Rue

You really need to stop parroting Al Jazeera, remember you are supposed to be a white nationalist: https://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/europe/2017/10/putin-triumph-christianity-russia-171018073916624.html You might want to put the Putin the good Christian shit to bed: https://relevantmagazine.com/current/putins-untold-war-on-christianity/ https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/global-culture/putins-war-on-christianity-is-the-russia-issue-that-cant-be-ignored/ https://www.christianpost.com/news/russia-persecution-christians-intensifies-putin-cant-be-trusted-experts-warn-184255/ Peekaboo I see you Abdul. Back to the actual issue why are you so obsessed about transgendered people? https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/why-we-care-about-other-peoples-sex-lives/374781/ Me personally I think people who obsess over other peoples' choices in life doubt their own. Transgenders make their choice. Its not your business or mine. If they make such a choice I hope they do it for positive and not negative reasons but its none of my phackin business. I have enough problems with my prostate to worry about someone else's genitilia. Thank you. Now I have to go pee. Its been 2 minutes.

I don't wait for any messiah. I look after myself thanks. Seriously I know damn well the Republicans will never go back to him I am just saying in hindsight between a choice of Romney or Trump please don't tell me yer boy Donny is a better choice. In fact anyone would have been better at this point than Trump except Ted Cruz who is a manure stain of a politician.

Read your own words. You skip anything that doesn't suit your partisan support of Trump. 1-the point is NOT whether Biden or his son is corrupt-the point is if Trump thought they were he had a direct conflict of interest involving himself in anything to do with investigating Biden because he had a direct conflict of interest; 2-you keep avoiding no.1 because it doesn't fit your partisan denial; 3-the second point which you again ignore is that investigations of crimes to be credible must be conducted by neutral fact finders who have no direct interest in the outcome of the investigation which is what now has forced the impeachment process-to determine why Trump with a direct conflict of interest in regards to Biden spoke to any foreign government leader about Biden, period; 4-as for pretending the funds were withheld by coincidence play that tune no one buys it the same way when a fat man is caught with chocolate all over his face no one believes he hasn't eaten chocolate-in your world however Trump can lie over 12,000 times and you see no issue with his credibility and what he says so if he says something, you believe it. Well he said he asked the Ukraine President to investigate Biden. He admitted this. That was wrong. If you can not see why that crossed the line and abused his public powers and put the foreign interests of the US in direct conflict with the personal partisan interests of Trump going after a political competitor you of course will not. Your partisan view will not allow it. 5-the behavior with Ukraine is just one of many conflicts of interest Trump is involved in: https://sunlightfoundation.com/tracking-trumps-conflicts-of-interest/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069298 https://time.com/4574938/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest/ https://time.com/4578431/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-list http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/trump-turkey-kurds-syria-conflict-of-interest-istanbul-towers.html https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-conflict-of-interest-with-china-2017-2 You really want to go after Biden's son, then do the same with Trump's family, use the same standard: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/trump-administration-conflicts/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/02/13/trump-conflicts-of-interest-tenants-donald-business-organization-real-estate-assets-pay/ You are in denial as to what a conflicted corrupt slime bucket Trump is and how he has trashed POTUS and lowered any remaining credibility of POTUS.

You again miss the point. No one has argued Biden is immune from investigation. No one. What we have argued is that the President because he is running against him as a direct personal conflict of interest in involving himself in any investigation of Biden directly or indirectly and no, no US President is allowed to use the powers of their Presidency to pressure foreign officials to investigate his political opponents and it has never been done. Not only that Trump has openly admitted he asked not just Ukraine but China to investigate Trump. He not only asks foreign leaders to engage in investigating his political opponents but said openly he sees nothing wrong with that. Well you and he may find that kind of abuse of power and confloict of interest acceptable but one would hope Americans expect more.

Good for Trump using POTUS for personal interests and not the benefit of the US? Yah tell me again how you are not a blind patisan groupie of Trump and how you did not elect him and are neutral in your analysis.

Are you saying the lies don't exist because they were repeated by CNN and NYT among many media outlets? That automatically makes the fact he is a serial pathological liar go poof? Its called fact check. Its public record. You claimed Trump does not lie then when you are provided the blatant overhwhelming fact check he does you try claim since CNN among others repeated the fact checks on his lies they don't exist? Get friggin real.

