blackbird
-
Posts
9,067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
"
QuoteWASHINGTON – 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.99It'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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
13 hours ago, betsy said:
I've got problems with Bernier. He's a separatist.
I'm now voting for Leitch.
Leitch is a good choice. Me too. I read the Bernier was supporting the separtists back in the 1990s and early 2000s.
-
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
ridiculouslyimpressively 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 Daniels
. The addition of editorials by disgraced baseball bigot John Rocker[5] and an obsession with so-called "black mob violence" marked a shift from their less than subtle dog whistles into more overt racism.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WND
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.
-
1 hour ago, Argus said:
This.... source, appears to have little understanding of the need to show some sort of evidence, or even logic or even consistency in making wild assed accusations.
The only one sabotaging Trump is Trump.
You couldn't have read it in 30 seconds.
-
16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
This is just silly. I read the first few points, and it's just stupid.
WND is not a site for legitimate news btw.
So you have read the long article in 10 seconds? Amazing!
-
12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
What do Obama or Trump have to with Federal Politics in Canada ?
How do I move it to United States Politics?
Just sent a request to the Administrator to ask it to be moved.
-
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.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/#W2APqBS2eyLASAui.99http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/
-
1 minute ago, Wilber said:
I find that hard to believe. I can see not wanting to give someone a transplant though.
I think the doctor was annoyed with the patient because he refused to quit smoking. I'm not sure what happened finally. I doubt if most doctors are like that.
-
7 hours ago, taxme said:
Then we might as well dump the Charter of Rights because it would show that the Charter is just a worthless piece of paper with a bunch of useless words written on it that mean nothing. Imagine someone in Canada, of all places, going to the gulag for daring to question or challenge a religion. The problem then this creates is what or who is next to go to the gulag for daring to question or criticize anything that may appear to be political incorrect? The waters are always being tested by the elite liberal establishment to see as to how far they can go.
It is like I have said before. The liberals and liberalism itself is a danger freedom of expression to a country who will allow such a law like this to ever make it fruition. I would personally go to the gulag rather than stay quiet and not be able to criticize a bloody religion. I can pretty much bet that Christianity would never get special treatment. It would be laughed at and thrown out of court.
I have been saying this for a long time that multiculturalism is the problem, not a solution to unity. But no one here appears to have a problem with multiculturalism except me. It seems to be loved by all. Amazing.
I agree. Don't know why someone would give you a thumbs down. I gave you a thumbs up to cancel it out.
-
2
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, hernanday said:
We have religious public funded universities, religious publicly funded schools, etc. I don't agree with eliminatingreligion from government.
Private religious schools are only partially funded by government. The reason is because people pay tax dollars for education. If they send their kids to private schools, the government provides some funding and the parents must still pay a monthly tuition for each child. In one school I know of, I think it was $400 per child per month. That is a lot of money.
Some provinces might be different where the Catholic church has some kind of historic agreement with the government to provide catholic schools funded by the provincial government. But this is an exception and there is no such agreement for other religions.
I'm not sure why you don't agree with eliminating religion from government. Not sure what you mean by government. Government cannot favour one religion over another. Can you see the unfairness of government favouring one religion over another? The best way they can be seen to be fair is not allow any religion in public schools or public universities. If people want religion in schools, they are still free to send their kids to a private school which has their religion. They can also go to their church after school. They shouldn't ask the school to provide a place for worship. Taxpayers are not paying for that.
-
4 hours ago, Melanie_ said:
How do you think the present day reserve system got so screwed up? Could it be that for 150 years children were taken away and placed in abusive situations where they had no chance to develop normal family relationships?
Also think about what was happening on those reserves after the children were taken away. Entire communities without children, and parents powerless to protect their kids. Those parents themselves had gone through the same schools, so they knew exactly what kind of treatment their children were getting and they could do nothing to prevent it.
School dropouts? Yes, there is a widespread mistrust of schools and authority, for good reason.
Widespread domestic abuse? Yes, when people are raised in institutions without family relationships and then expected to create families as adults, there is going to be a lot of dysfunction.
