Kim Campbell Needs a Head Shake.....Badly.

[betsy]

If Canadians, especially former Prime Ministers - even those that are short time failures - would criticize anyone, they ought to make sure they don't end up looking too foolish, and becoming an embarrassment.

 

Trump is a self-celebrating 'sexual predator,' says Canada's 1st female PM

Kim Campbell also says Trump's suggestion election is rigged is 'a crime against democracy'

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kim-campbell-describes-trump-as-dangerous-for-democracy-1.3800280

 

First of all, Ms Campbell seemed to be unaware that the so-called, "self-celebrating sexual predator," was indulging in a

private conversation with Billy Bush. 

Had that conversation remained private, it wouldn't have offended anyone. 

 

The only reason we know about that conversation, is due to the fact that someone had violated someone's privacy and we're nothing more than eavesdroppers.  We are self-celebrating "eavesdroppers".....and so many of us had wilfully taken the locker room banter out of context, and had used it to smear these two men.  It's like hearing something that's not meant to be heard, and spreading it!  It's gossip! 

Billy Bush was suspended indefinitely from his job, thanks to the media that violated his privacy.  If there's anything to criticize Trump and Bush for, it'll be for their carelessness around an open mic.  Still, that doesn't give anyone the right to breach someone's privacy (hurting so many people in the process like Nancy O'Dell (and her family), and Arianne Zucker (and her family), Trump's and Bush's.

So what is Kim Campbell actually saying.......there's no such thing as freedom of speech (even in private?) 

 Well, if that's how Kim campbell thinks, we've been spared from who knows what other idiocy she would've been capable of doing as a sitting Prime Minister.  Good thing she sat for only a few months! 

 

Too bad the headline pointed out she's Canada's  First female PM.  There goes the first female Prime Minister we're so proud of!   What a shame.

She just perpetuated the myth that women don't think!

 

Kim Campbell's borrowed rhetorics (let's face it, it's not even original).......

 

.............is a crime against the Constitution!

 

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Had that conversation remained private, it wouldn't have offended anyone. 

So what is Kim Campbell actually saying.......there's no such thing as freedom of speech (even in private?) 

No, had the conversation remained private, it would still have been just as offensive, only nobody would know about it.

To your second point here, I'm going to teach you a valuable lesson. Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from criticism. In fact, the freedom to criticize speech is the fundamental reason for freedom of speech. More importantly, it doesn't apply to matters between individuals. Freedom of Speech, as has been pointed out at least a hundred times on this forum, is the freedom from the government sanctions against speech and, in Canada, it's subject to "reasonable limits."

Tying your freedom of speech statement into the privacy of the conversation, I'm absolutely certain Kim Campbell doesn't want Trump censored. He should run his mouth more, so we can continue to see what a disgusting pile of orange garbage he is. 




I would also like to remind you that you're out of step not only with other conservatives, such as the Republicans who've denounced him, but you're also out of step with Evangelical Christians. Which ones? You can read about it here, but let me save you the click.

Beth Moore, author and founder of Living Proof Ministries said:

Quote

Wake up, Sleepers, to what women have dealt with all along in environments of gross entitlement & power. Are we sickened? Yes. Surprised? NO

Try to absorb how acceptable the disesteem and objectifying of women has been when some Christian leaders don't think it's that big a deal.

I'm one among many women sexually abused, misused, stared down, heckled, talked naughty to. Like we liked it. We didn't. We're tired of it.

Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's political arm said:

Quote

What a disgrace. What a scandal to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to the integrity of our witness. 

http://thebea.st/2dTtssa

He's talking about you and other evangelicals who turn a blind eye not to Trump's lack of morality, but his immorality.

Russell Moore continues:

Quote

The political Religious Right Establishment wonders why the evangelical next generation rejects their way. Today illustrates why.

The damage done to the gospel this year, by so-called evangelicals, will take longer to recover from than the '80s TV evangelist scandals.

And, for what? For what? The cynicism and nihilism behind this is horrifying to behold.

Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

Quote

I am humiliated by arguments about character I am hearing tonight from some evangelicals. Lord, help us.

Do you understand that? The leadership in your community is humiliated by your arguments about Trump's character.

Mohler went on to pen an opinion piece in The Washington Post. He writes:

Quote

[Christian conservatives] are wrong, I believe, to serve as apologists for Donald Trump ... The release of the sexually-explicit tape revealed Trump in a light that must be the worst nightmare for the candidate’s campaign. It revealed a sexual predator, not merely a playboy.

Collin Hansen, editorial director for the Gospel Coalition writes:

Quote

Grace abounds for Christians who fall short of the glory of God and call on the name of Jesus for forgiveness and salvation. But woe to the hypocrites who hold the most powerful leader in the world to a lower standard than they do the searching young believer who desires to serve God and neighbor.

Andy Crouch, editorial director of Christianity Today writes:

Quote

Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord. They see that some of us are so self-interested, and so self-protective, that we will ally ourselves with someone who violates all that is sacred to us — in hope, almost certainly a vain hope given his mendacity and record of betrayal, that his rule will save us.

I could go on and on with the rest of the quotes. I could also point you to the Mormon Leadership abandoning Trump. But what does it matter? You're steadfastly rejecting the morality and values of your Christian traditions. For what? Political power? Shame on you. And shame on you especially for turning your back on women, excusing away the vile and disgusting behaviour Trump bragged about engaging in. It's not how he said it. It's what he said. Talking about women like they're nothing more than pieces of meat, nothing more than sex puppets for his sick pleasures. Does that really mean nothing to you? As a woman and a Christian, how can you live with yourself and your faith supporting a man like that? Does it not concern you in the least that Trump's words are nearly as immoral as it gets?

But don't listen to me. It's your own community of conservative Christians condemning Trump because he defies Christian morality. He's not just lacking morals, the words out of his mouth present to you a man who is completely immoral, defiling women and shaming his own marriage and family. I'm not the one telling you this, other conservative Christians are telling you this.

I will leave you with a passage from the Bible because I don't want you to listen to me. I want you to realize what you're doing to yourself. You're rabble rousing to free Barabbas (Matthew 27).

Edited October 12, 2016 by cybercoma

[betsy]

54 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

No, had the conversation remained private, it would still have been just as offensive,

 

Read again!  Understand what you read.  I said....

 

it wouldn't have offended anyone. 

 

 

Quote

 

only nobody would know about it.

 

Exactly.  What you don't know won't hurt!  I stopped reading the rest of your post  after that.

Edited October 12, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Just now, betsy said:

Read again!  Understand what you read.  I said....

 

it wouldn't have offended anyone. 

 

 

How do you know there was no offense among the people whose pussies he's grabbed or the teen beauty pageant contestants that he (and they) claimed he walked in on when they were nude in the changing room? You're operating under the premise that everything he says is untrue, which given the circumstances makes sense, but don't you think that, given there are women out there who claimed even before this leak that he grabbed their pussies, maybe he was telling the truth?

[WestCoastRunner]

29 minutes ago, betsy said:

Exactly.  What you don't know won't hurt!  I stopped reading the rest of your post  after that.

Why did you stop reading?  Afraid of the truth?

[cybercoma]

5 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Why did you stop reading?  Afraid of the truth?

Of course. The cognitive dissonance of supporting a man who completely defies her values and morality must be painful. She doesn't even want to see the words of her own community against him. It's pretty sad.

[Wilber]

34 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Of course. The cognitive dissonance of supporting a man who completely defies her values and morality must be painful. She doesn't even want to see the words of her own community against him. It's pretty sad.