He was commenting on my stating Trump was an immoral liar. That is what I answered. Notice I did answer when it was called for. Of course Trump was shanking Ukraine he admitted he was three times and the transcripts show he did. + You want facts then stop denying the facts. Trump stated and has admitted stating and I quote: “I would like you to do us a favor, though” ...... what about those words do you not understand? What about him asking the Ukraine leader to work with Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and the US attorney general, William Barr, to look into unsubstantiated allegations that Biden, the former vice-president, helped remove a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, do you not understand? Trump admitted he asked for this. He stated and I again quote: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it.” Why was the US President who is IN FACT running against Joe Biden asking any foreign leader to investigate his political opponent? What do you not get about that being an abuse of power and using POTUS for a partisan purpose? What do you not get about any investigation of anyone having to come from someone neutral not someone with a vested partisan interest that conflicts with US foreign policy interests? Trump's defence is not that he did not ask for an investigation, its that he didn't threaten or pressure the Ukraine President. He didn't have to threaten or pressure. The moment he said what he did the message was obvious and that is precisely why the Ukraine President while saying he did not feel he was pressured DID MOST CERTAINLY SAy to reporters: “I think you read everything. I think you read text. I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved to democratic, open elections of USA. No.” He would not have said what he did if he did not feel what he was being asked stepped into election issues. He doesn't have to feel anything. The perception of him getting involved in partisan elections was sufficient for him to say the above and that is the test not his feelings. This request by Trump speaks for itself. Its not heresay its admitted. It speaks for itself. It was also reconfirmed by Trump: https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/09/watch-trump-admits-he-talked-to-ukraine-president-about-joe-biden-and-his-son/ Trump now is trying to say any withholding of Ukrainian funds the day before the phone call to discuss a Biden investigation was coincidental only. So then why did his Chief of Staff say otherewise? ..And there it was, practically out of the blue, at a press conference, Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, by and large admitted that the president held back military aid to force Ukraine to investigate the business dealings of Hunter Biden. Asked whether the administration had told the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, that funding would not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well, Mulvaney said: “We do – we do that all the time with foreign policy.” source:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/18/mulvaney-quid-pro-quo-ukraine As well these people who feel Trump mixed personal interests with foreign policy interests are all wrong: "WASHINGTON – A string of U.S. diplomats and national-security officials mapped out during the last two weeks for the House impeachment inquiry how President Donald Trump's pressure on Ukraine to investigate his political rival began months earlier than a key July 25 call and raised alarms across the government. The U.S. ambassador to Europe voiced disappointment after learning May 23 that the president delegated Ukraine policy to his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, rather than rely on professionals at the State Department. Trump’s top diplomat in Ukraine, who caught wind of Giuliani’s back-channel effort, said that trading military aid to Ukraine for an investigation of corruption would be “crazy.” And John Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser, called Giuliani a “hand grenade” that would blow up routine diplomatic efforts, according to a former National Security Council official." source:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/21/impeachment-witnesses-describe-how-president-trump-dealt-ukraine/4022832002/ As for Trump now we know the following as well: "Former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko admitted to discussing financial investments with President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in 2017." source: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/ex-president-of-ukraine-admits-to-discussing-investments-with-rudy-giuliani-report/ This is the same Giuliani Trump asked to take over all issues dealing with Ukraine circumventing the US Ambassador to Ukraine and State Department. Even Fox's legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has explained that President Donald Trump may have admitted to a crime on camera and that crime is an impeachable one. see :https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/fox-news-legal-analyst-trump-admitted-to-a-crime-and-it-absolutely-is-an-impeachable-offense/ Trying to claim the witholding of funds was coincidental is besides the point and is not the point. Raising the Biden issue for ANY reason is the actual impeachable issue. Just the bringing in of a clearly conflicted personal partisan issue connected to Ukraine's relationship and mixing Guliani, Trump's personal lawyer whose role is to get him re-elected at all costs with US foreign policy is the issue. You can't mix the two. Conflict of interest is about the appearance of the possibility of conflict of interest. Trump supporters have grown so complacent to his inability to separate the needs of the state from his own personal interests is very apparent on this thread. They think anything Trump does is automatically in the best interests of the US simply because he is Presidemt. That is not how it works. The President is not above the law or immune from the law. He can be and most certainly is accountable to congress for his behaviour if it is in conflict which he admits to making. If Trump truly felt Biden was a criminal and his son was a criminal then NOT Trump but a neutral adviser far removed from Trump or his partisan campaigners should be the one to have investigated how that impacts on US foreign policy interests not Trump and to have to even explain that to the Trump groupies on this board is sad. They seem to have no problem understanding Trudeau's conflict of interest, but when it comes to Trump, we get this fantasy land denial.

