It begins: tories aim to heighten web-surveillance powers

[langis]

http://www.canada.com/technology/Tor...380/story.html

Four more years!

Is there a "banging head against the wall" smiley?... Nope. Damn.

[armin]

Yup. Thanks 'Conservatives' for spending millions on unjustifyable, unwarranted surveilance on normal Canadians.

I'd really like to know more about this issue.

[jagators63]

well, it is part of New World Order.

[KC]

Hmmmm ?

So tell me again; what was wrong with the gun registry and the long form census?



Oh, Oh - There goes my hobby of posting derogatory and debasing Liberal Party (and in this case Conservative Party) news articles.

excerpt:
"For example, over the past few weeks there has been mounting concern that the legislation would also create new criminal liability for hyperlinking to content that incites hatred and for using anonymous or false names online." Source: MICHAEL GEIST, SPECIAL TO THE OTTAWA CITIZEN, MAY 17, 2011, Tories aim to heighten web-surveillance powers, http://www.canada.com/technology/Tor...380/story.html

[Bill]

Originally Posted by jagators63

well, it is part of New World Order.

Ha!

Good one Jags!

[DiscoBandit]

If I wanted to be watched, suspected of crime like I had already committed one, and live in fear like the sword of Damocles is hanging above me waiting to strike the second I say something that could be construed as TURRISM... I would move back to the US.

[Jeff]

Hey now! Where's the C2E Conservative Booster crew... moahunter, ralph60... guys, c'mon... you mean you're not even going to attempt to justify this gem?

Yup, warrantless "lawful access" - those pesky warrants and the judiciary just get in the way... don't ya know!

But really, we should already be used to this Conservative tactic... using so-called 'omnibus' mega bills to ram through contentious Harper "agenda" items. This one's a bonus... it's never even been subject to committee review - which really is in keeping with Harper's disdain for Parliamentary process.

So... don't provide evidence of a need, don't allow Parliamentary committee review, mandate the disclosure of personal information without court oversight, establish an underlying massive ISP regulatory process, install broad new surveillance technologies... and... don't cost any of it. Simply bury it in an 'omnibus' bill and ram it on through - case closed! Certainly, oh ya, ISP's will simply absorb the significant costs - certainly they won't be expected to pass those costs on to their customers. Ya right...

[richardW]

the real tragedy will be enduring threads like these for the next 4 years

[KC]

"If you've got nothing to hide..."

vs.

"Whatever you say or do WILL be used against you."



But my favourite... (Works in China, Russia, Iran - and here)


" "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm


http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/animal...l#explanation4



Maybe we need to bring back the old telephone party-line approach - open everything up to everyone.

[alex69]

Let's can the indignation. People voted. Let them live with their choice.

[Paul Turnbull]

Meanwhile the U.S. may be moving the other direction:

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) proposed sweeping digital privacy protections Tuesday that would require the government, for the first time, to get a probable-cause warrant to obtain e-mail and other content stored in the cloud.

• Senate bill would require warrant for e-mail, cloud searches

[Komrade]

I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE! I AM A GOOD CANADIAN! I LOVE GIVING UP MY INFORMATION FOR IT MEANS I AM FREE!

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by richardW

the real tragedy will be enduring threads like these for the next 4 years

more likely 30 months or so... then they'll swing on back to prep for the election, while offering anything and everything to the sheeple. So... prepare for the best (err... the worst) in the coming 2-2.5 years!

about that so-called 'hidden-agenda'... big time rumblings are starting up over the 'rumours' of a Conservative private-members bill to reopen the abortion debate. Yup, expect big changes - ramming as much through before the mid-point turnaround.

[Jeff]

Joint letter as signed by Canada's Privacy Commissioner and every provincial counter-part... raising concerns over the current Conservative 'Lawful Access' proposals:

Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart, along with all provincial and territorial privacy guardians, have sent a letter to the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada regarding the privacy risks stemming from the government's current initiative to amend the legal regime governing the use of electronic search, seizure and surveillance. Copies of the letter, dated March 9, 2011, were also provided to members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, as well as the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As a group, Canada's Privacy Commissioners remain concerned about the government's current lawful access initiative, in particular Bill C-52, the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act. We held a teleconference on January 18, 2011 to discuss the issue and would like to relay the substance of that dialogue. While we understand the legitimate needs of law enforcement and national security agencies, as well as their challenges in the context of new information technologies, we would like to bring to your attention the following concerns about the absence of limits on the access powers, the wide scope of information required to be collected and provided by telecommunications companies without a warrant and the inadequacy of internal controls and the legislative gaps in the oversight model.

