Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by blackbird

  1. 9 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

    Well Canada is more of what one political scientist called a "crowned republic", in my observation (if you'll excuse me if I overreach).  The monarchy in the UK actually wields executive authority (different in nature from actual power as we know).  In your commonwealth realm, by contrast, the effective head of state is really not so much the Queen herself, but her supposed "representative" (or viceroy), H.E. the G.G.  Since the PM makes the recommendation to the Queen, and the recommendation isn't typically ignored or argued with, and the aforementioned recommended designate is no longer "London's Man" but instead a native Canadian; you effectively have a republican order in imperial dress.

    But I digress again.  And I hope that doesn't offend anyone, by the way.  Because 1) your system seems find to me, even if the PM has a little bit more power than he probably should--I'm the sort of person "if it's cool with you it's cool with me" by the way; and 2) Because I think your nominal head of state has put up with a lot of crap for the last 65 years that the average elected official has to do with a very limited term.  After all, what American president had to eat lunch with Idi Amin? (I'd love to know what idiot Prime Minister arranged that one and kick him in the balls.  What the hell do you think they actually talked about?) And family problems, as covered in the series, of course.  She has to put up with so much bull**** that the average president or PM just doesn't.

    So here's to you, Your Majesty.  Happy 65th!

    Margaret Thatcher one said that those who insist that a politician should be a head of state should spend a little more time with politicians.  (Maybe the late Baroness Thatcher would know...)

    But I think they overreacted about Princess Margaret.  They should have let her just marry that dude.


     The problem in England is the Queen is both head of state and head of the Church of England.  So whatever the hierarchy in the COE says, the Queen must obey.  There should be a separation of church and state.

  2. 38 minutes ago, dialamah said:

    Where is the link so we can find out what else it says.

    That is the text of the Email I received, except for the last sentence which is not relevant.   There is no link because it was info in an Email.   I posted it because it is not private information and is part of an important political issue which should be discussed. 

    Whoever gave me a thumbs down,   If you want to give me a thumbs down, at least have the courtesy of explaining why.  Don't want it brought out in the light or what?

    • Downvote 1
  3. Text of an Email I received.  (not from a website)

    In 2009, our Conservative government introduced the Visa policy to stop the flow of increased bogus refugee claims by Mexican citizens.

    But in late 2016, the Trudeau Liberals reversed that decision.

    This was an early Christmas gift for Mexico’s drug cartels.

    A Canada Border Serves Agency report says lifting the visa makes it easier for Mexican drug cartels to do business right here in Canada:

    In the next three years, Mexican drug cartels are expected to expand their presence in Canada by sending operatives and recruiting local airport or marine port workers with ties to Mexico,” the report states.

    In other words, Justin Trudeau has put the lives of all Canadians at greater risk.

    With the lifting of this Visa policy, Canada has now been forced into combating an onslaught of new asylum seekers.

    The Canadian Border Services Agency has already detained almost 450 Mexican migrants this year. That number is already higher than the entire total for all of last year.

    And when asked about what actions the Government intends to take, Trudeau’s Immigration Minister said “it would be premature to speculate.”

    >> Help us protect Canada’s borders <<

    Fact: there was no formal review of the Mexican visa policy reversal.

    The decision to lift the visa requirement is short sighted and poorly thought out.

    And it also comes with a hefty price tag. Canadians could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming years to cover the costs of this decision.

    • Like 1
  4. I watched the full series movie "The Crown".   Very enjoyable.    I am a fan of the constitutional monarchy and think it has been a very good system for Canada.  It helps to ensure Canada is not taken over by a dictator because  the fact the Armed Forces and RCMP still swear allegiance to the Queen means it would be difficult for a renegade PM for instance to cancel elections and set up his own dictatorship.  Secondly we are part of a Commonwealth of Nations which automatically makes them our allies.

  5. 22 hours ago, dre said:

    Same thing goes for the war on terror where the west has spent about 6 trillion dollars combating a threat that is 1/7th as likely to kill them as being struck by lightening.

    We don't live in an evidence based reality anymore.

    You don't seem to be aware of the facts.   9-11 killed around 3,000 people.  Since 9-11, more than 30,000 people have been killed by jihad terrorist attacks around the world,  including a lot of Muslims.  They don't seem to care if Muslims are killed as well, but many christians are killed every week in some parts of the world.  Hundreds of people are killed every week or month by jihad terrorists.  The west cannot just sit back and do nothing.  That is not a sensible approach.   The truth is these jihad terrorists believe they will go to heaven right away and receive 72 virgins if they die fighting for Allah.  That is the simple fact.  That's why we see often that lone wolf attacks are often perpetrated by unstable, individuals with mental issues and who may have a criminal record, but who believe they can escape all their problems by dying in jihad and get those 72 virgins.