Bullshit if course the transcripts speak for themselves. You might want to read them. I have and so has everyone else who thinks Trump has engaged in a conflict of interest,. My summary of the transcripts is the same as with this source: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29364473/ukraine-texts-quid-pro-quo-trump/ I have provided the relevant summarization and deleted repeat analysis. Read the transcripts. More to the point TRUMP ADMITTED NOT ONCE BUT THREE TIMES he linked aid to investigating Biden. Why would you pretend it is heresay when Trump has already admitted it? "The texts released last night by the chairs of the House Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs Committees are absolutely damning. You should read the whole thing. There appear to be multiple instances of the same quid pro quo Trump and his allies hung their hats on there not being, and Sondland's at the heart of all of it. ..... .... it appears the initial quid pro quo did not have to do with the military aid. The first round of strongman leveraging had to do with Zelensky's desire to get a White House meeting with the American president. ..... That was the subtext of the infamous July 25 call: Zelensky was trying to get a bilateral meeting, but his aides had been briefed beforehand that in order to get one, he'd need to promise an investigation into 2016 that would dispute the established fact that Russia interfered. At least, that's what Volker texted Zelensky's aide beforehand: In which Volker informs Zelensky’s aid that a Zelensky visit to Washington is predicated on convincing Trump that he’ll “get to the bottom of what happened” in 2016. pic.twitter.com/mQk62rlOvk Here is a quid pro quo: if you promise an investigation that will be politically useful to the president, the president will grant you the meeting you need. One worrying thing is that Trump seems increasingly convinced Ukraine actually was involved in 2016 interference, a conspiracy theory from the right-wing fever swamp that, as a champion bullshitter, he may have convinced himself of while pushing it. Later in the text threads, we see Zelensky had basically agreed to announce the investigations in exchange for confirmed dates for a Washington trip. As Chris Hayes and others pointed out on Twitter, it appears this scheme was going to work until a whistleblower blew it open. (Although The New York Times seems dead-set on giving Trump the headlines he wants, even today, with full knowledge of the scheme. Perhaps they would say the news is the news.) As August came around, Trump's people solidified the message they wanted from Ukraine: investigations into both 2016 and Burisma, the gas company on whose board Hunter Biden once sat. It would quickly become about The Bidens—a successful ratfucking operation. But in late August, Zelensky's aide also became aware of the withheld military assistance: Zelensky aid texts Volker our @politico story breaking the news that Ukraine military aide was being withheld at Trump’s request At this point, a career diplomat named Bill Taylor—currently the chief of mission in Kiev—entered the plot and seemed determined to make an official record of the shady shit going on. Trump had canceled a planned meeting with Zelensky in Warsaw, Poland, and the aid was still withheld. Taylor decided to put something—which may have been discussed in a phone call—down in writing. Ambassador Taylor, Sept 1: “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations? Note Sondland's response: "Call me." He doesn't want this in writing because he knows it's bad and probably illegal. He doesn't want a record, but it appears Taylor does. On September 8, they're discussing an "interview" the Ukrainians will need to give in order to secure the meeting and the military aid, and Taylor again goes on-record: "The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)" He couldn't be more clear. ...... Bill Taylor: "The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.) Bill Taylor: "The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key." Throughout, Taylor's only goal was to secure the aid for Ukraine. (Taylor may have other motives involved, but the bare fact is that Russia has orchestrated a shadow invasion of Eastern Ukraine after already annexing Crimea.) When Sondland expresses zero certainty the aid will be delivered even if the Ukrainians do what they've been hammered into doing, Taylor again puts it explicitly on the record: "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." ...Not only is Taylor laying out the quid pro quo, he makes it clear that this has been extensively discussed between Trump's people on phone calls we can't see. This thing certainly is not done, but the evidence is now substantial that there was a quid pro quo with two elements on each side. Trump wanted investigations into 2016 to minimize the Russians' role, and into the Bidens to damage the elder's 2020 campaign. Zelensky wanted a meeting with Trump and for the military aid to be delivered. For Zelensky to get those things, it was made clear by Trump's envoys that he would need to deliver the things Trump wanted for his personal gain."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jxwulrq_KU https://truth11.com/2016/06/12/reptilianqueen-queen-elizabeth-shapeshifting-on-live-tv-goes-viral/ https://sinnnitreee.blogspot.com/2005/02/reptilian-bloodlinesthe-illuminati.html Who me ridiculous?

