Author Topic: Canada = Police State (Read 2104 times)

miko2d · « **Reply #15 on:** January 23, 2004, 12:47:14 PM »

Ping: If you will look at other posts I have made about Politicians, you will see that I hold none of the others in any better regard.
It seems to be that we hope for one of lesser corruption to take office.

It's not politicians - it's the puiblic and the prevailing philosophical opinion/theories it subscribes to. We elect politicians who are in compliance with such philosophies.

It's not a fluke or a man or a party. It's the society that is seriously afflicted by the wrong ideas.
If you get a totally honest and non-selfish non-corrupt politicians who complies with those ideas - and you can get no other, it will be not better but worse since he will be just so much more efficient in moving government towards more socialism. And so much more credible.

Hitler was very honest, brave an unselfish - a model for a politician. Somehow I believe the germans would have been better off with a scumbag who would only had cared about his pockets.

Care to read a book that would clear a lot of questions (that you may never thought you had) on why and how things gott to be the way they are in the last 150 years and why it was inevitable over the last 80 years? I could recomment one.
I do not think reading it will land you in canadian jail or a re-education camp - at least not for a few years yet.

miko

Ping · « **Reply #16 on:** January 23, 2004, 12:52:30 PM »

While it is true that it is the public that elects these officials, how many times has it happened that once in office they enact new laws or legislation that were in no way advertised beforehand.

gofaster · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2004, 01:00:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
GoFaster..are you trying to get this girl in every post now.

Yes, I guess I've been bad and need some "correcting".

Somebody stop me! I'm out of control!

Tarmac · « **Reply #18 on:** January 23, 2004, 01:29:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gofaster
Somebody stop me! I'm out of control!

That's ok. Please continue.

miko2d · « **Reply #19 on:** January 23, 2004, 01:47:32 PM »

Ping: While it is true that it is the public that elects these officials, how many times has it happened that once in office they enact new laws or legislation that were in no way advertised beforehand.

I know what you mean.
Clinton was elected as a "big government" tax-and-spend democrat but under his administration the growth of state expenditures for the first time in decades lagged the overall growth of the economy - in effect reducing the government in relative, if not absolute terms. He signed the welfare reform and free trade agreement!

While the republican limited-government pro-trade anti-welfare Bush enacted record growth of government spending (not including military or securiy-related expences), limited trade, introduced subcidies, signed a huge welfare package (drug benefit) and did not veto a bill that directly violates the sacred Free Speech amendmant. Did not vetoe a single bill ever yet.

But in the genedal scheme of things the difference between them is very small. Each one increased the government or laid foundation for the future increases.

miko

Maverick · « **Reply #20 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:26:50 PM »

Miko,

First you admire Stalin for his "politics". Now you praise Hitler as a brave, honest man and unselfish. Is there ANY mass murderer you DON'T like / admire????? Next I assume it will be idi amin.

I'm glad that none of those papers were items that could be used to defend themselves with or the charges would have been MUCH more severe.

Thrawn · « **Reply #21 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:42:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
I'm glad that none of those papers were items that could be used to defend themselves with or the charges would have been MUCH more severe.

What do you mean?

Maverick · « **Reply #22 on:** January 23, 2004, 05:39:14 PM »

When I visited Canada the customs folks told me the worst thing I could do was to have something that could be used to defend myself with.

Some RV friends of mine visited Canada last year and the customs inspector asked them repeatedly what they brought to defend themselves with. He asked at least 10 timesand they told him each time they did not have any firearms in their RV. He finally dropped it when they pointed to their little dog.

Thrawn · « **Reply #23 on:** January 23, 2004, 05:53:48 PM »

Ah, I see.

vorticon · « **Reply #24 on:** January 23, 2004, 06:45:34 PM »

leaking classified information to anyone is spying...no matter how useless it is...it doesnt matter wether its north korea, china, or a journalist...in fact the leaking of classified information to a journalist is worse because ANY spy from any country can pick it up...

but that doesnt give police the right to
a) invade a home mafia style
b) invade a home without a warrant

Ripper29 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 23, 2004, 06:50:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
When I visited Canada the customs folks told me the worst thing I could do was to have something that could be used to defend myself with.

Some RV friends of mine visited Canada last year and the customs inspector asked them repeatedly what they brought to defend themselves with. He asked at least 10 timesand they told him each time they did not have any firearms in their RV. He finally dropped it when they pointed to their little dog.

Everytime I cross into the US they ask me if I brought my gun along, I tell them "No" and away I go. Not a big deal..

Thrawn · « **Reply #26 on:** January 23, 2004, 07:50:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
leaking classified information to anyone is spying...no matter how useless it is...it doesnt matter wether its north korea, china, or a journalist...in fact the leaking of classified information to a journalist is worse because ANY spy from any country can pick it up...

but that doesnt give police the right to
a) invade a home mafia style
b) invade a home without a warrant

I don't think you understand the roll "freedom of the press" in a liberal democratic society. The journalists provide us with information about the government, sometimes it's information the government would prefer us not to have. This is so we, the citizens, can make informed decisions regarding our government, who to vote for etc.

When the state police start invading the homes and journalists to ascertain who a source is, the chances of sources risking exposure to blow the whistle on goverment goes down. And the public has less information to make informed decisions.

The problem is with the new (post 9/11) security laws the RCMP can say "national security" to get a warrent for just about anything.

And in this specific case there is the question about what exactly was the roll the RCMP played in the US deporation of Arar to Syria.

vorticon · « **Reply #27 on:** January 23, 2004, 10:04:28 PM »

i dont think the freedom of the press covers classified information...and if theres a leak somewhere in the rcmp/csis then it must be found and plugged...

SLO · « **Reply #28 on:** January 24, 2004, 07:58:56 AM »

RCMP/CSIS fugged up on the Arar case....they gave the americans the info about Arar....

Americans fugged up by sending him back to SYRIA knowing they would Torture him(known fact).....yet he had a CANADIAN passport....it was his RIGHT to be sent back here...which the americans chose to ignore......AMERICANS violated international law....knowingly....they completely ignored Canada's Soveriegnty and the Right of one of its Citizen.

now the RCMP is just tryin to cover its bases by pluggin the holes....i.e....what did CSIS/Rcmp give to the Americans as info:aok

not so damn complicated Thrawn....