Canada's Truck Convoy to Protest Mandate

[Orange_Crush]

I did, because a whole lot of you would answer no to the general question but yes when applied directly to ISIS; which wouldn't be necessary if everyone practiced a little intellectual consistency.
I was actually trying to skip a step.

You *actually* compared the protestors to ISIS, their donors to donors for ISIS, claim you didn't, and now you're finger wagging other people about intellectual honesty. Just like you railed about Russian hooker urine and convicted our president as a Russian plant, only to then mock others for their supposed gullibility.

lol

 

[Vol8188]

I was trying to get answers to a couple of simple questions:
"Is it ever okay for a government to freeze the assets of a citizen?"
"Is it ever okay for a government to arrest a citizen for donating to a cause?"

Unless you believe donating to the truckers is equivalent to ISIS or worthy of freezing assets, why bring it up?

You claim you don’t support it. So why bring up that comparison?

 

[luthervol]

Simple answers.

Absent a conviction, no it’s never ok.
Yes, providing material/financial support to recognized terrorist organizations and foreign enemies is a crime.

So between the time of arrest and trial and conviction, they can continue to donate to terrorist organizations and foreign enemies?

 

[LouderVol]

I don't believe University Ave. was shut down for 23 days. I didn't see that in the article anywhere. Atlanta had over 425 arrests. I hope anyone who damaged anything was arrested and prosecuted to the fullest. When they blocked the interstate, they were quickly cleared.

They still blocked that intersection at University ave at the Wendy's for that time, and that's near the interstate. This is after burning the Wendy's and smashing up local stores. That's actually why there was an armed militia. The cops werent doing jack because the mayor you praised pissed them off royally, so no one was stopping the damage. So armed locals were turning away outsiders.

It's the only time in my ten years of Atlanta I was specifically told to avoid an area because it was unsafe, especially for someone of my skin color.

And before you say anything I know from firsthand experience that university ave wasnt open to the public after the cops and city said it was open, and I have two independent sources that said University ave was a no go that entire time.

 

[hog88]

So between the time of arrest and trial and conviction, they can continue to donate to terrorist organizations and foreign enemies?

Yes.

 

[luthervol]

You *actually* compared the protestors to ISIS, their donors to donors for ISIS, claim you didn't, and now you're finger wagging other people about intellectual honesty. Just like you railed about Russian hooker urine and convicted our president as a Russian plant, only to then mock others for their supposed gullibility.

lol

I did no such thing. You may have made that comparison but I certainly never did.

 

[LouderVol]

Maybe on a short term basis but nothing like we saw with the truckers. I've rarely seen that level of patience and leniency.

Because they were non violent. Look at occupy wall street.

 

[luthervol]

Yes.

Once again, I appreciate your consistency. But what you are saying is that a person should knowingly be allowed to continue committing a crime for which he has been arrested and waiting to be tried. Not many are going to follow that "logic".

 

[utvolpj]

Once again, I appreciate your consistency. But what you are saying is that a person should knowingly be allowed to continue committing a crime for which he has been arrested and waiting to be tried. Not many are going to follow that "logic".

What is a person guilty of if they're never convicted? It's a similar issue with asset seizure

 

[Orange_Crush]

You could have just asked those questions without putting the protestors on the same comparative scale as terrorists while claiming you did so to create a baseline. You chose ISIS for a reason.

I was actually trying to skip a step.[/QUOTE]

I did, because a whole lot of you would answer no to the general question but yes when applied directly to ISIS; which wouldn't be necessary if everyone practiced a little intellectual consistency.
I was actually trying to skip a step.

I did no such thing. You may have made that comparison but I certainly never did.

You did. You actually agreed that you did. It was just our fault you had to. You know... Intellectual honesty and all that.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What is a person guilty of if they're never convicted? It's a similar issue with asset seizure

This.

 

[NCFisher]

I did, because a whole lot of you would answer no to the general question but yes when applied directly to ISIS; which wouldn't be necessary if everyone practiced a little intellectual consistency.
I was actually trying to skip a step.

Going forward, you might just skip analogies.
Should non-violent participants in the convoy protests have their assets seized, frozen, or be arrested? Just looking for intellectual consistency.

 

[luthervol]

What is a person guilty of if they're never convicted? It's a similar issue with asset seizure

They're obviously guilty of the crime they committed as soon as they commit it. They may be innocent in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't remove their actual quilt. Same as an innocent person who has been found guilty. They're innocent, just not in the eyes of the law.

 

[luthervol]

Going forward, you might just skip analogies.
Should non-violent participants in the convoy protests have their assets seized, frozen, or be arrested? Just looking for intellectual consistency.

If they continue braking the law after repeated warnings, but I would much prefer they just be arrested.

