Leaderboard

Justice Minister in news conference re Boushie jury decision running out of weasel words and repeats...repeats..."as I said"...."working hard"...."need reform.... Ho hum....

There is no such thing as the "Palestinian people." (link) Earlier on, the New York Times, in an article dated August 15, 1948 quoted Jamal el-Husseini, a then-important Arab leader, and Faris el-Khouri, the Syrian delegate to the United Nations (link): Doesn't it look to you as if the Palestinian "cause" was invented to create a problem that could only be solved by Israel's liquidation as a Jewish state?

Smoking hot? Where? The surface of the Sun??

Believe it. Since she is a smokin' hot babe, Hollywood could not have cast her any better as the "girl next door".

That was funny. Made my day.

The fact that Arafat invented the term Palestinian in 1967 to be specific after the failed Black Sabbath uprising does not mean today there are not Palestinians. I would be the first to point out how the term Palestinian was reinvented in 1967 to be a retroactive definition different then it was ever used for. However, so what? So phacking what? If the people on the West Bank call themselves Palestinians..if the people in Gaza call themselves that.... that is what the phack they are. Its called common sense. Arguing over the name to use to describe them is bull crap. We have enough idiots on this forum telling Jews they can't call themselves Israelis. Don't ask me to engage in the same bigotry against Palestinians. Revisiting old issues like this do what? They empower Jew and Israeli haters to make their comments and then what? Should I piss on Palestinians for calling themselves that? No thanks. I will let the Hacked and Eye and Hudson Jones, Marcus, Kactus et al tell people who they can be and where. I find them full of sheeyat for doing that. So I aint doing the same thing to Palestinians. They have a right to call themselves what they want. That's not the issue. It never was. The issue is far deeper then that.

Spot on. Here is an article about that very thing. It's long but well worth the read. https://www.newcenter.ca/news/2018/1/28/6su67ib1rqszpjc2w3qrm2ys1wbm7j

If people can use scripture to support what they believe, even if it directly contradicts someone else's scripture-based belief, then the Bible does not prove anything, it merely provides validation for people's preferences. I consider this a feature of the Bible, not a bug. This feature has allowed (most) Christians to advance beyond medieval beliefs and practices.

And yet, there was a population of people who called the region home that were dispossessed of their homes to make room for another people who had been dispossessed of their homes. There is still a dispossessed population of human beings in the region, its growing, and its not going away. The solution is in the future not the past.

False conclusion? Interestingly enough I have posted numerous backings from political columnists and professors in Canadian law who all state that his comments had an implication and a consequence on the future appeal (should it proceed). Yet you have provided nothing but your opinion. No offense but I think I'll take the opinion of the legal experts over yours! Lol. Its clear that your love for Trudeau has put the blinders on so I really won't spend any more time trying to convince you that him speaking on this active case was inappropriate, however I would be to blame if I didn't provide you with one last article as I feel it sums it up. It again has the opinion of a law professor (which doesn't mean much to you) but the one that I find is interesting is the comments made by Aaron Paquette who is a City of Edmonton Councillor of Metis decent: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/you-and-i-can-question-the-gerald-stanley-verdict-politicians-should-not/article37954500/ I suggest you read the whole article which is aptly titled "You and I can question the Stanley verdict - politicians should not.

Judge Begbie can do the hangin'

There is only the moment and the choice to act. It's all over by the time one chats about it.

Agreed....Trudeau is such a sleazy political opportunist, he will use any divisive circumstance to interfere, as in this acquittal.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/we-have-to-do-better-trudeau-reacts-to-gerald-stanley-verdict-1.3798036 The Courts, juries and Canadians have their marching orders from the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister. "Do better" when First Nations individuals face criminal charges. That says to me don't find them guilty of the charges. I must remember that if ever I am selected for jury duty involving a First Nations individual.

There are so many verses in the Bible that show Jesus is none other but God incarnated - EMMANUEL (God among is). Yes, He is introduced to us as the Son of God - thus we also refer to Him as the Son of God. It is hard to fathom the Three-in-One concept, after all we don't have the capacity to fully understand.

Are you saying Trudeau’s comment did NOT imply a questionable verdict?

Trudeau is trying to obstruct the justice system for political gain.

Decriminalization is probably the best course. The price is important because without a competitive price, the black market won't go away.