I like your comments. Very well stated. I agree with most of them especially on Biden but I do believe Trump has injected a level of personal dimension as to his behaviour and constant lying that is more than just the usual partisan b.s. Many are asking whether he`s compromised by Putin and thus his behaviour with Erdogan, Ukraine, North Korea.

Yah Nixon got his ass kicked too by Kennedy. Your point...never say never in politics. It aint over until the fat guy sings.

Who lied? Ok Wes you asked: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/ https://www.nrdc.org/trump-lies https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/opinions/trumps-lies-on-syria-were-jaw-dropping-ghitis/index.html https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-has-told-13-435-while-in-office-wapo-71560773873 https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20961764/trump-ivanka-created-14-million-jobs-whopper https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html When has he NOT lied Wes? I did READ Shiff's interpretation of the transcripts and I have read the transcripts. Unlike you I am not pro Trump with partisan pro Trump views so I think it is outrageous he has mixed personal election interests concerning Biden with US foreign interests and not only liked the two BUT ADMIITTED he linked the two as contingent on one another and he would do it again. We are way past denial on what he did with Ukraine. Now shit is coming out about Erdogan and Putin. Did you really think he could do what he did and this would never come back on him. I mean he believes he is immortal but why do you? He's not immporal? https://interfaithallianceco.org/blog/2018/8/21/the-real-moral-breakdown-of-donald-trump-and-the-rest-of-us-too https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/21/donald-trump-impeachment-white-house-2020 https://time.com/5616623/dalai-lama-president-donald-trump-lack-moral-principle/ Of course he is immoral.

Not so fast. The following countries have state churches and call themselves "Christian" states because they either call themselves that or have state churches: Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Greenland, England, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Liechenstein, Malta, Monaco, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Zambia not of course mentioning the Vatican City because you mentioned it when you technically said canon law. I think though its safe to say all the above states have sufficiently evolved to separate the church far more than many Sharia law states but in all such countries church organizations still have much influence in the institutions of these nations, including hospitals and schools with government funding and for that matter the Catholic Church still has strong influence on the educational and health institutions in many provinces. I agree with you or anyone who says for a democracy to be able to properly function it must be neutral and therefore separate itself from specific values that would cause it to treat some less favourably than others. As a Jew my issue is not with Christian institutions or even having people say Christianity played a pivotal part of and remains a pivotal part of Canadian culture. I think myself it is stupid to deny Christmas or the role of Christianity in Canada or the fact the majority of Canadians are Christian, specifically Catholic. While my ancestors are linked to massacres committed by people in the name of the Catholic Church this does not mean I should not respect the religion and its values and traditions. The only part of Christian values I remain silent on is the concept of saviour. I believe the term as taught by Jesus meant we were all born to be saviours of the world depending on our actions. I see him as teaching a lesson we are ALL children of a greater essence sent to either heal or wound. Its a minor argument. I know some blow that out of the water to say if I do not believe Jesus is the ONLY Messiah, I go to hell, but I believe most Christians get what I say, understand my beliefs do NOT contradict or attempt to contradict their views and we agree on all the same values which were and remain the same in all religions which is to treat people as we want to be treated and through our actions either create positive or negative effects that move on and impact on may others n a good or bad way. I disagree with those shutting down Christian celebrations in the name of political propriety at Christmas. No Christian ever told me not to celebrate a Jewish holiday why would I tell them not to?. I am happy they do. Genuinely. Since when is being Christian offensive or improper? If it is a time people can reflect on higher values and makes them grateful to have family and realize material value is not the only thing in life, why would I want to censor that or act upset about it? Our Canadian history talks about a lot of bad things Christian institutions did particularly with aboriginal peoples which I do not downplay. However for years government off loaded education, health and any social service on the Catholic church who took it on and taught, fed and sheltered people which was a good thing. The fact that some perverted the intent and service of good Christians does not make me throw out all the good with the bad. That said I do defer to Christians who feel betrayed by their own churches but that is their spiritual struggle I must respect as between them and their churches. I just don't want any of them to feel if they were hurt I do not care. I care but in a way that respects them and innocent people who still believe in Christianity. That is all. I am just saying people who have been hurt have a right to hold the people who hurt them accountable. I hope the Catholic and other churches and for that matter all organized religions reform themselves and clean their acts up. All organized religions are corrupted by secrecy and layers of power. Hopefully Islam will evolve as Christianity did and Judaism before that. Y'all ask me we all have a far ways to evolve before we stop killing each other in the same of our Gods, saviours, prophets.

