Rue

Relax. I called this professor and she has no issue with your penis. She says she calls all of us with them Oscar Myer Wieners but she means us no ill will.

You can tell the above nonsensical gibberish is communicated through a translator. Its past the point of spambot trolling.

Bloomberg is too old and so is Trump and Biden. They need to go to an old age home and fight it out. Old is good but not when you have no stamina to back it up. The 3 of them are gum sucking droolers.

I teach 5 classes at colleges and universities which is 95 percent new Canadians and never have I seen a student wear a poppy. Does it make me evil to say that?

I have choice negative words for Biden as well and I believe the entire Obama regime and him have a lot of skeletons just as the Clinton and Bush regimes do. All joking a side and dead serious the Epstein fiasco again reminds us of the depth of depravity in elite circles of power whether it be monarchy, business or politics including entertainment and sports. Biden and Clinton and the Obama regime drip with corruption and perversion but so does Trump. That said Trump is as depraved and is a symptom of the exact same moral erosion. It is true the economy is better off than under Obama in certain aspects but poverty, homelessness, is higher and more people die of treatable diseases not being able to afford hospitalization. Trump serves as a smoke screen and distraction from the true agenda none of us know. He's in power as a useful distraction while people we do not know carry out their agenda. The US is now more alienated domestically than it was under Obama. Trump has not countered anything negative Obama has done as he has promised nor has he cleaned up any swamps. What he has done in three years is to continually fire anyone working for him as well as spend each day on twitter sending out illiterate, demented hateful diatribes lowering POTUS to a constipated child having a tantrum. No Democrat has emerged as a counter to Trump. I for that reason alone defend Romney as the only politician in the US at this point with any decency for taking on Trump. The only reason he is not President is people did not want Mormon in office. He lost the crucial evangelical vote for that reason. In retrospect his warning about Russia was dead on as were his comments on China and the Middle East. This was a man born a classic conservative on economy and who evolved as a moderate on social issues enough to get elected in Kennedy country before he went back to Utah. I would much prefer him as the next President at this point. He showed he could balance the opposing views fairly without nastiness. I wish Ted Kennedy had not died he would have at least told Trump off as would Tip O'Neil or a healthy John McCain. I would have loved to have witnessed what William Buckley would have said about Trump.

Hey he's your man. Vlad made sure of that. Enjoy. Give my regards to Natasha.

The entire comment Reefer. I might even slightly agree with some of it but its presumptious and arrogant for you and I to think everything Albertans or their leader does is wrong or without reason. I also don't write off our oil industry or tar sands although I want us and the world off the addiction of oil. There are two sides at least to every situation. Please do nto tell me Trudeau is not a pro Quebec regionalist.

That is one way to avoid the problem yes. See no evil it no longer exists. I appreciate you want them for target practice. Got news for you, as much as you kill them, rats never go away. They just evolve and get stronger You might want to try get rid of the source of their food.One other thing not that you would know. Under the right circumstances rats are actually clean, affectionate, loyal, and help save thousands of lives a year. Hey some people fill them full of rice and eat them. They are low in cholesterol. Guess it all depends on your perspective.

Its not and its the same place any drug addict gets their crap from. Most people in jail are there for crimes under 5,000 bucks to feed drug habits. Aboriginals represent over 80% of the prisoners in our jails the vast majority with crimes under 5,000 related to alcohol and drug addiction. That when added to epidemic mass suicide levels of children and teens in aboriginal communities indicates a clear social issue. From what I have seen in the courts drug addiction puts a strain on police, medics, firefighters, all first responders, i.e., social workers, doctors, nurses. I will just say its a battle and that while it has a particular meaning in aboriginal communities has a related meaning in the rest of our country. For me I witness it as a spiritual disease, a maladaption by people who can not adjust. Some argue it is natural evolution of the survival of the fittest and dying off of the weakest others have more compassionate theories. Me personally I got no use for people who piss on or light on fire passed out druggies or boozers. I prefer to spend my time telling the people on the front lines I appreciate what they are doing because someone has to if not for the love of God, the sake of human decency.

