Jump to content

Conservative Leadership September 10th


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

According to the Calgary Herald,

I followed the Hinshaw trial.  It was more than that.

She was definitely questioned as to what science she was following for all the mandates, lockdowns and restrictions.

She had no answer.  "Just following orders."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I followed the Hinshaw trial.  It was more than that.

She was definitely questioned as to what science she was following for all the mandates, lockdowns and restrictions.

She had no answer.  "Just following orders."

But are you saying the Dr. Henry and Dr. Henshaw would administer a noxious substance? Do you believe there is no possibility you have been misinformed and the medical professionals know what they are talking about? That would require you to have more expertise than the medical professionals?

You don't need to answer that. We need to turn this back to the Leadership campaign. This has no relevance to the campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadians sleep walking to tyranny.  The only way some think (and they may be right) to defeat Turd o is selecting a limp wristed milquetoast as CPC leader.  I generally don't pay much attention to this thread because the outcome is likely dire no matter what.  Anyone remember the turtle and rabbit analogy from The Hunt?  Any outcome will do nothing to stop speech codes and other restrictions on free speech.  Harper let the kangaroo courts continue under his watch some call the Human Rights Commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

But are you saying the Dr. Henry and Dr. Henshaw would administer a noxious substance? Do you believe there is no possibility you have been misinformed and the medical professionals know what they are talking about? That would require you to have more expertise than the medical professionals?

You don't need to answer that. We need to turn this back to the Leadership campaign. This has no relevance to the campaign.

Well were off the topic a bit, but seems like the COVID question will not go away.  Interesting conversations since I have discovered an element of conservatism that can actually tread the middle ground without becoming some Heath loving surrender monkey.  With COVID, with gun rights, with prostitution and illicit drugs, I have moved a bit away from Libertarian positions and I think I can do that without sliding into the same pigeon holes that left wing fanaticism resides.  

I will concede that the powers seemed to relinquish their COVID emergency powers once the outbreak started sorted itself out.  I was never fully convinced that they would cede power back, and was alarmed, maybe incorrectly, that Ford in Ontario was apparently quite draconian with his measures.  Though we did not go the Australia new zealand route of curfews - good God.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be big on multilateralism and global treaties and fora.  I now see that too many extremely rich elites and sketchy governments run these shows which are totally unaccountable to citizens.  No unelected foreign powers should dictate our policies.  MLAs must never be beholden to them.

 I also think our rights need to be supplemented and much better protected.  The policies to fight Covid have probably done more damage than Covid itself, especially after vaccines became widely available yet restrictions continued and vax mandates were implemented.  Kids are damaged.  Non-Covid deaths climbed significantly due substance abuse, suicide, and other causes, according to the insurance industry.  Stripping away freedoms kills in body and spirit.  Add the confusion of woke race-based inquisitions and gender experimentation to amp up the total collapse of social stability.

Government overreach and left-wing radicalism has reaped havoc at a time we needed solidity.  Families and traditions torn apart by public health policy and attacks on “colonial” and “patriarchal” Canada.  Exaggerated claims of historic oppression taken out of historic context.

I’m not sure if we can fully rebuild, and powerful people are quite happy to see the freedom and living standards of the billions of humans reduced to build their environmentally pure world.  We’ve seen what the goal of health purity and zero Covid does to societies.  We’re watching the impacts of draconian climate policies like carbon taxes and pipeline cancellations destroy our energy supply and raise our cost of living as foreign dictators add to their energy wealth.

 I’m not sure most Canadians can see past the government, international, and state funded media narratives to see what’s really going on.  Ukraine too is a one-sided story and distraction for most Canadians.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 2:26 PM, eyeball said:

Yes there's still a climate change emergency underway but we have a conservative emergency that's more pressing because of the way it overshadows everything else and suppresses forward movement on virtually everything.

You make everything suck.

No, you said until we have in-camera lobbying Climate change is on hold, You and i both know the in-camera lobby is not going to happen any time soon, so it kind of suggests a low priority.

