US military Bullying Canadian Civilians
BartSimpson @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:46 pm
ziggy ziggy:
avro5 avro5:
To cons any critique of the U.S. means you are anti-American. It's an ad hominem attack because they lack the skills to defend the idiocy of the current disaster of a president.
More like the other way around,the hypocracy is right out there.A blind man could see it.So how long you figure before you get banned?
Not long, I'm sure.
ziggy @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:48 pm
avro5 avro5:
ziggy ziggy:
avro5 avro5:
Sorry but your wrong Zig, I've seen it a million times here and in the media. It's a simplistic way to argue without even arguing like kids on a playground. It's really boring and weak.
Oh and probally real soon.
Well if your going to criticize the US then pick something that doesnt show an agenda.There's no shortage of things to dis them about.This attempt was pretty lame.Oh and probally real soon.
I didn't critisize them.
Mr_Canada old @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:54 pm
Avro, you insult like a 4 year old... "Mr. Maker up things"?
Before you come back as Avro6 or whatever, goto the Library and simply find a good book on rude language.
It'd be much funnier with you prancing around like a doofus if you could atleast insult something well.
Mr_Canada old @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:57 pm
avro5 avro5:
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
Avro, you insult like a 4 year old... "Mr. Maker up things"?
When you come back as Avro6 or whatever, goto the Library and simply find a good book on rude language.
It'd be much funnier with you prancing around like a doofus if you could atleast insult something well.
When you come back as Avro6 or whatever, goto the Library and simply find a good book on rude language.
It'd be much funnier with you prancing around like a doofus if you could atleast insult something well.
Sorry.
Come on, you're not going to atleast flip me off something?
ButtPirateAvro @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:59 pm
Post deleted by Mod
sandorski @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:00 pm
ziggy ziggy:
avro5 avro5:
To cons any critique of the U.S. means you are anti-American. It's an ad hominem attack because they lack the skills to defend the idiocy of the current disaster of a president.
More like the other way around,the hypocracy is right out there.A blind man could see it.So how long you figure before you get banned?
Both sides do it.
Mr_Canada old @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:04 pm
avro5 avro5:
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
avro5 avro5:
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
Avro, you insult like a 4 year old... "Mr. Maker up things"?
When you come back as Avro6 or whatever, goto the Library and simply find a good book on rude language.
It'd be much funnier with you prancing around like a doofus if you could atleast insult something well.
When you come back as Avro6 or whatever, goto the Library and simply find a good book on rude language.
It'd be much funnier with you prancing around like a doofus if you could atleast insult something well.
Sorry.
Come on, you're not going to atleast flip me off something?
Nope, you were right, I should have tried harder, sorry about that.
Have a wonderful evening gentlemen and take care.
Ciao.
Damnit.
Scape @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:08 pm
$1:
But Brent Patterson, the council's director of organizing, said a Papineauville official called late Tuesday to say the RCMP, the Surete du Quebec and the U.S. army would not allow the municipality to rent the facility to the council for the planned forum.
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
The Canadian Army has no law enforcement authority on Canadian soil, the US Army doubly so.
What right does the US Army have, even opening it's pie hole with respect to Canadian Citizens and our right to freely associate in this country?
PDT_Armataz_01_37 What right does the US Army have, even opening it's pie hole with respect to Canadian Citizens and our right to freely associate in this country?
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Security doesn't trump freedom. These people are free to protest somewhere else.
They are not free to protest at the HQ for the security for three heads of state.
They are not free to protest at the HQ for the security for three heads of state.
Free speech zones outside of the 25-kilometre security perimeter is one thing, deferring to US army authority is another.
BartSimpson @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:20 pm
The US Army isn't dictating to Canada or Canadians. Not at all.
If their terms for security are unacceptable then the meeting can be held elsewhere such as in the USA or Mexico and then all such future meetings will no longer be held in Canada.
The security for the President (regardless of who it is - Clinton also had first class security) is a big deal to the military and most aspects of Presidential security are non-negotiable.
RUEZ @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:15 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
ziggy ziggy:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
The venue in dispute is, according to the article, six kilometers away from the site where the leaders are meeting. What possible security threat exists? What justifies the muzzling of an opposing point of view? None and nothing.
Like the Kananaskis during Cretians visit? More than 6 kliks blocked off there. cant blame them for heightened security.
Right, I forgot, security trumps freedom. Thanks for the reminder.
Toro @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:26 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Toro Toro:
I might take this a bit more seriously if that author didn't keep using the word "proto-fascist."
Define 'facism'. How about, 'When Corporations have more influence over government than citizens do'. Now, tell me how the SPP will help citizens. Yep. Corporate interests over Citizens. Facism, by definition.
Toro Toro:
Its like the Cartoonish Left keeps attaching these pre-fixes to broad political philosophies to create an air of faux intellectualism.
Its amusing.
Its amusing.
hurley_108 @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:09 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Right, I forgot, security trumps freedom. Thanks for the reminder.
Security doesn't trump freedom. These people are free to protest somewhere else.
They are not free to protest at the HQ for the security for three heads of state.
Read TFA. The security decided to make their previously booked venue the HQ for security, not the other way around.
BartSimpson @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:19 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Right, I forgot, security trumps freedom. Thanks for the reminder.
Security doesn't trump freedom. These people are free to protest somewhere else.
They are not free to protest at the HQ for the security for three heads of state.
Read TFA. The security decided to make their previously booked venue the HQ for security, not the other way around.
If it makes you feel any better, the Secret Service is unable to close off Pennsylvania Avenue right in front of the White House to protestors.
That these people got bounced doesn't bother me all that much. Security for the three people in charge of North America is more important than their having a place to coordinate with International ANSWER.
DrCaleb @ Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:07 am
Toro Toro:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Toro Toro:
I might take this a bit more seriously if that author didn't keep using the word "proto-fascist."
Define 'facism'. How about, 'When Corporations have more influence over government than citizens do'. Now, tell me how the SPP will help citizens. Yep. Corporate interests over Citizens. Facism, by definition.
Toro Toro:
Its like the Cartoonish Left keeps attaching these pre-fixes to broad political philosophies to create an air of faux intellectualism.
Its amusing.
Its amusing.
I find it amusing when you use the same tactics you claim to decry.
DrCaleb @ Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:09 am
ziggy ziggy:
CKA has its share of US haters but not as many as Vive. Their more amusing then anything.
I'm glad you differentiate between the posters, and the site. I'm not crazy about some of their antics ethier, but I still stand for their right to express themselves.
But I do like it when DBaker comes around after his meds have worn off.