How Stupid Do You Have To Be?

Part of the continuing series of "how stupid do you have to be?"

Looks like the conservative circles are buzzing with stories of Canada, their imaginary communist country next door, is sliding into totalitarianism.

The issue:

Canada is drafting legislation to authorize the seizure of real estate held by RUSSIAN oligarchs, and their proxies.

While responding to questions regarding the seemingly unlawful seizure of property owned by Russians, Liberal Justice Minister David Lametti said that people don’t have an “absolute right to own private property” in Canada.

Justice Minister: “You don’t have an absolute right to own private property”
“I’d just like to ask you about Bill C-19 — any idea of seizing and selling off Russian assets. There are some who say that’s on shaky ground. How do you respond,” a reporter asked the Justice Minister.

“Well, look. We’ll obviously tailor the provisions so that it can withstand a court challenge. You don’t have an absolute right to own private property in Canada,” Lametti said.

“There are steps that are taken when expropriations happen at whatever level of government, and we’ll be sure to stay within those boundaries.”

They only quoted the following:

You don’t have an absolute right to own private property in Canada

And tried to push it as as it's about Canadian citizens.

So, how stupid to do you have to be? You either let others do the thinking for you, and you regurgitate their bullshit, or you're too stupid to comprehend.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Crazywaterspring · 61-69, M

These are the same mouth breathers who think trump was awesome.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

SomeMichGuy · M

@Wol62 Yes.

SomeMichGuy · M

I think you have encapsulated exactly what I have experienced much of my life, but with a very pronounced peak during the pandemic:

people want

• a simple, short, jingo-istic, often rhyming little catch phrase/sound bite;

• they want that to entirely encompass the truth, without detail, nuamce, caveat, limitation, etc.;

• they want others to do their thinking for them;

• in fact, they often do not have the practical tools necessary to check claims (don't understand real research, primary sources, opinion/misrepresentation/lies v. attempts at objective reporting, or even how to look up unfamiliar words), nor the intellectual tools (skepticism, testing claims/knowledge/facts, logic, flaws in reasoning, ...) in order to ACTUALLY understand arguments and judge them;

• ultimately, they don't care as much about the truth of the sound bite as the fact that it tells them they were right all along;

• it is more important to get back at/"own" people who know more, understand more, are educated, etc., etc., etc., than to get it right.

There is no way to deal with an ocean of intentionao, studied stupidity.

Wol62 · 51-55, M

@SomeMichGuy You mean they would believe something like "Climate change activists want to reduce the population of the World by 90%"?
Even though would surely check that one!

Wol62 · 51-55, M

Yeah, there was something that didn't ring true about that quote! Glad you cleated it up!

How did we end up in this sad state of affairs?

Northwest · M

@Wol62 how did we end up here? Clearly you’re not following the news. It’s the gay and LGBT cabal 🤣

Wol62 · 51-55, M

@Northwest I thought it was the woke and BLM movement?

Ozuye502 · 36-40, M

Ok I don’t really have a problem with government justifiably seizing property in their country
Russian oligarchs have a huge influence on the government of Russia so that by proxy makes it government property so you have government seizing property of another government. Which is a risky move because it can be seen as an act of war. On the flip side you can make a slippery slope argument that because it’s by proxy government property and technically speaking oligarchs are private citizens it’s a step towards violating property rights of private citizens. I am very interested in seeing what the law actually says. But I am getting some very dangerous attitude in the wording presented.
The biggest phrase I see is “you don’t have an absolute right to own property in the country of Canada” that is very concerning in my opinion.

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

@Ozuye502 And that phrase was taken out of context.

Ozuye502 · 36-40, M

@LordShadowfire my guy the fact that the phrase even came out of any governmental employee’s mouth is a problem there’s better ways to word things like that.
No foreign government has the right to property in Canada should be what he said and I honestly have zero issue with that because I’m all for sovereignty and autonomy. Which I get what he was implying but those words said the way presented in that fashion eh I can understand why people are pissed off about it.
Property rights are one of those natural human rights same as free speech and self defense.

Northwest · M

@Ozuye502 Cool, you missed the ENTIRE point.

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

You mean to say a conservative news source is being dishonest in quoting somebody? What's next? Is somebody going to get mugged in New York?

Add a comment...