Leaderboard

Alito flies a friggin flag. Clarence Thomas accepts gifts that he disclosed from a friend that has never been before the Supreme Court and he is corrupt. Its headlines for weeks upon weeks. Sotomayor literally refuses to recuse herself from a case directly involving a publisher who has paid her millions and barely a peep.

Of course he's too old. Both of them are. But only one of them has tried to stage a coup, so the lesser of two oldies is a pretty easy choice

What would be embarrassing would be for the US to suffer a second collective brain fart and elect a lying criminal.

Always interesting to see what outsiders think of the Trudeau government's virtue signalling idiocy around controlling offensive speech. A bill making its way through the Canadian Parliament would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop crimes they haven’t yet committed. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/canada-online-harms-act/678605/

Am I alone to believe that Trudeau Jnr and Singh are no longer interesting. The US election is more interesting. Heck, the Quebec politics have become interesting.

Absolutely, once verified by intelligence sources. As Canadians we have the right to know the truth.

It seems that with the nomination process we are a 'soft target' that openly invites foreign interference. 'Nomination processes are not directly regulated or safeguarded by Federal or Provincial legislation, nor Elections Canada.' 'Canada does not criminalize interfering in nominations, leadership races, or any other political party process.' Nomination processes are governed by different rules of each party. Breaking of these rules is not illegal. Some parties allow non-citizens to register as party members and to vote in nominations as long as they live in the riding. (CSIS contends it's relative easy to alter documents that indicates one's place of residence.) As the report indicates (especially in safe ridings), it's relatively easy to interfere in Canada's elections without interfering in the actual election itself (where the nominee wins a seat). And we wonder why foreign interference is so rampant. This might be a good place to start in tightening things up.

I suppose if I didn't want to live under a Jewish government I'd sell my property to some of the Jews coming in and then move next door to one of the other Arab-governed states. Although as we have seen, there is no Arab-governed state with as much freedom for Arabs as the Arabs in Israel proper have. There are few Muslim states where Muslims have as much freedom either.

Well you are talking about the high water Mark of excitement in Canadian politics. The US is relatively boring as they had just gone through Watergate. And were just festering with oil prices and Jimmy Carter.

Could it be because it changes nothing? Same tired, grossly over-compensated mediocre management interspersed with showings of tired talking heads and necessary, staple failures, from serious to spectacular? Or only for the entertainment value? When democracy becomes a circus for the citizens, it may just go away. The Romans 400 BC know.

When Trump wins this fall, that KKKangaroo KKKourt is going to be seeing some major changes. The Nazis who committed judicial misconduct will be disbarred and prosecuted. Unlike LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP, these a holes actually committed crimes.

I liken it more to an emergency on a boat far at sea. No one wants to die out there or deliberately do anything that thwarts dealing with the emergency but if and when panic, indecision and above all else loss of faith or trust starts to set in that's what happens.

There are scientific and non-scientific definitions for the terms 'hypothesis' and 'theory'. Non-scientific usage of the terms often finds them being synonymous with one another. On the other hand, scientific usage of the terms defines 'hypothesis' as an assumption based on no data or research, while it defines 'theory' as being based on research and observable data. YOU (not being a scientist) see them as being synonymous, while Alina Chan (a molecular biologist) uses the scientific definitions of the terms. Did Chan use both terms in her NYT piece? Yes she did, in describing the 'lab leak theory' as being theory based on observable evidence, and describing the claims of 'zoonotic spillover' as being simply hypothesis based on the fact that exactly zero evidence exists that Sars-CoV-2 was transmitted naturally from wild animals to humans.

I would accept that as a given, but it's not my heartache with the whole thing. There was a lab a few blocks from the hack point, it was doing GOF research on the self same virus, in the fall of 2019 two lab workers were hospitalized with Covid symptoms (that became open source in early 2020), but anyone making that connection... saying "wait a minute now" was punished. Leading Phd's were de-platformed, people fired, careers ruined, information deliberately suppressed, ridicule abounded etc etc, all for merely suggesting a causal connection. Now it's simply a working hypothesis, we patiently await a conclusive determination, and the issue of suppression and punishment gets a nonchalant shrug as if it never happened. My fear is that we learned nothing and all that personal and professional pain was for naught... if so, we'll do this again at the very first opportunity.

