Trudeau's Gun Ban and Buy Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
What picture?
This picture:

Post a picture of a few of your guns with a piece of paper titled "Trudeau Sucks 10/27/2019 CGN ROCKS" . Then i'll eat my words and send you an EMT for $5. Deal?

No hard feelings man, just show such a picture (it takes just 2 minutes) as explained above to whoever wants to see it here and you will be fine; you will even get an EMT for $5 for your time which is a pretty decent pay for 2 minutes of work...;)..
Just do not use Photoshop or any similiar, ok ? lol
 
Last edited:
This picture:



No hard feelings man, just show such a picture (it takes just 2 minutes) as explained above to whoever wants to see it here and you will be fine; you will even get an EMT for $5 for your time which is a pretty decent pay for 2 minutes of work...;)..
Just do not use Photoshop or any similiar, ok ? lol

I've been called a troll and accused of not having guns WAY more than that guy, interested in extending that challenge this way? :)
 
This picture:



No hard feelings man, just show such a picture (it takes just 2 minutes) as explained above to whoever wants to see it here and you will be fine; you will even get an EMT for $5 for your time which is a pretty decent pay for 2 minutes of work...;)..
Just do not use Photoshop or any similiar, ok ? lol

I don’t need to prove anything and I don’t need your $5 either. Especially taking stupid pictures like that.
There are two guys who have their accounts here for many years and they know me personally.
We hunt, shoot and reload together.
 
I don’t need to prove anything and I don’t need your $5 either. Especially taking stupid pictures like that.
There are two guys who have their accounts here for many years and they know me personally.
We hunt, shoot and reload together.

Whos that?
 
Thuis is exactly the kind of extremely partisan thinking that has reared it's ugly head in politics on both the left and the right. if you aren't with us you are the enemy. That's healthy and a productive attitude that will lead to compromises or rational discussions around issues.



Oh man! You guys are hilarious. Sure, if the government came after you with their jets and helicopters and armoured personel carriers and bombs and missles and mortars and rifles with greater than 5 or 10 round capacities, you think you can resist with any firearms you can legally own, even at this point? I guess you must be enjoying Canada's legalized cannabis. That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Straight out of the NRA's joke of a playbook.



OK, I don't have time to address all the various points right now but will do so piecemeal. Let's start with the idea that the Conservatives are about small business vs. big business. Let's look at the Harper years when billions were handed out to Bombardier and the auto companies. I think the figures I saw were $3.7 billion in loans to GM and Chrysler that were written off. Harper made those loans. Additional loans and handouts went to Pratt &Whitney, Bombardier, Research in Motion, Hyundai, Ford and Magna. Harper handed out billions in corporate loans and subsidies. At the same time he reduced the corporate income tax rate for large corporations from 22% to 15%. How much did he reduce taxes for small business? From 12% to 11% and there was a 0.5% tax cut to the lowest bracket of personal income taxes. So who benefitted most from harper tax cuts? Big business. He also created the TFSA which was a greater help to the wealthy who had disposable income they could put into those accounts and further reduce their taxes owing. Average struggling Canadians didn't have enough money to contribute to TFSAs and take advantage of it. Oh yeah, there was also billions in fossil fuel subsidies to big oil companies.

You should do a bit of reading about Neoliberalism, which has nothing to do with polittical leanings of liberal vs. conservative. It's an economic policy and viewpoint and Harper was a true believer. The Liberals aren't a bunch better when it comes to that but are somewhat better. The Liberals also haven't been great in terms of corporate handouts as well. But to try to claimthat the Conservatives are pro small guy and small business and against big business isn't borne out by histroy and the evidence.



Hmm.... Well the Taliban did pretty well against the US. A bunch of old men with flip flops and ak's held them off pretty well for the last 20 years eh ?
 
I don’t need to prove anything and I don’t need your $5 either. Especially taking stupid pictures like that.
There are two guys who have their accounts here for many years and they know me personally.
We hunt, shoot and reload together.

How do you reload together?
I don't let anyone touch my press but me.
Do you all shoot the same rifle?
 
Hmm.... Well the Taliban did pretty well against the US. A bunch of old men with flip flops and ak's held them off pretty well for the last 20 years eh ?

