Sign In or Create an Account
Own property, which they could. Which they did. Ergo landowning Indians could vote. Meaning John A. gave them the vote ~ a century before others made to buttress the right.
They had to be Canadian citizens to vote in Canadian elections?
WOW, blowing my mind here, tuchodi.
In the spring of 1885, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald introduced the Electoral Franchise Act, enabling land-holding / enfranchised men, including Indian men, to vote. The act was in force from 1885, when it was passed by John A. Macdonald's Conservative majority; to 1898, when Wilfrid Laurier's Liberals repealed it.
Four years earlier, in 1881, Parliament had enacted the Naturalization and Aliens Act, 1881, which, among other provisions, explicitly provided that Indigenous people did not count as full British subjects unless they were able to vote.
John A was cancelled despite giving Indians the vote and single-handedly uniting the nation.
Douglas has not been cancelled despite thinking natives, blacks, Irish and others less than human; for penning The Problems of the Subnormal Family in which he advocated for putting undesirables on state farms / precluding them from procreating.
First: You clearly didn't read the article closely because that statement was made by an associate professor from Auckland who was asked to comment on the study, not someone directly involved in the Washington University study. That is to say it's dishonest skew from a remote profit- and power-motivated spin doctor keen to downplay the fact that this is another side-effect that we were told a while back was a 'conspiracy theory'.
A comparable case are all those, including the corrupted corporatists at the CDC, who suggest that the Pfizer clot shots for kids are 99% effective, when in fact: ""Using a three-dose vaccine in 992 children between the ages of six months and five years, Pfizer found no statistically significant evidence of vaccine efficacy. In the subgroup of children aged six months to two years, the trial found that the vaccine could result in a 99% lower chance of infection—but that they also could have a 370% increased chance of being infected. In other words, Pfizer reported a range of vaccine efficacy so wide that no conclusion could be inferred."
Second: "Generally" 'not dangerous' does not mean it's not dangerous, and "general" has never been the standard for medicine. Drugs like Baycol, Belviq, Ergamisol, Omniflox, Posicor, etc., were taken off the market because a few people in each instance died. Their grieving families were also allowed to sue the drug companies responsible. Now, in the COVID-era, there are a shit ton of adverse effects and plenty of deaths as a result of these ineffective drugs and we're supposed to pretend the toll is acceptable.
Third: it should be cause for concern that "vaccine trial protocols do not usually monitor beyond seven days post-vaccination". If they were keeping track, I imagine the adverse effects reports would skyrocket.
Fourth: they're now openly admitting the clot shots affect sperm motility and viability, as well as women's menstrual cycles, but rule out there being any greater impact DESPITE the fact that the medium-to-long-term effects are still unknown, granted these gene therapies have only been on market in the short-term. That is akin to saying the radiation-exposed scientist hasn't had their skin slough off today, therefore they should be fine tomorrow. Lunacy.
Rempel has no federal future. She might get the mental defectives in the UCP who ousted Kenney to give her the time of day, but that's about it.
Good call. I usually archive the link when posting to ThePopCan.net. This is good alternative.
First off, your freedom to have sex is coupled with a responsibility (i.e. for what sex inevitably leads to). American citizens should not be coerced into financing the murder of your child because you don't want the responsibility and didn't feel like using contraceptives or practicing abstinence.
Second, it's paternalistic to think that 'daddy' state must intervene every time someone reaps what they sows as it pertains to sex (here not talking about the extremely rare cases of rape and incest pregnancies). The mentality amongst the left in the West is that the fruits and consequences of one's recklessness ought to be deferred to the state or to the group.
Third, NGOs make oodles of money squeezing abortion zealots, eugenicists, and political affiliates; they can finance the murder of poor babies, achieving Sanger's goal of culling the lower classes and minorities and also narrowing the accessibility gap. Dick's Sporting Goods is giving $4K to each employee who wants to go cut up their spawn in another state. You can bet your ass ESG ratings will now reflect a listed company's willingness to pay for its employees to go to a blue state to murder their unborn child.
