Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by betsy

  1. 18 hours ago, Rue said:

    Well we know why the Liberals bailed. A trial would have shown  the Liberal government has hidden documents from Norman and the courts-to be specific , suppressed and continue to suppress  evidence that would have been used to  exonerate the admiral and show the move to Irving shipyards was purely political in motivation and lacked merit.




    It's also has very much to do with the timing of the trial. 

    Imagine having that thing going - something so similar with SNC-Lavalin, during campaign time! 


    Take note, the charges have not been dropped.   It's been stayed - which means it can be reopened within a year.   Imagine that like the sword of Damocles hanging over Norman's head for a year?

      Singling out Norman (from 73 names mentioned), and having him go through all that just because of doing his job (as explained by Jason Kenney, who was involved with this affair), it's like someon in the PMO/Privy Council, is being so petty waging a vendetta against Norman.

    Also, what's Brison's role in this?  He quit politics for a good reason, I bet!


    I bet Norman will talk - at a very opportune timing, too!  Keep it close to election time. I hope so.  It's for the best interest of Canada!

    • Like 1

  2. 29 minutes ago, French Patriot said:


    You are a pathetic thinker.




    You don't think at all, French Patriot. 


    I think I owe a little explanation.  Do you get why I say RealityCheck's post is based on ignorance?   That he didn't get the OP?  here's what he responded to:



    Abortion is here to stay.  No one will really try to bring this up.....so why make an issue of it?  


    We have to.  It may be legal now to slaughter our unborn even for no reason than just to say because I want to....... but that shouldn't mean we have to tolerate it without voicing out our disapproval,  that we are strongly opposed to it, in fact.


    Atheist/secular anti-abortionists, see it as a human right violation  - and they fight it on that ground. 

    We Christians, fight it on the ground that it goes against Biblical teachings. We share a common goal.  To be the voice for the defenseless unborn. 


    Even if it's now legal to murder a child, keeping the issue alive may help a woman struggling with her decision,  to do what is only righteous. 

    Talking about it, still, saves lives.


    Now, read that, and understand what is being said.   Take your time. 

    Realitycheck's response to it, is irrelevant - he's simply gone ballistic!  Since you liked his response - you therefore failed to even see that not only was his response irrelevant - but, he also was arguing out of ignorance.  Now, what does that say about you? :lol:


    Be satisfied that at least, I'd indulged you both with some precious time.


    • Haha 1

  3. 23 hours ago, Realitycheck said:

    This is the standard reply from a religious nut. I bet you didn't even read the link, which was all biblical quotes I'll bet lunch you have never seen before. A few examples: "

    • The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).

    • God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).

    • Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12).



    And those are the same old so-called "evidence" usually given by  atheist idiots!   


    I imagine they all came from the same pro-choice atheists sites (but of course, it's like the blind leading the blind).....:lol:


      Here....let me illustrate why those are standard arguments from idiots......


    Those cherry-picked verses (which are taken out of context),  does not mean you can freely kill the unborn anytime you want, and for no other reason than just.....because!


    2 Kings 8

    Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites,” he answered. “You will set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women.”


    2 Kings 8 didn't only talk about killing children, but also killing pregnant women!  Because it happened in the OT, do religious people believe that's it's okay to kill people? Duh.

    How many men and women were  killed as punishment by God?  Hello?   You're saying just because that happened in the Old testament, therefore it's okay to kill men and women!  Same thing. 


    Shows you.....you got it all wrong.   That's what happens when you cherry-pick verses without understanding them!



    • Haha 1

  4. 22 hours ago, French Patriot said:

    Likely because he and his wife think they should decide what they wish to do with their bodies and lives and not have you tell them what to do with them.

    Would you like to be told how to live your private life?

    Would you encourage your daughter to have a child after being raped?

    Would you be the proud grandmother of a rapists offspring? Would you tell that child how he or she came to be, especially if it was not daddy's color, should your daughter be lucky enough to child find a husband in a world where 50% of all households are manned by single women? 

