Canada's Truck Convoy to Protest Mandate

#3,427
#3,427
Vol8188 said:
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?
Click to expand...
You're simply wrong. My whole objective of the question was to establish a foundation. I do it all of the time.
My stance has always been that donors should not have their assets frozen - especially without fair warning.
 
#3,428
#3,428
luthervol said:
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".
Click to expand...
So no bail ever? That would be allowing someone to continue committing their crimes.

There is absolutely no way you would have ever been comfortable with Trump seizing or freezing the violent BLM accounts. No way what so ever. And if you cant be comfortable with the opposition having and using the power you shouldnt be ok with your side having or using the power, or any example of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#3,429
#3,429
NCFisher said:
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.
Click to expand...
If they continue to break the law after multiple warnings. But I would prefer they just be arrested.

I've answered the same question about 20 times now.
 
#3,430
#3,430
luthervol said:
You, as always, get so caught up in the trivial, maybe it's because you can't understand the larger point being made,
Click to expand...
That's rich. Untrue and void of any integrity. But rich.

We have a long history of me trying to lead you to the big points of your logic, arguments, and ideals, while you retreat to minutia in efforts to escape the otherwise inescapable.

You do so so that you can end things by arguing minutia and calling me concrete brained with the inability to comprehend your gradients...i.e the minutia you take every arguments to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#3,431
#3,431
luthervol said:
You're simply wrong. My whole objective of the question was to establish a foundation. I do it all of the time.
My stance has always been that donors should not have their assets frozen - especially without fair warning.
Click to expand...
Unless you're a commie fascist, or a real life terrorist, how bought not at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and hog88
#3,432
#3,432
Vol8188 said:
So you support funding terrorism? Or you support freezing the accounts of donors (something you’ve claimed not to support multiple times)?
Click to expand...
I do not support funding terrorist organizations. The complication arises in how we define terrorist organizations. Once we have defined and labeled an organization as terrorist, it should be clearly stated and understood that funding those organizations is illegal and anyone doing so will have their assets frozen and be arrested.
So no - I do not support freezing the assets of people funding the truckers at this point.
And yes - I would have supported freezing the assets of people who were funding ISIS in 2002.
 
#3,433
#3,433
hog88 said:
Yes and for non violent alleged offenses it's wrong.
Click to expand...
lol....there are loads of non-violent crimes where the person is arrested and locked up.
Possession of child pornography. Failure to pay child support. Vandalism. Theft. Robbery.
 
#3,436
#3,436
luthervol said:
That those people are rightfully (in the opinion of pretty much everyone but you) arrested and locked up (temporarily) when caught.
Click to expand...

That is not what we're talking about and you damn well know it. We're talking about bail and how people are held without it or it's set too high so that they cannot bail out. Bail should be reserved for the alleged violent offenders or with multiple convictions and everyone else released on their own recognizance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and 85SugarVol
#3,437
#3,437
luthervol said:
I do not support funding terrorist organizations. The complication arises in how we define terrorist organizations. Once we have defined and labeled an organization as terrorist, it should be clearly stated and understood that funding those organizations is illegal and anyone doing so will have their assets frozen and be arrested.
So no - I do not support freezing the assets of people funding the truckers at this point.
And yes - I would have supported freezing the assets of people who were funding ISIS in 2002.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you feel the truckers should be officially listed as a terrorist organization, and then it would be OK to freeze the assets of their supporters?
 
#3,439
#3,439
hog88 said:
That is not what we're talking about and you damn well know it. We're talking about bail and how people are held without it or it's set too high so that they cannot bail out. Bail should be reserved for the alleged violent offenders or with multiple convictions and everyone else released on their own recognizance.
Click to expand...
No we are not. That is exactly what I was talking about. I 100% agree that bail should be higher for violent offenders and flight risks.
 
#3,442
#3,442
hog88 said:
It's useless to try and have a discussion with you.
Click to expand...
Why, because it doesn't go your way?
You claim people cannot be punished without being convicted. That's absurd - it rightfully happens all of the time.
You agreed that being arrested and detained was punishment.
Freezing assets can be just as temporary and punitive as arresting and temporarily detaining.
 
#3,443
#3,443
luthervol said:
Why, because it doesn't go your way?
You claim people cannot be punished without being convicted. That's absurd - it rightfully happens all of the time.
You agreed that being arrested and detained was punishment.
Freezing assets can be just as temporary and punitive as arresting and temporarily detaining.
Click to expand...

Because you are dishonest and tap dance better than Sammy Davis Jr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and NEO
#3,445
#3,445
hog88 said:
Because you are dishonest and tap dance better than Sammy Davis Jr.
Click to expand...
I'm not dishonest (complete misunderstanding on your part) and my tap dancing is moderate at best.

You guys just have a hard time breaking out of your black or white views and seeing gray. Often times I have to take a circuitous route in getting you there.
 
#3,446
#3,446
luthervol said:
My stance has always been that donors should not have their assets frozen - especially without fair warning.
Click to expand...
So if the government gives me fair warning about donating to GiveSendGo to support striking US farmers - then the can freeze my assets?

Sounds like a wonderful place to live.
 
#3,449
#3,449
85SugarVol said:
So if the government gives me fair warning about donating to GiveSendGo to support striking US farmers - then the can freeze my assets?

Sounds like a wonderful place to live.
Click to expand...

He would be up in arms if Trudeau was freezing accounts of donors to liberal organizations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#3,450
#3,450
luthervol said:
I've said repeatedly I do not believe their supporters should have their assets frozen - and certainly never taken.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question, Mr. Bojangles.

Orange_Crush said:
So, at what point do you believe their supporters should have their accounts frozen and assets taken?
Click to expand...

Youi said that you do not believe they should at this point.
So no - I do not support freezing the assets of people funding the truckers at this point.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious at what point you believe they should be.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top