I made a typo on the above. The second sentence should have read, "Funny you think this about your mother. I can see why." It wasn't funny actually . I meant to question why you stereotype protesters that way. Now I see you are back again with the name calling, this time calling protesters "stupid snakes", specifically: "Now the protesters are just like this stupid snake. It eats its tail because it believe its tail is another snake which is attacking it. It bits. It feels pain. Then it thinks "I was attacked by another snake, I should bit it harder for revenge". After it bits harder, it feels more pain and goes into vicious circle. In the reality of HK, Carrie Lam and HK police is the man who is trying to save the snake in the video." Let's be clear the above is YOUR reality. You see snakes and you see people wanting to rape your mother. That is your reality. Speaking only for myself, I don't see protesters in Hong Kong as violent perverts wanting to rape your mother or any mother or as you now call them, snakes. In fact may I say I think snakes get a bad rap ever since that Adam and Eve story. I say stand up for snakes. I also say the same thing about pigs but of course on this threadyou have not called HK protesters pigs yet so I can only comment on your snake reference and say..XUL please read this: https://savethesnakes.org/s/why-snakes/ Snakes are our friends! Stand up for snakes!

Sounds like you have problems with things that are not black or white. Can't help you. I live in a world of many colours like the urine yellow hair of Donald Trump.

You presented a partisan subjective opinion that presumes to tell Albertans what is good for them. Ironic given you accuse others of having delusions of grandeur. With due respect you drip with Justin Trudeau syndrome.

Wait don't tell me your favourite teams are the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians.

First responders see so many drug addicts in various stages of overdose and the same ones for that matter that they due become desensitized to it. Some times that does raise questions in communities with high rates of drug addiction and overdose and that desensitization is thought to be caused by racist attitudes when it may not be the ethnicity but the constant exposure to the same group with the same problem and then becoming used to it that causes the perceived complacency. Its difficult to say. Police are not paramedics no but they sure as hell are social workers. They are most often the first responders to od's and especially domestic violence. They talk down people from violence, defuse violence, mediate, counsel people-its part of their job to be social workers and they will tell you it is. However yes they are not supposed to be paramedics now and they are limited in what first aid they can provide depending on the police force and the response time of paramedics and fire. The concept is that a paramedic or fireman is more trained in certain procedures than police so less likely to expose the city or province to liability. They have been told to back off with certain things to avoid exposing their cities to claims. That said I do think though West raised some key issues that are race are colour blind and ask the kinds of questions the public has the right to know about and Judges may feel required to protect society against.

Greg and Charles are code names for operatives from Tonga sent to spy on us. They never ever had me fooled even for a second. When Tonga invades I warned all you fools.