True, but the Americans didn't exactly know what game they were playing. The American's were playing whack a mole while the Taliban were playing chess.
 
OK, I don't have time to address all the various points right now but will do so piecemeal. Let's start with the idea that the Conservatives are about small business vs. big business. Let's look at the Harper years when billions were handed out to Bombardier and the auto companies. I think the figures I saw were $3.7 billion in loans to GM and Chrysler that were written off. Harper made those loans. Additional loans and handouts went to Pratt &Whitney, Bombardier, Research in Motion, Hyundai, Ford and Magna. Harper handed out billions in corporate loans and subsidies. At the same time he reduced the corporate income tax rate for large corporations from 22% to 15%. How much did he reduce taxes for small business? From 12% to 11% and there was a 0.5% tax cut to the lowest bracket of personal income taxes. So who benefitted most from harper tax cuts? Big business. He also created the TFSA which was a greater help to the wealthy who had disposable income they could put into those accounts and further reduce their taxes owing. Average struggling Canadians didn't have enough money to contribute to TFSAs and take advantage of it. Oh yeah, there was also billions in fossil fuel subsidies to big oil companies.

You should do a bit of reading about Neoliberalism, which has nothing to do with polittical leanings of liberal vs. conservative. It's an economic policy and viewpoint and Harper was a true believer. The Liberals aren't a bunch better when it comes to that but are somewhat better. The Liberals also haven't been great in terms of corporate handouts as well. But to try to claimthat the Conservatives are pro small guy and small business and against big business isn't borne out by histroy and the evidence.

The long story short is that the Conservatives are big tax and spend Liberals just like the Liberals. The only thing that changes is who the beneficiaries are. 98% of Canadians in the last election voted for parties that wanted to increase taxes, deficit spending and grow the size of government.

The truth is the vast majority of Canadians, and people for that matter, don't have the stomach for a truly free market, or are willing to suffer the inherent risks and insecurity of being free.
 
The long story short is that the Conservatives are big tax and spend Liberals just like the Liberals. The only thing that changes is who the beneficiaries are. 98% of Canadians in the last election voted for parties that wanted to increase taxes, deficit spending and grow the size of government.

The truth is the vast majority of Canadians, and people for that matter, don't have the stomach for a truly free market, or are willing to suffer the inherent risks and insecurity of being free.

Exactly! Agreeing to variable or tiered tax rates, is just people trying to force others to pay more or less than their fair share. Instead of people being part of a community and volunteering their time or exchanging goods and services to support others (of their own free will) people now just vote to take things from a faceless population, and let the government play the middleman to take it all by force, and decide who gets the redistribution. If people don’t earn a good or service in an exchange for another good or service, or are willingly given something from a willing participant, it is robbery.
 
If you remove the tax system, you plunge a moderate proportion of the population into disparity and dependence.

Traditionally, humans are community animals, similar to apes. This bizarre idea that we should compete with eachother at the expense of others well being is a relatively new phenomenon.

If you were to study the old world cultures, such as those who were untouched by the modern world (north and South American natives prior to 17th to 18th century), you would notice a much more community oriented society.

In those (more humane) cultures that the white man destroyed, kills from hunts were not selfishly enjoyed by the young hunters but were actually first provided to the weakest elements of the community, the elders, the sick. Wars were not fought for the betterment of wealthy individuals bank accounts or prestige, but for retaliatory reasons or essential resources.

Taxes aren’t thievery, if you’re incredibly well off and someone else in your community is struggling to get by, YES, it should be your duty to assist. In an ideal world privileged individuals would balance enormous inequality through charity, Ronald Reagan had that exact philosophy. He called it the “trickle down effect”, it was an enormous disaster.

All the “trickle down effect” achieved was a larger gap between rich and poor and the destruction of the middle class.



So to summarize, taxes aren’t theft, they’re the means of ensuring our society doesn’t implode into feudalism with the 1% pulling all the strings.
 
If you were to study the old world cultures, such as those who were untouched by the modern world (north and South American natives prior to 17th to 18th century), you would notice a much more community oriented society.

