A Canadian Apology

[clocker]

I'm sorry, you'll have to google the address.

I'm way to busy catching up on all the French nutritional information that I was denied as a child.

[chloe_cc2002]

Wait a minute there is more:

[QUOTE]1. My point is when you accommodate a minority you don't realise it but you are afflictng the majority as well, and once you surrender to that nonsense you become used to it and don't even realise the subtle ways this happening. It is like a frog that is being cooked in boiling water if you have heard that saying.

2. They just don't realise how messed up they are, and how many restrictions they have on their lives. Of course the ones that go across the border to shop have some clue.

3. But the people in the US are also being afflicted by this nonsense and you really only notice some of the things when you travel, as when you get outside of all of your assumptions, you realise things can be different.

4. To make it illegal to put up an english sign in Quebec (a crime), would be unconstitutional in the US.

5. Really what the constitution does is when lawmakers run into constitutional issues it causes them to have to re-think things. They think that they want things, but when they look at it more closely, they realise the implications. The constitution is restrictive on lawmaking, making it hard to enact laws etc, but most of the time in restrospect ..having the law as they would have wanted to write it would have caused another unnecessary restriction on freedom and they can get around the constitution by not writing such a draconian law.

6. But of course some lawmakers just find some other nefarious ways around the constitution and slowly it gets eroded. But compared to countries that don't have one, the US is much better than most of those places.

7. I don't know that the Canadians have a Constitution like ours, and what I mean by a Constitution is one that actually applies to the Govt. and will stick. But that is slowly fading and that is becoming less important I think.

8. There is one eg in Zimbabwe, the High Court ruled one of his goofy laws his theft and compensation policies unconstitutional and he called them (Mugabe) lackeys of the whites etc just like radical blacks call blacks that have integrity and a sense of justice "house niggers".

9. Mugabe was very much engaging in the same kind of rhetoric as Jesse Jackson et al. Sort of a reverse racism

10. In Australia some of the rights that Australians don't have are very serious. YOU (????) thought it was wonderful that people can be prosecuted for racial and other villification but I thought that was incredulous in a modern democracy. The law that says that you can't insult a member of the govt. (re: obscenity laws) would be thrown out by the first amendment.
If you want to have the freedom to say whatever you want you are going to have to put up with people saying insulting and disgusting things right??? LIke the Qld Supreme Court recently said "political debate isn't always genteel, people get passionate about politics and say things over the line, but you simply can't discriminate between them legally without peril to liberty". In theory you could do it but in reality you can't because there will be a subjective and political filter applied to it. People only see it when they are affected by it and then they see it.

10. Leftists in Australia think it is wonderful to pass laws against villifying blacks (Aborigines) but if someone writes a law that you can't insult John Howard then all of a sudden they are shocked. They don't understand there is a connection between those two things.

11. Really the laws that aren't abused are the most insidious things. Do you know why? Do you agree? Have you observed that? The reason is that if they aren't abused people won't be outraged but at some point it will happen..........
oppressive laws can't be left alone, they can't, it is just too dangerous..

[QUOTE]

There is more to be said however my fingers are getting tired, and I guess that you will just have to wait for the next post on oppression and the lack of games on Canadian fruit loop packs.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by chloe_cc2002@11 April 2003 - 21:31
Informant has read the responses and wishes the following to be put on record.

1. The companies that make the cereal would not fill half of their packaging with French if they were given the free economic choice whether or not they wanted to do it.

2. To say that the company should be forced to do something that is not in their interests as they see it, decrying that as a crime against children, is not liberal.

3. The problem is Liberals don't realise how many victims they create as they don't realise how many people they could be victimising by their acts of political correctness etc

4. They probably think kids would be just as happy reading french nutritional information about cereal as playing puzzles and games on the panel of a cereal box

5. The Canadians have probably never even seen a cereal box decorated with an entire panel dedicated to toys, games and puzzles (the entire back panel)

What is the postal address of NASA?

I retract my incorrect former supposition:

I find said informant to be of an agreeable stripe and well worth a tip of the hat.
I wish to concur that while liberals are harmful to all, we are thankful they practice their tactics in such a slipshod manner that by their own incompetence, lives (and minds) are saved.

They have, however, escalated their campaign by putting "prizes" previously included free in cereal boxes into McDonalds' "FunMeals" and charging extra for them, encouraging soccer moms to "Collect All Ten!!!",
thereby capitalizing further efforts to undermine parenting on other fronts.

I would also like to include here a heartfelt thanks to liberals everywhere for keeping the standards of idiocy low enough that they'll never be able to claim me as one of their own.

[chloe_cc2002]

I'm sorry, you'll have to google the address.