Bill Clinton was given a blow job and then tried to weasel his way out of admitting he got a blow job. Just say it. They did not put him through stage 1 of the Impeachment process for anything else. Clinton and his wife as we know have a better understanding were involved in numerous conflict of interest business deals while in office that could, if proven have very well got him removed from office but at the time all they had was a blow job and a stain on a dress. The issue now which is the issue Clinton's behavior can not change is Trump's business activities before and during his time in office as well as his conduct while in office with Ukraine. No one has questioned Trump getting a blow job. In fact the media won't go near his 3rd wife and they should. Her father lives in the US and follows Donald Trump everywhere. That man, Melania's father, was a KGB operative and a high up in the Communist Party and no one questions what the hell he does in the US. No one questions the fact that Melania Trump is the son of a KGB operative and worked in an escort agency with ties to Epstein when she met Trump. No one questions how Trump is compromised and is being manipulated by the successor to the KGB and Putin. Instead of worrying about where Monica's lips were, you might want to check out how Trump bragged about how many commie women he bagged, using his own words, and how he is compromised and being blackmailed. I could send you the photos of Melania pissing on his head if you want. Its a small world. His hair didn't turn that weird yellow for just any reason. Clinton was a dirty conflicted Prez and now Trump is. One does not make the other disappear or make him more moral. They both are herpes-even if there exact strains are a bit different. Herpes is herpes. Its spread by questionable behavior. As for other politicians, the fact they are corrupted does not change what Trump is doing. Now let's deal with Biden one last time. Of course his son has his father's name and that probably was why he was placed on a board of directors. Of course. Proving it then led to corruption or compromised dealings that impacted on US foreign policy is the question. If Trump backers think there is evidence then they should understand, an independent legal investigation not one the President tries to coerce using his powers of office, is the way to go about conducting the investigation, especially when the President is openly in a political campaign to be relected running against Joe Biden. He used his office for partisan issues, that is the issue. He was not and is not allowed. He must remain arm's length from any legal investigation. He has no legal right to initiate or use his office to pressure sovereign state governments to conduct legal investigations where he has a direct partisan interest which is what he did. Now we know Ukraine thinks Trump was a paranoid nutcase, placated him, pretended to do an investigation like he asked, and never did so they could get military assistance. Next, Trump's sons and daughter benefit from his Presidency to augment their businesses and profits and Trump holds them to a different standard than Biden's son. If he truly was concerned about nepotism and family interests why would he hire his son in law? Why does he have his daughter tramping about posing in the white house in some who knows what role while running a business at the same time? Why are his sons making profit in businesses that benefit from clients who give them business because their father is the President? Have Trump's sons' businesses refused to deal with people they think want favours from his father? Children of celebrities and politicians don't choose their lot in life, they inherit it. They can then choose to distance themselves from it dramatically or accept it as an inevitable consequence and try figure out whether to use it as a curse or benefit. Whether they use it to break laws or influence peddle is up to a neutral, independent legal body to investigate and decide.

You could also say because he operates with such personal hatred and animus never before seen in the POTUS and using his Twitter to display an unstable, illiterate non stop series of alienating, mentally disturbed bull shit, its caused the House of Representatives, Senate, court system and media to struggle to deal with the historical perspective he now is imposing on the US.

No but we should expect ALL politicians to be far better than say Trudeau or Trump. We have grown complacent as the standard of expected moral behavior has lowered itself. There has been an erosion since Nixon. With due respect Y because we will always disagree with this, I think the US is far better than accepting Trump as acceptable and I say the same about Canada and Trudeau. We've settled for light weight idiots.

Yer not naïve. Youz ryt real good stuff on the threads.

I agree with Y. Bush Chaney is a gem. I love to give her a what for in debates. She is well written, spoken and don't let the pro Yank barbs fool you. I have nothing but respect for her and quite frankly all the pro Trump supporters on this thread like Y who knows that too but they all are fools for supporting Trump and I will get them all and not stop until Pee We Herman is President.

That is how it is used in the AMERICAN sense. It its actual true and original legal context its a two step process which includes the recommending of charges BUT ALSO THE prosecution, conviction and subsequent removal from office. The original concept comes from unwritten British constitutional law. It evolved as it is to the American version where they simply use the word impeachment to describe the initial stage 1 in the Congress. The problem with that is most Americans have no clue what it means when its used in that limited way and think it means finding the person impeached guilty. Americans are not too swift when it comes to their own government processes or laws and so they in addition to watering down full legal concepts and using inaccurate names think their definition is the best and only one. Seriously Godzilla the American use of the word impeachment is not the only one but Americans believe it is so I am just giving the most venerable Yank on the board a hard time. Someone needs to put her in her colonial upstart place. Yanks need to appreciate the legal systems they inherited and get back to using them in the true context they were envisioned not give half assed definitions that are inaccurate. All kidding aside I get it I do. Thanks. God bless America.

You compare apples to oranges or a blow job to a situation with many legal nuances and issues to be investigated so of course the processes have different time lines. One deals with far more complex issues to consider.

