WestCanMan

What awesome place did you leave, and how much better are the people there than Canadians?

Another racist comment. You’re a hideous racist jacee, and it’s not surprising that you don’t even see it based on how seriously lacking all of your other observations are.

Ooh, such a dramatic post. FYI the oilsands isn't like a big aquifer of oil down where you can just stick in a straw and suck it all out. The stampede of companies coming to invest money in the tarsands was necessary to create the technology and produce the means to provide hundreds of billions of dollars to Canada's economy. When oil was under $20 per barrel and technology wasn't where it's at today it wasn't profitable to extract it. Saskatchewan's oil reserves were barely touched. Did you think that the Alberta government should have just built up the oil patch all by themselves like some socialist hellhole? With all the modern technology of 2019 they're still only getting a small percentage of all the oil out. So who's to blame for us not getting our oil to markets where we can get more than 50% of what it's worth? Get a life. Lol, who am I kidding? Just keep smoking up.

Lmao Rue. You don’t even know when conflict of interest rules come into play and the people who wrote that crap don’t either. (at least in the Time article I read). Every POTUS will have POTENTIAL conflicts of interest. That’s why it was determined that politicians don’t have a full, legal fiduciary duty when they’re in office. Where a line is drawn is where politicians go out of their way to rake in cash entirely as a function of being in office. There was, in all honesty, less than a one-in-a-billion chance that an already-employed Hunter Biden would just magically earn a job on the board of Burisma if his daddy wasn’t the VPOTUS and heavily involved in Ukraine. Just the fact that HB even got that job stretched the credibility of JB to the breaking point. They both knew it, that’s why they said that Joe never even knew he had the job. Whenever they met up ignored the elephant in the room just like BClinton did on the tarmac with AG Lynch (haw haw). Theoretically Joe didn’t even know his son had a job at Burisma and the topic of whether Hunter even had a job never came up. If you believed that at the time you’re an idiot but the photo came out so they confessed to lying about Joe’s knowledge of the Burisma job. As if you don’t already know all of this. I’ve posted it all here and you’re an adult, you should be up to speed on this if you’re going to engage in the topic. I guess I’ll just leave it at you ahve no clue wth is going on so your opinion is worthless.

That’s not the point, at all. It appears as though Trump had a whole host of reasons to think that a legitimate investigation into Biden’s interference into Ukrainian politics was necessary and zero reasons to think that it wasn’t. The Ukraine and the United States have an agreement in place whereby they both willingly investigate crimes when asked by the other. If there’s a legitimate reason why we should all believe that Biden might be innocent why don’t they just tell us so that everyone can truly focus on Trump, like they keep saying we should? Their last two reasons (Biden didn’t even know that his son was working for Burisma, and the investigation was already over long before Biden fired that prosecutor) turned out to be blatant lies. Why do the MSM outlets who have been caught lying so many times recently even ask Biden why he keeps providing phoney alibis? The whole truth is relevant to this process, not just the convenient parts of it.

If it’s proven that Trump instructed Sondland to withhold aid and to make the Ukrainians aware of the fact that no more aid was coming unless they investigated Biden that’s part 1. If Biden’s innocence is really as obvious as he claims it is, that’s part 2 of 2. The main problem with the Trump impeachment theory is that Biden looks completely guilty to the naked eye and Trump didn’t do anything wrong if that was really the case. Biden had motive, opportunity, he confessed to using the weapon (his VP authorities), the victim (prosecutor) was terminated, Biden’s accomplices got off Scot-free, Biden covered his tracks by appointing a new prosecutor, the Bidens both lied blatantly several times about Joe’s reasons for firing the prosecutor... every single stitch of evidence that you would need in order to convict Biden of this crime is all right there in black and white. The only thing that’s missing, at all, is the mysterious piece of evidence that proves that Biden was somehow innocent. No one is saying what it is, they’re just telling us that it’s out there and that we need to rely on their opinion and to believe it.

I was talking to a muslim a few weeks ago and he was telling me that most people join islam by choice, and that almost no one was ever forced to join the religion on pain of death lol. He used one of Ghenghis Khans grandsons as an example of a person who joined islam even though he was in a position where could never have been forced to do it, as if that somehow proves that no one was ever forced to do it. Fact is, there's nothing preventing a man from becoming a muslim if he's a bit evil around the edges. Marrying multiple women is legal and so is beheading prisoners of war. Forcing women and children into slavery is also acceptable and by islamic law, slaves can't stop their owners from having sex with them. What more could you ask for if you're in a position of power than the divine right to do whatever you want to anyone that you manage to get power over? Party like you're Al-Baghdadi baby!

