blackbird

quote After months of Donald Trump being described as a dictator and a threat to democracy that must be stopped, someone tried, not with a better campaign but a volley of bullets. America’s rage boiled over on Saturday, but not before political and business leaders opposed to Trump spent months raising the temperature. “It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye,” Biden told donors in early July, according to New Times reporter Kenneth P. Vogel. Just two weeks earlier, Biden told supporters that Trump was a threat to America’s existence. “Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation. That is not hyperbole. He’s a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy,” Biden said, adding that he wouldn’t let Trump destroy America just before the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It’s not just Biden using over-the-top rhetoric about Trump; former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview on MSNBC that Trump is an authoritarian autocrat and if he wins the election, he’s not someone that Democrats can cooperate with. “This is something that is undermining our democracy, and he must be stopped. He cannot be president!” Pelosi said. Meanwhile, MSNBC host Joy Reid called Trump Hitler in a video posted to social media and said that her goal was to “ keep Hitler out the White House .” Reid isn’t alone with the Hitler comparison. The left-wing magazine, the New Republic , published their latest issue with a cover that transformed a Hitler campaign photo from 1932 into Trump’s face. unquote LILLEY: Democrats say words are violence, what about theirs? (msn.com)

Not at taxpayer expense. No way. The guy is a rich retired famous TV journalist/broadcaster. We don't need to be paying these elites for high-paying jobs in luxury lifestyle and paid multi-million dollar condos. That will not benefit average Canadians.

No need to hold large dinner parties in your residence. There are lots of places to rent to do that. Why should taxpayers be funding that kind of thing? That is just squandering taxpayer money. If you allow that there is no limit to it. You have nothing intelligent to contribute. Get lost. YOu are blocked now.

quote Co-op (Cooperative): In a co-op, you don’t technically own the property itself. Instead, you purchase shares of stock in a corporation or legal entity that owns the entire building. Co-op residents receive a proprietary lease that allows them to occupy a specific apartment within the building. Co-op owners are voting members of the building, participating in decisions related to maintenance, management, and other matters. The co-op board often requires detailed personal information before approving a purchase, including tax returns and interviews with residents. Financing for co-ops is more restrictive, often requiring a lower loan-to-value ratio (LTV) than condos1. unquote A co-op still gives the occupant sole use of the unit. You purchase shares in a corporation that owns the entire building. That should be no problem. But there are lots of completely privately owned condos in NY.

So you think we the taxpayers must pay for a palace so he can hold big parties. That sounds like nonsense. I don't buy it. There are lots of plush dining places and other places they can rent if needed for a large gathering. I don't think the taxpayers of Canada should be forking out millions of dollars to hold parties in New York. Forget it. That's is not what we should be paying taxes for at all.

Here is one for $1,650,000. It doesn't say anything about fractional ownership. I think this one would be reasonable. No need to blow 9 million dollars for one. There are thousands for sale. 5 East 22nd Street #15F in Flatiron, Manhattan | StreetEasy

You could be right. I just can't find that information on the listing. Still looking to see that. They don't give much information. But there are other apartments or condos for less than a million dollars. The only thing it says is CO-OP whatever that means on the listing I saw. Can you give the link that says 1/12th fractional ownership? I don't see why we the taxpayers should be forced to pay 9 million dollars when there are countless less expensive accommodations.

Don't make me laugh. This one is $315,000 and looks fine for a consul general. Why do taxpayers have to pay a fortune. He's not the king. He is a bureaucrat. Could have saved taxpayers millions of dollars. For Sale: 2 E 55th St Unit 803, New York, NY 10022 | realtor.com®

"Hitler’s rise to power traces to 1919, when he joined the German Workers’ Party that became the Nazi Party. With his oratorical skills and use of propaganda, he soon became its leader. Hitler gained popularity nationwide by exploiting unrest during the Great Depression, and in 1932 he placed second in the presidential race. Hitler’s various maneuvers resulted in the winner, Paul von Hindenburg, appointing him chancellor in January 1933. The following month the Reichstag fire occurred, and it provided an excuse for a decree overriding all guarantees of freedom. Then on March 23 the Enabling Act was passed, giving full powers to Hitler. When Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, the chancellorship and the presidency were merged, and Hitler secured his position as Führer (“leader”)." How did Adolf Hitler rise to power? | Britannica That sounds like he seized power.

The UK has become a disaster case with the endless illegal migrants pouring in from the third world in Africa. The conservative government struggled with that issue and made some feeble attempts to slow it down. Under the new Labour government it will just get worse and worse and the crisis in the health care system and other departments will only get worse. I doubt the Labour government will be able to solve much of the problems. They will take a soft-on-crime approach to all the knife attacks also, but will spend a lot of money trying. Being part of the EU meant Britain had no control over immigration. That was forced on the UK by the EU. Now after Brexit, technically there was supposed to be some control, but illegal migrants just kept arriving. There are those in the UK who want to reverse Brexit and go back to the EU. We will see how that goes. But that may be against the will of the people who voted to leave.

