Canadians willing to give up freedoms to stop terror, poll sugests. Bill C-51

^Where did I say that?

This summer, track days. We will meet and I can search your cavities for you? How's that?
 
je comprends le point de vue et non , c'est pas nice de devoir faire ça. Le problème avec ces mesures c'est qu'elles sont aussi radicales que ceux proposés par ceux qui sont capable de "se défendre eux-mêmes" ..y'aura pas de gagnants avec le terrorisme de toute façon.



et @od man , sure. catch me if you can ;)
 
Facile à dire que je ne veut pas qu'ils briment ma liberté individuelle et que je ne veut pas qu'ils espionnent mes courriels, activités sur le net...

Mais ça veut aussi dire que je ne veut pas qu'ils le fassent à des gens qu'ils suspectent de terrorisme, pédophilie...

J'ai ben de la misère avec les utopistes qui voient tout blanc ou tout noir. "Mieux vaut mourir debout que de vivre à genoux"... Moi je suis d'accord pour m'agenouiller quelques secondes si ça me permet de reprendre mon souffle pour leur en calliser une sur la gueule après...
 
Only Betas TL;DR

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

-- Patrick Henry
Click to expand...
 
[Ef]saceone[sF] said:
50% de tes post sont contre le gouvernement

50% de tes post sont des "jokes"/photos/vidéos tellement pas drôle que ça me donne envie de relire tes posts d'illuminati

100% des fois que je lis tes post, j'ai envie de pleurer



-S1
Click to expand...

75% of your posts are your opinion of other MR members.

The rest are statistical anomalies.
 
ticul said:
Facile à dire que je ne veut pas qu'ils briment ma liberté individuelle et que je ne veut pas qu'ils espionnent mes courriels, activités sur le net...

Mais ça veut aussi dire que je ne veut pas qu'ils le fassent à des gens qu'ils suspectent de terrorisme, pédophilie...

J'ai ben de la misère avec les utopistes qui voient tout blanc ou tout noir. "Mieux vaut mourir debout que de vivre à genoux"... Moi je suis d'accord pour m'agenouiller quelques secondes si ça me permet de reprendre mon souffle pour leur en calliser une sur la gueule après...
Click to expand...

Tu vas t'agenouiller, pis ils vont te fourrer jusqu'a la fin de ta vie.
C'est de meme que ca marche... C'est comme ca qu'on cree un gouvernement fort, qui va decider pour tout...
 
[Ef]saceone[sF] said:
je n'ai jamais compris c'est quoi le problème si tu fais rien de mal..
Click to expand...

Tout à fait d'accord. C'est même le principe de base de la loi.

Maintenant, qui décide de ce qui est bien et de ce qui est mal? Ah oui, les mêmes gens qui mettent en place ces lois.
 
18th century speeches, how novel!

No government meddling in people's affairs? In a perfect world, I'd be all for it. I mean in theory it sounds great. But what exactly are you supposed to do when people living amongst us have no respect whatsoever for those values that are so important to you and are actively plotting to hurt you, your families and everything you stand for? And no, I ain't refering to the big, evil gubment here...

Do you think the radical islamists really care about the charter of rights? Last I checked it wasn't part of the quran and whatever messed up interpretation one can make of it. I doubt it's part of their vision of society.

Do they really deserve all those rights and freedoms you want for yourself if they're going to use them against you? Sure, let's allow anyone to plot and scheme to blow up the west edmonton mall, derail trains, kill soldiers. I don't shop there, don't ride the train and ain't a serving member of the Canadian Forces so what do I care, right?.

But above all things, stay the fuck away from my Gmail account. My amazon order history is beyond super secret and shall not be compromised in the name of national security, ever.
 
kahos said:
18th century speeches, how novel!

No government meddling in people's affairs? In a perfect world, I'd be all for it. I mean in theory it sounds great. But what exactly are you supposed to do when people living amongst us have no respect whatsoever for those values that are so important to you and are actively plotting to hurt you, your families and everything you stand for? And no, I ain't refering to the big, evil gubment here...

Do you think the radical islamists really care about the charter of rights? Last I checked it wasn't part of the quran and whatever messed up interpretation one can make of it. I doubt it's part of their vision of society.

Do they really deserve all those rights and freedoms you want for yourself if they're going to use them against you? Sure, let's allow anyone to plot and scheme to blow up the west edmonton mall, derail trains, kill soldiers. I don't shop there, don't ride the train and ain't a serving member of the Canadian Forces so what do I care, right?.

But above all things, stay the fuck away from my Gmail account. My amazon order history is beyond super secret and shall not be compromised in the name of national security, ever.
Click to expand...

od_man isn't for a police/army-free government or country. At least not that I know of. Most libertarians want to reduce the government size to the minimum, meaning it's there to protect the country from foreign invaders, and provide a police force to make sure basic laws are followed.
 
mazdafreak said:
od_man isn't for a police/army-free government or country. At least not that I know of. Most libertarians want to reduce the government size to the minimum, meaning it's there to protect the country from foreign invaders, and provide a police force to make sure basic laws are followed.
Click to expand...

I'm not intending to single him out or blow the terrorist threat out of proportion. It's not high enough to warrant going crazy over it.

It's just that beyond all those ideals, there has to be a point where the rubber hits the road and you have to make some compromises "for the greater good" It's inevitable.

There are some dickwads living here that if given a chance will attack us (the people and places we care about) . It's happened before and is likely to happen again. The threat isn't foreign. It's here and some of those cunts were actually born here and all have the rights and privilege of canadian citizenship. You can't ignore them forever and you can't just ship them off to guantanamo either.

What exactly are you supposed to do with them? Pretend they ain't around and keep the course untill shit hits the fan? I'd prefer if we seek em out and disrupt their operations and if we need new laws or framework for it, then so be it. I think the current approach is reasonable.
 
kahos said:
I'm not intending to single him out or blow the terrorist threat out of proportion. It's not high enough to warrant going crazy over it.

It's just that beyond all those ideals, there has to be a point where the rubber hits the road and you have to make some compromises "for the greater good" It's inevitable.

There are some dickwads living here that if given a chance will attack us (the people and places we care about) . It's happened before and is likely to happen again. The threat isn't foreign. It's here and some of those cunts were actually born here and all have the rights and privilege of canadian citizenship. You can't ignore them forever and you can't just ship them off to guantanamo either.

What exactly are you supposed to do with them? Pretend they ain't around and keep the course untill shit hits the fan? I'd prefer if we seek em out and disrupt their operations and if we need new laws or framework for it, then so be it. I think the current approach is reasonable.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, the flaw with the current approach is that dumbasses that are sitting in their office and argue like monkeys in a private room in ottawa make all the decisions for our "safety". I don't know where these people read that they are better than myself to decide what's good for my mind, body and soul, but they sure are ok with it.

You also have to remember that in a libertarian country, people have the right to carry firearms and therefore being a criminal is much harder. Sure, some dickwads don't care about blowing themselves up to kill dozens in the process, but in the end the government can't stop it, at least not with internet surveillance. I think the general idea of protecting the people from terrorists is good and should be done, but the real motive behind this bill needs to be questioned severely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top