    Would you subject yourself to such a life?

    I do not expect an honest answer. 




    Then, do what they want with their bodies! Doh.   Lol.  Why does it matter what I say?  What - am I holding them hostage?

       If they're going to be bothered by my talking against abortion - then it means, my opinion means so much to them! :rolleyes: 

    Do as I do!  I don't care about your opinion since I know they're mostly based on ignorance anyway! :shrug:  At least, I directed you to another thread that explains abortion on Christian grounds - where I'm coming from! 


    Freedom of speech/opinion rings a bell with you, guys?

    Let's discuss the weird reactions, instead.  That's what I find intriguing......it's the same exploding reaction from some atheists in another forum, having a major melt-down over a simple Easter greeting from a Christian to fellow-Christians! giggle.gif


    It's quite weird when someone suddenly comes angrily on this thread and starts exploding without even understanding what he quoted!    It makes me think of missed meds.


    Too many liberals give arguments based on ignorance - Realitycheck's ignorance of the OP is an example!  And, that's just the OP which he did not really comprehend!  lol, When you missed the OP - what have you got?   And here you come, too.....on his heels!  Like you two are tied together, or something!  I guess you think there's strength in numbers, eh?   Doesn't always work in a forum, my friend!  :lol:

    Then he started bringing up the Bible, too!  You guys are so funny......  smiley.gif

  5. On 5/4/2019 at 9:50 AM, Realitycheck said:

    You don't know your bible do you? First off, your imaginary god is a murderous SOB who cheerfully slaughters children;  https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/25602-abortion-rights. Secondly there is nothing in your Book Of Lies regarding abortion. Thirdly, it is no one's business what a woman does with her body. Not yours, not mine, not government's and certainly not the purveyors of primitive superstitions. 

    Boy.   You seem angry.

    You're just one among many of those I've dealt with - using the same ignorant cliche. 

    Nah.   Not gonna waste my time on you.  Just reading your post above already tells me you're not worth it.  

        Here, just check out this old thread.



  6. On 4/22/2019 at 4:05 PM, Robert Greene said:

    I pleaded with you, but I have to respect your decision. There are times to conceded, so I don't get to control how you vote. I just wish we would give more support to the third parties that have been around for years. We should at least give them a public debate. The biggest issue I have with Max, is that he jumped the line. There's a lot of other parties not getting recognition. I would waste a vote on the someone who have spent years earning it.

    No, you didn't plead - you demanded, and insulted!

    What jump the line are you on about?  Who sez there should be a line-up?  That he "jumped the line," must mean he's got the balls!  Good for Max.   That's plus point in my book!


    I'm not sure who I'll end up voting for - I might vote strategically (Scheer) since there's no hope of Bernier ever winning.   But, I might just vote for Bernier out of principle.  I don't know.

    • Like 1

  7. On 4/21/2019 at 6:30 PM, Robert Greene said:

    So we have a guy who can be moderate at times, or a bit liberal where it counts. Who cares if Andrew knows how to compromise. I don't want someone whos hard-right on every issue.


    So.....the truth is out.  You want Liberal-lite.

    • Like 1

  8. 16 hours ago, Ell said:

    Well it is clear that the only reason POT was legalised was to capitalise on Taxes.  Trudeau said it was to remove the unsafe illegal market.  That is obviously not working.  It seems to me it was just a ploy by Trudeau and the Liberals to legalise it.  What a shame!!!!

    Lol.  Illegal pot is far more cheaper - so, it's very much preferable! 

      I kinda imagine the whole PMO having a toke session every time they have their meeting. 

  9. I can't help but notice - for all of Trudeau's gab about more women in politics, here is something glaring:



    lol.  They're all gone with the wind!  Most, if not all of them, got only one term!




    Political observers may have believed those interpretations were a thing of the past when surveying the list of Canada's first ministers in 2013, which included Christy Clark in B.C., Alison Redford in Alberta, Kathleen Wynne in Ontario, Pauline Marois in Quebec, Kathy Dunderdale of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Eva Aariak in Nunavut.

    One by one, however, those women found themselves out of office and sometimes out of politics altogether.

    The reasons behind their defeats, Thomas said, shed light on the paradoxes at play among Canadian voters.

    Geneviève Tellier, a political studies professor at the University of Ottawa, said many of the other women may have fallen victim to a phenomenon known as the "glass cliff," in which leaders are propelled to positions of authority at a time of crisis within their organizations only to lose the helm when the outlook improves.

    Tellier said that while some won an initial election and most vied for re-election, not one succeeded in being returned to office.



    Who voted them out?  Just shows you - it isn't about gender, Justin.  It shouldn't be.

  10. On 4/16/2019 at 9:05 AM, Robert Greene said:

    Ah come on. We've had worse politicians before. What's all the fuss about?


    Lol.  Looks like Jason Kenny wasn't kidding at all.




    Kenney noted that Trudeau served as opposition critic while he was immigration minister — a tenure where the Liberal MP came under fire for saying comments "off the top of [his] head."

    "I know Justin. He doesn't have a clue what he's doing. This guy is an empty trust-fund millionaire who has the political depth of a finger bowl," Kenney told Bell.

    "He can't read a briefing note longer than a cocktail napkin, O.K."



    We've seen the proof!  The proof is in the pudding!

    We can't have someone like Trudeau  continue wrecking the country!  If Liberals love him for his looks and his drama - get the liberals produce his film, or something.   Give him a sitcom!

  11. 13 hours ago, Ell said:

    I just learned a few weeks ago that Canada is warming up twice as fast as the rest of the world, and that the Arctic is now warmer than it was going back as far as 10000 years ago.  Wow.   This is Media reporting.  I have also heard that other countries medias are claiming them to have the fastest warming rates.  I am not a climate change denier, but really???  All of this nonsense has just got me laughing so hard.  It's like I have a bigger one than you do, or I am faster than you, or I am better than you.  Come on!  Really????  We are living in a world that seems to have come off of its mooring.  The world has seen many climate changes during the course of its history.  Politics!  Politics!  Politics!  When will it end?  The answer is Never!!!!!!

    It's a contest!

       They want to know which country's population is the most dumb! smiley.gif

  12. 11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

    As disappointed as I am in our political leaders, I'll take all five of them over any others in the world with the exception of Prime Minister Ardern of New Zealand.

    Who's the fifth one?

    I have not seen the prowess of Scheer and Singh and May as PM, so I can't really make any comparison.  However, I have seen how Trudeau is! 

    Sorry to say  but....among the whole lot of world leaders, we can say Trudeau belongs somewhere at the bottom of the barrel.   Lol.  

  13. 7 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

    Keywords: "than you".


    Your "keyword" is pathetically "off-key!"   Practically everyone - except him and you  - can analyze and show that he's made such terrible decisions, one after another!

      But then again, like I said, "if YOU THINK......"  Therefore, it's your perspective that's in question! :lol:


    One thing we do know though........your bar for what you think is "smart and superior,"   is too low!

      So.   Between you and Trudeau - who do you say,  is smarter? :)

  14. I was curious about him falling on the stairs, so I double checked on that. 





    Justin Trudeau, tripping on his arse


    After a very good interview with some dude from La Presse (who moonlights as a Franc Tireur), Justin Trudeau channels his inner Pierre and falls down some stairs for fun and giggles.




    At least, we know he can also be a  stuntman......if acting doesn't get him anywhere!   :lol:

  15. 15 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

    They hate him because he's superior to them. Smarter, better looking, richer, more successful... :lol:

    A superior, smart leader wouldn't have made all those successive fiasco with SNC-Lavalin!   What?   Is group-toke all they do at the PMO?  :lol:


    And, a superior, smart leader wouldn't be caught dead performing like a monkey, in exchange for trade!  Lol.   All he needs is an organ-grinder! :lol:




    If you think Trudeau is superior and smarter - boy, what does that say about you? :lol:

    • Like 2

  16. Hate is a strong word.  I don't hate him, but i strongly dislike him!


    Because, he is bringing in corruption in full force!  He's trying to make it like it's just a natural thing in politics!

