Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Rue last won the day on March 14

Rue had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

611 Excellent

About Rue

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

10,501 profile views
  1. Seems we have the usual visitors from Kazakastan with us on this thread. Comrades welcome. Are you Russians or do you bounce in from Iran? Well? Hi to you. These periodic visits to Maple Leaf are wonderful but your obsession with hating "America" is hilarious. Really it is. Listen comrades I never liked Hilary, but your Trump boy is a disaster. Julian Asssange showed me the pictures you have on him. Melania is quite something. Now I know why Donald's hair is yellow. Speaking about that before you piss further on the US, do you intend to live without all the things you have in your life as a result of spin offs from the US military industrial network? Show me you will and I will take your criticism seriously. Until you do comrade(s) may I say there is nothing more hilarious than an agent provocateur who drinks Coke and stuffs his righteous face with Big Mac's and smokes Marlboros. Viva Che boys. P.s. I know Melania is transgender. All the first ladies are. Please everyone knows. That's why you killed Joan Rivers.
  2. Sit. Let's talk. How long have you had a desire to destroy America? Why do you think you feel this way? Do you feel this way about oh say China, Iran, North Korea, Russia or Dolly Parton?
  3. To be at a point in time where people even discuss the need for a subway expansion is absurd. It should have been done 60 years ago. The inability to agree on an expansion meant for every year the subway was not expanded the prices for the expansion rose. Had Ford not stepped in it would never have been done. We'd still be having people talk about whether its needed. He represents someone and a constituency who can't stand the indecision of municipal politicians in Toronto, for better or worse. As for discussions about the dvp, the whole point of subway expansion is to decrease the load on the dvp and other roads so subways address the issue of dvp repair. If you don't expand subways, the dvp remains clogged and needs repairs at a much more increased rate. The whole point of subways is to cut down on the need for and maintenance of roads not to mention cutting down on carbon emissions. So I think the left needs to give a big cheer to Dougie on this one. Building a subway is a direct effort at addressing air pollution and rising infrastructure costs for roads. You see the Dougster cares. I mean from the looks of him he eats babies, but he cares. Hail comrade Dougie.
  4. How did you get into Waldo's private film collection?
  5. Look no further than the Liberal party for that myth. He taught, drama, French and math at a private school as a supply teacher for one school year. That is the total sum of his wokr career other than as a politician. You want to call a prt time ski instruction a job uh yah. He received a BA at McGill and a B.Ed at UBC then flunked out of two graduate programs in engineering and then geography. The Liberal party focused on his drama to offset his two failed attempts at graduate schools.
  6. For tax purposes and whether tax will change their behaviour...when I say addict, I mean a consumer who feels he or she does not have the power to change their consumer behaviour. If they feel they have no power to change the behaviour you are taxing, I argue they won't change they will just be vulnerable to the tax and will sacrifice other needs to pay that tax leading to other social and psychological related negative behaviours. My point is only this-use the power of taxes in a more focused way not just a disguised cash grab. Take a look at BC. Trudeau's carbon tax is just a repeat of Christy Clark's carbon tax in BC and the tax in BC has made zero difference on co2 emissions. That's why I say to you-show me how you intend to use the tax for changing the negative behaviour.... where's the connection. Let's get serious on understanding how economy and human behaviour work and the relation between the 2. Sorry but as long as the polluters control our governments, I do not believe for a second our governments will use any taxes they collect to protect the environment. .
  7. Your comments make no economic sense and illustrate what happens when people are not taught basic economics or human behaviour in school. Simply charging a tax does nothing to change behaviour for an addict. Addicts are captive taxpayers who will pay any amount of tax and keep engaging in their habit. Charging tax on addictive behaviour is dishonest. It does not encourage change of any kind it just exploits addicts. Drug addicts, alcoholics, gamblers, don't stop their behaviour when you tax it. People are addicted to gasoline. They will not stop using it if its available. They will just pay more, pass on the expense whenever possible, and this will do nothing but fuel inflation to prices of all goods which will also be taxed again on gst. This carbon tax is nothing more than a tax increase using carbon emissions as the pretext. Its a tax increase because this government has spent itself into a deficit that will cost many generations for centuries to come long after this idiot of a PM is long gone. If this government really wanted to deal with carbon emission it would provide tax incentives to industries and technologies reducing emission and creating systems and applications to rid emissions. It does not. The money earned on carbon tax is not earmarked for carbon emissions technology to deal with the problem. Its a tax to pay for all the spending and carbon emissions is nothing more than the script or spin or pretext to pretend its a good tax. This jackass of a PM panders. He panders to the cause of the day posing with whoever and whatever cause he thinks will get him votes. He is a political whore of the worst kind because he poses as if he is ethical and concerned about others. He could care less about carbon tax. He's demonstrated that in his own behaviour and in his refusal to use it directly for carbon emissions. I have unlike some of the Liberal cult followers on this board, no illusions what his taxes will be used for. Hey he will though give Loblaws some grants on between private flights to and from his vacations. Have anyone who wants to lecture me on co2 taxes Show me how it will be used to actually provide an alternative to co2 emissions. Until they can, they just pass methane into the air contributing to the problem. Regards, an over taxed citizen concerned about Liberal methane emissions