Here is what you need to understand when you are judging a group of people: There are leaders who set the standard for a group, and then there are members who live by those standards who are truly a part of the group, and there are people who say that they are members but don't live by the pre-set standards. Just because someone says that they belong to a group doesn't mean that they really do, or that their actions are representative of their group. If you joined the Nazi party and then helped Jews escape to other countries you wouldn't really be a Nazi per se, you'd be a hero dressed in a costume that didn't jive with your character. If you went to church and then went home to break as many commandments as you could every day you wouldn't really be a Christian, you'd just be a hypocrite or a maybe even a con artist. When you talk about "Christians who did things", you're only talking about people who did things which weren't Christian in nature yet who claim to be Christian. That's like saying that Clifford Olson is a Canadian and trying to act as though he did what he did as a result of his nationality. What you're doing is assigning a negative character trait to a group of people to whom that trait is not actually common or even allowed. That's truly disgusting dialamah.

Women have to be believed now that Clinton is out of office. Don't you watch CNN?

IMO Queen Elizabeth has one of the crappiest jobs on earth. She has to be 1,000,000% politically correct every second of her life. She can never express a genuine opinion or just hop on a motorbike and go for a ride. She just has to nod and smile all the time. In theory she's a Queen, but in reality she lives a life of complete servitude. If I had to meet with Adam Schiff or Justin Trudeau and pretend to respect them I'd only last .002 of a second in her job. No thanks.

It doesn't matter what they're saying if they didn't hear it first hand. The truth already had one chance to be interpreted incorrectly by the first person when they heard it, and then it was filtered through the bias of that person before the second person got a chance to hear it, so there are two reasons why it could be inaccurate at that point. When you hear a second-hand account it has been interpreted twice and filtered through two possible sets of bias. There's almost no chance to get an accurate picture of what happened under those circumstances, and this whole process relies on proving the exact tone and intent of Trump's message because the words themselves don't constitute a crime of any sort. I'm not flailing. I've given up on your ability to learn anything that you don't see on CNN.

After 4 years of seeing Hillary Clinton, Climate Barbie, Greta Thunberg, Whoopi Goldberg, Maxine Waters, AOC, Sen Hirono, Ilhan Omar, Joy Behar, Madonna, Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi on TV I heartily concur that all (Liberal and Democrat) women should be forced to wear the full niqab. It's the dark sunglasses and the gag that should be optional (ie, mandatory as well, but with the appearance of being worn by free choice). Where do I go to convert?

My opinion on hearsay is the exact opinion that every court of law in the US and the Commonwealth all shares - hearsay evidence is not admissible. Period. Don't blame me, blame the combined wisdom of hundreds of thousands of judges over the past 3 centuries. You can take the position that we're all wrong and you and Adam Schiff are right fo you want. I know that's how you roll. My opinion on the credibility of Dem-provided witnesses is backed by dozens of examples of previous witnesses and even FBI officials who have been caught lying about Trump, the collusion investigation and his associates over the past 3 years. If ten percent of their witnesses were telling the truth I'd give their testimony 10% credibility. They're a bit below ten percent. Please forgive me for not believing the testimony of the 73rd witness that they provide if they accidentally tell the truth. When you were a kid, and your parents read you the story about the boy who cried wolf, did they let him do that to them 600 times before they left him to get eaten? I'm just trying to figure out where you learned to place your trust.

I do believe Fox News more than those guys. Of course I do. I've watched them be right about the main storylines and side-stories through every major issue since 2014 and I haven't caught them in any direct lies or any major mistakes or omissions. They present the stories when they come out but they don't exaggerate what they know to be true about them. This has to be the 200th time that I've heard or seen someone impugn the quality of reporting at Fox but no one has ever told me about "the time they caught Fox lying". I've cited Washpo, the NYT, CNN, Snopes, ABC lying several times each (the fake coverage of the Turkish attacks on the Kurds was such a bold attempt at disinformation that I have to admit to laughing about it. It reminds me of the scam where someone rents out a house and then advertises it for cheap rent, takes 20 damage deposits & 1st months rent, and then takes off). None of you Fox-haters can refute any of it. It's also blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain that their coverage of Russian collusion, Dr Ford, Biden, etc was a complete farce and you can't deny that either. What the hell are you doing listening to the exact same people who you know lied to you yesterday? You keep on thinking that they'll start telling the truth tomorrow. When's tomorrow? It's several years late for you now Boges. It seems like this tomorrow that you dream of isn't coming any time soon. You can quote what you saw on CNN all day to me, and if the day ever comes that they're right about something you can't fault me for not believing them.