[glasshead]

Originally Posted by Jeff

about that so-called 'hidden-agenda'... big time rumblings are starting up over the 'rumours' of a Conservative private-members bill to reopen the abortion debate. Yup, expect big changes - ramming as much through before the mid-point turnaround.

At this time, that would be political suicide for the conservatives. I don't think Steve would allow that - but who knows, maybe he's stupid or arrogant enough (I hope) to let some of his minions' leashes loose. Nonetheless, for the Harper Government to sustain, they need to lay low and portray to Canadians that they are closer to the centre...for this cycle anyway.

Now, if Steve receives his majority again next time around, opening up contentious issues like this could be more likely.

[Gemini]

Geez, some of these non Con supporters sure are antsy. Visions of the Cons spying on their computer web-pages and of the Cons opening old long gone issues. What makes you think the Cons are interested in your visits to The People of Walmart web-site. It's a shame they have to keep looking behind their shoulders to make sure the Con Bogey Man is not following them. I should imagine physiatrist visits have increased considerably the amount of paranoia going on out there. Get a grip.

http://www.thesudburystar.com/Articl...aspx?e=3125672

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by glasshead

Now, if Steve receives his majority again next time around, opening up contentious issues like this could be more likely.

Harper has repeatedly said he will never open that debate, that it isn't what Canadians want. I take him at his words at that, since his actions have matched his words. Ultimately, he can have an even concious as the article above describes, just by following his preference that the Provinces set health care policies. This is a preference in general of the Conservative party, that the provinces should be allowed to do their own thing on issues like health and education.

I expect the next Conservative leader could come from out east (e.g. Peter McKay), so probably not a social conservative (but maybe someone who has those private views, which is fine). You need to keep in mind that there were always MP's in the Liberal party who were pro-life as well, I think over time such views are becoming the minority, and politicians understand they remain personal in Canadian politics. There is 0 to be gained by any party to bring this issue up.

[alex69]

Antsy? No, Gemini. Your party and your strong leader's lies are just too funny, too sad, and too in-your face obscene.

Three new senators today. Ho ho ho. All voted rejects.

Enjoy it all. You wanted it, you have it. But all your party wanted is lies for the sake of power and power for the sake of lies. Well, your party got your vote. Take it and stick it.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Gemini

Visions of the Cons spying on their computer web-pages and of the Cons opening old long gone issues. What makes you think the Cons are interested in your visits to The People of Walmart web-site.

Apparently... you have nothing to say about the actual 'lawful access' proposal. Apparently, to you, privacy commissioners must be... paranoid. Did you even bother to read their letter... do you actually know anything about the proposed (legislation)? Do you simply accept it, cause Steve says make it so?

Originally Posted by Gemini

It's a shame they have to keep looking behind their shoulders to make sure the Con Bogey Man is not following them. I should imagine physiatrist visits have increased considerably the amount of paranoia going on out there. Get a grip.

Notwithstanding your blind allegiance, at what point does your perceived paranoia meet reality... uhhh... perhaps like when it translates into actual government bills? Ya think?

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by alex69

Three new senators today. Ho ho ho. All voted rejects.

Merde! So... just after being rejected by the Canadian electorate... Harper appoints them as Senators! And he weasels it out by having the PMO dispatch a release notice just minutes after answering reporters questions about the cabinet shuffle... nice... way to avoid having to address the issue in public.

[moahunter]

^2 of whom were senators before the election campaign.

Actually, I hope the NDP's idea of scraping the Senate gains some traction, one of the few things I agree with the NDP on. I don't think elected senators will add much more than the current bunch do (i.e. nothing).

[Gemini]

I don't think for one moment the government are introducing bills to stop your average Joe/Joan from his/her internet escapades. One of the main concerns for bringing out this bill is to intercept child porn and terrorist cells and groups that spread hatred and mayhem. etc. Do you think Interpol//FBI/Canadian Secret Service are interested in 'The Men Who Prefer Bigger Women' web-site or Aunt Ethel's e-mail ramblings. Search warrant or no search warrant if you are doing nothing wrong people why are you so up tight. In case none have you have forgotten there are also 45 Liberals in the senate. Mmmmmmmmmmmm, wonder how that happened.