No tonly Cons suppport monarchy. Many Liberals do as well including Justin who said so and his father.The Monarchy has zero say or role in any democratic or legal process of decision making. The monarchy is strictly a symbol of the head of state. The reason they still exist is called TOURISM. They bring in far more money a year in revenue in tourism then they spend on themselves. As long as that is the case they will continue to exist. She only costs Canada when she visits no different than any other head of state. Now mind you I have read she is a shape shifting Lizard who eats children. I also have read the illuminati-Mason-Satan connections she has and I am aware her son Andrew and others in the Royal family have been linked to pedophilia, Epstein, perversion etc. All I will say is I do not support Dracos, vampires, people who eat children, etc. As a symbol for head of state I am not upset by it. I think Camilla Parker Bowles is David Bowie in drag but so what.

Ron McLean is entitled to his opinion, Don Cherry, his opinion. McLean knows what Cherry meant. He could have said it was not meant to single out only certain people if he wanted. If he really thinks Cherry went off on a rant about only new Canadians which I doubt he did, then he should feel quite fine about his apology.

Good for you. Question and challenge everything. Listen I can tell you if we say anything students complain. The moment they do not get a mark they like they file a complaint that we are racist aholes. I just went through 12 accusations all found false that took 3 weeks to investigate all precipitated by one ahole who did not like the mark I gave him hiding behind the race card. Its a fact of life. Freedom of speech is dead. If someone like me says anything it gets thrown back at us in a different context and meaning. Students illegally and without consent tape and film us with their cell phone and add and delete. I had a student tape and film me knowing another was. The other who wanted to complain to me sent in his cut version and I had the other one to back me up. Its ridiculous the lengths students go today to complain when they do not get a good mark. That is another issue. Is it racist though for me to say we have absolutely watered down the standard of education to accommodate international students who pay big bucks to go to our schools amounting to 7 billion a year? Is it racist to say they often can not read or write English at grade 5 level and I am told not to fail them? Its it racist to say the schools now cater to international students as a cash cow and its destroyed the school system? Is that racist? I am the first to commend and assist good international students and they exist. Am I a racist to say otherwise and point out the bad ones? When is a generalization a deliberate act of hatred or bigoted? We all debate that. It depends on context and intent. Hey I whine to Argus all the time about his getting to general in some comments about ALL Muslims but is it racist if he or someone suggests Islam is used to justify terrorism? I am no more or less racist than anyone on this forum. We all have opinions even Taxme who I know is in my subjective opinion a genuine white supremacist but as much as I disagree with him he has a right to his views. Oh face it we live in a censored society obsessed with imagined slights and victims. Cherry's "you people" was a clumsy reference to all of us who came to Canada and all of us did. It was a clumsy reference certain people can use to make themselves feel outraged. His comment was right. We have numerous Canadians new and not so new who have come to this country to enjoy its benefits and refuse to acknowledge the price paid for those benefits. I am a friggin "you people" and I totally agree with him. I am not racist. I hate everyone. As for you just because I disagree with you or vice versa is no big fng deal. We debate right? What happened we can't disagree with people without having to censor them? The people I like the most on this forum I debate all the time. Its a sign of respect. It shows them you listen to what they write. Arguments and disagreements are great. Its what its about. Quite frankly I do not think Cherry gives a damn about his being fired.