I'm way to busy catching up on all the French nutritional information that I was denied as a child.

wait there is more, particularly in response to your post:

1. I think that is what liberalism is like taking small pleasures out of life one at a time, that is what happened in China and Russia, they had all these apartments that were exactly the same. Colourful and playful things were just, you know, decadent.

It was a small post but wait....

2. My point was the unimportance of it...that was my point..to be allowed to have things that are unimportant. It was simply more efficient to have every apartment building the same in the old Soviet Union ((hearing echoes of the cold war domino diatribe..chloe...and re-runs)) but that is not the way people naturally are. It is fundamentally human to be diverse and colourful (sorry colorful). What I am saying is that they are robbing something that is fundamental to our humanity, you know, very much like the stolen generation in Australia, but of course most Americans ((except.um I assume..?...) wouldn't understand that concept, to take away a culture by force.

3. Of course the Canadians saw the invasion of the American culture on the cereal boxes.  Every Govt. in the world is making their efforts to stop Seinfeld re-runs to take over their TV viewing with little success. But culture is not just something you can force into people, it just doesn't work that way.

4. Don't you think it is ridiculous to pass laws to protect the culture or make the culture better. It is like warm ice cream. It doesn't make any sense.

for the time being I have a declaration that informant/other half is finished and "doesn't want to say anymore"...I won't hold him to that promise.

hold that thought

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 April 2003 - 03:55


They have, however, escalated their campaign by putting "prizes" previously included free in cereal boxes into McDonalds' "FunMeals" and charging extra for them, encouraging soccer moms to "Collect All Ten!!!",
thereby capitalizing further efforts to undermine parenting on other fronts.

It's "HappyMeal", not "FunMeal".

My God, talk about slipshod.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by chloe_cc2002@11 April 2003 - 22:01
hold that thought

Gladly!

[clocker]

Originally posted by chloe_cc2002@12 April 2003 - 03:50




YOU (????) thought it was wonderful that people can be prosecuted for racial and other villification but I thought that was incredulous in a modern democracy. The law that says that you can't insult a member of the govt. (re: obscenity laws) would be thrown out by the first amendment.

Perhaps I missed something here.
What the HELL are you talking about?

[chloe_cc2002]

Our lovable Wendy Edmonds Minister Health Minister of Queensland wants to sue McDonalds due to the unhealthiness of the food, and looking at the woman I would note that at about 20 stone she is gravely in danger of a heart attack herself.

Furthermore the other way she demonstrates her socialist tint is the way she coldly puts a price on human life in the health policies of Queensland eg "would it really be worth living if you were on a dialysis machine as that would affect your mobility 4 hours a day". She went on record saying these things, and that being over 60 was also a serious consideration. "Perhaps we should think about whether it is really worth living when you get old, in terms of your quality of life". ...."I'm just throwing it out there for debate"...lmao

For her to set an arbitrary age is ridiculous, as some people can be extremely sick at 40, others healthy at 100. All health people have to make these decisions and balance it in their minds, but you NEVER put these things on record. It degrades and devalues human life is pathetic and just plain dumb.

It is an abomination. I felt like writing to her and telling her I was more concerned about her mobility than kidney patients and the kidney patients felt the same way by the influx of letters that were directed towards her. I wanted to express all obese persons' concerns that they would rather know where she ate, rather than McDonalds.

I would have to say that on some points I agree with informant/other half but that I wouldn't vote republican if I had the right to vote in the US when we get there. In Australia of course it is mandatory to vote, and for failing to vote in Queensland I have learnt that can get you a warrant and a short time in a cell. I failed to vote in 1994 and 1996 and paid my dues.

[Z]

Originally posted by clocker+11 April 2003 - 21:20--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 11 April 2003 - 21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Z@12 April 2003 - 03:09
<!--QuoteBegin--clocker

@11 April 2003 - 12:44
Unlike the US, Canada has vast tracts of open land and relatively few people.

In the States we use small, easy to choke on toys hidden in children&#39;s breakfast cereal as a form of Darwinian population control.

Don&#39;t fret...you&#39;ll get there...

so the gov&#39;t doesnt just control the media anymore, it now controls the cereal companies too?
you all know the reason for the small pop&#39;n up here too, right? the last week: ice storm and people slipping on ice. SARS, and people getting sick. next week? tho its much more inconspicuous down there. our gov&#39;t is not as advanced yet.

I didn&#39;t mean to imply that the government was behind all this.

Martha Stewart is.
It&#39;s a GOOD thing. [/b][/quote]
so she really is evil?

she&#39;ll be behind bars soon.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Z@12 April 2003 - 04:19


she&#39;ll be behind bars soon.

Wouldn&#39;t bet the farm on that one, bucko.