[alex69]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^2 of whom were senators before the election campaign.

Actually, I hope the NDP's idea of scraping the Senate gains some traction, one of the few things I agree with the NDP on. I don't think elected senators will add much more than the current bunch do (i.e. nothing).

Moa, enough justifying lies. You are a professional Conservative: be a professional Conservative, but be honest about about. All the time, you say hope this, you say you hope that, but (1) what you hope has no relation to what your party and its leader actually do, and (2) you wind up advocating for the Conservatives anyway.

Seriously, don't even try to argue otherwise.

[Gemini]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Merde! So... just after being rejected by the Canadian electorate... Harper appoints them as Senators! And he weasels it out by having the PMO dispatch a release notice just minutes after answering reporters questions about the cabinet shuffle... nice... way to avoid having to address the issue in public.

Liberals and Liberal Senators. A match made in heaven.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad.../17719511.html

[alex69]

Gemini, how perverse do you have to be to praise in yourselves what you mock in others?

Never mind. Liars are liars.

[Gemini]

^

[alex69]

^What I am sayaing that everything Conservatives say and do is a lie. On the Senate as on everything else, the act (and praise themselves for acting) exactly the same way the disparage the other party for acting in the past.

Whether or not you want to ally yourself with liars for the sake of power and power-mongers for the sake of lies is your choice and your pleasure.

[grish]

let me try...

Gemini, when you brought up Liberals and Liberal senators, did you make an attempt to highlight the basic flaw of the liberal party and how they have become corrupt and out of touch? The conservative party is doing the same. Difference at the moment is that the Liberals are no longer in power and cannot continue to be corrupt. Conservatives, on the other hand, are very much in power. Freshly voted in. This is going to continue. Justifying current Conservative corruption by recalling 7+ year old Liberal corruption is really a dead end. Corrupt is corrupt and liars be liars.

[Dialog]

Originally Posted by Gemini

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad.../17719511.html

Sidenote: at the bottom of this linked article there's a scroller with one link to the "Top 10 solo travel destinations" - and this is the image they're using for it:



Sun Media is such a clownshow

[jagators63]

you all forgot one thing. you know for many years now, most Parties have always show favoritism to their own party friends who lose seats or whatever.

[richardW]

Originally Posted by grish

let me try...

Gemini, when you brought up Liberals and Liberal senators, did you make an attempt to highlight the basic flaw of the liberal party and how they have become corrupt and out of touch? The conservative party is doing the same. Difference at the moment is that the Liberals are no longer in power and cannot continue to be corrupt. Conservatives, on the other hand, are very much in power. Freshly voted in. This is going to continue. Justifying current Conservative corruption by recalling 7+ year old Liberal corruption is really a dead end. Corrupt is corrupt and liars be liars.

i don't mean to alarm you but the government after the cons will also be *gasp* corrupt, the ones after that? yup corrupt and so on and so on.

im not picking sides but dont act surprised that a political party is less than honest with its electorate. thats the basis for modern politics. is it right? does anyone really care?

[Gemini]

Originally Posted by grish

let me try...

Gemini, when you brought up Liberals and Liberal senators, did you make an attempt to highlight the basic flaw of the liberal party and how they have become corrupt and out of touch? The conservative party is doing the same. Difference at the moment is that the Liberals are no longer in power and cannot continue to be corrupt. Conservatives, on the other hand, are very much in power. Freshly voted in. This is going to continue. Justifying current Conservative corruption by recalling 7+ year old Liberal corruption is really a dead end. Corrupt is corrupt and liars be liars.

NDP/Green were not an option for me. If I am understanding what you are saying, that the Liberal and Conservatives are both corrupt you would rather have a corrupt Liberal government voted in rather than a corrupt Conservative one. Yes, I see how it is a fine line between and .

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by alex69

Moa, enough justifying lies. You are a professional Conservative: be a professional Conservative, but be honest about about. All the time, you say hope this, you say you hope that, but (1) what you hope has no relation to what your party and its leader actually do, and (2) you wind up advocating for the Conservatives anyway.

Seriously, don't even try to argue otherwise.

I don't know what you are on about. I supported the conservatives in the last election because I agree with more of their views, especially regarding provincial power, and lower taxes. No party matches all my views though (or will match anyone else's), I have a number of differences from the Conservatives, such as believing:

- drugs should be legalized
- solicitation for sex should be legalized
- removing the senate
- removing personal tax exemptions and instead lowering the basic rate, etc.