Good for you. Question and challenge everything. Listen I can tell you if we say anything students complain. The moment they do not get a mark they like they file a complaint that we are racist aholes. I just went through 12 accusations all found false that took 3 weeks to investigate all precipitated by one ahole who did not like the mark I gave him hiding behind the race card. Its a fact of life. Freedom of speech is dead. If someone like me says anything it gets thrown back at us in a different context and meaning. Students illegally and without consent tape and film us with their cell phone and add and delete. I had a student tape and film me knowing another was. The other who wanted to complain to me sent in his cut version and I had the other one to back me up. Its ridiculous the lengths students go today to complain when they do not get a good mark. That is another issue. Is it racist though for me to say we have absolutely watered down the standard of education to accommodate international students who pay big bucks to go to our schools amounting to 7 billion a year? Is it racist to say they often can not read or write English at grade 5 level and I am told not to fail them? Its it racist to say the schools now cater to international students as a cash cow and its destroyed the school system? Is that racist? I am the first to commend and assist good international students and they exist. Am I a racist to say otherwise and point out the bad ones? When is a generalization a deliberate act of hatred or bigoted? We all debate that. It depends on context and intent. Hey I whine to Argus all the time about his getting to general in some comments about ALL Muslims but is it racist if he or someone suggests Islam is used to justify terrorism. Some believe the moment you say that its racist. Oh face it we live in a censored society obsessed with imagined slights and victims. Cherry's "you people" was a clumsy reference to all of us who came to Canada and all of us did. It was a clumsy reference certain people can use to make themselves feel outraged. His comment was right. We have numerous Canadians new and not so new who have come to this country to enjoy its benefits and refuse to acknowledge the price paid for those benefits. I am a friggin "you people" and I totally agree with him. I am not racist. I hate everyone. As for you just because I disagree with you or vice versa is no big fng deal. We debate right? What happened we can't disagree with people without having to censor them? The people I like the most on this forum I debate all the time. Its a sign of respect. It shows them you listen to what they write. Arguments and disagreements are great. Its what its about. Quite frankly I do not think Cherry gives a damn about his being fired.

Good for you. Question and challenge everything. Listen I can tell you if we say anything students complain. The moment they do not get a mark they like they file a complaint that we are racist aholes. I just went through 12 accusations all found false that took 3 weeks to investigate all precipitated by one ahole who did not like the mark I gave him hiding behind the race card. Its a fact of life. Freedom of speech is dead. If someone like me says anything it gets thrown back at us in a different context and meaning. Students illegally and without consent tape and film us with their cell phone and add and delete. I had a student tape and film me knowing another was. The other who wanted to complain to me sent in his cut version and I had the other one to back me up. Its ridiculous the lengths students go today to complain when they do not get a good mark. That is another issue. Is it racist though for me to say we have absolutely watered down the standard of education to accommodate international students who pay big bucks to go to our schools amounting to 7 billion a year? Is it racist to say they often can not read or write English at grade 5 level and I am told not to fail them? Its it racist to say the schools now cater to international students as a cash cow and its destroyed the school system? Is that racist? I am the first to commend and assist good international students and they exist. Am I a racist to say otherwise and point out the bad ones? When is a generalization a deliberate act of hatred or bigoted? We all debate that. It depends on context and intent. Hey I whine to Argus all the time about his getting to general in some comments about ALL Muslims but is it racist if he or someone suggests Islam is used to justify terrorism. Some believe the moment you say that its racist. Oh face it we live in a censored society obsessed with imagined slights and victims. Cherry's "you people" was a clumsy reference to all of us who came to Canada and all of us did. It was a clumsy reference certain people can use to make themselves feel outraged. His comment was right. We have numerous Canadians new and not so new who have come to this country to enjoy its benefits and refuse to acknowledge the price paid for those benefits. I am a friggin "you people" and I totally agree with him. I am not racist. I hate everyone. As for you just because I disagree with you or vice versa is no big fng deal. We debate right? What happened we can't disagree with people without having to censor them? The people I like the most on this forum I debate all the time. Its a sign of respect. It shows them you listen to what they write. Arguments and disagreements are great. Its what its about. Quite frankly I do not think Cherry gives a damn about his being fired.

