egghead

You overestimate the voters' IQ;

Same as north korean, they turns it into Intranet.

So only rich can know more

hmm, without the red china's $ and the calling for money laundering investigation, the housing bubble is bursting. May be that is why

ya, before they are granted the citizenship

Do you know what LNG project is? do you think all BC-ers are tree huggers? Most of BC-ers don't care the pipeline at all. In fact, few surveys show more than half of "BC-ers" want the pipeline to be build. It is green party and uncle sam "mandate", and JT is the free rider.

Did you read it? I am not saying Argus's number is right. The number seems odd. It does not add up right.

Haha, you better revisit the Mountain pipeline time-line. He and Horgan sat on their hands long before gov't bought the pipline project

Which liberal-verse are you from? In this universe, our liberal party did not push the pipeline to be build. They just used the tax dollars to buy the pipline project Just words, no action

I always want this forums to have a sarcasm icon You are right. This is a complex issue. Did JT and his minions know this? Of course, they knew. When it was so grey, they believed they would get away with it. Too bad, JWR said no.

You better re-read what I wrote carefully

That is no joke. Starting this week, liberal party friendly media started to draw a picture that most of parties that are in power in Candian provinces are (or soon to be ) right wing wing nuts parties. Then, they would brough up the same topices. They sound like Candian needs Liberal party

Sry, my bad, you may be right. my memory fails me this time

We all need to take pt 1. with a grain of salt. It was on a liberal friendly media. They (don't remember the news named names or not) said that the evidence had been sitting on the JWR's desk since sept (<- important time-line), and she never touched it. Point 3 and Point 4 are as 'soured' as JT's kool-aid

I read it . That is why i say u move the goal post. We are taking about breaking the law, and you are talking the "political" fallout. I am a simple man, and I only ask simple question. If ag gives dpa to snc, can u call rcmp or for constitutional review or for judicial review? I am not saying ag shall give dpa to snc.

Deleted

Is it just me, or did Rue move the goal post?

I think "overrule" is a better word than intervene. Let not talk about DPA first,; tell me I am wrong; did JWR overrule prosecutor before? I remember she did. It was something to do with people having sex with HIV patient.

I had read your post. Sorry, I misspoke. I was using my phone to reply the above post and it was hard to quote with the phone. When I said "requirements", I meant that the AG has the power to sign off the DPA on his (her) own beacuse no law says AG cannot initatie the DPA. I understood when you said ".... the prosecutor can NOT consider national economic interest as a public interest....". That was the prosecutor role, and we all knew no DPA from the prosecutor already. We are talking about the AG's role now. Actutally, I have a question for you, since Canada's DPA needs the court approval and the court already says no to the DPA review, what will happen when Lametti finally gives SNC one?

you are right; JT is fighting a lost battle now, even the time is not on his side. JT and his minions believed they could resolve the SNC case no later than mid-March. Little did they know that JWR had secretly recorded the phone conversation. Having said that, JT does not lose the war yet. Only AB and SK are unsalvageable. I believe JT will play "lesser of two evils" card very soon. As long as NDP and the Green cannot keep the voters away from the liberal, JT will still win the next election

That was that I was going to ask and saw your reply. Here is the problem: AG (assume JWR here) gave SNC the DPA, who would go to court of appeal (supreme court ??) to appeal that?

Rue believed DPA's requirements were black and white (may be it is). He completely ignored that no one (JWR, and all JT's minions ...) said giving SNC a DPA was against (breaking)the law, may be not the rightness action but not against the law.

Not from the view of french speaking canadians, most of them believed that SNC case was "big bad englishpeople" bullying "frenchpeople"

God save us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBJBc5iCMWU

1. Good pt, I don't have data to prove it yet , but you cannot say I am wrong. However, I feel that most "middle class moms" options are "domestic" options. 2. 3. 4. <= it means that the host will "form and express a judgment of government policies" on air