Basically I am a fiscal conservative, not a social conservative (although I do support tougher law and order rules). I suggest you need to grow up and realize that no political party is perfect, any election is simply a matter of picking the one that shares more of the views that you hold important at a given time. For most intelligent people, as they get older, that means a party that exerts less influence over their lives. While the conservatives are not perfect at that, IMO they are way ahead of the opposition today (not way ahead of, for example, Paul Martins Liberals).

Most things that a party in power does, like the laws in this thread, aren't a conspiracy, but rather just following the suggestions of the civil service bureaucrats who to a large extent run the country (regardless of who the government is).

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Merde! So... just after being rejected by the Canadian electorate... Harper appoints them as Senators! And he weasels it out by having the PMO dispatch a release notice just minutes after answering reporters questions about the cabinet shuffle... nice... way to avoid having to address the issue in public.

Well, Harper has to stack the Senate if he wants to get any Senate reform bills passed. God knows the Liberal Senators will shoot it down.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by Dialog

Sidenote: at the bottom of this linked article there's a scroller with one link to the "Top 10 solo travel destinations" - and this is the image they're using for it:



Sun Media is such a clownshow

I see a picture of the Statue of Liberty.

Am I missing something here?

[grish]

Originally Posted by Gemini

NDP/Green were not an option for me. If I am understanding what you are saying, that the Liberal and Conservatives are both corrupt you would rather have a corrupt Liberal government voted in rather than a corrupt Conservative one. Yes, I see how it is a fine line between and .

I would rather keep changing corrupt governments. punish the guys who have done the bad things now. if liberal is the other option, at least there is a chance they have reformed. if none of the above, then don't vote or vote an independent, or just focus on the candidate and not the party. it is a matter of principle that the elctorate should punish corruption every time.

[Dialog]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

I see a picture of the Statue of Liberty.

Am I missing something here?

They changed it. Fortunately I took a screenshot.

Pure class. But back to the erosion of our privacy...

[alex69]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Well, Harper has to stack the Senate if he wants to get any Senate reform bills passed. God knows the Liberal Senators will shoot it down.

Lie, sorry, "untruth", .... "error!". Yeah, error.

Actually, Harper has had a majority in the Senate for a little more than a year.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by alex69

Lie, sorry, "untruth", .... "error!". Yeah, error.

Actually, Harper has had a majority in the Senate for a little more than a year.

Yes, he has had a *slight* majority (55 of 105 seats, or something).

There is nothing out of the ordinary with these Senate appontments.

[grish]

exactly... these types of appointments–done by all parties in power–have become acceptable over the years. how could a party possibly know that the elctorate isn't happy with the way senators are appointed? we can contact our MPs and party leadership and we can cast our votes accordingly.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by grish

we can contact our MPs and party leadership and we can cast our votes accordingly.

umm, you just wrote that all the parties do it, so who do you suggest wasting your vote on?

If we don't see an attempt at meaningful Senate reform by the end of this electoral term, I will be disapointed. In writing that, its not a deal breaker given as you say, all PM's use this power. They have to, as otherwise they would have no power. For example, if the Conservatives had not stacked the Senate, the Liberal party would still be controlling Canada, even though it just got wiped out in the election.

[grish]

This is what I actually said:

done by all parties in power

if this becomes the routine deal breaker for not being allowed to remain in power, the parties in power will stop doing it.

[moahunter]

^I am not sure if you have noticed Grish, but there is always a party in power (even in a minority government or even a coalition).

If the NDP for example won, would you be happy to see Jack simply accept that a Conservative Senate could delay / obstruct all of his legislative agenda? Do you really think he could abolish the Senate without first controlling it?

[grish]

nowhere in the legislation concerning the senate does it say that senators must have a political affiliation. how about naming into the senate from distinguished past public servants such as former mayors, academics, business leaders? What you say is acceptable practice had become acceptable because the party in power was never held accoutable.

This specific situation is ironic in that Harper's original rise to power defeating Martin was in large part due to similar Liberal patronage. What was all that outrage with Liberals and where did it go?

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by grish

how about naming into the senate from distinguished past public servants such as former mayors, academics, business leaders?

