Duhhh.net

Source CNET

Key point…

…The passing of the bill also signals that so-called three-strikes policies is how many governments and media companies intended to protect copyrights. Three strikes is the term used to describe the sending of multiple warnings to suspected illegal file sharers. Under such laws, after a certain number of warnings, if the accused fails to stop, an Internet service provider can be required to suspend or terminate service….

Note the words “…suspected illegal file sharers…”, not proven guilty in any reasonable way.

As I’ve stated before, I do not advocate any kind of criminality, the law should protect people from theft, but where in this law or potential application thereof is the presumption of innocence that is pivotal to our Western justice system?

Based of what I’ve seen of this law so far all we need is the “copyrighters” say so that that some one is violating copyright to shut down their internet.

First of all I wouldn’t trust these assholes as far as I can throw them, second of all what if it’s someones kid that doesn’t know any better or someones neighbour stealing WiFi? I doubt my mom who barely knows how to turn on her computer would know enough to stop that if it were to happen.

This law is not balanced and is open to abuse as per most laws passed by Liberal fucktards.

Where are the checks and balances and where is the due process?

And because I’m tired, “fuck you Rick Cotton”.

Newsflash: Holiday Inn UK are offering a human bed-warming service.

Source: Yahoo! News

So some guy or gal puts on a fleece suit and jumps into your bed to warm it up.

Wonder if it’s any different than what Canadian Liberal MPs do anyways.

Imagine the following:

“It’s late at night, you are inside your home when you notice some people skulking in your back yard. You bang a kitchen window with a knife from inside your house. Turns out it’s a bunch of kids who quickly run away.”

Sound reasonable? Not in England.

Source: Mark Steyn

Sigh, I’ve said it before, what happened to common sense?

Source: The Vancouver Sun

I’m happy to debate the merits of the firearms registry in a fair debate and if I’m wrong about any of my facts I’ll happily switch sides and become a proponent of it.

But what really really bugs me is when people argue a point without using any logic or use untruths, mis-representations of data, or outright lies.

Life is too short to have and deal with that kind  garbage.

In her article she states that Canadians want more not less gun safety laws as an argument to keep the long gun registry. This is of course untrue as at least a 2006 surveys clearly show that upwards of 55% of Canadians want to scrap the registry but want to keep some form of gun control. The poll that she (and I) are most likely referring to is this one.

So far that’s one paragraph and at least one lie.

Then she goes on to say that registration is a one-time process that makes gun owners accountable, blah, blah, blah, and that aids police investigations, blah, blah, blah. Again more untruths and lies; her entire argument can be defeated by the simple statement of “my gun was stolen” which is in fact what happened when police were trying to trace down the firearms used in the Mayerthorpe massacre which were eventually traced down by an undercover investigation and not by the useless Canadian Firearms Registry. My proof is right here.

By now two paragraphs equals two lies by Akerman.

In her last paragraph she states that gun control law help reduce death, injury, blah, blah and that the distinguished Canadian Association of Police Chiefs (CAPC) supports the registry.

This paragraph makes Jesus want to cry from so much mis-representation; yes fewer guns equals fewer gun suicides but the overall suicide rate has remained unchanged. Secondly the CAPC is in a bit of a conflict of interest position considering that they are receiving significant amounts of donations from CGI which has received hundreds of millions of dollars from the government to work on the Firearms Registry.

As stated in a number of press articles the CACP is not above scrutiny and yet she states that it is a “distinguished” body, go figure.

In the end her entire diatribe doesn’t have a single shred of truth to it and that really bugs me.

Her entire argument is one long lie and she’s just to darned lazy to actually do any research and back up her arguments with valid citations which is why Beverly Akerman is todays Moron of the Day.

Original story here:

This guy would be almost funny if he wasn’t spewing such tripe.

He says: “And yes, I still eat meat, which I buy at a supermarket. And yes, that makes me a shameless hypocrite. I’m trying to quit.”

I say: “Okay, so you’re a hypocrite, but just to be sure you understand that admitting it doesn’t make it ok and that by itself guarantees no one will take you seriously. Not sure why buying it at a supermarket is considered ok (my wife use to work in that industry and if you ever saw it first hand you’d become an instant vegetarian) whereas hunting is somehow evil. Someone cry one too many times after watching Bambi?”

He says: “There’s no need to go out and actively track down dinner, unless you’re one of the few thousand people left on the planet who are legitimate hunter/gatherers.”

I say: “Who the flip are you to decide what need is? People need shelter, water, and food in that order; nothing else is a need. Based on that fact alone ethical hunting trumps tofu or a double soy decaf latte with a twist of lime any day of the week.

And just because I’m feeling in a particularly ranty mood today; ethical hunting is more civilized, green (yes green), and healthier than your tofu or supermarket meat ever will be. Did you ever stop to think where tofu comes from and how it’s made? Probably not, you’d be surprised. I’ll make it easy, look here.”

Go back to you tofu and keep your silly opinions to yourself.

There’s just so much stupidity with this story that I’m actually stunned speechless…

Baby machine gone horribly wrong…

Today, two items for the price of one.

I guess in Wolf’s world Clinton was a Republican.

Yet further proof that the news is presented to you by idiots.

These maggoty Europeans are calling for the banning of Canadian seal and fish products claiming that the practice is barbaric.

Maybe these putzes should clean up in their own backyard first before passing judgement on what I would call to be a more humane practice than some of the crap they pull such as “…where drunken teenagers head out into the countryside, hogtie a goat, march it into town, and throw the living creature out of the church bell tower…”

Maybe I pick on England because my wife comes from there and I pay a bit more attention to that country but the whole continent is pretty much a waste of breath.

Most people have heard the saying “those that live in glass houses should not cast stones”. I guess Europeans are just too damn stupid to understand that.

See the National Post story for more detail.

Details here.

Unfortunately, this little indiscretion may come back to haunt him.