Shiftless2
Well-known member
You forgot to flag this as sarcasm.
That said, you have to look at the comments - the number of people trying to defend him on this is amazing (amusing?)
For my Canadian friends
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
That said, you have to look at the comments - the number of people trying to defend him on this is amazing (amusing?)
Shiftless2
Well-known member
It's all about which party someone is joining
It’s a little rich hearing lectures about “backroom deals” from Andrew Scheer.
He says Prime Minister Mark Carney shouldn’t be using backroom deals to gain power Canadians supposedly “refused” him in the last election.
But that’s not how Canada’s parliamentary system works.
In our system, governments are formed by who can command the confidence of the House of Commons. MPs have always had the right to cross the floor, support another party, or change affiliations if they believe it’s in the best interest of their constituents.
That isn’t corruption. It’s literally part of how our democracy functions.
What’s even more ironic is the outrage coming from Conservatives defending Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre himself only returned to Parliament because one of his own MPs stepped aside in what was essentially an internal deal so he could run in a safer seat after losing Carleton.
So spare Canadians the outrage about “backroom deals.”
If Conservative MPs are leaving the caucus, the real question isn’t what Carney is offering.
The real question is why they don’t want to stay.
SOURCE
It’s a little rich hearing lectures about “backroom deals” from Andrew Scheer.
He says Prime Minister Mark Carney shouldn’t be using backroom deals to gain power Canadians supposedly “refused” him in the last election.
But that’s not how Canada’s parliamentary system works.
In our system, governments are formed by who can command the confidence of the House of Commons. MPs have always had the right to cross the floor, support another party, or change affiliations if they believe it’s in the best interest of their constituents.
That isn’t corruption. It’s literally part of how our democracy functions.
What’s even more ironic is the outrage coming from Conservatives defending Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre himself only returned to Parliament because one of his own MPs stepped aside in what was essentially an internal deal so he could run in a safer seat after losing Carleton.
So spare Canadians the outrage about “backroom deals.”
If Conservative MPs are leaving the caucus, the real question isn’t what Carney is offering.
The real question is why they don’t want to stay.
SOURCE
An emoti might help. But what? Two lemons with a large gap between them?
Alright, except it's too big for an emoticon.
Sat Tire
This is just part of Trump's illegal Mar-a-Lago classified documents horde.
Wasn't this severe violation of U.S. national security law over half a decade ago?
It'd be nice if they'd begin to enforce the laws against serious breaches of U.S. national security.
I get the need, but secrecy in a republic is sort of a contradiction.
I wish they would finally release who did what over the invasion of Iraq?
Colin Powell has been dead for 4 years, and the details still have not been released.
Secrecy about legislative actions on our own economy is certainly a contradiction.
But we live in a very dangerous world. And unfortunately we need secrecy to sustain our intelligence gathering, etc.
We have some safeguards in place, for example, our CIA limited against spying on U.S. citizens residing in the U.S.
You'll have a very long wait. Few if any among the powers that be are willing.
Apart from that we know what we need to know: the Bushies lied.
When JFK informed the People of the United States the Soviets had placed Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, JFK used actual U2 spy plane photographs as evidence, not just -take my word for it-.
When Secretary Powell presented to the U.N. General Assembly Powell used U.S. government drawings, artwork of ostensible mobile WMD labs. I've never seen legitimate evidence any such thing ever existed.
"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S.President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan.29, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." V.P. Cheney "8/26/02" C-SPAN2
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." U.S.President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March17th, 2003
All lies.
What was funny is that they did show a couple pictures of trucks they claimed were "mobile bio-weapons labs".
But I recognized them as common hydrogen producing, open, trucks used to inflate artillery balloons.
The artillery regiments all need balloons so they can tell which way the upper level winds are blowing.
They get hot in use, so are not enclosed, so therefore are obviously NOT possible to use for "bio-weapons" labs.
I did not know that.
What I find spectacularly un-funny is:
- During the 8 year of the GWB administration UBL killed ~3,000 innocent Americans, earning himself #1 on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list.
- During that same 8 year period President GWB killed thousands more innocent Americans than UBL, got a generous salary, a pension, and lifetime Secret Service protection.
So what makes GWB less dangerous than UBL? In addition to killing his countrymen by the thousands, he also betrayed their trust, lied U.S. into War ?
I have exceedingly little tolerance for outright betrayal, particularly when human life is lost as a result.