Reader Tips

123 Replies to “Reader Tips”

1. Oh. My. Gawd!
   Now I’ve read and seen it all here at SDA.
   ET, how can you say aliens populated the earth, the sky is falling and chickens are the ghosts of our ancestors. Please provide proof of you assertions. I can’t believe you believe that. No wonder you never make any sense.

2. Oh. My. Gawd!
   Now I’ve read and seen it all here at SDA.
   ET, how can you say aliens populated the earth, the sky is falling and chickens are the ghosts of our ancestors. Please provide proof of you assertions. I can’t believe you believe that. No wonder you never make any sense.

3. Iberia you’re right of course, undercover police shouldn’t dress like the protesters. Watched Donny Brasco last week, couldn’t understand why he dressed and acted like the mafia types he infiltrated. If you don’t think referring to police tyranny in Canada is illogical, then never mind.
   As for voters not forgetting, we will see, that is when opposition actually backs up their threats and force election. I have a few other items that I will ensure the voters not forget either. Bring on the election anytime.

4. Sorry about the multiple posts. I have no idea why that happened.

5. Shamrock:
   Just to clarify, I believe that this particular incident is an example of police tyranny. I’m not refering to the overall state of policing in Canada.
   We’ll probably have an election this fall…the Cons won’t get a majority.

6. lberia – how are three police, dressed as protesters, but not doing anything – how is that an example of ‘police tyranny’? Do you know what ‘tyranny’ means?
   By the way – I did watch the video. Not a shred of proof in that video for any single one of your assertions. Others, by the way, were masked in the protest. Not just those three. Others in the protesters threw rocks, sticks and plastic water bottles. No riot ensued.
   By the way – you DO have to provide proof of your claims. Otherwise – they are empty verbiage.
   Your statement that you don’t have to provide proof because I don’t provide proof (of what?) is illogical. After all, if you object to my not providing proof, then, you as an upright and correct individual – ought not to behave like me – whom you disdain.
   Your claims, again, were:
   -the police were there to start a riot
   – the police have started riots in the past
   -this behaviour (police in the crowd) is ‘one of the hallmarks of totalitarianism’
   Now – prove it. Otherwise – you are just ‘spouting it off’ -ie..babble rabble.
   Ted – I knew it, I knew it. You are an alien. What’s my proof? That when you press a computer link, your alien electromagnetic genes flow through the plastic – yes, that’s right – right through the plastic like melting steel..and your post repeats four times. Oh – and in addition – your post is utter babble. That’s the sign of an alien.
   –

7. lberia
   “this particular incident is an example of police tyranny”
   Huh? How does an udercover cop carrying a rock indicate tyranny? A cop I know went undercover at college to get drugs out of that college environment. He did not show up in red serge. He even drank a beer at the various parties where drugs were being consumed. In the end he found out who the drug dealers were and uniformed officers went in and made the arrests.
   Everyone on campus suspected he was undercover and tried to keep him from finding the drug dealers except he was a better cop than they were drug dealers.
   In this incident being discussed here the protesters made the police right away and did nothing destructive. In other words the cops plan worked. There was no riot.
   Unfortunately you only seem to fear tyranny and absolve those who promote anarchy. Tyranny and anarchy are both poison to a civil society.

8. ET:
   Provide proof that the police were there not to cause trouble. You can’t, can you? No more than I can provide “proof” that they were to incite trouble, without having copies of written orders, etc. The video evidence is is enough to prove to me (and others who aren’t trying to be obtuse) that the reasons for undercover police presence was more than just collecting information.

9. lberia, you’re kidding right? On one hand, you want police to prove they’re innocent (that’s not where burden of proof lies, you should know that). Then you say video evidence is enough to prove their guilt to you; and you accuse them of “tyranny.” Think about it.
   If, after proper investigation, it can be shown police acted inappropriately, then there must be consequences. That’s how it works.
   It is not “obtuse” to expect accusers to prove their case, rather than accused having to prove their innocence.