We all saw Dr Ford go in front of Congress and lie her face off, so no I wouldn't just believe the first-hand account of one person. If two people like Schiff, Pelosi, Comey etc swear on a stack of bibles that they heard Trump say something I obviously wouldn't care. They've lied through this whole process and they have no more credibility than a maggot. We all saw Biden admit to a quid pro quo, and Dems and their media just instantly brush it aside as if his un-coerced video testimony is meaningless. He was also caught on video blatantly lying about whether he even knew his son worked for Burisma. The Dems were all caught saying that "the firing happened well after the Burisma investigation ended" but now we all know that's a lie too. So, considering that we all know that Burisma is like a gun that's belching smoke up into the stratosphere and the Dems pretend not to be able to see it, why the hell would I try to focus on their trail of hearsay cookie crumbs? How stupid do you have to be to believe them when Joe Biden's only defence is "don't look at me, look at Trump"?

FFS Rue, you're quoting CNN and NYT which did nothing but lie and spin for the last 3 years and you know it. You might as well paste a link to a random internet poster. Schiff's interpretation was a farce even by Dem standards and all of those "news outlets" thatyou just quoted just keep letting Biden say "It's already known that I did nothing inappropriate - you need to focus on Trump!" His son got hired to the board of the most corrupt corporation in the Ukraine for $50K/month while he was over there "fighting corruption" and then when the top prosecutor there raided the home of Burisma's chair Joe Biden went scorched earth with a blatant quid pro quo to get rid of him "and replaced him with a guy that was solid". It's beyond stupid that you guys are trying to connect the dots via hearsay to get Trump when Biden has a trail of footsteps, his DNA is on everything, he offered up a video confession and he was caught lying about material facts of the matter like what he knew and who he knew and when he knew it and when certain important events occurred.

This post was a crime, and if I had my bad touch doll I could show you exactly where it hurt me.

It doesn't have lower standards. No one is getting impeached or jailed because of "A guy told me that so and so did this....". You should already be aware of basic things like this Boges. I shouldn't have to be explaining it to you. "But, but, but the Dems say that this is credible!!!!!" The Dems said that Dr Ford and Hillary's foreign agents were credible. Yet here we are, three years into a witch hunt and there's still no evidence that any spells were cast. They didn't even find any eye of newt or hair of frog yet. But, you should probably draw a pentagram around your bed just to be on the safe side Boges.

The whole post doesn't show for some reason. Can't miss out on seeing your racist wishlist at the end again: That's racist (and sexist, but mostly racist).

Not sure who Taylor is, but you’re probably conflating “not true” with “not admissible” as evidence. Hearsay isn’t admissible as evidence in any courtroom.

I've already pointed out your actual racist comments on this site, you had no rebuttal, and you know it. You're the one who said that he was 84 and it was time, or whatever exactly it was that you said.

How many cops do you think are Dems in the States, or Libs in Canada? I'll give you a hint, no one with half a brain votes for people who denigrate them, incite anger and distrust against them, and then send them out to risk their lives.

Only conservatives protect anything.

That's just an intentionally idiotic interpretation of my post which isn't worthy of a serious response.

More lies and stupidity dialamah. If you go to modern, "civilized" countries like Pakistan which are run entirely by muslims with no input from any minorities whatsoever, or to a place like islamic state where religious "scholars" like al Baghdadi totally run the show, homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. I'm not saying that because of my political stripe, I'm saying it because it's true. Can you deny that homosexuality gets you the death penalty in those places? Can you deny that they are controlled entirely by muslims, or that they are controlled by religious scholars? No. Can you deny that if 99% of the people there were against the death penalty for homosexuality there that it wouldn't exist? No. Telling the truth isn't racist or homophobic, it's just telling the truth. Just because you don't like that truth doesn't make it bigoted to tell it. Homosexuality used to be a crime in all kinds of western countries. We started off in the dark ages like everyone else. We grew out of it. We evolved. We're not better by DNA, we just got on a better (by western standards), less rigid path. This isn't a lie so much as your blatant inability to understand something fairly obvious. No one is saying that "evry purvurtid godam fagit is tryina git intuh tha washroom ta bugger mah kidz". The point is that male pervs now have a ticket to get into the bathroom with little girls. Up til now, if a man was a perv (I'm assuming that most peds are male but I'm sure that there are some females predators out there, just extremely rare), he could only get into the boys room. Now they can pretend to want to be a girl and go hang out in a stall in the girls room. It's not a case of "my daughter was just molested once, it's not that big of a deal". It's a case of "I'd do anything to protect my daughter, and if adults who who are experiencing gender dysphoria are stuck using the one-person-only unisex washroom that's a small price to pay". LGBTQ people should actually understand that and respect the wishes of parents to protect their kids from serious molestation by pedophiles. Safety first, right? We're not talking about getting a sore foot. We're talking about life-shattering events that affect people every day for the rest of their lives. I don't actually think that you're dumb enough to believe all the things that you say dialamah because you have no problem spelling big words. I think that you take the positions that you do because you fit into one of the two main groups of Libs who engage in virtue-signalling: either A] you're a bigot and you want to believe that what you are saying is true, or B] you get a feeling a superiority or some other rush from putting people down and so you jump on every idiotic bandwagon tat comes along.