    He seems too prone to dishonesty!  I don't think his admiration for Fidel Castro, and the way Communist China runs its government......... just mere empty words.  He's obviously attracted to the ways of a despot.




    Federal Court rules Lobbying Commissioner was wrong to let Aga Khan off the hook for Bahamas trip gift to PM Trudeau

    The court agreed with Democracy Watch, calling Commissioner’s Shepherd’s ruling “unreasonable” because it was a narrow, technical, and targeted analysis that is lacking in transparency, justification, and intelligibility when considered in the context the Commissioner’s duties and functions (para. 146). As a result, the court ordered the Commissioner of Lobbying (now Nancy Bélanger) to re-examine the actions of everyone at the Aga Khan Foundation with “a broad view of the circumstances.”  


    Democracy Watch filed its own complaint in December 2018 with the Commissioner of Lobbying about the Aga Khan’s Bahamas trip gifts to Prime Minister Trudeau in 2014 and 2016, and Liberal Cabinet minister Seamus O’Regan in 2016, and now calls on the Commissioner of Lobbying to ensure that complaint is fully, and independently investigated and ruled on publicly.

    Democracy Watch has requested that new Commissioner Nancy Bélanger delegate all investigations to someone who is independent of her and all political parties, given that she was handpicked by Prime Minister Trudeau through a secretive, dishonest process.

    Democracy Watch is currently challenging her appointment in Federal Court.


    “The Federal Court ruling confirms that former federal Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd was a lapdog whose enforcement of the lobbying law and code was negligently weak,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Thankfully, the ruling not only closes secret, unethical lobbying loopholes that Commissioner Shepherd negligently created, it also essentially orders the new Commissioner to enforce the lobbying law and code much more broadly and strongly.”

    “Given the Federal Court ruling, Democracy Watch calls on the Lobbying Commissioner to ensure a full, independent investigation into the Aga Khan’s Bahamas trip gifts to Prime Minister Trudeau and Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan,” said Conacher. “Democracy Watch’s opinion is, based on the facts and the law and the ruling, it is very likely that the senior officer of the Aga Khan Foundation violated the lobbying code by allowing the Aga Khan to give the trip gifts.”

    Given Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd’s overall weak record of enforcement, Democracy Watch has also requested that the Auditor General conduct a performance audit of her time in office.






    • Like 1

  17. On 4/6/2019 at 6:12 PM, mowich said:

    "Wilson-Raybould warned about the potential knock-on effect in cases like Norman's, although she suggested the government's conduct in Norman's case has been above reproach.

    'The cases are not dissimilar'

    "We can stand up in the House of Commons on [the case of Vice-Admiral Mark] Norman on — totally appropriately on Norman — on extradition, and we can talk about the rule of law," she said in the recorded conversation.

    "The cases are not dissimilar. The principle, or the integrity, of how we act and respond to the tools we have available and what we should and shouldn't do, again ... I just don't know."


    She was sitting AG and this file was on her desk. 

    We'll see if her incautious remarks regarding the government's involvement in this affair were simply ill-thought or a symptom of her own presumptions.


    As far as I know (I may be wrong), they are free to talk in the House of Commons (which is what she seems to be telling Weckner) - at least, that's what Liberals are saying, that Raybould is free to talk in the House of Commons, did they not?


    How, "not dissimilar?"   The background may not be dissimilar - but there is a big difference!

    Was there ever a guilty verdict on Norman - unlike SNC-Lavalin?  The difference(s) arise from there. 

    SNC-Lavalin was found guilty of corruption.....Trudeau tries to intervene for SNC, by applying pressure on Raybould to influence the prosecutorial justice (who'd already made the decision that SNC does not qualify for DPA)!  Raybould had also agreed with that verdict, and has already made the decision, that SNC does not qualify for DPA!   That's where we are at, with this SNC-Lavalin!




  • Create New...