Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Dral

  1. 6 minutes ago, Hypocritical Cranium said:

    I bet he is with some of them. Not nearly all of them. I've never met anyone who loved all their parties ideals and goals. Well, maybe Hitler. 

    I liked their "ideals" when they stand up for freedom of speech, I don't like their "ideals" when they try to censor it... or rig primaries...


    It seems that most people in this thread just don't understand that one party isn't divine and the other isn't demonic... they both have their good and bad...

    • Hydration 1
  2. 15 minutes ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

    Funny as I thought it was the Republicans that favored less government intervention in their daily lives... Odd as it seems to be socialism at its finest!


    It may also cost them the Amazon HQ and the thousands of jobs and millions in economic benefits that come with it.   

    Trump is a closet Democrat so it kind of makes sense...


    10 minutes ago, gurn said:

    Is it really nice to see? Are you now in favour of Democratic Party ideals and goals?

    I'm not a conservative...


    I guess I should add that I just appear to be one because I don't get out raged over small things, I prefer to use empirical data to form my opinions and I'm generally not crazy

    • Like 1
  3. 5 hours ago, Warhippy said:

    Oh wow...


    I mean look at these clowns


    Georgia lawmakers scuttled a tax deal that would have benefited Delta Air Lines on Monday after Delta cut ties with the National Rifle Association.

    Delta, which is headquartered in Georgia and has its largest hub at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, this weekend ended a discount it offered to NRA members, joining other companies such as United Airlines and Symantec in taking action after the Parkland, FL school shooting. 

    The Georgia Senate responded by blocking a $50 million jet fuel sales tax exemption, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Monday. Georgia Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, a Republican, tweeted that he would "kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA."

    "Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back," Cagle continued.


    Georgia Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle tweeted that he would kill any tax legislation that benefits Delta unless the airline reinstates discounts for NRA members.


    Delta employs 33,000 people in Georgia, according to a 2015 press release.

    I thought Liberals were the ones who were supposed to be against corporate tax cuts...


    It's nice to see the Republicans doing the job of the Democrats without them even realizing it

  4. 10 hours ago, Mustapha said:

    The election of Trudeau pushed me down the road of political awareness. I never took the time to consider Canadian politics, and I definitely was not informed. I took everything I read in the newspaper at face value, and I was too ignorant to even notice that different publications have different biases and agendas.


    Now that I am aware, I have to say that I am more depressed about Canadian politics. There's Prince Justin, ready to mindlessly spout politically correct buzzwords about diversity and feminism. He loves shallow gestures of tokenism like wearing ethnic garb and visiting mosques. Yet I don't hear him talk about election reform, or how he intends to keep Canada competitive when the USA is cutting taxes and deregulating to attract business. These are real issues, but those take work to solve, and its far easier to just stick to skin deep social issues and solve nothing. 


    The NDP socialists are potentially even worse than Prince Justin ( if thats even possible) and even the so-called Conservative party would stoop to Justin's level of tokenism, identity politics and other stupid divisive nonsense if they could get a victory as a result.


    I have the feeling that most people were just like I was, they are too busy with their lives to dig into the meat of Canadian politics, it's not on their radar, and I can understand that. I guess I fear that things will have to get really bad here before any real change will happen, and I do believe that terrible things are on the horizon. 


    I read a lot about Winston Churchill and his various writings and speeches, and if you contrast someone like him against a Justin Trudeau, there is no comparison. I feel that Canadians deserve a leader with real ideas, not just politically popular rhetoric and empty platitudes. Even a dog would be an improvement, dogs at least know to bark at the enemy instead of giving them ten million dollars.

    Check out the book "Against the Current" by Pierre Trudeau... it's a  great read

  5. 14 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

    I won't argue that some of the responses are in fact questionable, but they're pretty accurate and when weighed against the same silly arguments used to continue doing the same thing and hope it will change by itself...it's damned near genius

    It's definitely not near genius to make questionable arguments to counter silly arguments...  you just end up trying to use emotions and morals which ends up nowhere...


    This one in particular is extra bad, IMO, because again, you say "well, if you like freedom of speech so much, or separation of church and state so much, go live in a time with black slave owners and cod baths..."


    Use good arguments or you have no argument at all



    20 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

    Ya I kinda agree that was a weak counter.   I would go with this line of reasoning:



    1. a minor change in a document.
      • a change or addition to a legal or statutory document.
        "an amendment to existing bail laws"
      • an article added to the US Constitution.
        noun: Amendment; plural noun: Amendments
        "the First Amendment"

    So 2a defenders defend a change made to a document.  So why can't the laws change now?  Just say you 2a defenders don't want things to change.

    That's definitely better...


    I doubt it would work, I mean it seems like there's a real misunderstanding as too why Americans think the 2nd amendment is so important - these people who wrote it just fought a bloody war against a tyrannical government and thought they needed it to protect themselves from that ever happening again. The price of gun massacres is a price many are willing to pay to make sure it doesn't happen again.

  6. 9 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

    Mods, please get this thread back on track. It's supposed to be about President Trump and his administration not about gun control.


    Start another thread for that debate.


    The two aren't totally unrelated when people are posting tweets and articles on Trump and the governments reaction to the shooting and future plans for gun control...

  7. 9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:


    * "It’s my Second Amendment right.
    A law approved in 1791 by slaveholders before we had an army, electricity or semi-automatic weapons needs to be updated. If you love #2A so much, then wear a powered wig, bathe in cold water, and shoot a musket


    That's a pretty crappy counter argument - you can use it against the entire constitution...


    If you love (insert # here, eg free speech) so much, then wear a powered wig, bathe in cod water and shoot a musket....



    (before anyone jumps to conclusions, I don't necessarily disagree with most of the other ones, although I haven't read them all)

  8. 3 minutes ago, Toews said:

    When did I say I didn't "care about other people, or other ideas, or having a conversation..."? This is why you aren't worth engaging in any meaningful conversation because I am not even sure you are able to comprehend what is being said. 


    You didn't need to say it, your actions speak louder then words...


    Thanks you for your actions, you've just agreed with me twice in a 20 minute span...  but don't worry, I'll try not to get used to it

  9. 3 minutes ago, Sweathog said:

    Possibly, at least increase the training for police officers. If the government is adamant on giving guns to certain members of the faculty, and they don't have prior combat experience, then they should undergo live fire training that would be adequate (at the very least) to enable them to deal with school shooters effectively.


    The main drawback imo would be the cost. How would this be paid for?

    I'd be fine with that... I'd also want it to be strictly on a volunteer biases... no one should be forced to use and carry a weapon if they don't want to

    • Hydration 1
  • Create New...