USA 15 dead in Elementary school shooting at Robb elementary school



Hugh Gains

Winger
On your continued reluctance to answer whether or not you'd back BLM using the same methods as the truckers:

You're like a human chaff grenade mate. I know what you're doing and I'm surprised you think I'm daft enough to fall for it. You think that if you throw enough waffle and irrelevance around then I'll get drawn away from the points you're clearly not wanting to answer.

I'm not asking you what you think of Black Lives Matter's protests. I'm asking what you'd think if Black Lives Matter used the exact same methods as the truckers, in Washington DC. You can't hide from the question by bringing up rioting or whatever else at other BLM protests, because that's clearly not the scope of the question.

The question was and remains - would you back a Black Lives Matter protest group that drove lorries into Washington DC and blockaded the streets in order to protest the deaths of black people at the hands of police?

Yes or no. Everything would be the same, the only difference would be the lorries would be driven by a Black Lives Matter protest group. Everything else remains the same.

-

On vaccines, Trudeau and stats:

1. If you want to condemn Trudeau's rhetoric towards the unvaccinated, you can if you want. I don't agree, but it's a matter of opinion. I'm not wasting time on a matter of subjective opinion.

2. What is not a matter of opinion though, is the numbers. Let's take this point by point.

  • You claim an equitable split in the number of cases between the unvaccinated and vaccinated, despite the unvaccinated people having more cases, in a population that's five times smaller. That's not equitable. That's quite clearly inequitable. It's hugely disproportionate.

  • It doesn't matter if the vaccines weren't available. That's an irrelevance that you're resting upon and I don't understand why. All that matters is that not being vaccinated, increased the risk of being admitted to hospital, relative to being vaccinated. The data clearly shows this.

  • You move on to talk about older people being more likely to be admitted to hospital (this is true) but doesn't this undermine your argument? If older people are disproportionately likely to be admitted, and older people were the first to receive the vaccine, then that means those unvaccinated admissions, are going to be unvaccinated older people in the main, aren't they? Therefore - even though it doesn't actually matter - those unvaccinated people admitted to hospital, will in the main, have been offered the vaccine.
3. Your logic here is unfortunately a classic example of people revising history. They say things like "it turns out the pandemic wasn't as bad as it could have been, so why did we even need restrictions"...forgetting of course that the pandemic only wasn't as bad as it could have been, because of restrictions. It's sadly also a classic example of people not truly grasping the scale of small percentages.

0.3% sounds like nothing right? A 0.3% chance of something happening? Never happen right? Problem is, 0.3% of the population of Canada is 114,000 people. When the denominator is really big, then even a marginal shift in the percentage figure, is a lot of people.

4. I'm glad you agree the vaccines work. You are clearly not a conspiracist and you clearly mean well because you acknowledge the fundamental truth here - vaccines work. I think your direction of travel is all wrong though when you're looking at the data. It isn't tealeaves mate. It clearly shows that vaccines work - which we agree on - and it clearly shows that unvaccinated people were disproportionately using hospital resources.

What a load of wobble? My entire point is based on the emergency act being an egregious abuse of power and a total disproportionate response to unfolding events and you keep coming back with 'what if BLM did this'. Anyone who thinks the use of the emergencies act, one which arrested people on a whim and froze their assets in response to that particular instance is being willingly blind to a total disproportionate and abuse of power. It is criminal that this has unfolded in a western democratic society and the precedent set is damning. This is top and bottom of the back and forth we've had.

Interesting to note now that at the time the party line was that the police had requested this to help resolve things but this was not the case, as per below.


On the point enlarged it's evidently clear from my previous response that I'd have been fine with BLM going down the trucker route, if you couldn't gauge that, then that's down to you. Largely due to the vitriol and violence that stemmed from the BLM stuff as their movements and protests morphed into significant civil unrest, with an arguably legit cause being hijacked and enlarged by chancers, schemers and lucid dreamers.
 

derum

Winger
What a load of wobble? My entire point is based on the emergency act being an egregious abuse of power and a total disproportionate response to unfolding events and you keep coming back with 'what if BLM did this'. Anyone who thinks the use of the emergencies act, one which arrested people on a whim and froze their assets in response to that particular instance is being willingly blind to a total disproportionate and abuse of power. It is criminal that this has unfolded in a western democratic society and the precedent set is damning. This is top and bottom of the back and forth we've had.

Interesting to note now that at the time the party line was that the police had requested this to help resolve things but this was not the case, as per below.


On the point enlarged it's evidently clear from my previous response that I'd have been fine with BLM going down the trucker route, if you couldn't gauge that, then that's down to you. Largely due to the vitriol and violence that stemmed from the BLM stuff as their movements and protests morphed into significant civil unrest, with an arguably legit cause being hijacked and enlarged by chancers, schemers and lucid dreamers.
Could be talking about another PM’s actions during the pandemic………
 

SYB_DC

Winger
That's almost too ridiculous for words. They are public employees. The records are public records involving the on-duty lives of public employees whose salaries are paid by taxpayers. All of the actions on these recordings occurred in full view of the public. They are admissible in court. They are the most accurate record that exists of an event of paramount public importance.

If the cops wanted to avoid embarrassment, they should have done their f***ing jobs.
 

safcforever

Striker
That's almost too ridiculous for words. They are public employees. The records are public records involving the on-duty lives of public employees whose salaries are paid by taxpayers. All of the actions on these recordings occurred in full view of the public. They are admissible in court. They are the most accurate record that exists of an event of paramount public importance.