 

[utvolpj]

They're obviously guilty of the crime they committed as soon as they commit it. They may be innocent in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't remove their actual quilt. Same as an innocent person who has been found guilty. They're innocent, just not in the eyes of the law.

If they're innocent according to the law then how does the law get to treat them as a guilty person? There is no guilt under the law until convicted. That's fundamental

 

[Vol8188]

I did, because a whole lot of you would answer no to the general question but yes when applied directly to ISIS; which wouldn't be necessary if everyone practiced a little intellectual consistency.
I was actually trying to skip a step.

You in no way have tried to skip a step. If that was your goal you could’ve made this statement 12 hours ago.

What’s your consistent stance here? Freeze the accounts of both (the thing you’ve been claiming you don’t support? Freeze neither?

 

[NCFisher]

So between the time of arrest and trial and conviction, they can continue to donate to terrorist organizations and foreign enemies?

Unless bonded out, you're likely jailed for treason pending trial and unable to continue supporting terrorist orgs. Doing so would violate your bond and have you jailed til trial, again unable to provide material support to such orgs.

They're obviously guilty of the crime they committed as soon as they commit it. They may be innocent in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't remove their actual quilt. Same as an innocent person who has been found guilty. They're innocent, just not in the eyes of the law.

Rule of law - that is, the equal applicability of law - isn't perfect but is how we decide guilt while presuming innocence. Unless you presume to turn the system on its head, you (again) should cease with analogies that don't reflect reality. Make better points and you won't have to grasp in this manner.

 

[Vol8188]

Once again, I appreciate your consistency. But what you are saying is that a person should knowingly be allowed to continue committing a crime for which he has been arrested and waiting to be tried. Not many are going to follow that "logic".

So you support funding terrorism? Or you support freezing the accounts of donors (something you’ve claimed not to support multiple times)?

 

[VolinWayne]

I did, because a whole lot of you would answer no to the general question but yes when applied directly to ISIS; which wouldn't be necessary if everyone practiced a little intellectual consistency.
I was actually trying to skip a step.

First of all, ISIS is a terrorist organization that kills people. I might be ok with the government going after people who donate to this cause.

On the other hand the trucker convoy has been nothing but peaceful. I think I saw a statistic where crime in Ottowa dropped 90 percent during the 3 weeks that the protest was happening in downtown. The protesters were feeding the homeless, the police and anybody else who was in need of food. It is absolute tyranny for the government to go after those who donated to this cause. It would be one thing if they were not peaceful and actually killing people. To try to argue that the same answer should apply to both of these cases is absurd.

I'm sure you will attempt make the argument that the protest was "killing" people because businesses were being destroyed. My argument to that is they are protesting against the tyrannical government that has destroyed thousands of lives with their shutdowns and mandates. There are thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs because they did not want to take an experimental jab. There are Canadians who are having to drive 2 hours to go shopping for groceries because the local grocery stores in their hometown require a vaccine passport to enter the store.

 

[LouderVol]

I think I just said they shouldn't be forced. They should have chosen to take the vaccine because it was proven to help in the fight against the global COVID pandemic.

Proven? How so? Even tiny nations like Israel had spikes when they were close to 100%.

They may help individuals but it has clearly not even stopped or slowed down Covid. The facts show this. Covid got worse after the vax came out. Saying it could have been worse is supposition.

 

[hog88]

What is a person guilty of if they're never convicted? It's a similar issue with asset seizure

Exactly. LE has taken it too far and a power once reserved to be used against the worst of the worst is now used against innocent people. The only solution is to remove the power of asset seizure until conviction from all levels of LE.

 

[hog88]

Going forward, you might just skip analogies.
Should non-violent participants in the convoy protests have their assets seized, frozen, or be arrested? Just looking for intellectual consistency.

From Luther? Flap your arms and see if you can fly, you have a better chance.

 

[DonjoVol]

The left loves Hitler so much that they can't stop fantasizing about him nearly 80 years after his death

 

[luthervol]

I was actually trying to skip a step.

You did. You actually agreed that you did. It was just our fault you had to. You know... Intellectual honesty and all that.[/QUOTE]
lol....same old you.
Your post:
You could have just asked those questions without putting the protestors on the same comparative scale as terrorists while claiming you did so to create a baseline. You chose ISIS for a reason.
(You should have highlighted the last 6 words of your post)
My answer:
I did, (which was a response to the accusation made in the last 6 words of your post) because a whole lot of you would answer no to the general question but yes when applied directly to ISIS; which wouldn't be necessary if everyone practiced a little intellectual consistency.
I was actually trying to skip a step.

You, as always, get so caught up in the trivial, maybe it's because you can't understand the larger point being made,

 

[luthervol]

If they're innocent according to the law then how does the law get to treat them as a guilty person? There is no guilt under the law until convicted. That's fundamental

People are arrested and locked up without being convicted. Is that not punishment?