And you don't think such people will have political views? The Conservatives have appointed academics, sports stars, business leaders etc. Take for example, Ralph Klein. He is a former mayor. Would you have been happy seeing Jack Layton appoint him?

Pretty much everyone except for the Liberal Party thinks the system is morally bankrupt / corupt. It always will be, unless one of two things happen:

1. The Senate is abolished (e.g. Denmark, New Zealand), or
2. The Senate is elected (e.g. the U.S., which changed).

The Conservatives say they want 2. (although we will see if this happens, now they taste the drug of controlling the Senate they seem to be enjoying it just like past governments), and the NDP say they want 1. Whether either change can be acheived (due to the power of the provinces and legalities), I don't know.

[grish]

^ correction. Conservatives used to say they want 2. They have done nothing that they could even pretend that they want 2. Saying "I want elected senators" and using patronage appointments is as hypocritical as it gets.

there are people with political views and then there are active members of the political party that do election fundraisers, take part in the party caucues and vote as a party block. There is a difference.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by grish

^ Saying "I want elected senators" and using patronage appointments is as hypocritical as it gets.

You do realize that the Conservatives have made every Senator they have appointed agree that they will vote in favour of Senate reform?

They could have just done nothing, and left the Liberal appointed Senate in power forever, totally untouchable, so that Senate reform would have been impossible. Would you have preferred that?

Whether the Conservatives even try acheive their stated goal is going to be one of the interesting things this term I think. If they don't, I'll be disapointed, but it won't really shock or upset me compared to other Governments (like the Liberals who said they would scrap GST, then didn't).

[grish]

^you do realize that they are against appointing senators. So they made the promise. Big deal. They also promised to form a transparent and accountable government.

What they should have done is introduce the appropriate legislation for senate reform and see where that goes. They already have the majority.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Whether the Conservatives even try acheive their stated goal is going to be one of the interesting things this term I think. If they don't, I'll be disapointed, but it won't really shock or upset me compared to other Governments (like the Liberals who said they would scrap GST, then didn't).

I absolutely agree with this.

And how Harper's government performs this next four years is going to determine if they get to form another government or not. They are going to be held to their word.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by moahunter

...I have a number of differences from the Conservatives, such as believing:

- drugs should be legalized
- solicitation for sex should be legalized
- removing the senate
- removing personal tax exemptions and instead lowering the basic rate, etc.

Basically I am a fiscal conservative...

Oh really! How's that Harper Conservative "fiscal conservatism" been working out for you? Uhhh... point of order Mr. Speaker! Just why, again, does the Honorable C2E member, moahunter, so fervently support the CON party?

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Gemini

What makes you think the Cons are interested in your visits to The People of Walmart web-site.

clearly, your interweeb travels have me at a disadvantage...

Originally Posted by Gemini

Search warrant or no search warrant if you are doing nothing wrong people why are you so up tight.

So... again... you refuse to answer the previous questions/points asking you to recognize and comment on the collective concerns raised by Canada's national, provincial and territorial Privacy Commissionaires. It's also quite telling to read you so cavalierly dispatch the judiciary and warrant requirements... clearly, you have no qualms about shifts toward a police state.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by grish

Justifying current Conservative corruption by recalling 7+ year old Liberal corruption is really a dead end.

But the leebs! But the leebs! Ah yes, the fervent call of the hyper-partisan Conservative supporters... used in bleating raised shouts to muffle all that Harper fluff about raising the level of accountability and transparency.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Oh really! How's that Harper Conservative "fiscal conservatism" been working out for you? Uhhh... point of order Mr. Speaker! Just why, again, does the Honorable C2E member, moahunter, so fervently support the CON party?

Well, given they have been in a minority party buying off support (for example, the stimulus spending that was demanded by the Liberal party), I haven't had a chance yet to judge. We will get that opportunity now. If they don't deliver, maybe that will be an opportunity for a more centralist / Paul Martin"ish" Liberal party to rebirth itself?

[DiscoBandit]

I think Jeff is maybe my favorite poster

[grish]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2028717/

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by langis

http://www.canada.com/technology/Tor...380/story.html

Four more years!

Is there a "banging head against the wall" smiley?... Nope. Damn.

