News   Mar 28, 2024
 13     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

What's dumb t***, m**** and why are we talking tits?

Seems like UT is harboring some misogamy.

Could be harbouring some misogyny, but not round these parts *points to self*. Unless misogamy is a real word....I've never heard of it.

Tit is a fine pejorative, what's your issue? You've never heard of someone being referred to as a dumb tit? Pfft, my French subjects teacher in grades 5-8 used to call me and my best mate that. hahaha, good times. He was a cool dude (the teacher....though, so was my mate, obviously).

As for the other two, the first is derived from female anatomy and the second is derived from familial relations and is an extremely rude Caribbean saying.

Anyway, if use of certain female-derived pejoratives (which "tit", as used isn't even) is misogynistic then......ouch, sorry, my eyes just rolled into the back of my head so hard I heard a pop. Unlucky for you, I can still see, think, and type.
 
From MPP Baber's reply:
"The drafters of the Charter purposely inserted s.33 to enable a Provincial Legislature to override Court decisions when the matter is of significance to a provincial government. "

Provincial significance?!

Blooooody hell, what a crew of degen* power-tripping dirt. Super important to mash up an election to prove a point. The whole province neeeeeeds this. Now. Clearly.

What a load of rubbish.

*-- @AdmiralBeez , this is short for degenerate
 
"Real" PC's unfortunately are in short supply these days. The populists have hijacked the party quite some time ago.

It's a shame because Patrick Brown's People's Guarantee was actually a reasonable platform.

For real.

I was actually going to give them a chance to convince me to vote for them when Brown was in charge.
They went from having me interested to having me be violently opposed. That's not a bad accomplishment in such a short period of time. Kudos, Dear Leader Buck-A-Beer.
 
The failsafe of section 33 is any party has to face the voters and its up to the voters to keep Politicans in check.

Are you drunk? Legit question. It's cool, I'm not judging, just curious.

You expect the citizenry to keep politicians in check? Wait, maybe you're not drunk, but mad.

First of all, our electoral system is a sham. A fraud. We have a "majority" government in Ontario now. Full power, minority support from the electorate. First of all.
Second of all, a good portion of the citizenry is unintelligent and will vote against their best interests including to curtail their own constitutionally-granted rights and obligations.

The courts are there to uphold the constitutional rights and obligations of the citizenry and to keep politicians from dismissing said rights and obligations.

Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to the issue for various reasons, but this is how it starts. You have governments with tenuous support (it's not a majority-supported government, let's stop lying to ourselves already, ffs) who start clipping away at the rights and obligations of the citizenry with the full support of a portion of that citizenry. This slowly erodes the society's consensual means of existence. This, in turn, leads to....man, just go read some history, or find a good documentary on the current scum in Venezuela.

Doug Ford is scum and anyone who apologises for his behaviour is also scum, but probably a worse variety, having been made subservient to someone who is willing to undercut their rights and obligations as a citizen. Poor form.
 
IMG_20180912_183524-01.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180912_183524-01.jpeg
    IMG_20180912_183524-01.jpeg
    362.3 KB · Views: 425
There's nothing progressive about his corrosive brand of conservatism.

There never was. That's an oxymoron. A marketing ploy for the middle class conservatives (selectively adopting some modern concepts over the century) to feel less bad about their ideology.

There is nothing conservative about it either, to be frank.

There was a time when conservativism upheld peace, order and good government.
'Good government' is also fallacy. The whole thing about reducing government size and spending has always been about influencing political process to undermine public services that you don't personally need, out of sheer selfishness. It's moral hazard.
 
There is nothing conservative about it either, to be frank.

There was a time when conservativism upheld peace, order and good government.
Now it's appealing to populism. But populism doesn't work unless the people feel angry, excluded, neglected, ignored or powerless.

I blame Wynne for this current situation. Had she stepped down and let new blood run, we'd likely have Liberal gov't now. IDK why the Libs had to run down all their political, public and economic capital to the point where they were destroyed. Why not play the long game, and leave some reserves for the future fight?
 

Back
Top