Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

2

Ambitious Spider posted:

Feel like it needs a "feels good man" somewhere in there

D.N. Nation posted:

Four years of drawing nonstop latte-sipping dumb libs, eh Mike.

davebo posted:

FishBulb posted:

Yeah the only people who home school are religious nutsos

Trogdos! posted:

1

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

2

CampingCarl posted:

OldTennisCourt posted:

I like he can't even attempt to defend [Trump admin buffoon] so he backpedals to: YEAH WELL.....BABY KILLER!

Jonas Albrecht posted:

You know, I have a feeling you're right about this. I feel like the "we've got no vetting" narrative goes unopposed, but I'm not sure what's giving me that idea.

EDIT: Let me expand a bit on this. This could be my personal bubble, but even my Democrat voting coworkers seem to think we don't do any real vetting. I see Trump and his thralls bring it up all the time, and get very little pushback for it, if any. It has given me a sense that the "no vetting" narrative is winning, despite being objectively false.

Angepain posted:

I like how we've all given up on king possum ever paying attention to the thread or the dates of things and just accepted reposts as a fact of life now.


This looks like an edit, is there an original version of this by someone?

bencreateddisco posted:

thank god they're sugar free

Jay Rust posted:

Jay Rust posted:

Sequel to this cartoon:

CampingCarl posted:

RoboRodent posted:

... is this literally just "Jewish holidays loooool"? Good christ.

CampingCarl posted:

CampingCarl posted:

RoboRodent posted:

... is this literally just "Jewish holidays loooool"? Good christ.

Shbobdb posted:

I don't care for Erdogan but how is Turkey not a democracy? Are they still crowing about the threat of a Kemalist coup? Because that hasn't been a thing for quite some time. Even the false flag "coups" are presented as Radical Islam as opposed to Kemalism.

quote:

QUEBEC — The Quebec government plans to formally complain to the Washington Post about a column written by a Canadian portraying Quebec as a violent society.

International Affairs Minister Christine St-Pierre confirmed Wednesday she will act on a motion adopted by the National Assembly calling on the government to defend Quebec’s reputation and seek to have comments made by Vancouver columnist J.J. McCullough in the wake of the Quebec City mosque shootings rectified.

McCullough’s commentary, titled “Why does ‘progressive’ Quebec have so many massacres?” appeared in the Feb. 1 edition of the prestigious Washington Post. In the piece, McCullough argues Quebec has a “disproportionate share of the country’s massacres,” but to say so is taboo in a province that considers itself a marvellous place.

Presented by Verchères MNA Stéphane Bergeron, a Parti Québécois politician, the motion sailed through the house with unanimous support, including Premier Philippe Couillard and all the opposition leaders.

The vote was 112 for, zero against.

“We are in the process of drafting a note,” St-Pierre told reporters later. “Initially, we didn’t want to give this man any publicity because the comments are upsetting.

“But after reflection and seeing the PQ motion, we will write to the editor-in-chief of the Washington Post. We’ll see if they publish it.”

The motion officially asks the government to “rectify the comments made against the Quebec people by a Vancouver columnist,” and that the legislature “support all initiatives taken by the government of Quebec to defend Quebec’s reputation internationally.”

St-Pierre said she understands the column is the opinion of McCullough and not the paper.

But she noted an editorial on the same day in the New York Times praised Quebec’s efforts to preach tolerance and understanding in the wake of the Jan. 29 shooting that left six dead.

“I don’t want to go into the details of what he said, but I want to say, simply, that we were angered to see he really does not understand Quebec. But I don’t want to give him publicity.

“You just can’t take such shortcuts and say because of this there is that. I don’t even want to respond to what he wrote because it’s so beneath everything.”

quote:

As Canadian politicians and journalists scramble for tidy, ideologically pleasing narratives in the wake of this week’s senseless slaughter at a Quebec City mosque, one disturbing fact has gone conspicuously unmentioned: A disproportionate share of the country’s massacres occur in the province of Quebec.

I was born in 1984. Since then, Quebec has experienced at least six high-profile episodes of attempted public mass murder.

On the morning of May 8, 1984, Denis Lortie walked into the Quebec provincial legislature carrying multiple weapons and opened fire, shooting 16 people, three fatally. Only his ignorance of the parliamentary timetable (few politicians were sitting at that hour) and the heroism of René Marc Jalbert, the sergeant-at-arms, prevented greater slaughter.

Five years later, on Dec. 6, 1989, a 25-year-old misogynist named Marc Lépine strolled methodically through the classrooms of Quebec’s École Polytechnique de Montréal, a rifle in his arms, and murdered 13 female students and a school employee and injured 14 others before committing suicide. The incident is commemorated annually across Canada as a case study in violence against women.