Not only is the 9 million dollars another squandering of taxpayer money, but how much does this guy get paid? We need a highly paid "consul general" in New York like a hole in the head. This is why Canada is so far in debt and we are paying vast sums to put celebrities in useless positions around the world. That is how the elite political world works. Same with the unelected Senate. Another useless institution that costs millions of dollars and is just an expensive reward for the elite political hacks of society. Former B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell was rewarded with an ambassador or consul general position in London after he obeyed Ottawa and brought in a carbon tax in B.C. in 2008. Premier John Horgan, the former NDP Premier of B.C., was also rewarded with an ambassador position in Germany a couple years ago. Former Liberal cabinet minister Ralph Goodale was rewarded with a post in London as high commissioner or similar position. That's just how the system works. They make hundreds of thousands a year at taxpayer expense and that doesn't include the big pensions they get from their former positions. Their pensions would already be so big why would they even need these positions?

That is not true. You love to make things up. No archaeological discoveries prove evolution occurred. If evolution were true, the fossil record would be filled with fossils that show the evolution of one species to another species. But they don't exist. If is false to go around claiming it is proven or a fact.

"The ape-to-human progression: the most common evolution icon is a fraud." "Darwin suggested an unbroken evolutionary chain of life from simple molecules, such as ammonia, water, and phosphoric salts, to humans.1 The chain analogy gave birth to the idea of missing links in the chain, an analogy still used today to describe the fact that, instead of a chain, what the fossil record shows is many groups of life-forms with large gaps in the supposed chain between them.2 Nonetheless, the so-called “great chain of being” is still presented as fact and, given enough time, more fossil discoveries are all that is needed to locate the many missing links evolutionists believe exist. They are there, or were there; we just need to find evidence of them. Every now and then, a “missing link” discovery claim is made, reinforcing this belief.2 The progression chain By far the most famous icon of evolution—seen everywhere from book covers to magazine articles to cartoons—is a drawing depicting part of this chain, namely human evolution from a primitive, stooping ape-like creature progressing to a modern human. The progression is usually pictured in four to six steps, but as many as 30 are sometimes shown. One of the earliest examples of the chain was completed by Brooklyn College paleontologist Eric Schlaikjer. His rendition shows 30 links from fish to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, and, at the top of the evolutionary progression, modern humans (figure 1).3 The scenario pictured is very different from that proposed today, but does include some animals still touted as evolutionary links, such as Seymouria. Of note is the fact that, according to this chart, the primate common ancestor of humans is a modern ape, and the first human looks very much like a modern man, except that he is pictured with an Einstein-like hairstyle and slight Neandertal facial traits. A clear gap is shown to exist between apes and humans. Also, one could line up living animals and produce a progression very close the one pictured by Schlaikjer." For the whole article: j23_3_16-20.pdf (creation.com)

No, it has not proven evolution. Read some of the articles or watch some videos on creation.com website. It is only a theory which has been rejected by many, including some scientists. Evolution has never been repeated. It is only a theory of how things came to be over a long period of time. But nobody was there to observe it. There is nothing to prove it ever happened as claimed. Evolution fraud (creation.com)

I am sorry I missed your comment which was some time ago. I just discovered it. Don't know why I didn't see it. "On evolution and fraud Why is evolutionary theory so full of deliberate frauds?" Evolution fraud (creation.com) I believe what the Bible says. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 KJV This is the first verse in the Bible. If you read further you will find that God created everything in six days, including Adam and Eve. This precludes evolution. I believe the complexity of humans and all life, including the basic cell, is so complex that it required a designer-creator we call God. The vast amount of information in the cell in the form of long strings of data had to have someone put it there. The laws of physics which govern how everything operates in the universe is another thing that required a designer in the first place.

There are a number of reasons America is concerned about the middle east. A couple significant reasons are: 1. Israel is an ally of the west and is the only real democratic country in the region. We know some of the surrounding countries in the middle east are hostile to Israel and would like to eliminate it. The west is committed to the security of Israel and will not allow that to happen. We have seen what happened in Europe and Germany with the Holocaust. That will not be allowed to happen again. 2. The middle east is at the crossroads of Europe, Africa, and Asia and a major amount of trade passes through the Suez canal. 3. The U.S. does sell a large amount of armaments to Saudi Arabia. If America withdraws from the middle east, that could create a vacuum that Russia and/or China might take advantage of. This could affect the balance of power in the world. Also, Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons. That could be a threat to Israel and the west. One of the important reasons why the west, particularly the U.S., is involved in some countries of the middle east is to try to keep peace in the region and prevent a major war. We know how unstable it is now. More details about a number of reasons are in this article: What is America's "Interest" in the Middle East? — The Orientalist Express