    • Downvote 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Argus said:

    We don't KEEP them locked up. We're too nice for that.

    It's a well known characteristic of Liberals/NDP to put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims and the safety of citizens.  This is proven by the fact the NDP/Liberals voted against laws the Conservatives put forward to toughen up the criminal laws to protect citizens.  The law the Conservatives brought in to deport convicted terrorists with dual citizenship was opposed by the Liberals and NDP.  Since Trudeau was elected, he changed the law to allow a convicted terrorist with dual citizenship to allow him to retain his Canadian citizenship and remain in Canada, not only putting Canadians at greater risk but costing taxpayers 100,000 dollars a year or more to keep people like that in prison.  The law the Conservatives brought in to give more power to the RCMP and CSIS to protect Canadians from terrorism was opposed by the NDP and Liberals.  They made the phony claim that citizens rights would be infringed on.  They also claimed protesters of oil pipelines would have their rights hindered.   More Lefty propaganda.  If people are protesting legally, they would not be affected.  Liberals promised to change that law.  Not sure if they have changed it yet.

    • Downvote 1
  7. A good example of the behavior of some that oppose Trump is the thugs the operate among protesters.  In Berkley, California they banned a pro Trump speaker from speaking on campus by rioting and destroying some property.  How many cars have been burned since Trump was elected and how many streets have been illegally blocked and people intimidated by these masked thugs.  Ask yourself why so many are wearing masks? 

  8. 13 hours ago, Altai said:

    President Erdogan want Turks living in Europe to make average 5 kids. LoooL :lol:

    President Erdogan meant in his speech that the future of the Europe is Islam and Turks. He said "I want you to stake out claim on these lands. Educate your childs in the best schools, live the highest life standarts there, making average 5 kids would be the best answer to them." After racist and anti-Islamic acts of European countries against Turkish citizens.


    I would think many people in Europe might disagree about becoming Eurostan.  It has not happened yet, although some countries are nearer than they were 20 years ago..  Maybe people in Europe will finally wake up but I'm not holding my breath.  Europe is full of liberals who don't have a clue and could care less about their freedom.  We have the same kind of liberals in Canada who are taking us down that path.

  9. 10 hours ago, Altai said:

    First of all, my question is to the forum authorities, so please users dont jump in this topic.

    I am usually given warning points for calling someones "dishonest" or "liar" and I am given warning points for making personal comments. 

    But I am allowed to call someones reply "dishonest". But I am still not allowed to tell someones that his/her words are lies. 

    So the word "dishonest" is an adjective. Words are created and told by persons. If I create dishonest words, this means I am a dishonest person, because these words are representatives of mine. They are not independents creatures wander in my mouth and acts independently than my wish. 

    So calling someone's words dishonest = calling someone dishonest ............... but while calling someone's words dishonest is allowed, calling someone dishonest is not allowed. This is a logical fallacy. 

    Being dishonest is to tell somethings does not represents the truth. So being dishonest = Being a liar. 

    but while I am allowed to tell someones words are dishonest, I am not allowed to tell someones words are lies. This is another logical fallacy. 


    You blocked me, so perhaps can't see my reply.

    You made a comment to everyone and should expect replies. That's how it works.  If you want to speak to a moderator only, you need to send a message to one.

  10. 4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    Well maybe you have a point that you just wanted to talk to the mods, I dunno.  What I'm saying is, if you post a public topic on these boards you can't expect the public not to possibly reply.

    I find your non-western perspectives interesting, but I don't respond to threats.

    Non-western perspective seems to be there is no such thing as freedom of speech.  We in the west take freedom of speech for granted but people in her culture have a completely different world view.  Individuals don't comment on just anything.  Every utterance has to be Sharia compliant.  What people don't understand is the non-muslim world must according to the Quran become subject to Sharia Law.   Everything must be geared to that goal.  Freedom of expression does not fit that paradigm.  That is why she can block so many people.

  11. 3 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

    The FBI isn't a political organization (unless it's reporting on Hillary's emails just before an election). It doesn't take orders from the Democratic party and it doesn't investigate things because a political party is complaining about something. It starts an investigation when there is an indication that there may have been illegal acts commited, such as treasonous collusion with a foreign government to subvert the democratic process. Just the fact that there is an investigation ongoing is very, very bad. If there was an investigation into treason by Hillary, you would already be calling for a firing squad.

    No,   I wouldn't take it as seriously as you.   I don't believe such claims.   It's way too far fetched.   It won't go anywhere.  Only a diehard democrat would believe that kind of stuff.  The Russians did not effect the outcome of the election and nobody said they did.  If they can't effect the election, why would there be any collusion?  It just doesn't make sense.