  8. I actually agree with you until the last sentence myself. However I know many people who challenge how Trudeau has acted over Lavalin as one issue and their opinions over the pipeline issue as another and they want pipelines I also believe many Liberals don't agree with Trudeau did at all but will not say so out loud. Look the pipeline issue let's be honest, no matter who is in power over that issue, either BC or Alberta will hate you depending on your decision. You can't please them both. . The closest analogies we have to politicians trying to interfere with on-going legal processes are Nixon and Trump and in Canada Marcel Duplessis and Jean Charest..
  9. I apologize its a complex question you asked and I am trying my hardest to explain it. It is confusing if you don't practice this area of law. Please believe me the AG can not just undo things. He has power to conduct a trial but it would be rare indeed. This AG is actually a law prof. Maybe that will cause Trudeau to listen to him and not try turn him into a puppet. Believe me I am not against dpas when used properly. There is a huge debate on whether they protect corrupt businesses in the UK and the US as well. However read the Rolls Royce case in the UK. If tha is the model you think would work with Lavalin I could get that. Unfortunately it's not anywhere near want Lavalin has said it would consider. As well no politician in the UK would dared to have tried to impose one. I do not believe myself dpas should be used to protect criminals just because they employ people.
  10. I of course disagree but that was well written. Thank you for such a well written response. I appreciate that a lot. Listen Z I will try keep it short lol. I agree many countries supported Ghaddafi. Of course in the entire world Lavalin by far is not the only briber but that does not excuse what Trudeau has done.
  11. In regards to your first comment, they violated the rule of law. Also the refrain they did not break any laws misses the point. Things can be legal but unethical and violate the rule of law. I again remind you of the Nuremberg trials and the commentary that came from those cases. Hitler was a classic example of a man who broke no laws. So what you ask? The pith and substance of a democracy is that we exercise laws ethically and always uphold the rule of law. So what? The what is that the worst tyrants in the world that have carried out outrageous acts, did so perfectly legally. JWR's past opinions are not the issue. I notice you try smeer her. You can of course but it doesn't establish she did anything wrong with the dpa decision and you need to understand smeering her does not detract from the merits of that dpa decision made by the DPP not her. If she was as tainted as you paint her than that means your Prime Minister is an idiot for not having called her on all the evils you claim. You are using a Trump tactic where Trump claims everyone around him is incompetent and to blame. You think that has made Trump look credible? How naïve are you to think after all the lies Trudeau has been caught in, he's innocent on this one. How does a man directly conflicted in an on-going criminal case and is an elected official, justify using his power to try prevent a criminal trial? What you think the "it wasn't illegal" refrain avoids what he did and the consequences it has on the very fundamental basis of the need to protect democracy by assuring our not elected civil servants and judiciary are not controlled by political partisan agenda? How naïve is that. I did not follow your last comment. Sorry I do not understand how Trudeau is bigger and more important than the principle of the rules of law and his agenda to please his constituents (if you buy into that job loss spin) is more important than the victims of Ghaddafi or the right of our society to expect all its citizens act legally and ethically and not finance Ghaddafis of the world. How many more Hitlers and Ghaddafis do we finance? How do you think concentration camps and the railways to build them to send people to their death were built? They were built by industrialists no different than Lavalin who used the slave labour in the camps to make money for themselves and made their profit building death camps, shipping cynide pellets, etc. Would you please explain how you think the need for Trudeau's constituents to make profit off of building a concentration camp in Libya for Ghaddafi are more important than the Libyans who died and suffered at the hands of Ghaddafi. Explain to all the people murdered by Ghaddafi's financing of terrorists or his military to commit war crimes in other countries is less important than the need of constitutent's in Trudeau's riding to profit from the person engaged in all these crimes? Explain how Trudeau is bigger than them.
