Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

I won't believe a single video you post for going after soft white unbelly. You don't research stuff and like to defamate people's reputation without doing due diligence. You're a horrible person and karma is a B*tch!!! Mark is one of the most transparent, genuine people that wishes to help people and when someone like you who only goes for likes and could care less about helping people is pathetic.

So fucking based, especially the thumbnail haha. As an Indian myself, I don't like seeing too many Indians either. For example, just watch all the different "Indians litter" and "India sucks" videos and shorts out there. Too many Indians bring their bad habits and couldn't care less about Western values and basic, humane principles. Also, my also Indian Mom recently told me about how she could never be left alone in India because there are a lot of "nasty people" over there. And I've heard those horror stories and seen various clips of that, it's insanity. Thank God I was born in the West.

I dunno but calling a whole continent low intelligent is crazy. I could care less of what is happening but ya'all should stop insulting everyone in Africa

Pierre Poilievre’s Immigration Hypocrisy: A Study in Convenient Principles Disguised as Conviction Pierre Poilievre has never met a border he did not want to fortify, a refugee claim he did not want to scrutinize, or an irregular crossing he did not want to turn into a national morality play. For years, he has warned Canadians that the country is being overrun by “illegal border crossers,” “queue jumping asylum seekers,” and “abusers of the system.” He delivers these warnings with the solemnity of a man announcing a biblical plague, not a handful of exhausted families walking across a ditch in Quebec. In Poilievre’s political universe, Roxham Road is not a rural footpath. It is a symbol of national decline. It is chaos incarnate. It is the place where the rule of law goes to die. It is, in short, the perfect stage upon which he can perform his favorite role: the lone defender of order in a world gone soft. At least, that is the story he tells the public. The private story, as publicly reported, is considerably less heroic. The Public Record That Refuses to Behave: According to reporting from The Breach and the National Observer, someone described as the uncle of Poilievre’s spouse has an immigration history that reads like a greatest hits compilation of everything Poilievre claims to oppose. The reporting outlines that he entered Canada and made a refugee claim. That claim was refused. A deportation order was issued. He later re-entered Canada through Roxham Road. He then filed a humanitarian and compassionate application. Poilievre’s spouse reportedly helped prepare that application. This is not fringe gossip. This is what journalists documented through correspondence, interviews, and immigration records. In other words, the exact pathway Poilievre condemns as “abuse of the system” is the same pathway publicly reported to have been used by someone connected to him. And suddenly, the man who treats Roxham Road like a national security breach becomes quieter than a library at midnight. The slogans stop. The outrage evaporates. The border, once a sacred line, becomes a flexible suggestion. The Rhetoric: A Symphony of Outrage: Poilievre’s immigration rhetoric is a carefully orchestrated performance. He warns that irregular border crossings undermine the rule of law. He insists humanitarian and compassionate applications are loopholes. He claims the system is being gamed. He declares that Canada must “take back control.” He delivers these lines with the moral certainty of a man who believes compassion is a gateway drug. In his speeches, asylum seekers are not people. They are symbols. They are props. They are the raw material from which he fashions his political identity. He is the sheriff. They are the threat. The border is the battleground. And Canada is the damsel in distress. It is a compelling narrative. It is also a narrative that collapses the moment it becomes personally inconvenient. The Reality: A Study in Elastic Principles: When someone connected to Poilievre uses the very same system he condemns, the rules change with breathtaking speed. Irregular border crossings are no longer a crisis. They are a misunderstanding. A technicality. A regrettable but understandable choice. Humanitarian and compassionate applications are no longer loopholes. They are legitimate pathways. Necessary tools. Evidence of a compassionate system. The border is no longer a sacred line. It is a suggestion. A guideline. A flexible concept open to interpretation. It is a remarkable transformation, like watching a man insist that jaywalking is a crime against humanity until his friend does it, at which point it becomes a misunderstood act of civic expression. The Political Convenience of Shifting Standards: Poilievre’s political identity is built on the idea that he alone will restore order. He alone will enforce the rules. He alone will protect Canada from the chaos of irregular migration. But the moment the rules become inconvenient, they are no longer rules. They are preferences. They are vibes. They are whatever he needs them to be in the moment. This is not a minor contradiction. It is a fundamental collapse of the moral architecture he has built his political brand upon. If irregular crossings are a crisis, then they are a crisis for everyone. If humanitarian applications are loopholes, then they are loopholes for everyone. If the system is broken, then it is broken for everyone. But Poilievre’s version of justice is not universal. It is conditional. It is situational. It is deeply, profoundly personal. The Broader Pattern: Institutions Are Sacred Until They Are Not: This is not the first time Poilievre’s principles have proven to be more flexible than advertised. He has attacked the Supreme Court of Canada when its rulings do not align with his political needs. He has accused the justice system of being too lenient when it suits him and too harsh when it does not. He has framed himself as the defender of institutions while undermining them whenever they become inconvenient. It is a pattern. It is a habit. It is a worldview. And it reveals something essential about his politics. For Poilievre, institutions are not pillars of democracy. They are tools. They are props. They are instruments to be used when helpful and discarded when not. The Satirical Truth: A Philosophy in One Sentence: Pierre Poilievre’s immigration philosophy can now be summarized with clinical precision: Canada must crack down on irregular border crossings, except for the ones that are fine. And he will decide which ones are fine. It is a stance that bends so far backward it could qualify for a gymnastics medal. It is a stance that reveals more about political convenience than national security. It is a stance that exposes the gap between what Poilievre says and what Poilievre does. And it is a stance that makes one thing abundantly clear. Polievre's Hypocrisy