10. Shamrock:
    If you found someone behind your garage with an open can of barbeque fluid and a lighter you wouldn’t assume this person is an arsonist, would you? Maybe he was just planning a weenie roast.
    It’s highly unlikely that an investigation will prove police wrong doing, anymore than investigating Adscam proved Chretien and his cabinet ministers did anything illegal. But that doesn’t stop you from calling the Liberals crooks. Double standard?

11. Spare me your equivalence fallacy BS. You are being relativist; your example is irrelevant. Double standard my a**. You have said what I consider disloyal things about our troops. I guess that proves you are a treasonous b*****d. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
    There have been charges laid and convictions in Adscam case. I don’t recall anyone assuming Chretien is a criminal, though they may suspect it. Suspicion is not proof. That’s the point you refuse to acknowledge.

12. What have I said about the troops? YOU are being irrelevant.
    How typical of your type: when cornered by your own hypocrisy you lash out with bluster.

13. Whatever. Who cares what you think.

14. You haven’t badmouthed our troops? Yeah right.
    Whatever, who cares what a moonbat thinks. You don’t elect anybody, you positions are inane, you make bigotted remarks and call others the same.
    Have a nice weekend. Enjoy the freedom others fought to provide for you.

15. lberia – the video didn’t show any action by the police. None. None. None. So- the fact that you say that it provided ‘proof’ that they were there for ‘more than gathering information’.
    Oh – and your ‘appeal to others who aren’t obtuse’ is a fallacious argumentative tactic. Your argument has to stand on its own merit or fall for lack of merit. No ‘appeals to others who aren’t obtuse’.
    Your argument fails. No merit. That’s because the video doesn’t show any action by those police. None. No inciting to riot. No throwing of anything. Nothing. So?
    Actually, the reason why many of us call the Liberals crooks is because the Audit and Investigation showed that the gov’t had paid enormous sums of taxpayer money for no work done. These sums were paid to ad firms who worked on Liberal election campaigns. The taxpayer has the right to get work – for their tax dollar. So, the evidence, lberia, isn’t amorphous. The Liberals were and are – crooks. But – you choose to suppor them. Oh well. Wait – I forgot- you don’t; you are a communist….

16. As a former military member, I would never bad mouth our troops. I think you’re coming unhinged, Shamrock.

17. Spin it any way you want, ET. It doesn’t matter what you think, it’s how the public perceives it.

18. lberia – Just a question. How do you perceive that the public perceives acts of sabotage, when say the Telus union employees go strike? On strike – hub wires being cut … off strike, not.
    Not saying that your brave, brave comrades had anything to do with it.

19. ural:
    First, if you recall, Telus workers were locked out. They were not on strike.
    Second, if it can be proven that union members were sabotaging hub wires, then they should be prosecuted.
    Finally, the difference between allegations that locked out workers were causing sabotage and cops that were acting as provocateurs is video evidence.

20. Oh, and to answer your question about perception, organized labour rarely gets a break from the media. They wasted no time in raising suspicions that the union might have had something to do with it…even though it wasn’t captured on tape.(Despite right wingers claims that the media has a left wing bias, I would argue that it actually has a corporatist/Liberal bias.)
    Judging by how this particular incident is playing out, it’s not implausible that Telus sabotaged it’s own line to make the union look bad.

21. “Judging by how this particular incident is playing out, it’s not implausible that Telus sabotaged it’s own line to make the union look bad.”
    Iberia: Are you off your meds again? Back away from your computer and call your favorite shrink ASAP. For your sake. Please?

22. Hahaha. Joe, you are the one claiming that the cops with rocks planned to get caught trying to start a riot in order to prevent the protesters from starting a riot. Hmmm. I get the feeling your are intimately aquainted with shrinks and meds.

23. Whatever. Who cares what you think.
    Posted by: Shamrock at August 24, 2007 4:12 PM
    Game…set…match! You just got your ass owned!
    Nice one lberia!