  12. Yes absolutely but the current AG by not being the original person to decide the dpa's applicability is in fact not capable now at this point in contradicting the DPP and previous AG unless he has some very solid legal grounds. Without a Federal Court of Appeal decision giving him a pretext to try overturn what the former AG and DPP did, this current AG can't just decide to ignore the court Federal Court decision. Z in a response to me said JWR ignored new evidence which would give the new AG the right to over turn the DPA. I am not aware of any evidence the DPP and AG ignored and one must ask, what evidence would be so strong as to cancel out the preconditions, considerations and prohibition in the dpa law itself to allow the imposition of a dpa. You are dead on Wes but this current government caught violating the rule of law and in direct conflict of interest, tried to interfere with the independence of both the AG and DPP on a criminal case to get favourable treatment for an accused. It was a flagrant violation of the rule of law which has never in the history of any British parliamentary model of law ever been done. We are witnessing what has to be one of the most flagrant violations of the rule of law and we have Liberal partisans trying to say the law allows this and AG's have arbitrary powers to act political and make decisions based on what the PM wants for his constituents. I apologize for my long drawn out explanations, but I am trying to make sure these Liberal partisans do not misrepresent the law. There is a smugness about partisan politics where partisans pick and chose parts of the law they think suit their political agenda and ignore the rest. There is no law and no procedure in Canada that allows an AG to act in a political manner and arbitrarily interfere with prosecutors and replace them and their decisions on procedural matters unless a court says they must. The law when it does provide absolute discretion to exercise a power as it did for the DPP in deciding the eligibility of a dpa, does not say in s.15 as was quoted, the AG can undo a previous decision of the DPP or its previous AG. It does say the AG could have on their own simply imposed a dpa but JWR did not because it would have abused the intent of the AG's role to remain distinct from political consideration. These liberals can spin all they want, their desire or need to justify imposing a dpa, is a political one. Its not about job loss which is the cover story its about preventing evidence from coming out at trial and we know why. You and I and most Canadians know why. We know damn well there is no job loss issue but there is a cover up because evidence that would come out in a trial could damage Trudeau and mp's in his party who may have accepted bribes or other favours from Lavalin. Given Trudeau's open and brazen arrogance in accepting a gift from the Aga Kahn and laughing off the ethical concerns in that matter, is it a stretch to believe he did something similar with Lavalin he is now trying to hide? The bottom line is Trudeau is screwed. If he tries to force a dpa before the election it will blow up in his face. He has to stall until after the election if he is going to try force a dpa and hope he wins the election. The way it looks now, he will lose the election and the current AG will no longer be in power and the trial will proceed and we will get to the evidence. If Trudeau wins, there will be a minority government and any attempt to ram through a dpa will result in a no confidence vote and his being tossed on his ass. I love watching Liberal partisans blindly spin excuses for him and dictate what the law can do for them but then ignore the law when it does not suit them. Liberal partisans seem to only focus on laws where they think it gives them power to ignore other laws. This reflects a philosophy of entitlement and why should that surprise anyone. Trudeau, Morneau are rich boys. They cater to elitist interests and operate in a vacuum. Here is Trudeau claiming to be a champion of the middle class awarding government carbon tax assistance to Loblaws while ignoring small businesses. He vacations with the elite like the Aga Kahn or when he goes on vacation flies to and fro because the air pollution he causes doesn't count. His shit don't stink in his world. He lives in a world of one standard, the rest of us another. The laws do not apply to him if they are inconvenient. People who work for him must blindly agree with him or else. These are the same Liberals that accused Harper of acting unethically and a tyrant. I bet you most Canadians comparing Trudeau to Harper would choose Harper today in a vote.
  13. Can you please clarify 1. I am not aware of any evidence JWR ignored or the DPP Rousel ignored. Can you explain what this information was and why it was new? Sorry 2 will not work, Lavalin was given as much time as it wanted in fact never in the history of a criminal proceeding has an accused been allowed to ask a Prime Minister to interfere and stop a preliminary inquiry to pass a retroactive law to apply to the specific case stopped and attempt to dictate the terms of the dpa. In regards to 3, its not limited to just that. Read the preconditions, considerations. There are far more criteria the prosecutor is mandated to consider than just that one. In regards to 4, yes absolutely correct on the first part. On the second part Lavalin has indicated publically it will not agree to pay back all money earned on the projects it obtained through bribery nor has it ever recognized the harm done to persons in Libya and offer to set up a victim's fund. To get a dpa it would have needed to approach the Prosecutor and agree to both but it has publically said no. Interestingly the closest case I can think of the British dpa case of Rolls Royce, RR agreed to both. So I would say had Lavalin approached the prosecutor from the get go and volunteered to pay back the profit from the bribes plus set up a victim's fund, instead of going to the PM to do an end run around the Prosecutor who did not give them a favourable plea bargain to their liking- we would not be here. Lavalin has no one but themselves to blame. They were cocky trying to dictate the terms of the plea. No Judge would approve a dpa or any plea unless its the same as what you see in the Rolls Royce case as the minimum standard,
  • Create New...