Three years after that, on Aug. 24, 1992, disgruntled Soviet-born assistant professor Valery Fabrikant shot and killed four of his colleagues with a handgun at Montreal’s Concordia University. Fourteen years after that, yet another Quebec school became the setting for a bloodbath when, on Sept. 13, 2006, 25-year-old Kimveer Gill roamed the halls of Dawson College in a black trench coat and shot 17 students, killing one.

On the evening of Quebec’s 2012 provincial election, a Anglo-Quebecer named Richard Henry Bain attempted to assassinate the province’s newly elected secessionist premier, Pauline Marois, at a victory rally along with — in his words — “as many separatists as I could.” A jammed rifle ultimately resulted in only two casualties, stagehands Denis Blanchette, who was killed, and Dave Courage, who was wounded by the same bullet. It was, declared a judge, an attempt to use violence “to change the results of the election and the course of history.”

And now we have the Quebec City mosque massacre of 2017, in which as many as 25 Muslim men were shot, six (so far) fatally, by Alexandre Bissonnette, as they bowed for evening prayers. Bissonnette’s motives are still unknown, but early speculation centers around allegations of Islamophobic activity on social media. His Facebook likes include popular Quebec political parties such as the separatist Parti Quebecois and New Democratic Party of Canada.

In short, my lifetime has overlapped with at least one spectacular act of Quebec public violence every five years or so. No other province can claim the same.

French-speaking Quebec is often held up (and certainly holds itself up) as Canada’s most essential region, home to a precious set of particularities that help make Canada the marvelous place it is. On such issues as postsecondary education, child care and (ironically enough) gun control, progressive Canadians laud its social-democratic policies as moral exemplars, and the province has played an outsize role in pushing Canadian politics to the left.

Criticism of Quebec, meanwhile, is deeply taboo. In a 2006 essay, Globe and Mail columnist Jan Wong posited a theory that Quebec’s various lone nuts, many of whom were not of pure French-Canadian stock, were predictably alienated from a province that places such a high premium on cultural conformity. She was denounced by a unanimous vote in the Canadian Parliament and sank into a career-ruining depression. The current events magazine Maclean’s ran a cover story in 2010 arguing that Quebec, where old-fashioned mafia collusion between government contractors, unions and politicians is still common, was easily “the most corrupt province in Canada.” That, too, was denounced by a unanimous vote of Parliament.

Privately, English Canadians are far less defensive. They grumble about Quebec’s dark history of anti-Semitism, religious bigotry and pro-fascist sentiment, facts which are rarely included in otherwise self-flagellating official narratives of Canadian history. They complain about the exaggerated deference the province gets from Ottawa as a “distinct society” and “nation-within-a-nation,” and its various French-supremacist language and assimilation laws, which they blame for creating a place that’s inhospitable, arrogant and, yes, noticeably more racist than the Canadian norm. And now, they have good reason to observe that the province seems to produce an awful lot of lunatics prone to public massacres, who often explicitly justify their violence with arguments of dissatisfaction towards Quebec’s unique culture.

The mosque shooting has been quickly politicized by the Canadian left who have seized upon its useful victims to say the sort of things they were going to say anyway: Canada is both a wicked Islamophobic place that must check its various privileges and a multicultural utopia whose pride and empathy for its Muslim community knows no bounds. Rather than drag the entire country along for this tendentious ride, it might be more useful to narrow the focus.

CampingCarl posted:

Lord Hydronium posted:

The problem with using "they are vetted" as a main argument is that you're implicitly conceding the idea that the issue is really about vetting. You could give every immigrant sodium pentathol and put them on the rack and the conservative argument would still be that we aren't vetting hard enough. Because they don't actually care about vetting, they want a ban on immigration and will use anything as an excuse. Anything you do short of a ban will just be met with "it's not good enough", so the best strategy is to skip around that whole line of distraction and just strike at the heart of the matter, which is that immigration is a net good and we're America, dammit, Statue of Liberty, melting pot and all the rest.

It's like torture. You can argue that torture doesn't work, and it's true, but relying on that as your main argument is conceding the idea that efficacy is the primary problem with it (and not that, you know, it's barbaric). It's best used as a supporting point, because it's not really what the argument is or should be about.

Sandpuppy posted:

CampingCarl posted:

Sandpuppy posted:

12

Sandpuppy posted:

12

Sandpuppy posted:

12

Sandpuppy posted:

12

Pants Donkey posted:

CampingCarl posted:

Pants Donkey posted:

Should I be concerned about the high alkalinity

Space Cadet Omoly posted:

Wait, I thought Dees was anti-Trump now because he's a Jewish puppet or something?

Or did I misread a few of his other crazy collages?