OftenWrong

Commies In Action

Trump has his own problems and he should talk more about them, and less about Clinton. Aside from that however if she committed crimes while secretary of state, it should be investigated. Anyone who thinks it doesn't matter now because she lost doesn't appreciate the rule of law.

Did you read the actual charges? From what I understand he perjured himself by giving false and misleading statements. The things he did were not crimes but the crime was in not accurately reporting them. That seems to be the gist of it, although perhaps I'm missing something here?

I suspect that the one-eyed fella has something far more punitive in mind for Canadians than just money. Probably more like all citizens should be flogged to within inches of their lives, preferably natives and refugees doing the whipping.

Now I know why @Altai thinks you support the use of nuclear weapons. Your bitter sarcasm escapes some people.

So you give Kim the benefit of the doubt that he's a sane man? Kim, who upon gaining power murdered his uncle and his half brother, and probably others.

I couldn't care less what she said or he said. Forget politics, forget who you like or don't like. Looking at these "charges" I can only scratch my head in puzzlement. I sure hope they've got something better than this to make a federal case. As forum member Omni would say, "let's see what happens next!"

I read the info in the link, it's difficult to get excited about this. It doesn't say much, other than he gave wrong dates for a few meetings. He gave "false and misleading statements" during a voluntary interview. In other words, he was not forced by pressure of the law to have this interview. My guess is he may not have had a lawyer present at this stage, and set himself up for charges. It appears that his actual activities during the campaign were not illegal, but his failure to give truthful answers to the questions is what they have over him.

I suggest there's not damned thing to be done about it. The world is full of criminal mentalities including government. Maybe even especially, as criminals are often the kind of people who seek power. The system is set up such that an honest person cannot make it t those levels. They get shot in the head. I do not believe in solutions, only miracles.

She was the US Secretary of State under Obama, and if she committed crimes while in that office it should be investigated, yes. More to the point, the attitude that any discussion with Russians implies some form of high treason is totally naive. It is quite normal to have those discussions. The strong anxiety toward Russia really only kicked into high gear recently, with the problems in the Ukraine. Prior to that, the Russians were seen as allies in US-Russia relations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–United_States_relations Relations between Russia and the U.S. remained generally warm under Russia's president Boris Yeltsin and the U.S. George H. W. Bush′s and then Bill Clinton's administrations in the 1990s. During the first presidencies of Vladimir Putin, who assumed the top office, first as acting president, on the last day of 1999, and United States president George W. Bush, the United States and Russia began to have serious disagreements. Under Putin, Russia became more assertive in international affairs; under Bush, the U.S. took an increasingly unilateral course in its foreign policy in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Despite U.S.-Russia relations becoming strained during the Bush administration, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev(president from May 2008 until May 2012, with Vladimir Putin as head of government) and U.S. president Barack Obama struck a warm tone at the 2009 G20 summit in London and released a joint statement that promised a "fresh start" in Russia-United States relations. Days after president Obama's visit to Moscow, U.S. vice president Joe Biden, noting that the U.S. was "vastly underestimating the hand that it held", told an U.S. newspaper that Russia, with its population base shrinking and the economy "withering", would have to make accommodations to the West on a wide range of national-security issues. Biden's words were interpreted as "reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the principle that Russia does not have the right to a sphere of influence in these countries, or anywhere in the former Soviet Union". Friedman pointed up a fundamental error in the analysis that underlay such thinking and predicted, "We suspect the Russians will squeeze back hard before they move off the stage of history". So that is it in a nutshell but as you can see there were many years in which US-Russia relations were positive, and things were heading the right way but turned sour again. Nevertheless there are still a good diplomatic relations between Russia and the west.

That would be a good democratic model, if it ever could exist.

Well I suppose we have to start somewhere. Doubtful though that such overtures would accomplish anything, because of greed. Anyway this is way off topic, perhaps we'll take it up elsewhere.

What are the charges exactly?

The 55-year-old said she was in "pure panic mode" the week following the election but is now just "devastated, disappointed, disheartened, and depressed by the reality of it." Judging from what I've seen in the media I think a lot of people on the left went through something like this. Truly a fascinating phenomenon to watch. How can so many people be so naive? They must live an exceptionally cherished life, protected from any awareness of the nastiness that is out there in the real world.

1. Yet you still need to sneak a peek. So what is it, ignore list or not? 2. Classic revisionism. We have never been at peace.

Trump Derangement Syndrome runs deep, and affects people in the most bizarre ways. At least if they could find some important issues to criticize, which there are, it would be worthy of discussion. Trump has as much as admitted he makes incendiary statements on purpose, to play the liberal media for fools. I suppose the idea is to keep your enemy distracted. If anything the Republican party deserves criticism for not getting their own act together. Many of the plans put forward, health care, tax reform, immigration are long-standing issues that the GOP wanted to change, well before Donald Trump became president. Some people think these plans are all specifically put forward by Donald Trump. They don't understand the role of president and how as a newcomer to the political scene he is inheriting the political agenda of the GOP. Yet their infighting among themselves is the real problem, worthy of ridicule.

Yes I know you don't blame them, you've been clear on that point many times. You've said we deserve it, we have it coming, etc. But I have yet to hear any other useful ideas coming from you, just a seemingly gleeful waiting for the sky to fall on us. Self loathing is a hallmark of leftism.

By your own admission many times, you've said there are lots of people around the world who want to see "us" suffer. I don't disagree with that, the difference is who to blame, and what if anything's to be done about it. So now you make it sound like there's no problem, just right wingers dreaming there is one where there's actually none. That is why you can't rely on the left to do what needs to be done when times get tough. You need a right winger who understands the depth of depravity that is mankind, to deal with people who are as vicious as you can imagine. The good old days when life was simple are gone my friend, the 60's, 70's, 80's. You benefited from them while others suffered because of them. Now those people are threatening payback. That is why Quebecers created Bill 62, the need to show your face in public.

We need to stop shedding money for these absurd, useless liberal causes. They are useless because they do not provide a meaningful solution anyway, just a compete waste of money. Giving ten million is more than generous, it's absurd. Now every member of their family can be a millionaire. They can even reinvest their windfall into whatever causes they like, promote anti-western values among the left.

The world became a more violent place on an individual level. We still have all the bigger problems too, battle of the superpowers etc. But terrorism is used to instil fear on the local level. There is also the ongoing battle against organized crime. I'm sorry that the world is not a nice place. Yes, Virginia, there is NO SANTA, and the world is in fact very, very bad. It is a constant struggle to protect civilization from the numerous types of barbarians at the gate. Just hope and pray that you get to live in a quiet, safe bubble. You get to go fishing. Go for beers. Leave the important issues of national security to us.

Nonsense. Surveillance is a common requirement in most public places in the world these days. The point is to enhance public safety. You want to go in public and enjoy the freedom which our society is based upon? You should show your face so you can be identified. People have to be held responsible for their actions in public.

Covering the face is the issue discussed here, not clothing. Covering the face. Liberals seek to expand every issue to the point of absurdity, and of course, by then it is. Seems like making an absurd argument is the hallmark of the left.

We take other reasonable precautions for the sake of security, why should this be a problem? No more wearing a gorilla mask while walking down main street, and it's not even Halloween?

Face covering makes sense if argued from a security point of view. Why should anyone be allowed to cover their face in public, in this day and age. I wouldn't mind if any form of face covering would be banned, as a misdemeanor lets say. Excluding situations where there is good reason to do so. For example, if two guys wearing chicken suits enter a bank... that would be suspicious behaviour.

These people have essentially interwoven religion with culture to the extent that the distinction between the two is blurred. What matters more is the person's politics, and their past history as well. I think everyone should at least be judged equally on those grounds. When it comes to Singh, I don't know much about him but seems he will not disavow the Sikh terrorist responsible for the Air India bomb. Second thing I learned recently, that there are groups of Sikhs in Canada who look to this same terrorist guy as a HERO. They've got posters of him up on the wall in some of their temples in fact. Link Is it appropriate for Sikh temples in Canada to display posters hailing the alleged architect of the 1985 Air India bombing as a martyr? Temples are central to their culture as well, all Sikhs attend to the temples and so I'm sure many are aware of these posters, but I wonder if they simply don't care, or maybe even agree with what is implied, that Inderjit Singh Reyat is some kind of cultural hero among Sikhs?