This speaks volumes on how little the Trudeau government cares about our tax dollars. It just throws it around like water. " Global Affairs Canada (GAC) told CBC News Friday that it recently purchased a lavish three-bedroom condo in New York to be used as the official residence for the Consulate General of Canada in New York. The purchase was first reported by Crain's and The Real Deal, a real estate news organization. On Friday, the New York Post reported the condo cost $6.63 million US, roughly $9 million Cdn. The 3,600-square-foot condo is at 111 West 57th Street, also known as Steinway Tower, in midtown Manhattan. The building is one of several luxury skyscrapers in an area known as Billionaires' Row. The corner primary bedroom 'offers bright southeastern exposure, and is outfitted with a large walk-in closet,' says the listing. (Streeteasy.com) According to an online listing, the condo's "elegant entry foyer offers white macauba stone floors, and the stunning powder room is finished in jewel onyx. "A spacious living room provides southern exposure and custom smoke gray oak floors in a parquet pattern, while the adjacent dining room provides eastern exposure and plenty of space for entertaining." Veteran broadcaster Tom Clark to be named consul-general in New York: sources Residents of the building also have access to an on-site padel court, a golf simulator and a children's play room. Canada's consul general in New York provides diplomatic services to Canadians abroad, including passport, visa and immigration services. The consul general's office can also notarize documents, provide immigration services for foreign study and help Canadians vote from abroad." Canadian government buys new condo for consul general in New York | CBC News This will not go over well with millions of Canadians who are struggling to put food on the table and now realize they will never be able to afford a home. They will see a government that is out of touch with Canadians.

Do you believe in liberal ideology, i.e. that everything is subjective and if liberals decide some practice is acceptable, you consider that is acceptable? What is your basis for acceptance of some practice that liberals or any politicians endorse? I accept that and take it to mean you are willing to change.

The purpose of good government is to lead in a way that will create a better country and not do just what the mob wants. That means government must be made of people whose thoughts and actions are in line with the written word of God, the King James Bible. The government must be a leader, not a follower. "1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. " Matthew 4:4 KJV God has said clearly that man must live by God's every word. Canada is far from this and must do some things to get on the right path. Since Canada is so far from the right path, the first steps must be to begin moving in that direction. Perhaps the public school system should be changing to include the study of the Bible. This was apparently something that was part of the school system in some places in Canada in the past. We need to get back to the Bible so to speak. If one is not already a Bible-believing Christian, then that must be rectified first.

An unelected premier - an unelected cabinet?: Jim Prentice and the Westminster Wiggle "The years was 1941, and Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King had a problem. Canada was at war, and King needed a strong, unified wartime cabinet to lead a strong, unified country through a time of crisis. The issue of conscription was hugely divisive, and King needed a respected Quebec lieutenant, willing to handle the conscription question. With no one in his cabinet willing or able to meet the task, King took a bold step: he appointed a respected, but unelected, lawyer, Louis St. Laurent, as his minister of justice. St. Laurent held the post, unelected and outside the House of Commons for three months, until he won an eventual by-election." An unelected premier - an unelected cabinet?: Jim Prentice and the Westminster Wiggle | Edmonton Journal So could Trudeau appoint somebody like Mark Carney to cabinet even if he is not yet elected? Yes, of course he could. It has been done in the past.

"The function of government is to restrain evil and to maintain, uphold, and protect the sanctity of life and of property. What Is a Christian’s Responsibility to Government? (ligonier.org) The purpose of government is not to intervene in everyone's life and business or to micro-manage everyone's life. The purpose of government should also be to protect individual freedoms, not deny them and set up a Socialist system. Socialism is stealing and a denial of freedom.

No, I never said they had to be "WASPs". Those are your words. A Bible believer can be any nationality or colour. Doesn't have to be white. I already explained, I prefer a Bible-believing Christian. If they are hard-working for Socialism, Communism, Hinduism, liberalism, progressivism, political Islam, environmental radicalism, or some other ideology, of course I wouldn't vote for them. I don't believe they would be good for the country.

You made your choice to reject God's written revelation, the Bible. I explained that is because you worship the false god of liberalism and secular humanism. You stated in effect you are not willing to change. That is your choice. Be prepared to accept the consequences in this life and the next.

Whether I am for or against them depends entirely on what their beliefs are. I don't see any other way to determine whether to support someone or not. I don't think term limits are necessary if the MP is a good one. It would be preferable to elect MPs and MLAs who are Bible believers and have a Biblical - Christian world view. I think we would have a better country by far.

You avoided the subject completely. You said "I would point out that "unrighteous" is a plainly subjective word so you have to go back to the law, ultimately, to settle it." What does this mean? I did speak to your statement which I quoted here. You said "unrighteous" is a plainly subjective word. I explained why it is not a subjective word. You did not read what i said. You never explained what you meant by "law" either.