poochy
-
Posts
1,278 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by poochy
-
-
15 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:
For British Columbia, we take nearly all the risk and receive little benefit........as such, there are plenty of reasons to oppose it as is, like those protesting have every right to be angry at the Trudeau government's political grift.
Consider it environmental equalization payments to the places you have been getting your oil from who have been carrying the risk for you. That's how a true environmentalist would think, either that or commit to stop using it altogether.
-
Gender is apparently a continuum, ok, so if that's the case it really isn't possible to quantify anything apart from identifying as the extremes, male or female, so lets forgo that and as gender we can all just be 'members of the continuum' that's a lot more reasonable than trying to quantify and satisfy the desires of anyone who wants to self identify as something in between male and female. But something tells me that won't satisfy some who seem to be mostly looking for attention or to simply stick to the 'normies' for being what 99.9% (probably more 9's because these things are fashionably exaggerated) of us are.
Don't take that the wrong way because i honestly wouldn't care if i was a 'member of the continuum', but when people start demanding they can call themselves one of 30 something genders, which in itself is probably discriminating against those who somehow don't quite fit any of them (it's a continuum remember) and i have to respect and remember and be legally forced to comply that's something different. Be what you want, leave me out of it.
-
That performance today by Monsef makes Calandra look good, it was deplorable, an insult to all of us. The longer they are in power the more I feel I'm watching a high school student council run the country.
-
4 hours ago, Omni said:
Try asking sensible questions and they may get some consideration.
So there is no limit then, kill as many as you like so long as the ideology is one you prefer, thanks for the answer.
-
Honestly, up yours with the random comment deletion, you're terrible moderators.
-
4 hours ago, Omni said:
Because he ousted Amercas favourite didtator.
Killed loits of people doing it, just curious, how many people is it ok to kill when enforcing your favored ideology, is there a precise number? Yea yea, Batista was bad, now answer my question, while you are at it, how long should homosexuals be jailed for in such a regime?
-
10 hours ago, ?Impact said:
In other words you don't see any value in an open competition, more back room deals? How can you proclaim the F35? I better rush out and buy an iPhone 7, because everyone is getting them and I don't want to be left behind.
Its only your propensity for lying to cover for the liberals that allows you to pretend it hasnt already been done, the f35 is the best all around choice, it just is, there is no one from any part of this discussion that is claiming any of the other options are a better choice. Just from the point of view of integration with our biggest and nearesat ally, it wins. But, you couldnt give less of a damn about that, could you? Not to mention, it would take at most another year to run a competition, not 5, anyway, you go on and keep covering for those lies.
-
4 hours ago, Smallc said:
Who was it that said something about no pipelines?
Has it been built yet? They approved two, one was a formality so doesn't count, and the other, we will see. Call me when they approve something difficult that doesnt run through a rain forest in perfect BC, like energy east. Of course as for the one they did approve, there is already a pipeline there! They just want to double it up, so the least controversial and easiest of the controversial pipelines, wow, so impressed.
-
1 hour ago, taxme said:
I cannot understand why Harper and the conservatives didn't get rid of the CBC when they had the chance.
Politics, they didnt do a lot of things because they were under the illusion that if they played nice they wouldnt get burned at the stake in the media on a weekly basis for doing the things that the liberals will and are also doing and getting away with. They betrayed us in that way, they should have killed the CBC and also, just bought the goddamn right airplane.
-
12 hours ago, ?Impact said:
It has been the competitors that have been lobbying for this, they are whining that the CBC is taking their ad revenue. If you think this is a silly idea, then tell the whiny children in the competitive market to suck it up and offer better programming so they can win over the ad revenue.
Here's a solution, no CBC. But then they wouldnt be able to provide all the free advertising for liberals, which is your biggest concern.
-
13 hours ago, The_Squid said:
Good idea. The BBC is ad free. It's a good model to follow.
It's a model that is crumbling, look into it.
-
4 hours ago, ?Impact said:
Well said, and the other stuff. There is a lot to dislike about Castro, but he also made some very positive changes in spite of the corner he was squeezed into.
yea, and if he had to murder a few thousand of his own citizens, jail homosexuals, and frighten away tens of thousands of people, to make it work, why not, right liberal?
-
44 minutes ago, Boges said:
The issues with using King Abdullah as the counterpoint is that had Harper come out strongly against him in death, he'd have been lampooned as being Islamophobic.
The Harper government couldn't condemn honour killings and female circumcision without being labelled as anti-Muslim.
It's sad, it ignores the praising of China's dictatorship, it ignores the donations, it ignores his brother writing a love note to Castro, it ignores his fathers relationship not only with Castro but his writing, praising Chairman Mao, maybe the greatest mass murderer ever, but it's all they have. The things i have learned about this family since this ridiculous gaffe are really disgusting, no matter how desperately liberals want to defend it, defense of this is so stupid that they should simply be ignored, it is in fact indefensible. Praising Mao, like father like sons.
-
11 minutes ago, msj said:
Um, do you guys think that every time Trudeau speaks it's a gaffe? Is that why it is so "easy?"
Nothing in there qualifies.
It's not like he is talking about just walking up to women and grabbing them by the pussy.
Now that's a gaffe.
Yea, showing an admiration for murderous communist dictatorships with a body count of at least 50 million just isn't on the same level, what is wrong with you?
-
Here is another article talking about our PM's family link to communism, and while I have no reason to be a big fan of his father's it was also slightly before my time, this article however really does make it clear how large a sack of communist sympathizing dung he was, he even wrote a book about it. This runs in the family, it's not simply a coincidence, the donations, the admiration for China, the love of Castro. This family believes in communism.
-
5 hours ago, Smallc said:
I honestly can't figure out what non political reason has them buying this jet on an interim basis. My theory is that they know the F-35 would win a competition, and so they have to punt it.