They were also vastly more technically primitive, with shorter life spans, and more susceptible to bad years for crops. Even today, pockets of such cultures that cling to their historical way of life demonstrate wildly statistically anomolous outcomes for all manner of ills, but specifically substance abuse, diabetes, alcohol dependency, suicide, incarceration rates, spousal abuse, and more.

Ronald Reagan had that exact philosophy. He called it the “trickle down effect”

False. "Trickle Down" economics had nothing to do with charity. It was based on the theory that as folks at the top experienced more wealth, they'd use it to hire more people, and spend it back into the economy. That was actually true, to a certain extent, but not to the degree hoped. Much of the wealth was simply hoarded. But again, it was never about "charity" in any capacity. It was strictly an economic theory on how rational people acting in self-interest could actually result in a net benefit to society in general.
 
If you remove the tax system, you plunge a moderate proportion of the population into disparity and dependence.

Traditionally, humans are community animals, similar to apes. This bizarre idea that we should compete with eachother at the expense of others well being is a relatively new phenomenon.

If you were to study the old world cultures, such as those who were untouched by the modern world (north and South American natives prior to 17th to 18th century), you would notice a much more community oriented society.

In those (more humane) cultures that the white man destroyed, kills from hunts were not selfishly enjoyed by the young hunters but were actually first provided to the weakest elements of the community, the elders, the sick. Wars were not fought for the betterment of wealthy individuals bank accounts or prestige, but for retaliatory reasons or essential resources.

Taxes aren’t thievery, if you’re incredibly well off and someone else in your community is struggling to get by, YES, it should be your duty to assist. In an ideal world privileged individuals would balance enormous inequality through charity, Ronald Reagan had that exact philosophy. He called it the “trickle down effect”, it was an enormous disaster.

All the “trickle down effect” achieved was a larger gap between rich and poor and the destruction of the middle class.



So to summarize, taxes aren’t theft, they’re the means of ensuring our society doesn’t implode into feudalism with the 1% pulling all the strings.

I never said to remove the tax system entirely, geez. But forcing others to pay more than their fair share contribution (ie. paying for others) is where the system is faulty. Not to mention the wasting of tax dollars for things like “beautifying boulevards” or building extravagant government buildings from unwilling tax payers is wrong. It’s basic lack of freedom, no different than people voting for gun legislation that have NO CLUE about the actual subject. Freedom becomes eroded as governments gain more control over the populace. Canada is a great example of this erosion. Try to build a shed on your land that is over 108 sq feet without asking permission first, and getting approval. No real control over your property if the government decides to alter zoning, or just take it from you for whatever price they feel is appropriate. Eroded rights.
 
Actually, "trickle down economics' never existed. No government on the planet has ever implemented it as policy.
It was espoused by a comedian, and the wording caught on and was attached by the media to Ronald Regan.

No one hoards wealth either. Anyone who does loses money at negative rates approximating the magnitude of inflation. Anyone with money invests it, to try to keep ahead of inflation. Even if that investment is merely in gold or real estate.
(Actually, there are banks in Europe with negative interest rates who are hoarding wealth -- they're grabbing paper money currency and storing it in vaults since it retains value relative to itself rather than 'inflation + negative interest')



debate: The portion of taxes for which you receive a service are not theft (e.g. justice system, education, fire, roads, national defence, national mint, food inspection, etc). The portion of taxes for which you do not receive a service may be theft. The portion of taxes for which you would pay exactly the same amount again to not have whatever it's funding, is theft.
 
Last edited:
So to summarize, taxes aren’t theft, they’re the means of ensuring our society doesn’t implode into feudalism with the 1% pulling all the strings.

Depends on the rate. If you I pay my taxes and my living expenses and nothing is left, i work for food and shelter. that's, IMO, very close to slavery.

And then consider how those taxes are spent. To feed Africa and help women of the world. To promote economically ineffective green energy. To support people who don't want to work. To "buy back" my property. To pay militant doctors 500k a year. To finance propaganda media and marxist academia.
 
They certainly are. Too bad most on here are not aware of who they are.

And CGN will pink slip you if try to expose them. Always found that interesting.

Being a member of that "group" I must have missed the memo on how to rule the world. I better make a few calls and get in on the action!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom