Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Trudeau lying about SNC


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Wrong.  Lower Canada (Quebec) rejected American control after the Revolution, which is where most of the population of Canada lived, though Nova Scotia, out of which New Brunswick was carved, also ha a sizeable pre Revolution population.  Much settlement in Ontario (Upper Canada after the Revolution and before the War of 1812) did come from United Empire Loyalists who fled the US territory and always considered themselves British colonists, not American ones. 

None of what you said actually proves any of what I said to be wrong. United Empire Loyalists considered themselves British North American Colonists, not just British colonists, and most Upper Canadians were on the Americans side at the beginning of the war, hence the problems Brock had recruiting and hence why the Mohawks had to save the day. Most New Englanders were on the British North American side of the war too, it wasn't a one-way street.

Stop with non-sequiturs, just because you wish Canada was more Canadian back in 1812, doesn't mean that it was. Only the French in Lower Canada saw themselves as Canadians at the time, Upper Canadians did not see themselves as Canadian, the Indians didn't see themselves as Canadian, those are just the facts, quit getting so offended by actual Canadian history.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Real women don't need to hide behind some 'feminist' banner, taxme.  Real women tend to stand on their own and value the contributions of men.  Real women can think for themselves - unlike so-called '

I don't care how big they are. And no this is not just a few bad apples. The corruption is part of SNC-Lavalins culture through and through. 20+ years of corruption and blackmailing the Canadian gover

Maybe you guys saw different shows?  Maybe the hosts don't write their copy, but they don't read like robots either. Watch Lisa LaFake do her eyerolls or her insinuating tones when she's talking,

Posted Images

18 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

None of what you said actually proves any of what I said to be wrong. United Empire Loyalists considered themselves British North American Colonists, not just British colonists, and most Upper Canadians were on the Americans side at the beginning of the war, hence the problems Brock had recruiting. Most New Englanders were on the British North American side of the war too, it wasn't a one-way street.

Well they were British North American, sure.  Most of the early settlers in Upper Canada (Ontario) were Loyalists who had fled the Revolution.  They didn't  want to return to an independent United States and in fact had a big beef with the US government due to property loss.  Upper Canada was very British at that time, very orange, which is why you saw such staunch support of the monarchy and the Great War.  Canada really begins to act independently after her contributions to the First World War, though Confederation, the formation of the RCMP, and the building of the CN Railroad were big nation building exercises. I'd say that Canada flowered in the World Wars and really comes into its own under Pearson, and dare I say it, Trudeau Sr.  Yes Trudeau pissed of the west and the Americans, but his ideas of Multiculturalism and the Just Society have held up.  This all happened around the time of Canada's centennial and Expo 67, probably Canada's golden age.  We're still in the glow of that.  The 70's were harder on Canada with the FLQ and separatism, but there was an Olympics in Montreal and Ontario really bloomed.  The west has done well more recently, but the economy is still too cyclical and resource dependent there.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well they were British North American, sure.  Most the early settlers in Upper Canada (Ontario) were Loyalists who had fled the Revolution.  They didn't  want to return to an independent United States and in fact had a big beef with the US government due to property loss.  Upper Canada was very British at that time, very orange, which is why you saw such staunch support of the monarchy and the Great War.

Canada is more British than the British, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also American. Upper Canada was moving towards the Declaration of Independence, and away from the Monarchy, until America invaded, and reversed that dynamic, the loyalists were losing ground among the civilian population real fast, then the Yanks burned down a good portion of Upper Canada and they changed their minds.

That was the gamechanger, it wasn't that way from the beginning, as you seem to suggest.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Canada is more British than the British, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also American. Upper Canada was moving towards the Declaration of Independence, and away from the Monarchy, until America invaded, and reversed that dynamic, the loyalists were losing ground among the civilian population real fast, then the Yanks burned down a good portion of Upper Canada and they changed their minds.

That was the gamechanger, it wasn't that way from the beginning, as you seem to suggest.

Well William Lyon Mackenzie was arguably treasonous against the Crown in the Upper Canada Rebellion.  He was an American sympathizer and one of the reasons Canada became an independent country, though it happened incrementally.  The reason the capital of Canada is in Ontario is because the parliament in Montreal in the days of Canada East was burned down.  Rebellions were underway.  The Family Compact was seen as rule by wealthy families under too much British influence, so in a sense Canada had her own independence movement, but it was incremental and peaceful, and remained under the Crown.  And yes, les Canadiens came out of Quebec, which is why the notion of Quebec independence from Canada is to some extent absurd.  Quebec is in many ways the heart of Canada.  Upper Canada (Ontario) was originally part of New France until the French were defeated in North America.  You still see French culture in Franco-Ontarian northern Ontario.  Think of the couriers de bois and the French River down which they traveled.  This culture extends right into Manitoba and brought us folk hero Louis Riel and the Metis.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus H Christ, as my father would say. How low this web site has fallen with the current crop of lunatics, American chauvinists, wannabee American chauvinists and other assorted crackpots who take every subject and twist it into some ridiculous arcane discussion of shit completely unrelated to the subject allegedly under discussion.

What the hell has the war of 1812 got to do with Trudeau lying about SNC Lavalin, you moronic twats?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this for a trade, Quebec: give the country Energy East and SNC just gets a fine?  I know, rule of law and public opinion won’t make that fly.  If only it were that simple.  I do think that the SNC scandal, like the regulatory/special interest debacle for the pipelines, is yet another test case for whether this country can find a reasonable middle ground between the country’s higher accountability aims and the real need for the jobs that give us the luxury to discuss and work towards achieving these higher aims.  

Some would say that economics have nothing to do with rule of law or moral purpose.  Tell that to Venezuela.  We’ve learned through history what people are capable of when they’re desperate.  The Yellow Vest caravan is rolling east...

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

How about this for a trade, Quebec: give the country Energy East and SNC just gets a fine?  I know, rule of law and public opinion won’t make that fly.  If only it were that simple.  I do think that the SNC scandal, like the regulatory/special interest debacle for the pipelines, is yet another test case for whether this country can find a reasonable middle ground between the country’s higher accountability aims and the real need for the jobs that give us the luxury to discuss and work towards achieving these higher aims.  

Some would say that economics have nothing to do with rule of law or moral purpose.  Tell that to Venezuela.  We’ve learned through history what people are capable of when they’re desperate.  The Yellow Vest caravan is rolling east...

How about just get rid of the useless virtue signalling laws on the books and let the market decide?

If Canada wasn't propping it up, we in the free market would short SNC into bankruptcy, then disperse its assets to other players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So now Trudeau has conceded the point....he was approached by Minister/AG Wilson-Raybould directly about SNC-Lavalin....

 

 

Why is that not considered a lie - after he said she didn't? So far, he's shot himself in both feet and a hand. As I've said already, he's going to try the same trick he pulled on Rose Knight - his groping victim. Here's what he said about her - and he will say something similar about the "pressure" that was applied to Wilson-Raybould:

"Who knows where her mind was and I fully respect her ability to experience something differently."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, the problem for Canada here, is quite clear, American defense contractors do not have to bribe foreign states to take American weapons, because American weapons are the best.

In order to try to compete with the Americans, companies like SNC have to bribe clients, and those have to be shady clients therein.

The Americans know this, so they have ITAR, in order to comply with ITAR, Canada has to impose the same sort of rules.

Now those rules are blocking Canada from bribing, to the Americans interests.

Once again, American Chauvinism for the win, Canadian internet mall cops are of no consequence, who knew?

Edited by Dougie93
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Why is that not considered a lie - after he said she didn't?

 

It should be considered a "lie", but that is the least of Justin Trudeau's continuing problems and growing perceptions that his brand is failing badly when confronted with real world domestic and international policies.    He doesn't have the luxury of a solid feminist base when that is the very thing he has attacked in this case.

Quote

...It’s one thing for a government to treat a female cabinet minister shabbily; it’s quite another when the government has hung its entire brand – national and global – on the twin hooks of fairness and feminism. Live by the f-word, die by the f-word.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-what-happened-to-our-feminist-prime-minister/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

In the case of Libya, the Canadians weren't working in Canada's interests  even where they were defying the Americans, when the Canadians are not bum boys for the Americans, they switch back to being bum boys for the British and French.

I don’t know how any of that is remotely true 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Why is that not considered a lie - after he said she didn't? So far, he's shot himself in both feet and a hand. As I've said already, he's going to try the same trick he pulled on Rose Knight - his groping victim. Here's what he said about her - and he will say something similar about the "pressure" that was applied to Wilson-Raybould:

"Who knows where her mind was and I fully respect her ability to experience something differently."

It’s only obvious that Wilson-Raybould was trying to bait Trudeau into interference by asking him if she was being “directed”.   He made it clear to her that she was to decide on her own.  We will never know exactly what took place in that conversation, but based on her very deliberate silence, it’s clear what kind of picture she is trying to paint.  This is the world we occupy.  A heresay remark or sideways glance constitutes an impropriety and warrants taking down a leader.  All of this tiptoeing needs to end, and so I think the Liberals will be out on their ears in the next election.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t know how any of that is remotely true 

SNC was working with the Libyans, the Libyans were at the time an Anglo-French client and proxy, Canada had zero interest in working with Quadaffi, but Canadian defence contractors have to be bum boys for one of the three major Western Powers, and when the Americans are in the way, the Canadians go back to their former colonial masters and serve them instead.

Canada cannot be other than what it is, which is a fake country colony of France seized by Britain as a war prize, which was then surrendered to the Americans at Wall Street when the British Empire went broke and so was forced to come cap in hand to the Empire of Liberty.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes Canadian defence contractors are propped up by the American taxpayer as well, such a GDLS-C at London Ontario, but they cannot compete head to head, Canada can take it or leave it, if Canada doesn't want the American corporate welfare, the Americans can easily transfer that contract to GD European Land Systems, or even to GDLS in Toledo Ohio, since Big Daddy Trump wants those jobs in the CONUS.

SNC however, does not have an American parent, so SNC is rogue, even to the Americans, thus they refuse to prop it up.

In fact, if the Americans wanted to, they could do to SNC what they are doing about Huawei, in that if Canada will not enforce the law, the Americans will enforce it for them, SNC officers of the corporation could easily be indicted in the US and then an extradition request would follow.

Everywhere Canada tries to evade the American rule of law, the Americans will stand in Canada's way as it suits them, who knew?

Edited by Dougie93
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s only obvious that Wilson-Raybould was trying to bait Trudeau into interference by asking him if she was being “directed”.   He made it clear to her that she was to decide on her own.  We will never know exactly what took place in that conversation, but based on her very deliberate silence, it’s clear what kind of picture she is trying to paint.  This is the world we occupy.  A heresay remark or sideways glance constitutes an impropriety and warrants taking down a leader.  All of this tiptoeing needs to end, and so I think the Liberals will be out on their ears in the next election.  

Wow! Put it all on her! Amazing. I guess we'll jest have to wait and see what Canadians think of this mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

Wow! Put it all on her! Amazing. I guess we'll jest have to wait and see what Canadians think of this mess.

As we have seen in Ontario, taking the leader down can be advantageous, Patrick Brown was unlikely to take Toronto like Doug-e-Ford.

If Raybould had the smoking gun, she could be Prime Minister, and she would be Indian Lady Obama therein, so methinks she could crush Scheer better than even Trudeau at this point,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I am a right wing nutjob, and she is a left wing kook, but I am ready to vote for her right now, just on principle of her courage of convictions.

Plus I am attracted to powerful successful women.

Plus she is an Indian, and as such my military ally, God save the Queen and her Mohawk Warriors.

Plus she is declining to stand with Jagmeet and rather standing on her own.  If she were to run for the Dippers, all bets are off.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2019 at 4:10 PM, Centerpiece said:

Wow! Put it all on her! Amazing. I guess we'll jest have to wait and see what Canadians think of this mess.

It may not have been 'all on her' when this story first broke but it sure is now.  The fact that she still maintains her silence in spite of having met with her lawyer,  says so much about what she considers important in this matter - and it sure isn't that the truth should come sooner rather than later.  Stay silent JWR and the drama will continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...