Climate change has been around for a long time, well at least as long as Justin has been in power and his plan is all we have right now tax the user then give it back to him, that's been the plan for some time, But hey blame it on the conservative's leadership race it's the leftist default.  Maybe Justin is out of his comfort zone on climate change and just wants to punt it down the road like everything else...

meanwhile, Justin has his feet on his desk laughing his ass off because the conservatives could not find their own ass with 4 hands... Sorry good buddy I did not make anything suck, our government did a good job on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 3:36 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Yes, the GG is the highest appointed office, but still appointed. The highest office in Canada is the Queen. She has more authority than the President of the United States. (She has the authority to declare war. In the US, POTUS doesn't).She does not have the authority to vote herself taxes. 

There is a difference between authority and power. Authority is the right to make a decision. Power is the ability to carry it out. 

Since the first principle of Conservatism is loyalty to the Crown, they should have taught all this to you in Conservative school. 😁

She may have power in all those books you read, but we both know that she is a figurehead, an appointment in name only in Canada. If she had the power to declare war on behalf of Canada, why is it they waited for our parliament to declare war in WWII, Korea, and why did we not go to the Falklands.

She (GG) signs what she is told to sign, and when to sign it. That comes from the PM where the real power resonates from...Unless you happen to believe the conspiracy theories and the world elites are in charge and we are just here for the ride...I'm not there yet. I think regular Canadians are f*cking things up just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Does your employer require you to work that way? I expect there could be a charter challenge in there. Just out of curiosity, is there some particular issue that sparked your interest in this?

Years of DFO mismanagement of the salmon fishery but in particular the way hundreds of small boat operators were disenfranchised while BC's biggest fishing corporation wound up with 40% of the coastwide quota.

When fishing DFO requires me to work with cameras recording everything that's happening on deck, GPS logs our exact whereabouts and I validate this further in a detailed paper-log. I hail out when I leave port and hail in when I arrive back. A technician meets us at the unloading plant where the 'black box' containing all the data and camera images that were recorded is taken off the boat and a fresh black box is installed. The information is audited and validated and I'm rated/scored on accuracy and if too many errors accumulate over time I can be assigned a human observer in addition to the above.

This oversight is at my own expense and compliance is a condition of my fishing licence. This is how its been done for years now on the coast.  The monitoring is to protect Canadians interest in the sustainable harvest of a public resource.

I wonder if Canadians think cameras at the meetings leading up to the assignment of 40% of the BC salmon quota to BC's wealthiest billionaire would have been a good idea?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

No, you said until we have in-camera lobbying Climate change is on hold,

Look again, I said nuclear energy should be on hold.

Quote

You and i both know the in-camera lobby is not going to happen any time soon, so it kind of suggests a low priority.

It's transparency and accountability that will be left on hold. I think the deep damage after years of this low priority is reflected in the crisis of misinformation and fake news that has turned so much of the public square into the equivalent of the Tower of Babel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

When fishing DFO requires me to work with cameras recording everything that's happening on deck, GPS logs our exact whereabouts and I validate this further in a detailed paper-log. I hail out when I leave port and hail in when I arrive back. A technician meets us at the unloading plant where the 'black box' containing all the data and camera images that were recorded is taken off the boat and a fresh black box is installed. The information is audited and validated and I'm rated/scored on accuracy and if too many errors accumulate over time I can be assigned a human observer in addition to the above.

Wow. Now I know what you mean. Okay,you've given me food for thought.

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

She may have power in all those books you read, but we both know that she is a figurehead, an appointment in name only in Canada. If she had the power to declare war on behalf of Canada, why is it they waited for our parliament to declare war in WWII, Korea, and why did we not go to the Falklands.

She (GG) signs what she is told to sign, and when to sign it. That comes from the PM where the real power resonates from...Unless you happen to believe the conspiracy theories and the world elites are in charge and we are just here for the ride...I'm not there yet. I think regular Canadians are f*cking things up just fine.

Okay, but you are talking about power. The PM has the power but not the authority. The Queen's position is no different than the power and authority of the President of Germany or Israel. They are figureheads as well, but it is important to keep the authority separate from the power.