If the cops wanted to avoid embarrassment, they should have done their f***ing jobs.
There’s a fine line though, the video footbage should be investigated and reviewed, however releasing it to the public isn’t always a good thing.
 

SYB_DC

Winger
There’s a fine line though, the video footbage should be investigated and reviewed, however releasing it to the public isn’t always a good thing.
I can see the argument for uncensored video. All audio and written records must be released. If we release ATC tapes from plane crashes (we do), there's no excuse. And "embarrassment" certainly isn't one. Like I said, ATC tapes get released even when the pilots made the mistakes that killed everyone.
 
Last edited:
What a load of wobble? My entire point is based on the emergency act being an egregious abuse of power and a total disproportionate response to unfolding events and you keep coming back with 'what if BLM did this'. Anyone who thinks the use of the emergencies act, one which arrested people on a whim and froze their assets in response to that particular instance is being willingly blind to a total disproportionate and abuse of power. It is criminal that this has unfolded in a western democratic society and the precedent set is damning. This is top and bottom of the back and forth we've had.

Interesting to note now that at the time the party line was that the police had requested this to help resolve things but this was not the case, as per below.


On the point enlarged it's evidently clear from my previous response that I'd have been fine with BLM going down the trucker route, if you couldn't gauge that, then that's down to you. Largely due to the vitriol and violence that stemmed from the BLM stuff as their movements and protests morphed into significant civil unrest, with an arguably legit cause being hijacked and enlarged by chancers, schemers and lucid dreamers.

You're grossly exaggerating how badly the truckers were treat. They weren't arrested 'on a whim', they were justifiably arrested. The trucker convoy caused significant disruption to the city for weeks on end mate. The alternative was that either

a) the government concede to the truckers - why should they?
b) the people of Ottawa continue to have their lives disrupted - why should they?

Assets were frozen because those assets were involved in funding further disruption. The funding wasn't coming entirely internally either. It was coming from abroad.

So you say "it's evidently clear from my previous response that I'd have been fine with BLM going down the trucker route" so presumably you think it's absolutely fine for any group to significantly disrupt the lives of other people, for weeks on end, and the government just have to put up with it. I suspect if it was your street, you'd think differently. This being in Canada and a cause you support allows you to argue for it in the abstract, without having to deal with any of the consequences of it.

If it was your home, your business, your life being disrupted for a cause that most people were against, you'd undoubtedly feel differently. How many weeks of BLM protests, keeping you awake at night, would it take before you changed your mind?

I appreciate this may be hard for you to accept, but just because you believe in a cause, that doesn't make it right. The truckers weren't right. What started as a protest against a vaccine mandate specific to them, because an occupation of Ottawa in protest of all COVID measures, and the majority of people didn't back what they were protesting for. So why did these truckers have the right to blockade a city for a month?
 
Last edited:
Don't read if you've got high blood pressure.

As claims online already circulate that the Uvalde shootings were a false flag or didn't happen at all, this article is a profile of a Oklahoman grandmother who has spent a decade of her life consumed with the conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook mass murders never happened and the children didn't exist, to the point where her own family broke down. She's an absolute archetype of the 'do your own research' nut.

Fair to say the journalist isn't impressed, describing at one point her 'feral lack of empathy'.
 

Pop

Striker
You're grossly exaggerating how badly the truckers were treat. They weren't arrested 'on a whim', they were justifiably arrested. The trucker convoy caused significant disruption to the city for weeks on end mate. The alternative was that either

a) the government concede to the truckers - why should they?
b) the people of Ottawa continue to have their lives disrupted - why should they?

Assets were frozen because those assets were involved in funding further disruption. The funding wasn't coming entirely internally either. It was coming from abroad.

So you say "it's evidently clear from my previous response that I'd have been fine with BLM going down the trucker route" so presumably you think it's absolutely fine for any group to significantly disrupt the lives of other people, for weeks on end, and the government just have to put up with it. I suspect if it was your street, you'd think differently. This being in Canada and a cause you support allows you to argue for it in the abstract, without having to deal with any of the consequences of it.

If it was your home, your business, your life being disrupted for a cause that most people were against, you'd undoubtedly feel differently. How many weeks of BLM protests, keeping you awake at night, would it take before you changed your mind?

I appreciate this may be hard for you to accept, but just because you believe in a cause, that doesn't make it right. The truckers weren't right. What started as a protest against a vaccine mandate specific to them, because an occupation of Ottawa in protest of all COVID measures, and the majority of people didn't back what they were protesting for. So why did these truckers have the right to blockade a city for a month?

Didn’t the BLM protest which created CHAZ in Seattle effectively get left to crack on? They took over a big chunk of the city for nearly a month and they were just left to it.

I’d argue what they did was worse than the truckers and some politicians were openly supportive of it.
 
Didn’t the BLM protest which created CHAZ in Seattle effectively get left to crack on? They took over a big chunk of the city for nearly a month and they were just left to it.

I’d argue what they did was worse than the truckers and some politicians were openly supportive of it.

That may be so but it isn’t what I was wanting to get views on. I simply want to know how @Hugh Gains would feel about BLM truckers keeping him awake at night, blocking his street, obstructing access to his business, etc.
 

Pop

Striker
That may be so but it isn’t what I was wanting to get views on. I simply want to know how @Hugh Gains would feel about BLM truckers keeping him awake at night, blocking his street, obstructing access to his business, etc.

At least we know politicians and the police would be ok with it, which speaks volumes imo.
 

Top