 

 

Eerily similar

[betsy]

4 hours ago, cybercoma said:

Andy Crouch, editorial director of Christianity Today writes:

I could go on and on with the rest of the quotes. I could also point you to the Mormon Leadership abandoning Trump. But what does it matter? You're steadfastly rejecting the morality and values of your Christian traditions. For what? Political power? Shame on you. And shame on you especially for turning your back on women, excusing away the vile and disgusting behaviour Trump bragged about engaging in. It's not how he said it. It's what he said. Talking about women like they're nothing more than pieces of meat, nothing more than sex puppets for his sick pleasures. Does that really mean nothing to you? As a woman and a Christian, how can you live with yourself and your faith supporting a man like that? Does it not concern you in the least that Trump's words are nearly as immoral as it gets?

But don't listen to me. It's your own community of conservative Christians condemning Trump because he defies Christian morality. He's not just lacking morals, the words out of his mouth present to you a man who is completely immoral, defiling women and shaming his own marriage and family. I'm not the one telling you this, other conservative Christians are telling you this.

I will leave you with a passage from the Bible because I don't want you to listen to me. I want you to realize what you're doing to yourself. You're rabble rousing to free Barabbas (Matthew 27).

Well I don't care what others may think.  My opinion is not dictated to, by others. That's their own opinion.  I've got my own.  And I'm right, because my argument is about the Constitution!  We all have the right to our opinion, free speech.  Disregarding the violations of some Constitutional rights make everything else hypocritical! 

 

You guys, the champion of the woman's RIGHT TO PRIVACY ought to understand that, right?  So you're saying it's really only women who have that right? What a joke!   See what I mean about the libs being a confused lot?

 

I thought Kim Campbell was a conservative.....until she'd shown her true color.  She's a blasted lib!

. 

I don't know why you have to bring up Christianity Today's editorial because, it doesn't take away from the fact that the private conversation between the two was not meant for others' ears.  Their privacy was violated.....and most folks - including some fellow-Christians, and of course, Canada's first female PM -  - celebrate in that violation.

 

Had that conversation remained private, no one would've been offended.  The editorial of Christianity Today should've given a stinging sermon on those who want to stir trouble (with no regards for those innocents that would get hurt in the process).  And instead, it should've comforted those who'd found offense for this banter......by reminding them of the virtue of "turning the other cheek".....and to the lynch mob, the folly of "casting the first stone."   What's the teachings about gossips?  Especially, malicious gossips?

That would've been more in-lined with the Teachings.  Imho.  Since you've brought up religion (again).

Edited October 12, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

How Kim Campbell treats free expression is her own adaptation to China's.  Except, hers is.....lite. 

China-lite.

 

Now, we can't wag our finger anymore at China.  I now agree with China defending herself by pointing her finger back at her critics! 

Edited October 12, 2016 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

Kim Campbell is just another Canadian trying to stay relevant with American content.

[betsy]

23 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Kim Campbell is just another Canadian trying to stay relevant with American content.

So true. 

You see, it's the title she carries........it makes Canadian broadcasters to be smug about the fact that we've got our first female PM long ago.....while you're just trying to get one elected now.  Like as if it's some kinda race or something to get a female in there.

Such a shame that her opinion had shown that our first female PM turned out to be a dud.

Edited October 12, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Betsy, you don't even understand the simplest matter here: criticizing the content of someone's speech does not violate their free speech. Until you get over that hurdle, there's not much else to say to you.

[BubberMiley]

52 minutes ago, betsy said:

How Kim Campbell treats free expression is her own adaptation to China's.  Except, hers is.....lite. 

 

So you think no one should have paid attention to Trump's Russia-doctored wikileaks emails because they might violate the privacy of the supposed senders? That's an actual illegal invasion of privacy. Hearing what people are saying on a microphone because they're too stupid to remember that they're wearing it is not, by comparison, illegal.

[The_Squid]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Kim Campbell is just another Canadian trying to stay relevant with American content.

 

Cue the hypocrite.....  who clearly cares and follows Canadian politics more deeply and passionately than most Canadians do....

[BubberMiley]

So if I have this straight: Hearing someone accidentally speak on a microphone is an invasion of privacy; having a foreign power illegally hack emails is not. Disagreeing with someone is a violation of freedom of speech; telling them they should not be allowed to express that disagreement because "it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL" is not.