  12. 7 hours ago, Argus said:

    Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict and a blowhard. I could not care less what he has to say on any subject and wouldn't trust him if he told me the weather. Why would you?

    Just looked him up on Google.  He is a well-known entertainer, conservative talk-show host and writer.  He has written many books.     Your opposition to him probably stems more from disagreeing with what he says.   I don't know if there is any truth that he is a drug addict.  Blowhard is a subjective term.  Depends on your point of view.  Talk show hosts who speak forcefully are the ones who get big audiences.  It's part of the job.

  13. 1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

    There have been claims for months by some democrats that there was collusion between the Russians and Trump team during the election campaign.  As a result of such claims, there is an ongoing investigation by authorities such as FBI, but they are investigating because they are required to investigate any allegations.  It doesn't mean or prove there is anything in it.    Democrats know that if they can keep investigations going, they get some propaganda value out of it.   That's the nature of the system.  I doubt it will find that the Trump team was working with the Russians to defeat Hillary and the Democrats.       This is not an investigation for treason.  There is such allegation except maybe by some extremists.

  14. 4 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

    Citizens are legally allowed to organize and try to influence policy, including ex-presidents. There's nothing unprecedented about that. Nevertheless, Obama has nothing to do with the FBI's investigation into Trump's treason. That's on Trump.

    Trump is not being investigated for treason.  That's fake.

    If you read the 64 Ways, you will see that the tactics  which are being organized by the activists are undemocratic and anarchist.  Taken from manuals of anarchists.   Planting radicals in what are supposed to be grass roots meetings of constituents for the purpose of creating chaos and disruption of meetings. 

  15. On 3/20/2017 at 0:37 PM, BubberMiley said:

    Grassroots protests can be well organized. And even if that weren't possible and Obama and George Soros were secretly organizing them, so what? They are allowed to participate legally in the democracy however they wish.




    WASHINGTON – It might seem outrageous and unprecedented that a newly departed president would devote himself to overthrowing his successor, but that is exactly what a mountain of growing evidence appears to indicate. “Obama’s goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment,” the Daily Mail reported Wednesday.  The source also told the paper that Obama loathes President Trump and considers his presidency illegitimate  .“Obama is dismayed at the way Trump is tearing down his legacy – Obamacare, the social safety net and the welcome mat for refugees he put in place,” the source told the paper.


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/#vopt5I4dS7SHEo8p.99"

    This is unprecedented.  Setting up a Operations centre to oppose a democratically elected president, not for the democratic purpose of preparing for the next election, but for the purpose of using every strategy possible to bring the government down by questionable means.  Whether any of this is legal or not, I am not a lawyer and couldn't answer that question.  It certainly sounds sinister.  In taking the view Trump is an illegitimate president they are disrespecting the democratic system and the outcome of the election.  The democratic system is supposed to operate in the elected Congress and Senate.

    "28) The manual advised protesters to spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposed the Republican host’s positions. It said, “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urged them to ask “hostile” questions – while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” – and loudly boo the GOP politician.

  16. 2 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

    Grassroots protests can be well organized. And even if that weren't possible and Obama and George Soros were secretly organizing them, so what? They are allowed to participate legally in the democracy however they wish.

    Because if you read the 64 Ways ..    it shows there is an organized and professional effort  by certain key operatives underway to attack the government and eventually bring down Trump.   MSM doesn't report this.

  17. On 2017-03-17 at 2:08 PM, taxme said:

    On the CBC news this morning our immigration minister announced that Canada is going to give some more of our Canadian tax dollars to a number of African countries that are supposedly needing Canadian assistance, again. The amount quoted was $119 million but as we know from past examples this might just add up to a lot more than just $119 million. When the government likes to quote a price it is always way lower than what it will end up costing in the end. 

    So, the question that I have to ask is why after thousands of years do Africans still need foreign-aid? Why is that western countries have progressed well over the centuries, and that is quite evident by just looking around in our homes and outside as to how far advanced we have become in the world in the last century alone. So what is holding the Africans from doing the same thing? Is it religion? Is it having too many babies? Or is it that they do not have the intelligence enough to be able to go beyond what they have been doing for all these centuries? 

    This constant welfare program goes on and on and never seems to come to an end. I don't know as to how much more are we going to have to keep bailing these Africans out. It seems that Canadians have done their fair share of trying to help but it is not working. I say enough already. They have had plenty of opportunities to get on board with the rest of the developed world but they  don't appear to want too or even try to want too. I say no more money. Let's start keeping those wasted tax dollars back in Canada for Canadians who need it, not strangers half way around the world who will never do anything with those tax dollars.   What say you? Anyone care to comment on this? I have and I say no more welfare aid. 

