WestCanMan
-
Posts
18,642 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
88
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WestCanMan
-
-
3 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:
Okay. I'll help you along. Here's a quote from the Mueller executive summary link I just posted:
"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
This means "yeah, this would have led to an indictment if it were anyone but the president."
That doesn't mean that evidence of collusion exists at all. That's just a combination of your own wishful thinking and poor reading comprehension.
It means Trump took enough actions that make it reasonable to have an investigation when one of the two major political parties requested it.
For example being happy to talk about leaked material, making a joke about Russia finding the other 33,000 emails. He had the intent to use the information to win an election. He showed a willingness to accept evidence of Hillary's crime.
You could make an argument that there were enough reasons why it was important to have an investigation.
You can not make the argument that there was ever enough evidence for anyone to say that "Trump colluded with Russia". Even by the civil standard of preponderance of evidence.... They dug far enough. They found lots of evidence that help was offered and rebuffed, multiple times. Why would the Russians keep asking if their offer was accepted?
-
2 minutes ago, eyeball said:
So says the guy who just compared bubbermiley to Trump
I think you can see as plain as day that my comment is completely on point. I didn't have to reply with a hopeless distraction, like you just did.
-
Quote
BTW can anyone tell me the difference between common sense and groupthink? I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask and this seems like a good one.
Common sense is something that's so easily figured out that there's no burden of proof required.
Groupthink is a Tucker Carlson word afaik. I assume it means that people jump on the bandwagon and just believe what their leader, Hillary, tells them. For example: "The election was stolen, Trump colluded."
There are still millions of people who believe that despite all the evidence that she was the one who colluded with Russians, she's a known debate cheater, she cheated to win the nomination, she lied about dead people in Benghazi, she killed her own campaign by saying "basket of undesireables", etc, etc.
-
2 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Yet if the MSM says this about Trump you come unglued.
That's just right-wing sense.
Since when is "agree to look at it" the same as "I would instantly start broadcasting to the entire world that it's an absolute fact and that Hillary is about to be impeached, and I would continue to do so long after a thorough investigation by the FBI turned up NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME"?
How do you even try to equate the two?
That's left sense. AKA sense has completely left the room.
-
4 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:
Here's the executive summary of the Mueller report (redacted). Read it and say whether you think it's possible the guy DENYING RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT during the debates didn't know what was really going on.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries
1) If someone says "I have proof that Bubber Miley committed a crime" it's not collusion or any other crime for me to agree to look at it. You could make a better argument that it's my duty.
That's just common sense.
2) Russians did what they do. They spread discord in the US. You're still working to achieve their goal today, 4 years later. Stalin would call you useful.
3) They targeted Hillary. No one has proof that Trump asked them to. Period. That's what's required for there to be collusion.
If I put out some FB posts to help Hillary win, without her asking me to do it, would that mean that she colluded with Canadians?
-
3 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:
And what in that report is untrue? They reported on Schiff referring to substantial evidence of collusion within the campaign. Just not the evidence required to secure a conviction against a sitting president. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen and it doesn't mean that people in the campaign won't be charged with anything, and it certainly doesn't mean MSNBC was wrong to report on what was happening.
Schiff has been the biggest liar in North America for quite a while now. He was saying that they had almost enough for impeachment a year and a half ago. It was supposed to be just around the corner. Over and over again. Just soooooo close. Now there's nothing to release.
Dems are saying "WE NEED TO SEE THE REPORT FREE FROM REDACTIONS!!!! THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!!!!!"
Guess what? There are many Dems who have access the the unredacted report. They're not referring to anything specific that proves collusion. They don't say it's there. They just insinuate that since something is redacted Trump HAS TO BE guilty. It's an epic farce. Several media giants in the US collapse if the depth of their dishonesty is laid bare. This accusation of redacted proof is the last straw by a drowning man
-
50 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
It was fuckin' awesome being an Infanteer, being stuck on aging Canadian warship bouncing around on the sea, would have sucked. I'd need to get drunk just from the boredom.
None the less, I did enjoy working with the Navy on dry land, it was more laid back than the Army, no sailor ever gave me cause to lay a beating on them, they were quite friendly in comparison to we infanteers.
One of my best friends from back in the day went to Afghanistan. He was at a FOB with CSOR/JTF2. I'm not exactly sure what he did there, but he didn't go out with them on their more dangerous activities.
I have a couple of friends who went to Yugo with 3 PPCLI as well. Civilian life in Canada didn't prepare them for picking up the bodies and parts of little kids. The picture of that little Syrian boy laying face-down on the beach is nothing compared to Yugo.
