I can also copy+paste from social media.

i was hoping you'd respond to Monkey's post
- Crimsoninja

never going to happen but i hope you continue to bump it at every opportunity

Well the answer to that question is that the overwhelming majority of homeless people suffer from serious mental health issues and are incapable of working either due to the illness itself, the medication they take or a combination of both. For example my uncle suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and his medication causes him to sleep between 12-14 hours per day. Even if the medication were enough for him to be coherent, which it isn't, he wouldn't have enough hours left in the day to reasonably be expected to work a job with which to support himself.

My uncle got lucky as my grandparents were well off and left him with enough money to buy a small condo and pay for his basic needs, most people are not so lucky and end up homeless. The reason we have homeless people is that we do not provide the support needed to the people who need it and we don't provide this support because it brings in far too few votes for the money investments needed.

So next time you see this Catherine, instead of filling her head with misguided ideals such as homeless people being lazy, please inform her that the best way to help the homeless is to provide them with the social, mental as well as financial help they need. Doing so will not only help these people find homes but also make it possible for people with light to moderate illnesses to become productive members of society.
- Monkey

Dopps here's that post i was hoping you'd respond to

as someone who stays neutral in here it just seems like a good discussion point

Dopps here's that post i was hoping you'd respond to

as someone who stays neutral in here it just seems like a good discussion point
- Crimsoninja

He's busy participating in the MEME WARS

Probably because if they didn't pay him this they would have had to pay him $20 million on top of all the added legal costs you (frank)ing imbecile.
- BINGO!

No, it's totally just because the Trudeau government wants to screw over an American war widow, who's husband was killed by a man who was shot dead immediately after.


It's disgusting that a party would go after a gold star family. Good thing we have conservatives to set us straight!

It's totally just because the Trudeau government wants to screw over an American war widow, who's husband was killed by a man who was shot dead immediately after.
- Feeling Glucky?

I mean, she's only asking for $134 million after her husband died in a war zone. It makes sense.

He's busy participating in the MEME WARS
- BINGO!

Okay, I'm (frank)ing sick of the idiocy and done with writing a diatribe every single time a friend posts about how they're upset that Trudeau is giving a terrorist $10m. You people are.... wilfully ignorant and hypocritical. Here's why. (And I thoroughly suggest reading the entire post. If you know me, you know I'm neither stupid, nor an apologist. I am pure (frank)ing science, and this post is such. Read it before making an ass of yourself by posting about how we just gave a terrorist money).

The story (the facts we know).
* Canadian born Khadr was taken to Afghanistan at 15 years old, by his father. We don't know if he wanted to go, and we don't know why they went. There has been zero evidence put forth to suggest the trip had anything to do with terrorism. Regardless, as he was only 15, he had no choice in the matter.
(EDIT: He was actually taken to Afghanistan at 9 years of age. He was taken to Gitmo at 15)
* Khadr was found in critical condition following a firefight. The mission debrief report filed by the US troops stated that a middle aged man threw a grenade, which killed one US soldier. The grenadier was shot in the head and confirmed killed.
* Khadr was taken to Guantanamo Bay prison. No charges were filed against him at that time.
* Several years later, formal charges were filed. These charges were technically not even charges of war crimes, as if they were true, Khadr would be considered an enemy combatant during a time of war, and thus everything he was accused of doing, was legal under rules of engagement. He was denied access to a lawyer at this point and no trial date was set. He was held in detention and tortured for nearly 10 years.
* Nearly a decade later, an addendum to the original mission debrief was submitted, which identified the grenadier as Khadr by name. The description was updated to match that of a 15 year old Khadr. The original report was not rescinded. No one knows who made the addendum. No US personnel present during the firefight confirms the addendum.
* A week later, Khadr is offered a plea deal. The terms of the deal were to admit guilt to all charges and serve a few more years in a Canadian prison, or refuse to admit guilt and be denied trial indefinitely.
* Khadr takes the plea deal, is transferred to Canada.
* Khadr sues the Canadian government for their involvement in his illegal detention, torture, and lack of a trial.

All of the above is true as far as anyone knows. That is the official story, from both the Canadian and US governments. They have said straight out that Khadr would not be offered a trial unless he took the plea deal. Just let that sink in for a moment.

Now let me ask you a question.
As a Canadian, what do you stand for? Do you believe that you, as a Canadian, have the right to be presumed innocent, until proven guilty, as well as the right to a fair and quick trial? I know this is hard for many of you to consider without jumping to "oh, but he's a terrorist, so (frank) him, he's a traitor and doesn't deserve anything", but we'll get to that in a minute. Seriously consider this. Do you believe you have, as a Canadian, the inalienable right to everything laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

If you do, but still think Khadr does not, because he is a terrorist, let me ask you; "How do you know he is guilty?" There was no trial for 10 years, and he was only offered a trial on the condition that he plead guilty. How do we, as Canadians, determine guilt? Have you read and understood the Chart of Rights and Freedoms? It's entire purpose is precisely to ensure that what happened to Khadr, is not allowed to happen. Period.

Now I know many of you still can't get past the "but he's a traitor so he doesn't deserve a trial" even though neither you, nor me, nor the US or Canadian government were able to provide ANY evidence whatsoever, of his guilt (no evidence was submitted during his trial, presumably because none exists), but that doesn't matter. Let me explain the problem to you.