Edited October 12, 2016 by BubberMiley

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

So if I have this straight: Hearing someone accidentally speak on a microphone is an invasion of privacy; having a foreign power hack illegally emails is not. Disagreeing with someone is a violation of freedom of speech; telling them they should not be allowed to express that disagreement because "it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL" is not.

I think the most important element is which name is attached to which action. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, BubberMiley said:

So if I have this straight: Hearing someone accidentally speak on a microphone is an invasion of privacy; having a foreign power hack illegally emails is not. Disagreeing with someone is a violation of freedom of speech; telling them they should not be allowed to express that disagreement because "it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL" is not.

One must be able to warp logic and ethics like a contortionist to support Trump.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

So true. 

You see, it's the title she carries........it makes Canadian broadcasters to be smug about the fact that we've got our first female PM long ago.....while you're just trying to get one elected now.  Like as if it's some kinda race or something to get a female in there.

Such a shame that her opinion had shown that our first female PM turned out to be a dud.

Our first female PM was saddled with Mulroney"s baggage. No way was any Conservative going to win that election. It was compounded by her own inexperience, outspokenness and the idiot Conservative back room boys who ran her campaign.

 

I actually think she could have made a pretty good PM under different circumstances but I'm getting the impression you don't like the idea of women in positions of power.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

I actually think she could have made a pretty good PM under different circumstances but I'm getting the impression you don't like the idea of women in positions of power.

Betsy's view of the Bible forbids it.

[betsy]

56 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Our first female PM was saddled with Mulroney"s baggage. No way was any Conservative going to win that election. It was compounded by her own inexperience, outspokenness and the idiot Conservative back room boys who ran her campaign.

 

I actually think she could have made a pretty good PM under different circumstances but I'm getting the impression you don't like the idea of women in positions of power.

Whatever.

It's her remarks above that got her blown!  Read my OP.

[betsy]

Kim Campbell ought to have instead, asked:

 

Why isn't Hillary rebuking the source of that leak?
What media published it publicly? It was the Washington Post, if I'm not mistaken. What happened to ethics? Why hasn't anyone rebuked or criticized the Washington Post for releasing it?

Why is Hillary not fighting for the right to opinion and speech? To violation of privacy? And yet, she claims to fight for the right to privacy.


The Washington Post, showed a total disregard for all the people that were hurt by that video. I suppose, the feelings of Nancy O'Dell, Arianne Zucker (and their families), and the families of Trump and Bush don't count at all.


As someone running to become the president of the USA - and for the sake of the people that were hurt by that video, most of them women - Hillary has the responsibility to uphold the right to free speech and opinion.
Even when we don't agree to the speech! After all, that conversation was private.
It should've remained private!

Instead of leading the lynching mob in trampling the Constitution, Hillary shouldn't have let her anger at Trump to get the better of her.

She should've used her better judgement.

Edited October 12, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Rather than spouting propaganda, why don't you address the concerns of the religious right who are abandoning Trump, as I pointed out in my first reply? You've done nothing to respond to those concerns.

[Wilber]

27 minutes ago, betsy said:

Whatever.

It's her remarks above that got her blown!  Read my OP.

Yes betsy, everyone should shut up and pretend it didn't happen because in Trumpland, not treating women like meat qualifies you for sainthood.

 

BTW, it is your beloved Donald who has threatened to try and do away the First Amendment plus make it easier to sue people for exercising their free speech.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Wilber
Add on & correction

[BubberMiley]

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

She should've used her better judgement.

Rather than avoiding relevant comparisons, do you have the courage to explain how you feel about how the Trump camp and media should be responding to the Wikileaks emails? Should they have remained private? How about Donald quoting yesterday from the one he received directly from the Kremlin that wound up being fake? Is it still an invasion of privacy when it's all just lies?

[cybercoma]

And treating them like meat qualifies you for the presidency.