1. The process of impeachment is established by the U.S. Constitution. 2-The impeachment process must be initiated in the House of Representatives with the passage of a resolution listing the charges or “Articles of Impeachment” against the official being impeached. 3-If passed by the House, the Articles of Impeachment are considered by the Senate in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the 100 Senators serving as the jury. 4-If the Senate votes in favor of conviction by a 2/3 supermajority vote (67 votes), the Senate will then vote to remove the official from office. 5-The House of Representatives in fact recommends an impeachment trial. 6-The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House by the Senate. 7-The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.The trial will be held with the president represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members serves as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides with all 100 Senators acting as the jury. 8-The Senate meets in private session to debate a verdict. 9-The Senate, in open session, votes on a verdict. 10-A 2/3 supermajority vote of the Senate will result in a conviction. 11-The Senate will vote to remove the President from office. 12-The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future. You use the word impeachment to refer to the exercise of the House of Representatives recommending a trial for charges against the President for with a crime or misconduct In your use, impeachment is the first step in removing an officer from office and you stop there with the use of the word. Unlike you I go further because I do not adopt incorrect incomplete definitions of legal processes that as you engage in stop prematurely half way through the actual impeachment process. To me that is inaccurate and as you prove becomes a game of misleading semantics. The impeachment process is in the House of Representatives is legally meaningless without its second stage in the Senate and that is why Clinton stayed in power. The fact that you Ms. BC and many other Americans misappropriate the word impeachment to refer only to recommending charges be tried in the Senate does not and can not change the actual full process of impeachment and its origins. With due respect Ms. BC you Yankees have never appreciated nor taken the time to understand the British rule of law you rebelled from. This would explain why you elect who you do and why your country has become a travesty in terms of how it runs itself. In its actual true definition, impeachment started by the British for their parliamentary system which the Americans then copied, was a process in which the parliament of Britain BOTH prosecuted AND tried, not simply prosecuted, holders of public office. You remove it from its full context and processes.. I am aware the first impeachment process in fact TRIED the 4th Baron William Latimer in 1376 thank you. It was then last used on the 1st Viscount Melville, Henry Dundas in 1806. It most certainly referred not to just the recommendation of a trial of impeachment but the conviction and removal from office of a public official. In its original and accurate sense and context it was always used to refer to removing from office by legal order as a result of a conviction a public official. In fact you might want to look at your own constitutional process of impeachment, impeachment has no meaning legally, i.e., it does not definine culpability or guilt unless a conviction and/or removal of office by legal order is rendered. Until that conviction or removal, the presumption of innocence remains no different than based on the finding of a Preliminary Inquiry in Canada or a Grand Jury in the US in that they are limited to determining sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial and can not render any verdict as to guilt or innocence. Articles of impeachment do not impeach in the US , they in fact provide and recommend grounds or charges be considered at a Senate Impeachment Trial. These articles still have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to render a conviction and therefore have any meaning in law. When the House of Lords received articles of impeachment, i.e., recommendations of what charges to try to determine if a peer should be removed there was no order of removal until the final determination rendered a verdict requiring a removal, i.e., high treason. This is no different in the US. To pretend the impeachment process is only a one step phenomena and you can refer to someone as "impeached" when they have not been removed from office is inaccurate and renders the true point of the process meaningless. Impeachment is about removing someone from office for a crime or unreasonable conduct not simply suggesting a trial be convened to determine if they did. It has always been a two stage process and remains incomplete and therefore without legal meaning until the verdict was and is reached. Your engagement of semantics to try call someone "impeached" is misleading and inaccurate. Its an inappropriate and incomplete reference to the two stage process Trump will never me removed from office using your term impeached. In my world until he is removed from office based on a legal order based on a conviction from the US Senate he has not been impeached. Most lawyers like me use the term the way I do because we know without a conviction any names used mislead and lead to improper conclusions about guilt and confuse people into believing being impeached the way you use it also means someone is guilty of misconduct or a crime. In conclusion Trump is a lying immoral stain and puppet used by Putin to humiliate the US and its time the US take back their nation from Putin and Erdogan. You need a revolution. I am sending Justin to liberate you. Dear lady you Yanks will never be free if you insist on placing people with hair the colour of urine in your highest office.

According to you an impeachment needs no Senate conviction or legal order of rental based on that convctiontion to impeach the President simply asking for an impeachment trial is an impeachment....sorry but you have a selective take on the actual impeachment process. It has 2 stages not 1.

So now your reasoning is an impeachment trial that does not convict and order removal from office none the less is an impeachment...please continue..and I am happy you are having fun...me too!