving rights to the fetus in a bill that does nothing to improve the rights of the mother is the slippery slope to set precedent for future court cases , and the whole true point of the bill: exploit tradgedy to pass their adgenda as a first step.If you're trying to sell it as anything else after examination, you'd be a duplicitious weasel or completley ignorant of the courts.
And im pretty confident in my ability to predict future behavior based on past record.The decieve-o-Cons may not pass a total ban in the next parliment, but they are beholden to that wing of the party who are connected to the southern machine in the states.Theyll keep chipping away at it as they cant get elected if they reveal the true plan, they feel they have to give the medicine in bite sized bits.
Burn!
Jokes on you, my mom couldnt afford a house - No silver spoons for me, which is why im not so full of myself as others I guess.
I only wear a mask when around folks who don't give a shit about the immunocomprimosed or elderly , i cant stand the stench. That and the self-important who demand everyone agree with them.
It would be great for sentencing criminals, which sure, isn't about the "rights of the mother", per se - it's about punishing a criminal. I mean, you take C-225 combined with stacked sentencing, I think that isn't a bad thing. 1) Criminals get more jail time and 2) there is no abortion ban. C-225 was known as Cassie and Molly's law. Cassie (7 months pregnant with Molly) was killed in her own home, the home set on fire (I guess the accused wanted to destroy evidence) and then, according to the sentencing judge (paraphrasing) "Cassies' body was butchered" after being killed and set ablaze. And for this, the accused received at least 22 years in prison. I say at least, because the accused may receive parole after serving 22 years. I would have ZERO issue if the accused, as an example, if C-225 was in force as well as some of Harper's crime legislation that called for mandatory minimums or stacking of sentences for this POS of a human being to get 2 fully stacked convictions so that they could potentially be sentenced to at least 50 years in prison. Yes, that is a great trade off. At least 22 years in prison (what the accused received) vs at least 50 years with C-225 and stacked sentencing AND the cherry on top of all of this - no ban on abortions (because C-225 does NOT ban or limit abortions). This is NOT a slippery slope. You want to erroneously convince others that it is a slippery slope. Because any piece of legislation that even mentions a fetus - desperate ABC/Libs want to convince the population that it is all about abortions, when it is NOT. I've said this previously and I'll say it again: the only people in this country that wants a ban on abortions are the evangelical religious type (a minority of people in this country) and people like YOU. You want a ban on abortion so that you can, basically, say "I told you so."
Jokes on you. My parents never owned a home.
Most of my childhood I shared a room with my younger brother.
You just got out virtue signaled.
Burn!
I'm so sorry for what happened you!Apprently your childhood trauma experiences made you a bitter misanthrope.
Bullshit, and you're trying to exploit the womans death. There were laws against killing people and against gender based voilence already on the books that need reform for sure. That bill was not doing that, it was giving the fetus rights in order to expand penalties - exactly a slippery slope attack.
Yes, penalties for committing a crime. Abortion is NOT a crime. Moreover, a sentencing bill, or sentencing generally isn't about protecting the victim - the accused is being punished via sentencing. We get to the sentencing stage because the criminal act has already been committed. A sentencing bill cannot stop a murder, because for sentencing to occur, the murder already happened. We sentence criminals because we cannot stop all crime from happening - we sentence criminals to punish them for acts that they have perpetrated. Based on your logic, we shouldn't have speeding tickets - because fines don't stop speeding. No shit Einstein, we give out the tickets (the punishment) after the fact!
Last edited:
You're right.
You know what really makes me mad?
The fact that there's people out there that have suffered more than me.
You know what I'm talking about.
Yes, *by substantiating the fetus having status seperate the mothers* which is what im calling out as a sneaky way to set precedent.
And i would have used visting sps for my legal example. Illegal, but we all do it.
I dont think its possible, you're obviously very hard done by.Maybe the hardest.
IndicatIve of folks who kling to toys above all else.
To put a murderer away for a longer period of time than at least 22 years - that's a fair trade off, considering it does NOTHING to ban or limit abortion. Your argument is that somehow if the accused were sent to prison longer because of the presence of a fetus during the murder that somehow that is akin to abortion - it is not. All your drivel about "giving a fetus legal rights" is nonsense. Because one still has the right to abort a fetus. You are trying to connect non-existent dots, yet again. I think it is perfectly rational to punish a murderer and consider the fetus while at the same time accepting that a woman can freely abort their pregnancy (which they can, regardless of C225). I think the vast majority of Canadians are capable of understanding that both are not incompatible. That society can punish a murderer while considering the fetus during sentencing and accepting that a woman can/should have the freedom to choose. You would imply that both cannot exist simultaneously. But again, you want to desperately tie anything you can so that you can bring out the abortion card. Again, more desperation on your part.
Thats not what i said and now i accuse you of deflecting because of your raging hard-on of man-love for Pierre.
Establishig the rights of the fetus seperate from the mother is the classic way social conservatives start the ball rolling to challange abortion laws. As stated, there were *existing laws * to cover murder AND gender based violence against women that could have been strengthened instead of trying to increase the value of pregnant womens lives over the non-pregnant.That bill tries to make the fetus the central issue, not the crime. It was a shit bill to try that with, even for my low expectations.
And exactly as you pointed out, any judge could *ALREADY* consider the fetus during sentencing, so what was the bill required for? 《HINT: it wasnt, it was only a vehicle for the sneaky sneaky》
- Status
