ExFlyer

So, what is it about the amendment Bill C75 you don't like?? And why?

"A national civil liberties group is set to argue that "nebulous or strained claims" about economic instability or general unrest weren't enough to legally justify the Liberal government's use of the Emergencies Act early last year." What are they going to argue? What are they expecting? Both claims were addressed in the Report. Lets not bring up that non event again. Yes, a woman was pushed by a horse and fell down. Standing in front of a bunch of horse is inherently a dangerous thing. There was lots of yelling and screaming and crying and shouting police brutality but in the end, after she was released form hospital with no injuries, it all went away. No charges, no court, just lots of noise.

You - corruption Me - politics Both - bad optics

I agree with you. All gov'ts have scandals., Scandal is often a matter of opinion. Scandal and corruption are also the opinion of who is making the accusation and charge. She, being so long in the ethics office, should not have taken the job.

My point, and only point is that all governments have scandals and corruption. Duffy's issue was that Harpers assistant paid back the senate. I am not attacking Harper, just providing links making my point. As I said, I voted for him. I am not sure about demonstrably but I get your point. As for the topic, I already said she should have recused herself from the appointment as ethics commissioner as the optics are all wrong.

Never accused him of anything. I just provided links. You decide. I voted for Harper, just saying he was/is not a saint and trying to make him better than XX is foolish. When you are a leader, crap happens and you, as the leader wears it. He had his share of issues too. Duffygate?? https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/06/Stephen-Harper-Abuses-of-Power-2/ https://torontosun.com/2015/06/26/the-cheaters-on-harpers-watch https://pressprogress.ca/here_are_17_more_friends_stephen_harper_who_are_now_trouble_with_law/

Lets not annoint Harper to sainthood He had his issues as well. https://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/08/14/a-conservative-collection-of-harper-government-scandals.html One of his advisors, Bruce Carson was convicted of fraud, twice https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/supreme-court-upholds-fraud-conviction-against-former-harper-advisor-exposed-by-aptn/

Unfortunately, being in a tie is not good enough for the conservatives. As long as NDP back the libs, they win.

I am not sure her offered as opposed to his staff doing the work and he just makes the announcements. But you are 100% correct that she should have recused herself.... especially since she works in the the ethics commissioners office overlooking incidents such as this..

I am not going to defend the appointment as is does look bad. Thing is though, the person appointed has been a public servant for many decades and has climbed the corporate ladder of that department and is, to some degree, entitled to promotion. What she should have, as an ethics commissioner minion, decline the appointment for optics if nothing else. Trudeau is clearly oblivious to these things and his staff his as culpable as he is. His staff should be warning him of the optics of appointing relatives. His appointment of her is not a breach of ethics but a breach of common sense. A seemingly regular failing.

Thanks. Charities get all the HST back. https://www.canadiancharitylaw.ca/blog/application_of_the_gst_hst_to_canadian_registered_charities-_questions_and_/ https://narrativeresearch.ca/canadians-are-split-with-respect-to-whether-religious-institutions-should-be-allowed-to-maintain-their-tax-exempt-status/

Don't hate you, never said that. You seem to think anyone that does not agree with you hates you. Not very christian of you LOL I tolerate everyone that speaks intelligently and does not preach. Are you actually accusing me of having mental issues??? Seriously? A person of god is actually calling someone crazy?? Wow!! Even if I put you on ignore, I see your posts because you comment on other peoples posts. And besides, I want to be able to comment when you besmirch me. After your post you are saying I am threatening???

So, I am intolerant of you as I have described numerous times. Don't like it? Tough. Bible truths is a completely different topic. The bible is a story book with very little, if any, factual references. Storeys can be based on facts but facts are not storeys. You are not the only one I cannot tolerate but, in this forum, you are certainly it. I could not care less about "other churches", the thrust of this thread is you. I have never made a "false claim" about you. I have expressed my distaste of you and your posts and how I cannot tolerate your take. I try to ignore you but you interject and insert your biblical bs into almost every thread. It's like walking through a pond of religious leaches and you keep attaching yourself

Your constant banter, all of it. It is like having a Jehovah Witness ring your doorbell every 10 minutes trying to convert me. LOL

Where I came form is totally immaterial and why it is an obsessive concern of your is interesting LOL Incorrect, intolerance is just expressing distaste and dislike of certain things. Fanaticism and extremism are some. I am also intolerant of bee stings and mosquito bites. Your assumption of bigotry and hate is very unchristian of you that is supposed to love all LOL Basic bible belief may be common (although I would have to have proof of that) but religious fanaticism and extremism you display is more cult like than anything. Never once said I was intolerant of people that believe in the bible, just you. I fully agree and believe in "freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and other basic freedoms", it is you that does not believe in the right to not agree with you. All the posts in this thread are against you and your attitude and preaching.

Heck no. No hate or anger at all. Just intolerance. A struggle against religious fanaticism and those that display it. It is on thing to have beliefs. It is one thing to have strong beliefs. It is quite another to argue and demean and smear others that clearly do not agree with you. That is fanaticism and in your case, religious fanaticism. Not just religious but singular religion.

So, christians killing christians??? How appropriate and god like is that LOL You misunderstand or misconstrue. It is you specifically that I am intolerant of, not the entire sect or even religion in general. My background, religious or otherwise is absolutely immaterial when discussing you and your zealous and belligerent attitude. And what country I came from??? There is no nationality required to identify belligerence, there are belligerents everywhere. I am intolerant of all belligerent zealots that accuse those of all number of things that do not agree with them. What I believe is as immaterial because it is you that I am talking to and about, not a religion or sect or cult. My personal life, which has been outstanding, is equally immaterial when talking about you.

Yes, you are correct, I am very intolerant of people like you. I am very tolerant of people hold religious beliefs, particularly christian, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, buddihsm and aboriginal Mother Earth religion amongst others. It is people like you though, that give all religions a bad name and taste in their consciousness. You drive more people away form religious beliefs than you gather.

He is not the only one accusing you. While you may not like it. The Pope is a world leader and gets the same respect, pomp and ceremony any other political gets. While I do not agree with CdnFox on many things, he is right and it is you that seems out of control with your constant christian banter and demonizing of those that do not agree with you. You are the worst kind of religious zealot. Using the funeral of police officer heros to further your christian ideals. You are a shame to chrisians and religion in general.

Which is tax deductible. And when they close and sell the church, it is all profit. Churches do not , in any way contribute to law and order. As a matte=r of fact, they sometimes harbour criminals as they claim sanctuary.

I think that is a rectal pluck. Certainly there is a cost associated with the visit if any head of state (which to Pope is deemed) but, the costs are primarily internal, security, staging, public personnel travel and in this case, incredible amounts to indigenous associations.

I think PP will be as politically correct as the present guy. He cannot afford no to. It is a shame though that concentrating on real issues like health and finances takes a back seat to political correctness and bowing and appeasing minority groups. (for all parties) Considering being democratically elected depends on majority, a lot is being done to appease a few. Have we become a society of a few? Or are there so many minority groups that they have become the majority?

Chuckle. So much banter, so little content.

Do you have any idea how you look to other people right now?

OK, you don't like it. ?