-
December 14th, 2020, 12:09 AM
#21
Originally Posted by
canadaman30
When the majority is already against us based on lies, when becomes time to take measures against oppressive government?
You can take measures any time you want to. In fact legal measures (court challenges) are already being pursued. If you are referring to illegal measures than i suspect if you chose now to make your stand than you would have a pretty tiny army and would end up in jail pretty quick. At the end of the day i have no idea what the straw would be to break the proverbial camels back but my take is there are better legal options at this point - like getting JT's government out via a confidence motion. Before we do that though we need to provide an electable option so we don't end up right back where we started.
The wilderness is not a stadium where I satisfy my ambition to achieve, it is the cathedral where I worship.
-
December 14th, 2020 12:09 AM
# ADS
-
December 14th, 2020, 12:15 AM
#22
Originally Posted by
trimmer21
It will only hurt our cause if we allow it to like run and hide. If it turns out it was our own misguided doofusses,we'll deal with it,swiftly and honorably which is a damn sight better than the anti's will do if it turns out it was their supporters.
I never advocated run and hide. We can try and do damage control and can possibly even have some success at it but it's like getting a cut. You can clean it and dress it and let it heal but at the end you are still going to have a scar. No matter what we do this is gonna leave a mark. We can affect the size of the mark going forward but it's still gonna leave a mark.
The wilderness is not a stadium where I satisfy my ambition to achieve, it is the cathedral where I worship.
-
December 14th, 2020, 12:41 AM
#23
Has too much time on their hands
Originally Posted by
Species8472
You can take measures any time you want to. In fact legal measures (court challenges) are already being pursued. If you are referring to illegal measures than i suspect if you chose now to make your stand than you would have a pretty tiny army and would end up in jail pretty quick. At the end of the day i have no idea what the straw would be to break the proverbial camels back but my take is there are better legal options at this point - like getting JT's government out via a confidence motion. Before we do that though we need to provide an electable option so we don't end up right back where we started.
With the majority against us we will continue on to the final solution. The liberals aren't going back to where we started. Next step is buy-back, polite word for confiscation. Many won't be surrendering willingly, if it gets there.
Last edited by canadaman30; December 14th, 2020 at 12:46 AM.
-
December 14th, 2020, 07:15 AM
#24
Reading Wilson's quotes in the story there is no doubt she contributed to the problem. Then she threatens any business that might work on the buyback program saying "their business will change."
The CCFR has seen the last donation from me.
-
December 14th, 2020, 07:31 AM
#25
Has too much time on their hands
You get your news from Mainstream Media (MSM), it is guaranteed to be fake, exploited and inline with government wishes. That is the problem.
Originally Posted by
fishermccann
Thanks for the clarification. I just letting you know that I got today’s story on my Globe feed.
Mark Snow, Leader Of The, Ontario Libertarian Party
-
December 14th, 2020, 07:43 AM
#26
Its kind of sad that a truthful warning given by the wrong person becomes a threat. Anyone from the CCFR should not have any contact with a company involved in the buyback, their lawyers should.
Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
How is it one careless cigarette can cause a forest fire, but it takes a whole box of matches to light a campfire?
-
December 14th, 2020, 08:16 AM
#27
Why would CCFR lawyers have anything to do with the company that is part of a buy back? Are they breaking any laws ? So what would you take them to court on? Applying for a contract? Tendering a bid? A company legally bids for a legal government contract that you don’t agree with , so you take the company to court. For what? Such nonsense.
Last edited by fishermccann; December 14th, 2020 at 08:24 AM.
-
December 14th, 2020, 09:10 AM
#28
Originally Posted by
fishermccann
Why would CCFR lawyers have anything to do with the company that is part of a buy back? Are they breaking any laws ? So what would you take them to court on? Applying for a contract? Tendering a bid? A company legally bids for a legal government contract that you don’t agree with , so you take the company to court. For what? Such nonsense.
Because the CCFR has launched lawsuits against the government over the prohibition of legally owned firearms. Given that state it is within their rights to request information regarding the buyback.
Have your coffee, bud. I didn't say anything about taking them to court.
CCFR has to be very careful about anything they say now as words can and will be contorted to suit the antis agenda.
Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
How is it one careless cigarette can cause a forest fire, but it takes a whole box of matches to light a campfire?
-
December 14th, 2020, 09:32 AM
#29
Originally Posted by
impact
Yeh I agree YOU have posted fake news, because an article written on the 06th October 2020 by the right wing zealot is not news, you really have to try and keep up on event's as they happen.
-
December 14th, 2020, 09:33 AM
#30
I will ask again with out the court visit. Why would the lawyers for CCFR, have any reason contact a company applying for a contract with the government?
