Liberal appointments very disappointing.

[Army Guy]

I know this is old news, and i've almost given up writing about liberal screw ups as they are so many recently...but i mean come on does nobody vet these people at all, Human rights chair, accused of having ties with known terrorist group...i would have thought that after the govern General scandal and some of the other questionable appointments that a more stringent vetting process. One could say the vetting system for becoming a coach one a kids team is more stringent. at least they are doing back ground checks...but to become the Human rights chair, nope that we can give to terrorists, who knows human rights better than terrorists... 

And knowing all of that a decision to fire him is under advisement...suggesting that this might not warrant a firing , but rather a cool down period until people forget who our Human rights chair really is...It also raises other questions like how did he get past immigration, why is he not under some kind of RCMP, or CSIS investigation or atleast flagged so the government does not hire him for i don't know , Human rights chair....

Just wondering for those that voted for the left is this wrong in any way? does it not make you question your choice on the ballet..and will you be blindly voting liberal again ? these are questions that conservatives want to know....

Incoming human rights commission chair to 'take leave': Justice Minister (msn.com)

[zzbulls]

Well they are already picked before hand any way. 

[herbie]

Wondering how far 'right' one is to describe Liberals as 'the left'?
As 'right' as Americans calling Dems 'the left'?

[Army Guy]

42 minutes ago, herbie said:

Wondering how far 'right' one is to describe Liberals as 'the left'?
As 'right' as Americans calling Dems 'the left'?

Not far right...but you do you....I got plenty of other words i'd like to call them, but yes, the liberals represent the left side of politics...todays liberals being the far left....is there something wrong with that statement...point it out or are you just chirping, becasue the questions i asked are to hard for you...

[Nefarious Banana]

No love for the Minister of 'Environment & Climate Change'  . . . the over-qualified Steven Guilbeault ?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Wondering how far 'right' one is to describe Liberals as 'the left'?
As 'right' as Americans calling Dems 'the left'?

Right of castro these days.  The far left thinks they're not far left enough apparently. 

[herbie]

No, the right seems to think Conservatives are slightly left of Mussolini and dead center is left. So therefore Libs and even Dems are extreme left. Just as how "left' and 'woke' have become their one syllable lazy words..for 'anything I disagree with'

Eisenhower, Stanfiled, Joe Clark and Mulroney are pinkos to you but Harper was a Darling for his immigrants are terrorists stance.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Wondering how far 'right' one is to describe Liberals as 'the left'?

About as far as the NDP is the other way  when describing the Liberals as the right.

In any case it's probably also fair to say the Liberals are extreme centrists.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Wondering how far 'right' one is to describe Liberals as 'the left'?
As 'right' as Americans calling Dems 'the left'?

Liberals and Dems are leftwing socially.  Economics is a different story.  They'd probably both like to lean left economically but they are both so darned corrupt that they just can't stop taking money and favours from the rich and corporations and making policy in their favour.

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

About as far as the NDP is the other way  when describing the Liberals as the right.

In any case it's probably also fair to say the Liberals are extreme centrists.

More like extreme a-holes.

[herbie]

"Social" doesn't count. It's what you seem to forget, you can't 'vote' to stop social progress like many seem to think.

[Moonlight Graham]

6 minutes ago, herbie said:

"Social" doesn't count. It's what you seem to forget, you can't 'vote' to stop social progress like many seem to think.

Of course "social" counts.  And "progress" is a totally subjective term.

[herbie]

I mean progress - changes over time, not the usual right-wing curse word. You can't stop that by voting.

 

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Of course "social" counts.  And "progress" is a totally subjective term.

I think the scientific tracking of longer healthier lifespans over time neatly demolishes the idea that social progress is subjective.

And before you say economic science is responsible don't forget economics is merely a social science not to mention as subjective as all get go.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think the scientific tracking of longer healthier lifespans over time neatly demolishes the idea that social progress is subjective.

And before you say economic science is responsible don't forget economics is merely a social science not to mention as subjective as all get go.

 

There is a distinction between economic and social/cultural issues.  "Progressives" aren't the only ones in favour of longer healthier lifespans and medicines, science, nutrition, sanitation etc used to accomplish it.  People attending church or debates around "freedom of speech" are not economic issues.

Again, what one person sees as "social progress" isn't the same as what another may see it as.