    Canada recently said they are giving 360,000 dollars to the third world (Africa) for family planning, which is a euphemism for abortion.  Appalling that we have a federal government that would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of our tax money to fund aborting unborn babies in Africa.  At the same time, Trudeau and the Liberals are running up a 30 billion dollars debt here at home.  Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we have to pay interest on any federal debt?  This interest will be an added burden on taxpayers.  Trudeau is increasing taxes with his carbon pricing scheme, giving billions to the third world, and driving us deep into debt, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay back.   Guess he is trying to make a name for himself on the U.N.  Maybe he's eyeing a future job as secretary general, or some position on an international body.  I'm sure the U.N. will love him for his generosity with our money and his blindly following along with their climate change agenda.  Incidentally he took over 300 people to the Paris climate change conference at taxpayer's expense.   How could Canadians have elected them?

  18. On 2017-03-12 at 0:39 PM, ?Impact said:

    What about the many citizens of Iran in Canada, Europe and elsewhere that travel frequently to the US? There are many people in technical and management positions across many industries that travel to the US for training, sales activities, conferences, joint projects, etc. This travel ban is dumb a$$ stupid. 

    Hasn't the travel ban 2.0 made a lot of exceptions?

  19. NAFTA is a good deal for both countries with more than one billion dollars a day in trade crossing the border and thousands of jobs in both countries depending on it.  I don't think it will be changed much.  Maybe some minor updating.   In the past the NDP was the most vocal opponent of free trade and their key supporters, the union leaders.  I'm not sure they are still opposed to it.  Maybe they have seen the light.

  20. 8 hours ago, Argus said:

    Yes! We actually DO!

    37) Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said he was certain the former president and elements of the Democratic Party were behind the protests because they have been too organized and too professional to be random eruptions of grass-roots discontent.
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/#1DOHqivqgw7ASeJJ.99

    It's true as this article on WND says.  I think it should be obvious the protests were NOT just random grass-roots protests.  They were well organized.  Your claim that WND is not a credible source doesn't stand up.   The 64 Ways do make sense.  If you want to believe everything the CBC tells you (or doesn't report) or the CNN slant go ahead.  But I don't.

    • Downvote 1
  21. 1 hour ago, hernanday said:

    Tax payers are paying for worship in schools.  The religious taxpayers.  Why should religious people fund a school system they don't even believe in?

    If what you say is true, that taxpayers are paying for denomination schools, it is unacceptable.  We have freedom of religion.  Anybody can go to any church they wish and believe what they wish.  I just think taxpayers should not be funding any religious schools. 

  22. 1 hour ago, Argus said:

    I can skim the reasons they posted, and they're bloody nonsense. Which is about what I'd expect from worldnet daily.

    WND (formerly WorldNetDaily or, as it was affectionately known to its fans, WingNutDaily or WhirledNutDaily) is a far-right website and publisher founded by the ridiculously impressively mustachioed Joseph Farah in 1997, as a project of his Western Center for Journalism.[1] WND espouses a fundamentalist Christian, creationist world view, with a healthy dose of jingoism. WND's coverage provides multiple sides of the issues: the very conservative viewpoint and the ultra-conservative viewpoint. WND makes Fox News look positively moonbatty in comparison. Managing Editor David Kupelian claims that WND "serves as your watchdog on government 365 days a year. We guard your priceless freedoms by aggressively exposing corruption and evil everywhere, and by championing good."[2]

    While they present themselves as news, WND is a tabloid for radical right-wingers. Their publishing standards are rock-bottom, and they have run stories from extremely questionable sources on many, many occasions.[3][4] WND are one of the earliest and longest running publishers of Ann Coulter's insipid columns, as well as editorials from such august political analysts as Chuck Norris, Pat Boone and Charlie DanielsWikipedia's W.svg. The addition of editorials by disgraced baseball bigot John RockerWikipedia's W.svg[5] and an obsession with so-called "black mob violence" marked a shift from their less than subtle dog whistles into more overt racism.




    I thought you were a "defender of the right", as your info says.  You can't be a defender of the right and be a leftist at the same.  You know what happens if you try to walk with one leg on each side of the fence.   This link you gave with the critique of WND has the sound of being written by a leftist, probably a liberal democrat and maybe even more radically left.  It's funny that these anti right people always find time to throw in a bit of anti-christian jibes.  Regardless of what you believe spiritually, the article 64 Ways seems to be reasonable.

    I have read part of the 64 Ways down to about #32 and it makes complete sense.   It is nothing outlandish which some might think from the title.  It actually makes a whole lot of sense.  It simply is pointing out how the anti-Trump people are part of a professional protest organization of activists and activist trainers, and it is run by Obama in the background for now.  It describes how they are going about their plan to oppose Trump's agenda and possible bring Trump down.  Haven't finished reading it.

  • Create New...