Lately

Talk about nuts. We know that our security services are still passing on to Washington the names of Canadian citizens alleged to be terrorists — with or without proof.
But it also seems that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has mistakenly added one of its own moles to the growing U.S. terror list.
This bizarre revelation comes courtesy of the muckraking website WikiLeaks, which — as first reported by CBC — has revealed a new cache of confidential U.S. State Department documents.
The documents show that over two years CSIS provided the U.S. embassy in Washington with the names of at least 41 Canadian citizens or residents that it said were associated with terrorism.
Some of the names are already well-known, including those of the so-called Toronto 18 terror cell.
But 22 names belong to people who have never been charged with any kind of terrorist offence.
And front and centre among them is Mubin Shaikh, the former CSIS and RCMP mole who infiltrated — and later testified against — members of the Toronto 18.
A fierce critic of Islamic radicalism, Shaikh was praised by the authorities for his role in the case, which ultimately led to 11 convictions.
But that didn’t stop CSIS from including him in a secret list of known terrorist associates that they passed over to the Americans much later, in 2009.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/p...rror-list?bn=1

Lets see, proroguing Parliament, contempt of Parliament, the "Not" affair, the Helena Guergis affair, the G8 Summit illegal detentions...

The next four years of Harper are going to be scary. He only 39.6% of the 61.4% of eligible voters, less than 25% of the electorate.

[Medwards]

Weak arguments. If you don't vote you dont count. Harper captured a majority and more people voted in this election than the last couple of federal elections.

What percentages did the NDP and Liberals and Bloc get combined? A lot less than the CPCs.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Medwards

Weak arguments. If you don't vote you dont count. Harper captured a majority and more people voted in this election than the last couple of federal elections.

What percentages did the NDP and Liberals and Bloc get combined? A lot less than the CPCs.

combined? Well, uhhh... that would be the remaining 60% of the (voting) electorate. Basic undisputed fact shows Harper owes the false majority (i.e. less than 50% of the popular vote) to vote splitting.

speaking of that united right... trouble in paradise???

[alex69]

They and their great strong leader eliminated their enemy.

Allowing all next-time opposition to consolidate naturally.

Fools.

Not just liars but fools.

And now of course they are unopposed for four years, so like all fools in power they will begin to fight among themselves.

Big difference from the liberals, eh?

Can't wait for their paid propadandists on here to say all their lies are OK if everyone does it.

Sure it's OK. But you lose every honest person's sympathy.

Bye-bye.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Hey now! Where's the C2E Conservative Booster crew... moahunter, ralph60... guys, c'mon... you mean you're not even going to attempt to justify this gem? ...

They're busy working.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

They're busy working.

buddy... that's a four-day old quote of mine... what took you so long? Ya, been workin?

so... you could take the effort to write this gem... but... you couldn't be bothered to actually contribute to the thread topic. Is there a problem?

[Jimbo]

No problem. I'm busy^. Consider yourself blessed whenever I reply to any of your BS.

And PS: I'm vehemently opposed to most of the Tory "tough on crime" legislation. But the reason I'm so busy is because of the economy, and job market. Which is what the other two parties would ruin, imho. So in the tradeoff, I chose food on my table, and I'll continue to be vocal about the things I disagree with.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

No problem. I'm busy^. Consider yourself blessed whenever I reply to any of your BS.

yes... just read your dropped insights in another currently running thread... on you touting the creative outlets that drugs bring to bear... ya been busy, hey?

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Jeff

yes... just read your dropped insights in another currently running thread... on you touting the creative outlets that drugs bring to bear... ya been busy, hey?

Read above. Yes. Now go back to your own miserable existence, and I'll go back to my wonderful one, and we'll both go back to ignoring one another and be better for it.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Read above. Yes. Now go back to your own miserable existence, and I'll go back to my wonderful one, and we'll both go back to ignoring one another and be better for it.

here... let me remind you about your self-proclaimed 'wonderful life'... where you felt a burning need to drop this gem a few posts back:

Originally Posted by Jimbo

They're busy working.

carry on!

[blainehamilton]

Not looking at child pornography?

Not participating in online terrorist activities?

No participating in hacking activities against other people/businesses/organizations?


Carry on...



On a side note, the anti Tory trolls have really kicked it up a notch lately, haven't they?

[armin]

Originally Posted by blainehamilton

Not looking at child pornography?

Not participating in online terrorist activities?

No participating in hacking activities against other people/businesses/organizations?


Carry on...



On a side note, the anti Tory trolls have really kicked it up a notch lately, haven't they?

So now everyone online are paedophiles, terrorists, or script kiddies?