Stop voting for bad political parties. I lived homeless for 7 years in my truck. Now, I live off grid with no running water. I lost my career because of immigrants and they could care less whom they hurt. I am a victim of labor trafficking because of it. I survived this trouble in our country and still am.

My Granparents, parents, settled the homestead in 1896 near Rossland BC. How it used to work, how things are supposed to work, is the Government serves the needs and demands of the people. The people don't serve the Government nor any Corporation or Public/Private Partnership. This means that the Government doesn't prevent people from doing what they do and they don't use force to extort the fruit of everyone's labor to the point of enslavement. In 1896 and throughout my Grandfather's life from 1902 to 1976, one would do for themselves if they weren't working for someone else. In other words, you found something needed be done, something the community around you required or was lacking, you opened shop and got after it. You can't work today because you require licensing for everything, you require permission for everything, everything is regulated. People have it in their minds that it's so much better today then it was then, that it's "safer". But it's not, that's a lie. My family, although never wealthy, ate good food, always had a roof over their heads, plenty of family around and always had something to do or at least could always find something to work at. Most importantly, they always had hope because they had freedom. No one has any hope anymore and the people coming here aren't just bringing their culture to overtake our culture, they are coming with anger. With envy, resentment and malice. My family didn't come here with those things, they came to Canada with hope and determination to integrate and prosper with freedom. The other side of my family fled Bolshevism when they left Russia and came here and that side had the exact same hope in freedom to work hard and prosper. Now all generational wealth, freedom, prosperity and hope is all but completely stolen. We don't need more regulations. We don't need more benefits. We don't need more Government. We need less, we need it all to go away because I know for a fact, you give people the freedom to go about their lives, the society or community they form, always tends towards peaceful, prosperous organization. You give people the freedom to build and produce and they'll get after it immediately and that opens the door for all other manner of trades and skills that just fill any hole in a community or society. And that's a fact about the organizational tendencies of human beings. There's nothing stopping us from providing for ourselves but a cartel Government in the business of extortion and human enslavement. They foment chaos and division in order to justify the revoking of more freedoms to enslave more people. People themselves, they look to get along, get to work, raise families and, as best they can, enjoy life. Once we start expecting a Government to take care of us we've institutionalized prisoners who have lost all human dignity. When you "buy in" to all the rhetoric of so called autonomy, ask yourself, how autonomous are you without a family? Just because you're alone in a box in a city, stacked one on top of the other, weighted down by a landslide of rules, collecting benefits from the Government, doesn't make you autonomous. People say, "no one can afford a family". Yet those coming in have large families and they seem to be making out just fine. It's the brainwashing of our culture that set us up. Over time we've convinced the proper way to do things is everyone to grow up and go their own way, leaving each other relying on benefits from the government in old age or illness or whatever calamity might strike in life. There's always something that comes along. With family you have human resource, a plethora of skills and you have your "insurance", free of extortion. Everything that comes from a government is conditional and sooner or later their conditions rule over our condition, even though it's our labor that provides for them. The answer isn't more benefits, as I've said. The answer is simply less government, so we can all get to the business of providing for ourselves and helping our communities prosper. We need to do this with family because alone, we are all isolated and powerless. No one stands alone and a house divided cannot stand.

I remember going into Canada to attend a 16 week log building class. They tore apart my truck and trailer outside and when nothing illegal was found said have a nice time. I could care less what difficulties canuks have getting into the USA.