-
11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
The point about Norman banning drinking is not about sailors chugging brewskis, it was a time honored tradition, which Norman took it upon himself to end, for no other reason that he was appeasing the military bashing left wing media, one negative news story about two sailors.
He's a fuckin' liberal media Cuck. All he got was a taste of his own medicine.
Yeah, he had to join into the virtue-signalling, political correctness song and dance to advance in his career. He got where he is by putting other people down.
I'm sure that there aren't many nights in a year when he can't enjoy a glass of wine or a beer.
-
13 hours ago, Army Guy said:
Navy must have gone through some serious DT's...Screw the Navy, while I was only dreaming of beer and full time field pay, sitting in my trench with freezing rain running down the crack of my ass, the navy had been sucking back suds, and sea pay for years before the Army wise up...Yes I was jealous, and never passed up a chance to kick the crap out of some Navy Wog….
I guess I was a little more forgiving than you were, when it comes to officers.
Beer lol. I was in the navy back in the late '80s.
I drank less than 6 beers in 3 years at sea, and I drank a lot back then. When we were at sea we were doing a 1 in 3 watch system so we did 8 hrs a day Mon - Sat, noon-4 on Sunday, plus 8 hrs a day on watch, plus seamanship evolutions like refuelling at sea, tow ex, etc (always after hrs), plus training drills like man overboard, action stations, (always after hrs).
Technically you could have a beer if you were 8 hrs away from being on watch or at work but that could never be the case.
Here's a nice workday for you. Go on watch from 4am to 8am, have breakfast, work from 8 til 4pm, do the 1st dog watch from 4-6 (you're at 14 hrs straight now), have dinner , cleaning stations at 8 pm, stand by for inspection at 9 which takes up to half an hour, get to bed at 10 pm, go on watch from midnight to 4am (21.5 of the last 24 hrs working, then you get 3 hrs of sleep) lights come on at 7am and then you're back to work til 4 pm, on watch from 8 til midnight. Then you get "all nighters", sleep from midnight to 7. It's the only bright spot of the 3-day cycle. It's like the weekend to a civilian. Back to work from 8-4:30. Try that when you're seasick.
We did as many as 22 straight days at sea, and that was on a trip to Alaska. Just doing circles and working 14-22 hrs a day for 22 days with only intermittent sleep.
On mid-cycle workups we literally went 22-23 hrs/day for two weeks, but we got part of the weekend off in the middle.
According to QROs it's illegal not to get 4 hrs of uninterrupted sleep but that doesn't apply at all in the Navy. Never Again Volunteer Yourself.
I know it wasn't any better being a grunt (Government Reject Unfit for Naval Training), but those of us in the junior ranks of the hard sea trades weren't chugging brewskies on the Qu'Appelle.
-
1
-
-
On 5/4/2019 at 7:52 AM, Realitycheck said:
Most of his base supporters. Religious white racists.
4/5 posts with baseless allegations to this point RC. Yawn.
The other liberals here are even getting tired of your shtick now, get the picture?
-
On 5/4/2019 at 7:50 AM, Realitycheck said:
I have met Scheer and talked to him and found him to be as shallow as piss on a plate and as appetizing. He will say almost anything to ingratiate himself with potential voters...anything but the truth.
If you switched the name Trudeau in for Scheer that would make a lot more sense. At least we know that Trudeau's words are worthless now. We've yet to find out whether or not Scheer will live up to his major promises. Or whether or not his balance will budget itself lol.
-
On 5/4/2019 at 7:45 AM, Realitycheck said:
that white racist base could put Scheer into office,
3 posts, all of them predicated on baseless insults. Do you see a pattern forming? Hint: it has something to do with you looking like more and more of an idiot every time you post.
-
On 5/4/2019 at 7:21 AM, Realitycheck said:
That is exactly what you'll get with a Scheer government. If you don't realize Scheer's base is composed mostly of white racists, you haven't been paying attention. Kenny and Scheer share the same ideological pew and Kenny is well known to be a supporter of white racists and due to his ridiculous religious beliefs, hates the LGetc community and has said so publicly. This is exactly what you will get with a Scheer government.
Second baseless allegation, zero proof, and I know for a fact that you don't have proof that "Scheer's base is composed mostly of white racists" so that makes you a liar or an idiot.