This is literally the definition of how Democrats are acting about the state of things.

I could probably write a book here but this is a condensed and hastily rendered version of how I see it and it's not as off topic as it might appear at first glance. If you don’t believe that governments partner with willing and ideologically aligned media outlets, or that security forces (including intelligence) are above being weaponized for specific purposes then so be it, I’ll leave you to it. But, as you might expect there’s a bit of subtlety at work in all of this, they aren’t going to hit you over the head with a club… the intent is to do the exact opposite. First off (and IMO of course) the timing of the laptop story strikes me as deliberate and predictable. There’s always some bombshell released in October intended to impact elections in November. Both sides do this, and their war rooms deliberately time the release for maximum effect. It’s not a surprise that the defending war room will then counter the allegations and use their own assets (media, ex-intelligence analysts, subject matter experts, etc) to do so. Time is always short and IMO liberals/democrats are better at playing this game than their conservative colleagues… I don’t know why that is but given the events in the US right now, I suspect they'll be stepping up their game in the future. In any case, these releases are every bit as predictable as that horrible story about a veteran being denied benefits10 days before Remembrance Day… it happens every year, and every year we try to guess (locker room conversations) what it will be. The opposition leader is going to tell you all about it with an outraged gleam in his eye but you know full well he’s been sitting on that story since May. My two questions are the same every year: “where the hell ya been bro?” and “just how stupid do you think we are?” We now know that the entire laptop saga of “classic Russian disinformation” spin was false… right? If you don’t believe that stop reading now and move on because I won’t be sparing with you about this anymore. I tend to work these issues backwards because plausible deniability starts pre-deployment, not after the fact. So, it’s noteworthy (at least it is to me) that the analysts, and virtually all of the frontmen asserting “classic Russian disinformation” in the media, were ex-members of a community (communities actually) that simply don’t get this stuff wrong. So how is that to be explained? Well, as ex-members they likely never examined the evidence beyond a superficial level (meaning what they were given) because it’s unlikely that they would have (or have been granted) full access. So asserting that something bears the hallmarks of “that which it isn’t” is not the same thing as conducting an investigation, examining the computer in detail, analyzing the contents and then arriving at the same conclusion based on findings of fact. BTW, have you ever tried to get 51 intelligence analysts to agree on anything? Imagine doing that over the course of a couple of days? Try it with 51 meteorologists… pretty much the same thing I think That alone draws my attention and suggests a second glance is warranted. In short, top level organizations don’t make these sort of mistakes when they have physical evidence to examine. If you listened carefully to what was being said and who was doing the talking, it was always highly credible but still ex-members front and centre the whole time. I’m guessing the question these folks were asked is “here, look at this, are you willing to certify that it (meaning the evidence they were given) is a classic example of deliberately planted disinformation by foreign actors hoping to disrupt an election process?” The answer is easy: “yes that’s how they do it, we’ve all seen it before, OK, I’ll sign to that effect.” Armed with that, a compliant media then steps in and sells it. Watch the interviews, no one is saying our experts examined the computer in detail and after careful analysis we determined it was fake… they’re simply saying things like this is “a classic example of Russian disinformation” and they’re right. I watched in awe as the anchors didn't even bother to ask the sort of basic questions you and I would ask if we were given the opportunity. The talking points are clearly established, they're packaged, they're carefully synchronized for release, and they’re repeated over and over again usually with the same phrasing (like threat to our democracy). But it’s done in a way that implies there was careful consideration by expert analysts with full access. That effort gives the assessment more validity than it deserves and also supplies a venue for saying it was only “in our opinion and based on past experience” after the fact. The process works in reverse too, the media reports something that’s not true (usually deliberately leaked and always beneficial), the government then acts on the information as if it were gospel. Case in point was the assertion that foreign entities were funding the freedom convoy when they clearly weren’t. After the fact it can (and was) sold as “we had credible reports of foreign funding by bad actors and had to move quickly to protect the interests of Canadians.” There were never any credible reports at all and we know that now. It was simply a tool to freeze bank accounts as a deterrent measure and even I can make that stuff up. How else could you possibly justify the action taken? In closing I’ll just paraphrase their own words here, “these are classic markers of disinformation” and I’ll also suggest that doing it isn’t overly difficult or complicated.