You may be willing to forgo your rights for stupid rules but I won't. How dare you use such pathetic strawman accusations.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Jeff

here... let me remind you about your self-proclaimed 'wonderful life'... where you felt a burning need to drop this gem a few posts back:

carry on!

I will carry on. But if you're going to quote me, don't add stuff to my quote, ok?

[trojonowicz]

[QUOTE=blainehamilton;372104]Not looking at child pornography?

Not participating in online terrorist activities?

No participating in hacking activities against other people/businesses/organizations?


Carry on...

(The author of the above quote is blainehamilton---formatting mistake on my part.)


What the heck is this about by the way??? Is this about anyone surfing on a computer, or directed to someone on this board? Some posters here need a refresher course on basic skills in written communication 1. WHAT am I trying to express? 2. What thought am I trying to specifically get across? 3. WHO am I addressing this to? 4. Have I clarified things well or is it vague and confusing and head-ache-inducing?

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by blainehamilton

Not looking at child pornography?

Not participating in online terrorist activities?

No participating in hacking activities against other people/businesses/organizations?

Carry on...

On a side note, the anti Tory trolls have really kicked it up a notch lately, haven't they?

Yes, clearly... armin has exposed your oh so obvious 'pedophile, terrorist, script kiddie' strawman. I referenced the collective privacy commissionaires letter's link earlier - here again: perhaps you could take up the same challenge others continue to ignore. In your pointed case, perhaps you could extend upon your strawman position and speak to the concerns raised by the full complement of Canada's national, provincial and territorial privacy commissionaires.

On your side note... notwithstanding your ready reach for the ***** label, I reserve like judgement on your account; one that holds to an expectation you'll actually take up the aforementioned challenge.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I will carry on. But if you're going to quote me, don't add stuff to my quote, ok?

you're harmless... the added smilie simply characterized your intent... and truly captured the essence of your self-proclaimed wonderful life!

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by blainehamilton

On a side note, the anti Tory trolls have really kicked it up a notch lately, haven't they?

Agreed, just bad losers. Everytime any bit if legislation is passed now, no matter how mundane, it will be "spun" as being some loss of "rights".

[grish]

alternatively, new legislation should be thoughtful, appropriate, and reflective of our actual problems, not made up ones and there would be no need for a dissent. considering the way current conservative party rose to power defeating Martin on a promise of transparency and respect for the common citizen, and considering the defence of the scrapping of the long form census out of "sincere" respect for privacy, I would expect that party supporters to at least try and not paint themselves into a proverbial corner.

[alex69]

Grish, the law is not written for fools, and morals are not written for liars. I'm outta here.

[langis]

Originally Posted by blainehamilton

Not looking at child pornography?

Not participating in online terrorist activities?

No participating in hacking activities against other people/businesses/organizations?

Not participating in conversation without relying on strawmen and ad-hoc reasoning?

[grish]

Originally Posted by blainehamilton

Not looking at child pornography?

Not participating in online terrorist activities?

No participating in hacking activities against other people/businesses/organizations?

well, I suppose if you aren't smuggling drugs by hiding them in your... er... crevices... you also wouldn't be bothered by a little gloved hand treatment. Nothing to hide, eh? Search away!

[langis]

Originally Posted by langis

Not participating in conversation without relying on strawmen and ad-hoc reasoning?

Still waiting on some sort of weak justification for the rhetorical appeals here.

Originally Posted by moahunter

Everytime any bit if legislation is passed now, no matter how mundane, it will be "spun" as being some loss of "rights".

Since this was a response to a post calling me a "*****," I feel the need to call it out.

Choose my response:

a) PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE

Actually, during the recent "OMG he appointed Conservative senators" fiasco, I said nothing, partly because, um, yeah, the party in power is going to appoint like-minded senators to prevent the bloated appendix known as the senate from halting progressive movement.

I also, to my conservative friends, admitted I respected Stephen Harper for picking Zangief, huddling up in a corner, and using Lariats to dodge Hadoukens for five years, patiently waiting to unleash a superbly powerful Ultra on the opposition.

Granted, I didn't post any of that here, until just now, to defend myself from your ridiculous accusation, but if I had I'm sure it wouldn't have garnered your attention, it not being a slight against a party you adore the same way Ben Stein covets his own "intelligence."

b) SARCASTIC DISMISSIVENESS

I like how "mundane" means precisely what you think it means. Good on you!