-
On 5/4/2019 at 6:36 AM, Realitycheck said:
Like Kenny, Scheer is a religious white racist. Just ask yourself if that is who you want as Prime Minister? Scheer would be a poor man's Trump. He is a US-style Republican with all the warts and pus that represents. Trudeau is a feckless weenie to be sure. But better a mindless dilettante that a racist, religious bigot.
That's a serious accusation which comes with a burden of proof. Trot out something to back your unsubstantiated claims or shut up.
-
1
-
-
On 4/18/2019 at 2:52 AM, betsy said:
I can't help but notice - for all of Trudeau's gab about more women in politics, here is something glaring:
WHERE HAVE ALL THE FEMALE PREMIERS GONE?
lol. They're all gone with the wind! Most, if not all of them, got only one term!
QuotePolitical observers may have believed those interpretations were a thing of the past when surveying the list of Canada's first ministers in 2013, which included Christy Clark in B.C., Alison Redford in Alberta, Kathleen Wynne in Ontario, Pauline Marois in Quebec, Kathy Dunderdale of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Eva Aariak in Nunavut.
I know nothing about Marois, Dunderdale, and Aariak.
Wynn and Redford were as bad as Notley, who is notably absent from the list.
Christy Clark is a shining star on that list. Her quote to Miley Cyrus regarding the wolf cull: "if we need any advice on twerking we'll call you". LMAO. Epic one-line beatdown.
-
If Justin Trudeau was just useless it would be a massive improvement. I loathe him. Detest. Hate. You name it.
He plays Canadians against each other, he validates islamic terrorism, he embarasses Canada and Canadians on the world stage, he gives away too much of our money to causes that he has never even talked to Canadians about, he's all about Quebec first, he protects foreign oil and regulates/taxes/blockades Canadian oil, he's a stooge for the UN which is a complete farce now, he's treating our democracy like his own personal chew toy, he's a mega-hypocrite, he completely lacks character, he's a fascist, he's a narcissist, he can't answer a question in a straightforward manner because he always has something to hide, he has bought off the Canadian MSM with our tax dollars so they barely even mention his scandals on TV, he is attacking our free speech at the same time as he denigrates Canadians, he has racked up far too much debt, he has done too much damage to our economy, he puts his own international reputation ahead of the interests of Canadians, he is as phony as a 3 dollar bill and he doesn't have a single redeeming quality.
That list is probably incomplete but it's a good start.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Carlus Magnus said:
If you are fact checking the media, fact check all of them, and not just one isolated stories that run for a few days.
For 2 years the bulk of the MSM ran with the story of Trump Collusion with Russia. It was investigated and there was no crime. The vast majority of the press got it wrong...…………….. Really wrong. I believe Daily Caller was pretty accurate on that issue over two years.
Those networks have been factually wrong but they have been bang on target emotionally, and that's all that their viewers care about.
-
7 hours ago, Carlus Magnus said:
There's more evidence out now that Obama spied on Trump than there is of any Trump collusion or obstruction. The Obama Admin never had a legal predicate for Spying on Trump.
What about the dossier that Hillary paid the Russians for? Isn't there some proof of collusion there?
-
On 5/7/2019 at 6:26 AM, eyeball said:
- Overall, we rate the Daily Caller strongly right biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks. The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact checked on a per article basis.
This is an example of their work so that you know exactly what your fact-checker is worth:
QuoteIndiana Muslims are appalled by a billboard displaying a list of deeds by the Prophet Muhammad even though it is accurate.
Mostly False
About this ratingWhat's True
The Muslim Prophet Muhammad had multiple wives.
What's False
There are no historical accounts of the Prophet committing rape or torturing people; he was known for freeing slaves, not "dealing" them.
What's Undetermined
The age of his youngest wife, Aisha, at the time of marriage is contested; the male members of a Jewish tribe in Medina were executed for treason during a battle, but the number is also contested.
The claims on the billboard were that he married a 6 yr old, beheaded 600 men in one day, he was a slave owner and dealer, he had 13 wives including as many as 11 at one time, he was a rapist, he tortured and killed unbelievers.
That fact checker spewed out utter BS, and was even vague about the part that they said was true -(they made no mention of whether it was as much as 13 total and 11 at once).