Alcoholism and drug addiction? Yes, when you've experienced long term abuse as a child and have no coping mechanisms, or when you've had to knowingly allow your child to experience that kind of abuse, addiction is a common outcome.
No jobs on reserves? Yes, when reserves are set up on some of the most inhospitable land, there tends to be little economic development.
General despair and suicide? See all the points above.
And of course, people will say that this is in the past, they should be beyond it by now. But when it takes 7 generations to create this level of dysfunction, you can't expect to completely erase it in 1 generation.
Yes, I agree that is exactly the situation. But, we must stop dwelling on the past and the blame game. If native leaders are going to focus on the past and looking for someone or something to blame, they will never be able to help their people. It is easy to say these things, but people have to change the present paradigm, which is dependency. I read a book a few years ago called "Dances with Dependency" out of poverty through self-reliance --- by Calvin Helin. He is a native, who finished school and went to university, became a lawyer, an author, and public speaker. He is a kind of motivational speaker who understand the problem of dependency. His books and messages are widely acclaimed. Try Googling him. I believe he has the answer. But the will has to be there.
-
If people started being denied medical care because they are overweight, drink liquor, don't exercise enough, or because of a whole string of other sins, there would be very few people who would qualify for medical care. I don't think the medical system can discriminate against anybody based on anythiing. Everybody has a right to receive medical care. The problem is the long waiting list for some things, the high cost of certain drugs, and the overcrowded emergency rooms, and overcrowded hospitals.
As far as quality of medicare care, Canada is way down the list of countries providing good medical care. Costs are escalating and care is declining in some ways. Governments are failing to act to rectify the problems with the health care system. All they can come up with is a 20% tax on sugar, while the health care system deteriorates. Patient blaming by the elites. One of the weaknesses of democracy. Nobody is accountable because there are so many issues at election time.
-
1 hour ago, BillyBeaver said:
Unfortunately, this is one of the few non-discriminatory ways to get unhealthy poors to eat/drink better.
I'm for it. I'm also against unlimited health care for people whose BMI is in the upper/lower 10th percentiles. Unless of course, there is a legitimate medical reason. And big-boned doesn't count.
I've definitely reduced the amount I smoke cigarettes because of the price.
There are some doctors who will not give you heart surgery if you are a smoker. I overheard a doctor tell a smoking patient that on the heart ward. That saves a lot of money too.
-
An organization is demanding the federal government put a 20% tax on drinks with sugar in them. This would include all beverages such as pop, juices, cold drinks, coffee, and teas. Would you be in favour of such a tax? The idea is to force Canadians to reduce consumption of drinks with sugar in them and thereby reduce obesity and health problems. Some opponents say this will not reduce consumption. Is this a misguided attempt at social engineering? Is it an assault on personal freedom? They can calculate it will bring in over 10 billion dollars of tax revenue for the government. What do you think? Good idea or bad?
-
1 hour ago, Rue said:
The same Charter that allows freedom of speech and religion will hopefully not permit His Lord Justin of Trudeau or anyone else preventing free speech. In a democracy and the way I read our Charter, we are permitted to challenge religious precepts and no law will stop that.
The problem is if Trudeau brings in a law, a judge can sentence anyone to a jail term and/or fine. Unless you have a lot of money to appeal and challenge it, there is not much you can do except go to jail. Also, there is no telling which way an appeal court will rule these days and you can't count on the Supreme Court to stand up for freedom of speech. When there is a law forbidding any speech against Islam and their side has lawyers arguing it is "Islamophobia" and against the law, you might have a hard time proving you have the right to freedom of speech. Doesn't matter that much what the Charter says if the law says something different and the judges give more weight to the law because of political correctness and powerful lobbies and lawyers on Trudeau's side.
-
1
-
-
Heard that Trudeau is bringing M103 back to Parliament March 21 for second reading instead of waiting until April. Trying to rush it through?
-
1
-
64 Ways Obama is Sabotaging Trump
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted · Edited by blackbird
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.