On a tangent, I was told that the reason Canada did not declare war on Nazi Germany until a week after Britain, was because they needed that much time to figure out how to do it. I'm skeptical, but it is a neat story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Okay, but you are talking about power. The PM has the power but not the authority. The Queen's position is no different than the power and authority of the President of Germany or Israel. They are figureheads as well, but it is important to keep the authority separate from the power.

On a tangent, I was told that the reason Canada did not declare war on Nazi Germany until a week after Britain, was because they needed that much time to figure out how to do it. I'm skeptical, but it is a neat story.

I read that the reason was to exercise Canadian independence, as prior to the Treaty of Westminster Canada was automatically at war once Britain declared it, as in WW1.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I read that the reason was to exercise Canadian independence, as prior to the Treaty of Westminster Canada was automatically at war once Britain declared it, as in WW1.  

That is the official version and probably the right one. My source for the other was Hugh Keenleyside.

The Statute of Westminster just recognized Canada's independence which had been a reality for years. In 1922, Britain was facing potential war with Turkey (the Chanak Incident) and the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, requested Canadian troops. MacKenzie King told Churchill to take a hike, thus pointing out Canada was an independent country.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is the official version and probably the right one. My source for the other was Hugh Keenleyside.

The Statute of Westminster just recognized Canada's independence which had been a reality for years. In 1922, Britain was facing potential war with Turkey (the Chanak Incident) and the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, requested Canadian troops. MacKenzie King told Churchill to take a hike, thus pointing out Canada was an independent country.

Sorry Queen you're losing me, on power and authority. The example below shows a few things one, it was the PM that had made the decision to delay the declaration of war, to show the world that Britain was not in charge of Canada's destiny. A display of power and authority

Now if the Queen had the authority she could have simply told the PM you're going to war, but that did not happen. In fact, I don't recall one instance where the Queen has involved herself in any Canadian political decisions. Other than the fact Canada had to abide by the treaties signed with the indigenous population.

Which once again points to her having a figurehead role. And the only reason she still has it today is the government is too lazy to change it.

Quote

On a tangent, I was told that the reason Canada did not declare war on Nazi Germany until a week after Britain, was because they needed that much time to figure out how to do it. I'm skeptical, but it is a neat story.

Another example predating the WWII one, this one once again shows the PM had the power and authority to tell GB PM to pound salt. once again the King did not intervene by telling Canada to prepare for war.  

Quote

In 1922, Britain was facing potential war with Turkey (the Chanak Incident) and the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, requested Canadian troops. MacKenzie King told Churchill to take a hike, thus pointing out Canada was an independent country.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, eyeball said:

Look again, I said nuclear energy should be on hold.

It's transparency and accountability that will be left on hold. I think the deep damage after years of this low priority is reflected in the crisis of misinformation and fake news that has turned so much of the public square into the equivalent of the Tower of Babel.

Nuclear energy is one of the golden nuggets to reduce our use of fossil fuels to generate power. Unless you know of a different or better source. You don't have to be a climate change expert to see that, and any delay in bringing these projects into action, is undermining the entire climate change storyline is it not. And if that's the case why the Carbon tax.. kind of blow a hole in the entire plan and the need for a declaration of a climate emergency does it not?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Another example predating the WWII one, this one once again shows the PM had the power and authority to tell GB PM to pound salt.

The Prime Minister has little or no Constitutional authority aside for membership in the Privy Council and the Ministry.

The Queen has approximately the same constitutional authority as the President of Germany. I don't recall any instance the President of post-war Germany has involved himself in any German political decisions. The same rule exists in many of the leading nations. Japan, Norway, Germany, Sweden, etc. all have heads of state who hold the authority and the heads of government who exersise the power. Normally, the Head of State is above politics and acts on the advice of the government. Only in extreme circumstances does the Monarch intervene. 

Of course it is all moot. We are a Constitutional Monarchy and that will not change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Nuclear energy is one of the golden nuggets to reduce our use of fossil fuels to generate power. Unless you know of a different or better source. You don't have to be a climate change expert to see that, and any delay in bringing these projects into action, is undermining the entire climate change storyline is it not. And if that's the case why the Carbon tax.. kind of blow a hole in the entire plan and the need for a declaration of a climate emergency does it not?