As far as the "What's False" part is concerned:
"There are no historical accounts of the Prophet committing rape" - The wives and children of all the beheaded Banu Qurayza were forced into slavery or became war brides which is essentially the same thing as a slave, and mohammed's own definition of slavery and marriage made raping the women legal. So, it's possible that he didn't actually "rape" anyone himself, but 1,000's of women were "legally" raped by men under his direct command. Does that make it any better? If Trump never grabbed any vaginas but he allowed his soldiers to legally rape women and take them as war brides would that make him a better person? I don't what what evidence exists for mohammed committing rape and I don't think it's even important. If you build an army by promising people war booty and slaves that's actually worse than just committing a few rapes yourself imo. The billboard also says "torturing people". I don't know whether or not he is alleged to have tortured people, but I'd find another fact checker before I believed anything on that site.
"he was known for freeing slaves, not "dealing" them" - Like i said earlier, the wives and children of all the beheaded Banu Qurayza were forced into slavery (or became war brides which is essentially the same thing as a slave).
As far as the "What's Undetermined" part is concerned
- Regarding his youngest wife - she was a long way from her first period when he married her and some girls start as early as 11. It's true that in some rare cases girls start closer to 20 (not even his proponents say she was anywhere close to that), but she is also said to have been a child bride. Even if she wasn't just 6, the precedent for marrying girls that young has been set and is still followed,
- Regarding beheading 600 Jews in one day - To say that they were all "guilty of treason" is to say that he had absolute power to be judge and jury. It is also said that his men allowed people to live if they converted to islam. So is the sentence for treason beheading or just to be religious? So why not stay Jewish? If it's true that they were allowed to live if they converted is that not the most extreme case of bigotry you've ever heard of? No one disputes that Mohammed was at Medina in command of his army when the Banu Qurayza were all starting to be beheaded (it took a really long time, I don't know if he was there all day). Estimates are anywhere from 500 - 900 "men" (anyone with pubic hair was considered to be a man, so a lot of the "men" would be junior high school age). Let's pretend it was only 300. Does that make it any better? Can you still call it a "lie" if it was only 300?
To say that the billboard was even inaccurate would be a big stretch of the truth. If you read up on the life of mohammed, and what happened to the Banu Qurayza, after the Battle of Trench, you'll have a good understanding of what's on that billboard and how accurate it is. It's impossible to
-
3 hours ago, scribblet said:
I wonder if that was the last straw for the Liberals, Leslie actually hugged Norman afterwards.
Apparently Marie Henein has said that PMO/PCO were "counselling witnesses as to what they could and could not say."
Kinsella nails it which has me wondering if Kinsella is still actually a Liberal or is it just this crop of Trudeau Liberals he hates..
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-trudeau-government-trying-to-cover-its-tracks
From the article:
QuoteJustin Trudeau — who, angelic visage notwithstanding, is a vengeful and petty little man — went after Norman, viciously
Was he really a liberal before or just a bit gay? lol, jk.
Kudos to him if he is a Lib but he's still got the decency to recognize the current group for what they are.
-
3 hours ago, Rue said:
I found it also interesting their star military candidate who they never appointed Defence Minister of even Veteran Affairs Minister Andrew Leslie is not running again and was going to testify on behalf of the Vice Admiral. W
One of many rats deserting that sinking ship.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
No, Liberals are hypocrites and corrupt. Socilalist Credit( aka communist aka reform aka Canadian Alliance aka CPC) are scum. They ripped off BC for decades under the bolshevik WAC Bennett.
I dunno if it's true or not because I never bothered to look it up, but I heard from a couple different people that they were famous for going around and buying up real estate before the province announced where big roads, etc were going in. Could just be urban myth. A lot of people hated him.
-
6 hours ago, August1991 said:
I'm sitting in China.
I see these various court trials in Canada.
They’re showing it on Chinese tv or are you watching on the internet?
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
From the article above:
“If your political party has been caught obstructing justice — as the political party led by Justin Trudeau assuredly was, in the SNC-Lavalin scandal — what’s the one thing you need to avoid, at all costs?
Getting caught obstructing justice again, of course.
And that’s what the Trudeau regime’s prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would have exposed: Senior Trudeau government officials, implicated in a scheme to use the criminal justice system to punish an alleged whistleblower. In this case, the second-highest-ranking officer in the Canadian Forces.”
The Liberals are pure scum, top to bottom. It’s bad enough that they need to move shipbuilding contracts to their SNC-type buddies, but they were actively destroying a man’s life to punish him for exposing their corruption and greed.
Lmao at all the SJW types who think of the Liberals as knights in shining armor for everyday Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth.
-
5
-
1
America under President Trump
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
It doesn't say "the evidence of collusion we obtained". If they had that then charges would be laid. It just says he acted in a way that was suspicious. But they even found his obvious joke "suspicious". Said it might be "treason". All BS.