Now, that's not to say that the Super Hornet is bad. It'll do fine, and like has been done in the US before, it can even be integrated with our existing squadrons. With little extra training, the same pilots can fly it and the same mechanics (it's a one hour course) can maintain it. The only thing will be having to keep two sets of spares, as about 90% of the parts are different.
The Super Hornet is a good aircraft, now, but it's clear this move was meant as a way of avoiding buying the aircraft that would win an actual competition and it puts them in a position of having greater reason to buy more super hornets later. The idea that we need another 5 years to decide is a sick joke that no serious expert has agreed with. The work has already been done, another new competition would take a year at most.
-
5 hours ago, Smallc said:
I really thought that Trudeau's statement was stupid.
Should have stopped there.
They whole family has thing for communism, that much is clear.
-
3 hours ago, msj said:
Wah, wah! look what she's doing.
How pathetic.
Oh, and she did have a thread deleted - it was inappropriately named and compared the leader of Israel to Shrek with a picture which is against the rules.
Looks like she re-posted with a better attempt at discussion the second time. Or at least kept it within the rules.
Really? That's your response, what is wrong with you? Fyi, when a thread that is obviously ridiculous is allowed to stand for a long period of time and others are removed quickly, it's not because they didn't notice the first one, or that somebody complained in the five minutes after some of them were posted. The forum isn't that busy, there is tacit approval for some things and not for others, the reason for that, I don't know.
-
Copied from other thread, figured I would leave it here to since all of the apologists seem to be congregating in this one, btw, Harper was evil remember, Trudeau is 'good', were back don't forget, and Harper didn't gush over the Saudi king, not like this, this gushing also comes from a PM who has expressed his admiration for Chinese communism and who is friendly enough with Chinese businessmen that one of them made a huge donation to his fathers foundation, and then there is his brother.
Alexandre Trudeau wrote this about the Cuban people ten years ago
“They do occasionally complain, often as an adolescent might complain about a too strict and demanding father.”
He also called him a "superman" and an "expert in everything"
That's right, the Cuban people are whiners when they complained about living in poverty under an oppressive and murderous regime, and all of the Cubans who fled were actually just members of the alt-right (saw that one in the CBC comments).
What is wrong with this family and the people who defend them, why do they seem to have an affinity for communist dictatorships and the murderers who run them? It's one thing to acknowledge a mans death, its quite another to gush over him and ignore that he was a communist, a murderer, and a man who had a part in almost starting a nuclear war.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/trudeaus-turn-from-cool-to-laughing-stock/
-
7 minutes ago, -TSS- said:
It seems that your Prime Minister made the statement without consulting his advisors first. He comes across as a kind of guy for whom it is always unwise to make any statements without consulting his advisors first.
It's unwise for him to open his mouth, ever. He isn't intelligent, maybe it's just the average and below that don't see it, plenty of them here.
-
15 hours ago, Icebound said:
If Batista had continued behaving the way he did, and the American corporations where making a lot of money, you can be sure that somebody would be eulogizing Batista.
Read the statement carefully. Like any funeral, only the positive. Yeah, sure. I would have been happier with a slightly less fawning tone... but remember that this is politics, too. You are going to be dealing with his brother for a few years to come.... you don't go bringing up the dead brother's vices at a funeral.
Nah, too late, you're just as bad as Trudeau is and no more adept at covering for it.
-
Alexandre Trudeau wrote this about the Cuban people ten years ago
“They do occasionally complain, often as an adolescent might complain about a too strict and demanding father.”
That's right, the Cuban people are whiners when they complained about living in poverty under an oppressive and murderous regime, and all of the Cubans who fled were actually just members of the alt-right (saw that one in the CBC comments).
What is wrong with this family and the people who defend them, why do they seem to have an affinity for communist dictatorships and the murderers who run them? It's one thing to acknowledge a mans death, its quite another to gush over him and ignore that he was a communist, a murderer, and a man who had a part in almost starting a nuclear war.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/trudeaus-turn-from-cool-to-laughing-stock/
-
2 hours ago, Icebound said:
However, the question is: .... what would have been different with Batista? Do we seriously think that there would have been any less repression?
No, that's not the question, it's an utterly ridiculous deflection, if Batista was still around until today and he had continued behaving the way he did would you also be ok with our PM eulogizing that brutal dictator? Of course not, and let me tell you why, some of you seem to have a sick fascination with communism, a romantic idea that because he was sticking it to the capitalists he was doing good work. He murdered people to maintain his ideology, what don't you get about that? Our PM eulogized a communist dictator, who like every other in history, murdered his own people to maintain a broken ideology, and you think there are hairs to be split? What is wrong with your world view that you think saying, 'but he wasn't Batista' makes our PM completely ignoring his crimes ok? Might as well have said, well, he wasn't Mao, or Hitler. Or as our embarassing leader said today, he improved education (he also killed a a lot of his own people who disagreed with him) and health care.
-
It gets a little harder to give him the benefit of the doubt when he eulogizes a murderous communist dictator, maybe he really is stupid enough to do this.
When will populism come to Canada?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
i think that good or bad, Canada's identity has become so muddled that I really doubt there is enough nationalism among the population to see them really buy into a Trumpish leader, or even Kellie Lietch, who is trying to tap into similar feelings here. Overall that's a good thing imo, however that isn't to say that it's all good, and either by accident or design the country has and is being pushed further towards the no nation, no borders socialist ideal, too far imo, but that doesn't mean i would want a populist leader if populist means Trump or Trump like. Also with the major metropolitan areas controlling who runs the country it's pretty unlikely a populist, who would almost certainly have to be some form of conservative, would do well in all or most of those areas.