Dude they don't care. This has nothing to do with the money. It's all about destruction for Libbies.

You think its crooked to accept gifts from a mega donor who has never gotten any benefit from it but it is ok that Sotomayor wouldn't recuse herself when Penguin Random House with whom she has received millions in book deals from.

By any coincidence was your thumb in your mouth and were you snoring when you heard these threats?

They are basically BRIBES to stay on the SCOTUS due to Thomas' desire to make more money. He actually threatened to resign during the Clinton admin unless he could make more money. That's when Crow stepped up and started sponsoring Thomas.

You have advocated violent threats. I'm not going to go searching for them.

That's what the post is about, no need to repeat it.

Jeebus - when I said that the dem supporters would claim that trump's promise to beat Biden was a threat of violence I was only JOKING!!!! I didn't think he'd actually do that!

Have I threatened to beat anyone violently? Where?

Are you talking about the traitor or Eyeball?

Hear hear. In cases when someone is targeted because of his/her race or orientation there should be harsher punishment as deterrent however, it should go both ways. It should not be specific to specific groups likes gays, Muslims or blacks or colored people but anyone regardless of race, orientation or religion if targeted.

I heard Trump said he was going to kill Biden at the debate so I am pretty sure he needs to be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. -MSNBC Trump just said Biden has blood on his hands and we must ask, "what blood is it his own blood because a Trump supporter just stabbed him" We must jail all Trump supporters -CNN Trump claimed to really like KFC. Why is he mocking black people, more evidence of his racism. -NYT

We don't limit the choice of candidates. The list of candidates that people pay attention to is limited.

Well that's a shame. Wanting to shame people because they won't follow your ideological virtue signaling nonsense. The biggest shame is you ignoring the valid points pointed out in this thread regarding the inadequacies of current EV's. The shame sits squarely on your head.

I doubt you're sober based on ^this post.

Justin Trudeau gets a lot of attention in the world press, but for all the wrong reasons.

It's not actually sexual deviancy to sleep with women. Lots of people do it. The fact that you don't sleep with women doesn't make those who do deviants.

Your anecdotal "evidence" means nothing, except that it's another demonstration you KNOW NOTHING about science. Duh

"Unrestricted Warfare is the People’s Liberation Army manual for asymmetric warfare and the waging of war, strategically and tactically, using weapons not limited to bullets, bombs, missiles, and artillery shells. The two PLA officers who advocated the strategy set forth in the following pages argue that modern warfare, in ways not too dissimilar from Sun Tzu’s Art of War, is about impeding the enemy’s ability to wage war and to defend itself against a barrage of attacks against its economy, its civil institutions, its governmental structures, and its actual belief system. This is not a manual for achieving an overnight victory. Rather, it is a recipe for a slow but inexorable assault on an enemy’s institutions, often without the enemy’s knowledge that it is even being attacked. As Sun Tzu once wrote, “If one party is at war with another, and the other party does not realize it is at war, the party who knows it is at war almost always has the advantage and usually wins.” And this is the strategy set forth in Unrestricted Warfare: waging a war on an adversary with methods so covert at first and seemingly so benign that the party being attacked does not realize it’s being attacked. Qiao, Liang . Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy America . Shadow Lawn Press. Kindle Edition. " Available on Amazon

Russia will make western Ukraine something like Belorus. All of this could have been avoided - so much death and destruction for no reason. And there is the terrible risk of nuclear warheads ==== Negotiate: I ask my government to negotiate. Talk. Seek peace. Stop this death and destruction.

Cdn politics has always been more boring. Tainted tuna and youthful blackface just don't compare to foreign wars, invasions, and lying rapist criminal candidates.

Name all the MP's immediately, boot them from Parliament, and charge them for their crimes. I hope they get the most serious sentences possible under the law to make an example of them. Steven Chase is Senior Parliamentary reporter for Globe & Mail:

Do you never tire of being wrong?