You are worried that terrorists are trying to take away your freedoms as a Canadian right? They're trying to force Sharia law upon us and we as Canadians, won't stand for that right?

Do you see where I'm going here? Presuming Khadr's guilt, with no evidence and without trial, is precisely what the terrorists want to do to Canada. Isn't that your concern? Does it not strike you then, that by saying that Khadr doesn't deserve a fair trial because he is a terrorist, with absolutely no evidence, nor a trial to prove the charges, that you are doing precisely what you are worried the terrorists are trying to do do us? A presumption of guilt, no trial, a decade of detention and torture. Is that not Sharia law?

At this point, I don't think any of us should even be concerned about Khadrs innocence or guilt. He is inconsequential at this point. The REAL concern for all Canadians, is that our government denied a Canadian citizen his inalienable rights, guaranteed to him under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They did EXACTLY what you are worried the terrorists are trying to do. If Khadr was guilty, a trial probably would have proven such, so why was he denied a trial?

For your information, the Canadian government did not simply offer up an apology and $10m for no reason. They were sued. The Canadian Supreme Court found in favour of Khadr, in that the Canadian government was in breach of Canadian and International law. That money will mostly be covering his legal fees. But here's where you should be more concerned about the money. The Canadian government spent $120m of your money, defending itself for committing what is legally, war crimes. Seriously. Your government, was just successfully sued, for war crimes. Crimes they committed not only against Khadr, but against the entire Canadian public. They assured us that we would all be given a fair trial, but now we know that is not true. They assured us that we will always be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We know that is not true. They took your money, money which could have been spent on building half a hospital or something, and spent it instead, on committing war crimes, and crimes directly against the Charter on which our country was founded.

In summation:
If you believe Khadr did not deserve a fair and quick trial, you are not Canadian. You do not stand for what Canada stands for. You are saying very clearly, that you don't care about evidence, treating people (who we presume are innocent until proven guilty) with basic decency, or your own or anyone else's right to a fair trial. You are, quite literally, openly supporting about half of Sharia law. You (frank)wits.
- Feeling Glucky?

Amazing post bro

I mean, she's only asking for $134 million after her husband died in a war zone. It makes sense.
- BINGO!

All soldier's families sue people who were on the same battlefield when their family member died... right?

HEY! YOU! POOR GOAT HERDER FROM THIRD WORLD COUNTRY. MAKE ME RICH BY FIRST WORLD STANDARDS!

I mean, she's only asking for $134 million after her husband died in a war zone. It makes sense.
- BINGO!

she was probably banging his best friend while he was deployed too

Amazing post bro
- twiztedmike

Thanks bruh. Typed every word.

Thanks bruh. Typed every word.
- Feeling Glucky?

Even if he did kill the guy, he was a (frank)ing child soldier

Like how do you expect a 15 year old to know better when he was raised the wrong way? And maybe he did know better. Maybe he wanted to run away. Maybe he would've been shot in the (frank)ing back by his dad if he tried so he didn't.

Even if he did kill the guy, he was a (frank)ing child soldier

Like how do you expect a 15 year old to know better when he was raised the wrong way? And maybe he did know better. Maybe he wanted to run away. Maybe he would've been shot in the (frank)ing back by his dad if he tried so he didn't.
- twiztedmike

But he's guilty of murder! HE ADMITTED IT!
(So he could get out of (frank)ing gitmo)

"We're going to torture you for the rest of your life unless you admit you murdered this guy, in which case your torture will end and you'll be free in 3 years. BECAUSE WE'RE THE DEFENDERS OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM WOO!"

I don't think anyone who's gone through a decade of torture is going to turn that deal down, innocent or guilty.

But he's guilty of murder! HE ADMITTED IT!
(So he could get out of (frank)ing gitmo)
- Feeling Glucky?

Lets start a Liberal/Socialist militia and morph into communists and take over the country

Lets start a Liberal/Socialist militia and morph into communists and take over the country
- twiztedmike

I'm good. I just make sure that (frank)tard right wing sites aren't getting any advertising dollars from our clients.

DOE Rick Perry at coal plant:"Here’s a little economics lesson: supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow."

DOE Rick Perry at coal plant:"Here’s a little economics lesson: supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow."
- PhillySportsGuy

God I love these guys.

DOE Rick Perry at coal plant:"Here’s a little economics lesson: supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow."
- PhillySportsGuy

whoops

God I love these guys.
- BINGO!

People voted for them!

That is more insane than anything they say/do. People looked at this pile of feces shaped like a political party, and said "yup, these are the guys we want".

DOE Rick Perry at coal plant:"Here’s a little economics lesson: supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow."
- PhillySportsGuy

quite the lesson

quite the lesson
- SourceS.V.P.

To be fair, this seems to be the case with fidget spinners.

Probably because if they didn't pay him this they would have had to pay him $20 million on top of all the added legal costs you (frank)ing imbecile.
- BINGO!

The "you progressives agree with that 10M" part was so, so predictable.

The "you progressives agree with that 10M" part was so, so predictable.
- Not_Yan

It's the most fiscally conservative option imaginable, but yeah it's the (frank)ing progressives I tell ya.

It's the most fiscally conservative option imaginable, but yeah it's the (frank)ing progressives I tell ya.
- BINGO!

I keep reading now that this whole mess started under the Liberal Chretien gov?

SOMEONE TELL ME THE TRUTH

there was a time when there were progressive conservatives. like 9000 years ago before dinosaurs.