padib said:
bouzane said:
I'm not trying to offend but you strike me as incredibly naive. If I wanted to damage Canada I would simply become a politician. The average voter is gullible and they assume that politicians have good intentions. I would mask my attacks by creating legislation that would curb civil liberties under the guise of security, create strife by supplying arms to Sunni fascists under the pretense that they would be moderates fighting against Communists and I'd sign glorified unequal treaties and tout them as free trade. I would pour hundreds of billions of dollars into corporate welfare to support industries that damage the environment and interfere in our political system while contributing little to the economy. I would pretend to take a tough stance on crime only to burden the court system with petty drug offenders. I would cut military spending, join conflicts where Canada has no national interests and spout damaging rhetoric to make enemies with powerful nations such as Russia. I would destroy government organizations meant to protect the health and wellbeing of the people and call it cost cutting in order to balance a budget that I myself unbalanced in the first place. I would build unnecessary prisons and procure costly and ineffective military ordinance, sponsor religious schools, allow rampant unchecked immigration, antagonize minorities and foster racism. I would fear monger and mudsling, undermine the free media and control the narrative through state sponsored ad campaigns. I would essentially do everything that Harper did and people would vote for me by the millions while I cut their throats. In the end they would claim that my intents were all pure and good without examining what I actually accomplished and I would likely get re-elected. Do not ever assume that the man in power wants what is best for the people when the opposite is often true.
|
But you're only proving me right. One example I'll hand-pick, bolded:
What motive would he have to fill the court system with petty offenders? If you trace it back, the motive is to increase security for the good of Canada, but the result is counter-productive.
Which just serves to further my point. There are rarely any evil intentions, only evil results. The best example is the curbing of civil liberties due to the perceived need for greater security.
I think we actually agree and no I'm not naive, though I understand why you would think that.
|
Sorry but nobody in power is stupid enough to believe that marijauan prohibition is a good idea. People of such limited intellect do not gain such positions of power. Harper knew that potheads were not a security risk and by persecuting them he could:
- waste tremendous amounts of money
- burden the courts with unnecessary cases
- strengthen ties with Sunni Fascists such as Saudi Arabia
- polarize the electorate and society in general
- spread misinformation
- undermine civil liberties
- divert attention from serious crimes and his lack of action concerning them
The best part is that you will never convince a large segment of the population that his actions were intentionally harmful. That's why it is so easy for me to undermine those that I hate. I can walk right up to them, exchange pleasantries and immediately convince them to implement policies that will weaken their organizations while empowering their enemies. I mingle with the people I am actively attacking and they are none the wiser because they give me the benefit of a doubt. Men with power never do this much damage without it being deliberate.