Good for you. Listen I can tell you if we say anything students complain. The moment they do not get a mark they like they file a complaint that we are racist aholes. I just went through 12 accusations all found false that took 3 weeks to investigate all precipitated by one ahole who did not like the mark I gave him hiding behind the race card. Its a fact of life. Freedom of speech is dead. If someone like me says anything it gets thrown back at us in a different context and meaning. Students illegally and without consent tape and film us with their cell phone and add and delete. I had a student tape and film me knowing another was. The other who wanted to complain to me sent in his cut version and I had the other one to back me up. Its ridiculous the lengths students go today to complain when they do not get a good mark. That is another issue. Is it racist though for me to say we have absolutely watered down the standard of education to accommodate international students who pay big bucks to go to our schools amounting to 7 billion a year? Is it racist to say they often can not read or write English at grade 5 level and I am told not to fail them? Its it racist to say the schools now cater to international students as a cash cow and its destroyed the school system? Is that racist? I am the first to commend and assist good international students and they exist. Am I a racist to say otherwise and point out the bad ones? When is a generalization a deliberate act of hatred or bigoted? We all debate that. It depends on context and intent. Hey I whine to Argus all the time about his getting to general in some comments about ALL Muslims but is it racist if he or someone suggests Islam is used to justify terrorism. Some believe the moment you say that its racist. Oh face it we live in a censored society obsessed with imagined slights and victims. Cherry's "you people" was a clumsy reference to all of us who came to Canada and all of us did. It was a clumsy reference certain people can use to make themselves feel outraged. His comment was right. We have numerous Canadians new and not so new who have come to this country to enjoy its benefits and refuse to acknowledge the price paid for those benefits. I am a friggin "you people" and I totally agree with him. I am not racist. I hate everyone. As for you just because I disagree with you or vice versa is no big fng deal. We debate right? What happened we can't disagree with people without having to censor them? The people I like the most on this forum I debate all the time. Its a sign of respect. It shows them you listen to what they write. Arguments and disagreements are great. Its what its about. Quite frankly I do not think Cherry gives a damn about his being fired.

Good for you. Listen I can tell you if we say anything students complain. The moment they do not get a mark they like they file a complaint that we are racist aholes. I just went through 12 accusations all found false that took 3 weeks to investigate all precipitated by one ahole who did not like the mark I gave him hiding behind the race card. Its a fact of life. Freedom of speech is dead. If someone like me says anything it gets thrown back at us in a different context and meaning. Students illegally and without consent tape and film us with their cell phone and add and delete. I had a student tape and film me knowing another was. The other who wanted to complain to me sent in his cut version and I had the other one to back me up. Its ridiculous the lengths students go today to complain when they do not get a good mark. That is another issue. Is it racist though for me to say we have absolutely watered down the standard of education to accommodate international students who pay big bucks to go to our schools amounting to 7 billion a year? Is it racist to say they often can not read or write English at grade 5 level and I am told not to fail them? Its it racist to say the schools now cater to international students as a cash cow and its destroyed the school system? Is that racist? I am the first to commend and assist good international students and they exist. Am I a racist to say otherwise and point out the bad ones? When is a generalization a deliberate act of hatred or bigoted? We all debate that. It depends on context and intent. Hey I whine to Argus all the time about his getting to general in some comments about ALL Muslims but is it racist if he or someone suggests Islam is used to justify terrorism. Some believe the moment you say that its racist. Oh face it we live in a censored society obsessed with imagined slights and victims. Cherry's "you people" was a clumsy reference to all of us who came to Canada and all of us did. It was a clumsy reference certain people can use to make themselves feel outraged. His comment was right. We have numerous Canadians new and not so new who have come to this country to enjoy its benefits and refuse to acknowledge the price paid for those benefits. I am a friggin "you people" and I totally agree with him. I am not racist. I hate everyone. As for you just because I disagree with you or vice versa is no big fng deal. We debate right? What happened we can't disagree with people without having to censor them? The people I like the most on this forum I debate all the time. Its a sign of respect. It shows them you listen to what they write. Arguments and disagreements are great. Its what its about. Quite frankly I do not think Cherry gives a damn about his being fired.