I agree about nuclear energy and I've said so for years.

What I've also said for years however is that we shouldn't go there until we have a means of guaranteeing that we can safely and reliably regulate the industry.  Unfortunately we can't do that because we can't trust the government to regulate without undue and unaccountable influence of lobbying to cut corners, look the other way, ignore problems and so on and so forth to ensure profits and limit liability.

Do you know of a better way of governing ourselves so that we can trust the government will properly regulate an industry with such a potential for disaster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I agree about nuclear energy and I've said so for years.

What I've also said for years however is that we shouldn't go there until we have a means of guaranteeing that we can safely and reliably regulate the industry.  Unfortunately we can't do that because we can't trust the government to regulate without undue and unaccountable influence of lobbying to cut corners, look the other way, ignore problems and so on and so forth to ensure profits and limit liability.

Do you know of a better way of governing ourselves so that we can trust the government will properly regulate an industry with such a potential for disaster?

Look I get it the government sucks at regulating anything. But it is all we have either we learn to work with it, or demand change and Canadians are not up for that task. That being said today's nuclear energy is very regulated safety-wise, not sure what else you're looking for. Besides today's new smaller reactors are as safe as you can get, and they work on spent fuel rods. smaller means less time to build, and fewer resources, it could be a win-win for everyone. 

I also agree with your in-camera lobbying i think the everything they do should be recorded, but i also think they should be held accountable, to the law.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toronto shocker: Poll shows Conservatives in the lead (msn.com)

I really, really hope this is true and that Ontarians are waking up to the fact that what is temporarily good ONLY for themselves, is often not in the best interests of the whole of Canada.

Up til now, Ontarians haven't given a flying fig about how the rest of Canada is faring and I think - if this is true - they are finally feeling the effects of their self-centric voting and starting to suffer like the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 1:24 PM, Goddess said:

 When Pfizer says the vax is not recommended during pregnancy and breastfeeding due to lack of testing, why did our government tell women it WAS safe and force pregnant women to vaccinate and fire them from their jobs if they didn't?

I thought I saw this somewhere....  More wishful thinking from the conspiracy crowd... 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-pfizer-docs-vaccines-pregnancy/

 

this warning was issued in December 2020, just as the vaccines were being released. The agency has since revisited and removed this warning."
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I thought I saw this somewhere....  More wishful thinking from the conspiracy crowd... 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-pfizer-docs-vaccines-pregnancy/

 

this warning was issued in December 2020, just as the vaccines were being released. The agency has since revisited and removed this warning."
 

That is the point, MH.

Women were told they were safe during pregnancy/breastfeeding when there was no "science" to back that claim.

There isn't any long-term studies or animal studies being done now.

You might want to look into how accurate Snopes is.

Also, 2 countries are officially investigating large increases in stillbirths and miscarriages since the rollout.

If a woman chooses to expose herself to an experimental vaccine during pregnancy, that is, of course, her choice.  But not everyone wants to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

 

Women were told they were safe during pregnancy/breastfeeding when there was no "science" to back that claim.

There isn't any long-term studies or animal studies being done now.

 

What are you talking about?

They couldn't recommend for pregnant women before the Data was in.

They don't have to test it because it's a done deal.  It worked.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Very accurate.

Snopes has no formal screening process for evaluating "fact-checkers" for potential conflicts of interest.  Without such standards, they are open to being used by big industries and people, leading to bias.  Their "fact-checkers" have no editorial oversight and do not follow journalistic procedures such as interviewing the authors of articles they are fact-checking.

They are 50% owned by an ad agency (Proper Media) and they make money by generating 3rd party views on advertisements.  So it makes good business sense for them to piggy-back on "viral" issues to get more traffic and advertising revenue.

Its founder, David Mikkelson, has been accused of embezzling company money.

Snopes has been caught many times editing articles to reflect their biases.  When they were in bed with Monsanto, it was a huge case of bias.

I quit using Snopes years ago.

 

 

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...