Fourth and final: concerning class (which the 99% rhetoric gets into), abortion is a means of class warfare, by the rich against the poor. Big corporations do not want to pay for a new addition to an employees' healthcare plan. Insurance, after all, is costly. They don't want employees' attention divided. What's more: they want more women in the workforce, not at a home, because this fills the talent pool, and depresses wages (more labor, less employer demand, lower wages needed to attract talent). Abortion, extra to having been Tommy Douglas and Margaret Sanger and the Hitlerite's way of killing off all those walks of human life that they felt unfit (i.e. to hire; here is Sanger at a KKK rally), and the Chinese Communists' way of ensuring they did not have to take on the burden of 750 million souls, has always been a way of regulating the reproduction systems of the poor. Those lefties citing economics as justification for the taking of innocent babies' lives should go about improving the economy rather than offing the next generation.
If an incel raped a woman, I guess they wouldn't be an 'involuntary celibate' any longer. They'd just be a ... rapist.
First off, abortion is not universally illegal in the US. It's now up to the individual states to set the laws, as it always should have been.
So the constituents of those states can DEMOCRATICALLY determine whether or not abortion will be legal within their geography.
I was told by the media over the past couple years that democracy is important and we cannot let it die in darkness...
What's more: You realize individuals in the US have freedom of mobility? So in the 18 states presently outlawing abortion, the hoes or in the case of your exceptional case (statistically super rare among abortions, up there with incest pregnancies) can go to the eugenicist/profiteer states to kill their child.
Since they will go to another state to murder their child, it' a different jurisdiction, meaning they cannot be penalized upon return.
And now all the abortion profiteers and lobby groups that raised money to protect Roe can now fund travel arrangements for abortion seekers.
You can always open it in Incognito to bypass paywall, because it won't detect that you've read x amount in the allotted time.
It's an analog (i.e. "Something that bears an analogy to something else; something that is comparable."), genius, the suggestion of which was that any temporary medical problem ought to be taken deadly seriously.
I'm beginning to think you're not mentally ill but rather a grassroots spokesperson for Big Pharma. You realize that prior to the pandemic, most drugs are taken off the market if there is more than a handful of deaths or serious adverse effects? That even if the clot shots only slew a few thousand, they shouldn't be pushed on the population.
If an ineffective gene therapy made you temporarily blind or made you temporarily bleed continuously from your behind (while giving you heart inflammation), would you take it?
Your king notes you efforts and finds you wanting.
You should print out Douglas Murray's response here and append it to the flyer:
I just emailed PP about it, who is a heck of a guy.
My wife who has historically only voted for pinkos is registered and planning to vote with me for Pierre. LANDSLIDE.
Ford will win in a landslide, and the Ontario Liberals will continue to be fucking irrelevant. The NDP will continue flapping their gums. I have no idea how New Blue will fair.
Kenney tried to manage Western alienation, secessionist energies, and Alberta-firewall-styled antipathy for the shitheads in Ottawa / Quebec, but was caltropped by his federalist skew (he is a Canadian patriot first, a proponent for a more independent Alberta second).
If the Wild Rose contingent in the UCP takes charge and campaigns on secessionist rhetoric, they will lose.
What I wonder is who on the bench has sufficient gravitas or name-recognition to hype the vote?
Lastly: the federal conservatives know that it's harder to motivate voters in provinces with conservative premiers / governments during a federal election (i.e. that it's easier to exploit unease under a provincial NDP/Lib kakistocracy), so I doubt the CPC (including Poilievre) will do much to buttress any UCP campaigner moving forward.
I was born and raised in Calgary. I love the city. But with sadness in my heart, I can readily admit that it's become another pinko urban hive. Until the Sino-American War resets everyone's expectations, anyone who can win Calgary in a provincial election probably isn't worth their salt.
Base will now have to put up with Notley come the next election.
After the Queen apologizes, each of the Indian bands should apologize to one another for centuries of slavery, internecine warfare, torture, and war crimes.
Pursue your vocation at your own expense.