Good for you. Listen I can tell you if we say anything students complain. The moment they do not get a mark they like they file a complaint that we are racist aholes. I just went through 12 accusations all found false that took 3 weeks to investigate all precipitated by one ahole who did not like the mark I gave him hiding behind the race card. Its a fact of life. Freedom of speech is dead. If someone like me says anything it gets thrown back at us in a different context and meaning. Students illegally and without consent tape and film us with their cell phone and add and delete. I had a student tape and film me knowing another was. The other who wanted to complain to me sent in his cut version and I had the other one to back me up. Its ridiculous the lengths students go today to complain when they do not get a good mark. That is another issue. Is it racist though for me to say we have absolutely watered down the standard of education to accommodate international students who pay big bucks to go to our schools amounting to 7 billion a year? Is it racist to say they often can not read or write English at grade 5 level and I am told not to fail them? Its it racist to say the schools now cater to international students as a cash cow and its destroyed the school system? Is that racist? I am the first to commend and assist good international students and they exist. Am I a racist to say otherwise and point out the bad ones? When is a generalization a deliberate act of hatred or bigoted? We all debate that. It depends on context and intent. Hey I whine to Argus all the time about his getting to general in some comments about ALL Muslims but is it racist if he or someone suggests Islam is used to justify terrorism. Some believe the moment you say that its racist. Oh face it we live in a censored society obsessed with imagined slights and victims. Cherry's "you people" was a clumsy reference to all of us who came to Canada and all of us did. It was a clumsy reference certain people can use to make themselves feel outraged. His comment was right. We have numerous Canadians new and not so new who have come to this country to enjoy its benefits and refuse to acknowledge the price paid for those benefits. I am a friggin "you people" and I totally agree with him. I am not racist. I hate everyone. As for you just because I disagree with you or vice versa is no big fng deal. We debate right? What happened we can't disagree with people without having to censor them? The people I like the most on this forum I debate all the time. Its a sign of respect. It shows them you listen to what they write. Arguments and disagreements are great. Its what its about. Quite frankly I do not think Cherry gives a damn about his being fired.

"You people who come here" is reference to the entire country. You have chosen it to mean only immigrants. As for immigrants which we all are, too many of us are complacent. You have chosen to recontextualize the words only to mean who ever you think it is you feel outraged over. You don't speak for my family that is for sure. We agree with Cherry and please don't tell me my family do not have immigrants in them. One of those immigrants is a war veteran he is defending. Why is your take on what he said the only one there is? In fact its precisely people like you, "you people" specifically meaning you in this case who are faux righteous. Yah you care so much about "you people". This is about you wanting to feel righteous at Cherry's expense. Go on act all shocked and outraged. I am pissed off like Cherry at people who came to this country and that is all of us, who came to enjoy its rights and freedoms but can't take the time once a year to wear a poppy. Its not virtue signalling as Dougie says. Its remembering the dead. We have to remember the dead so history does not repeat. All of us who came to this country have to remember the price people paid so we can be who and what we are. That is what he said. You want to twist it to mean something else good for you.

I do other shit too. Lol. By the way "you people" the way he said it meant anyone not just new Canadians which is the actual point. People hear and take things in the context they want it to, to become outraged. I have students claiming I am racist for saying things like "new Canadians pay higher premium rates because they are not considered to have a a sufficient Canadian driving history" which I went on to explain very clearly and I was still accused of being racist by 5 students. I was also accused by them of being a pervert because I used the word "naked" top describe a case of nuisance in a real case where a neighbour complained about his neighbour being naked in the back yard and I explained he was allowed. I have taught 18 years and been accused of every ism and then some when a mark is too low, etc. Free debate in universities and colleges is censored by administrations who want their cash from international students which amounts to 7 billion a year in Canada. So we cater. We cater to illiteracy, ignorance, closed minds, so that we can fill schools now with international students. Some will go on to do great and wonderful things, others will be a drain on our society because we kiss their asses. Does that make me evil to say? We all say it like it is including you who I disagree with at times. So fking what right? We are supposed to be able to disagree and have opinions. If we say hateful things call us on it sure. He said "you people" as in all Canadians and righteous people recontextualized the word to mean only immigrants. Well many new Canadians particularly my students do not know Canadian history and ask about poppies and tell me they will never wear them and do not care. It is what it is. Its a fact. Poppies and Canadian history of WW2 or other wars does not resonate with many new Canadians who do not like the Queen, monarchy or are much interested in our past. It is a fact. It doesn't give me the right to hate any immigrants. My friggin parents were refugees. However I have the right to agree with Cherry because my father was a WW2 vet and he's 95 and I am angry at how so many of "you people" don't give a damn about such sacrifices.

He meant what he said because it has truth to it. He is no racist he just says it as he sees it. I see where I live which is where he is from the same thing.

He will resurface. Talk about politically proper over-reaction. If what he said was not true it wouldn't bother anyone like it has. Its because what he said has truth to it that makes it bite and causes the reaction it does.