Fateless

Members
  • Content count

    1,769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Fateless last won the day on July 12

Fateless had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,506 Gaming the system

About Fateless

  • Rank
    Best Shot
  • Birthday 07/11/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Campbell River, British Columbia
  • Interests
    Lawyer, anime/manga enthusiast, gaming, League of Legends (Diamond), language lover.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,082 profile views
  1. Tough call - if you don't report it, he can always stab you in the back with a hit and run claim. I'd report it to be safe. You don't have to make a claim, so it shouldn't impact your insurance rates.
  2. So Boeser broke McQuaid's fibula with his shot. Feels good to have someone that can shoot the puck that hard on a regular basis.

    1. Show previous comments  8 more
    2. BananaMash

      BananaMash

      If I wink do I get a warning point or can I wink?

    3. Jimmy McGill
    4. BananaMash

      BananaMash

      Deb knows I'm harmless and just have a poor filter so shes gotta put me in my place sometimes, subtly.

  3. Because its aimed directly at all non-christian faiths. Did you read the whole piece of legislation? Lost in the shuffle is section 13 which states: "13. The measures introduced in this Act must not be interpreted as affecting the emblematic and toponymic elements of Québec’s cultural heritage, in particular its religious cultural heritage, that testify to its history." This isn't an actual law aimed at promoting equality, its aimed at oppressing anything that Quebec believes does not align with their "religious cultural heritage" which is mainly Catholicism. This law is all about assimilating believers of other religions into the shape Quebec has determined is the "correct shape" and if they don't like it, they can get out. That is not the ideals that Canada strives for; multiculturalism is our foundation.
  4. Are we really comparing our human rights to Saudi Arabia's? We've fallen that far?
  5. If you had read the rest of my posts you would see that I agree with you. I do believe that everyone's face should be visible for government related affairs for security purposes. My point in my original comment is that the law Quebec has put into place is not designed to provide security or promote secularism, its literally designed to oppress Muslims. The law itself specifically excludes Catholicism from its secularist approach. The law is designed to say everyone should conform to Quebec's view of what is the correct religion and if you wont' do that, you must be secular or you'll be oppressed.
  6. In that sense, Trudeau and Harper are polar opposites. Trudeau has gone so far as to do the right thing, bearing in mind how the Supreme Court will treat something, despite knowing he'll receive an immense amount of public backlash (read: Khadr). Trudeau has some significant downfalls. I'm not a fan of his economic policies whatsoever, but on things like Khadr, I am proud that he does the right thing.
  7. Again it comes down to legislative intent. Whoever drafted the law did a great job because the law reflects exactly what the drafters wanted it to be. Its just terrible that we have elected officials that wanted it to be what it is. I think we're pretty similar in belief though overall.
  8. There's a big difference between a backpack and a religious symbol. The religious symbol is protected under the Charter while the backpack is not. Again I agree with the basic premise, but its not that simple and this law took it WAYYYYYY too far.
  9. I have mixed feelings on the "show your face in government buildings" thing. I understand both sides of the argument. My heart sides with allowing the religious to follow their practices but my mind agrees that they should be forced to identify themselves. The problem is that this law goes way beyond that. This law was designed to segregate and remove face-covering populations from Quebec. This law is designed to force them out and oppress. Quite frankly while I'm astounded something this draconian would be supported in Canada, Quebec would certainly be the place it happened.
  10. In Quebec you can only receive government services if you wear a giant crucifix.
  11. Then why is it now illegal in Quebec to ride a bus or subway with a face covering on? See my point? The law is ultra vires or outside the scope of the authority of the Quebec government to legislate because the only reason they've made it illegal to wear a face-covering on a bus is because they're racist.
  12. Yeah, definitely need to show your face to get on the bus or subway. This wasn't done for fraud prevention. It wasn't done because people are afraid of being robbed without being able to see their attacker's face. It was done because of Quebec's white catholic superiority complex and the false belief that every other religion is the problem in the world but their own. It was done out of an unfounded and irrational fear that people who wear face-coverings are monsters out to get us. This will be challenged and will be struck down for being contrary to the Charter. As it should be.
  13. I do not believe he clears and voted accordingly. He's unproven, but still has potential - I believe he's worth a pick-up for a couple teams.
  14. They have projected Colorado gaining 24 points from last year. That's literally asking them to win 1.5x the amount of games they did last year. These projections are retarded.