Canadian Asks: Should Pres. Bush Be Arrested For War Crimes?

rtwngAvngr said:
who HAS it worked for, in your opinion?

Also when I said you tolerate terrorists I mean you tolerate terrorists that are PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO THE WESTERN TRADITIONS OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM ON WHICH CANADA IS FOUNDED. Saying the U.S. employed terrorist tactics in fighting OUR ENEMIES is a little different. You're on a national suicide trip.

you cross a line of toleration when you tolerate intolerance.

The last time we had terrorists groups openly attacking the foundation of Canada, we invoke the War Measures Act and kicked they're ass. Remeber there are have been no terrorist attacks in Canada since, and know terrorists has used Canada as a base of operations to launch attacks on the States.
 
MrMarbles said:
The last time we had terrorists groups openly attacking the foundation of Canada, we invoke the War Measures Act and kicked they're ass. Remeber there are have been no terrorist attacks in Canada since, and know terrorists has used Canada as a base of operations to launch attacks on the States.

It hasn't happened yet, so don't worry? What an ignorant attitude.
 
Isaac Brock said:
So left unchecked you believe Canada will head towards totalitarianism? I'm just wondering what part of Canadian history would lead you to that conclusion. The suggestion that somehow there is this big, sudden change in Canada towards a police state is perplexing.

You may recall we had a similar conversation once before which I abandoned rather that pursue. If you cannot see the danger of your meek acceptance of your government's regulation of speech, then there is little point in discussing this topic with you.

I see Canadians as riding the razor's edge between socialism and totalitarianism because one eventually and inevitably leads to the other. Witness any number of European countries who have sent citizens to jail merely for making statements critical of muslims. That is your future. As government "benefits" increase, so does government regulation. As regulation increases, government becomes ever more intrusive and controlling.

Americans face the same danger. Leftist freaks in this country demand politically correct speech. They demand an ever increasing level of government services and entitlement programs. Their agenda is to impose their will and their social view on everyone.

The main difference between Americans and Canadians is that we still have a majority of our population which objects to excessive government while you seem to have come to accept, even to expect government policies to run your lives.

Perhaps you can be comfortable with big brother government. I cannot.
 
Merlin1047 said:
You may recall we had a similar conversation once before which I abandoned rather that pursue. If you cannot see the danger of your meek acceptance of your government's regulation of speech, then there is little point in discussing this topic with you.

I see Canadians as riding the razor's edge between socialism and totalitarianism because one eventually and inevitably leads to the other. Witness any number of European countries who have sent citizens to jail merely for making statements critical of muslims. That is your future. As government "benefits" increase, so does government regulation. As regulation increases, government becomes ever more intrusive and controlling.

Americans face the same danger. Leftist freaks in this country demand politically correct speech. They demand an ever increasing level of government services and entitlement programs. Their agenda is to impose their will and their social view on everyone.

The main difference between Americans and Canadians is that we still have a majority of our population which objects to excessive government while you seem to have come to accept, even to expect government policies to run your lives.

Perhaps you can be comfortable with big brother government. I cannot.

I suggest you read the law I posted restricting violent hate speech and see then if you really believe it is an un-due restriction on basic freedoms. Why does your government, for instance, ban obscenity, nudity in public places? Is that not a restriction on your rights? I ask you where do basic, unalienable right begin and where do our specific moral restrictions begin?

I can simply cannot agree with you, that social programs lead inevitably and completely towards totalitarianism. There simply are too many examples of countries that are perfectly free with large social nets (ie All of Scandinavia, Finland, Australia, NZ, Italy, Germany, Singapore etc). Whether or not public systems are necessarily more efficient, cost-wise than private systems is certainly a reasonable discussion, however to suggest that it was pre-cursor to totalitarianism is historically irresponsible.

Let us look at the modern Communist, totalitarianism states in history and how they go that way.
USSR - Revolt from the lower class due to large social disparities.
China - Revolt from corrupt, elitist Nationalist government
Cuba - Revolt from former dictator and exploitation by Western industries.
North Korea - Again, revolt from lower class with Chinese/Russian backing

Where can we find one example of a country become totalitarian through too many social programs?
 
Isaac Brock said:
I suggest you read the law I posted restricting violent hate speech and see then if you really believe it is an un-due restriction on basic freedoms. Why does your government, for instance, ban obscenity, nudity in public places? Is that not a restriction on your rights? I ask you where do basic, unalienable right begin and where do our specific moral restrictions begin?

I can simply cannot agree with you, that social programs lead inevitably and completely towards totalitarianism. There simply are too many examples of countries that are perfectly free with large social nets (ie All of Scandinavia, Finland, Australia, NZ, Italy, Germany, Singapore etc). Whether or not public systems are necessarily more efficient, cost-wise than private systems is certainly a reasonable discussion, however to suggest that it was pre-cursor to totalitarianism is historically irresponsible.

Let us look at the modern Communist, totalitarianism states in history and how they go that way.
USSR - Revolt from the lower class due to large social disparities.
China - Revolt from corrupt, elitist Nationalist government
Cuba - Revolt from former dictator and exploitation by Western industries.
North Korea - Again, revolt from lower class with Chinese/Russian backing

Where can we find one example of a country become totalitarian through too many social programs?

Are you trying to use that list of particular countries as an example of Utopian idealism?
 
CSM said:
Are you trying to use that list of particular countries as an example of Utopian idealism?

Does it look like I am by calling them totalitarian states?
 
Isaac Brock said:
Does it look like I am by calling them totalitarian states?
Just seeking calrification. Each of those nations were founded under the guise of holding socialist ideals paramount.
 
CSM said:
Just seeking calrification. Each of those nations were founded under the guise of holding socialist ideals paramount.

Absolutely correct, I am not disputing that in the least. However, I am asserting that none of these countries began with a prosperous, democractic country with social programs.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CSM
Isaac Brock said:
Absolutely correct, I am not disputing that in the least. However, I am asserting that none of these countries began with a prosperous, democractic country with social programs.

Then go get your guns if you want a socialist utopia. The producers (conservatives) want nothing to do with your excess of collectivism. That's always been the problem. If only you could villify us and force us into your system somehow...
 

Forum List

Back
Top