Even if you were correct, one could make the argument that having 8 billion people on the planet due to better health outcomes is not necessarily "better" than the situation a century or 2 ago.

[Army Guy]

On 8/8/2024 at 7:03 PM, herbie said:

No, the right seems to think Conservatives are slightly left of Mussolini and dead center is left. So therefore Libs and even Dems are extreme left. Just as how "left' and 'woke' have become their one syllable lazy words..for 'anything I disagree with'

Eisenhower, Stanfiled, Joe Clark and Mulroney are pinkos to you but Harper was a Darling for his immigrants are terrorists stance.

you might be alright with having a human rights chair that is or was a terrorist but i'm not and i don't think that issue is divided along political lines...liberal, NDP sure would not agree with you...but on the other hand we did pay Omar his 10 million dollars , along with other terrorists....It sure does not say much for your moral values does it....

[CdnFox]

On 8/8/2024 at 3:03 PM, herbie said:

No, the right seems to think Conservatives are slightly left of Mussolini and dead center is left.

Bad example. mussolini was closer to the left that the right. Massive deficit spending, massive 'free' public benefts, tight control over the market and means of production, huge public works projects. He did the whole 'cooperative state' thing, and believed the workers and business owners should jointly share in decisions and profits. 

Sound familiar?  So you pick a left wing authoritarian who grossly overspends and wants unions built into the fabric of the nation essentially so that there won't be more strikes. 

As usual you have to try to lie to make your point. The right hasn't moved  an inch. THe center hasn't moved an inch. The left took off running and thinks it was everyone else who moved. 

Here's how the left sees the world today

. 

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

but on the other hand we did pay Omar his 10 million dollars

Cuz we did violate his human rights. You think they apply to law abiding citizens or something? Watching too much American TV, eh?

[Army Guy]

On 8/10/2024 at 12:09 AM, herbie said:

Cuz we did violate his human rights. You think they apply to law abiding citizens or something? Watching too much American TV, eh?

He was a f*cking terrorist, that committed terrorist acts against our coalition allieds....they should have let him and his buddies bleed out in the sand...and after all of that we still paid him his 10 million dollars, and then protected his money from the widow of the SF medic he killed... nor did he face any charges for the other war crimes he committed while over there..I guess only canadian terrorist have human rights...screw everyone else...

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

....they should have let him and his buddies bleed out in the sand...

You're planning on nurturing this old grudge till the day you die aren't you?

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

You're planning on nurturing this old grudge till the day you die aren't you?

Yes...when this nation can not afford to look after it's vets and yet can pay a known terrorist's for being a terrorist what do you think...

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes...when this nation can not afford to look after it's vets and yet can pay a known terrorist's for being a terrorist what do you think...

I think Eyeball thinks it's like a video game. Those guys he killed have SURELY respawned by now, why are we holding on to this?

[eyeball]

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes...when this nation can not afford to look after it's vets and yet can pay a known terrorist's for being a terrorist what do you think...

That you're looking at this the wrong way and using Khadr as a scapegoat for the poor funding you receive. One has nothing to do with the other.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That you're looking at this the wrong way and using Khadr as a scapegoat for the poor funding you receive. One has nothing to do with the other.

of course they do. They show clearly that the government highly prioritizes terrorist combatants over its own soldiers. They're willing to spend more money on the terrorist and yet underfund our own vets.

It speaks directly to the government's priorities and policy.

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

of course they do. They show clearly that the government highly prioritizes terrorist combatants over its own soldiers. They're willing to spend more money on the terrorist and yet underfund our own vets.

It speaks directly to the government's priorities and policy.

Policies that prioritize terrorists over soldiers?  Please...that's ridiculous and only speaks to a tired old partisan grudge that advances no ones interests other than to maintain divisiveness.

Khadr's case was out of the government's hands once it landed in the SC of Canada's.  Ironically it was only handed to them because of bitter partisan sentiments like your's that insured politicians wouldn't be able to settle things on their own.

The SC is usually the only adult left in the room in our political system nowadays. Try changing that if you really want to divide Canada.

[Army Guy]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

That you're looking at this the wrong way and using Khadr as a scapegoat for the poor funding you receive. One has nothing to do with the other.

Tell that to the guys that came back with horrific injuries and given peanuts of what Omar was given....a good buddy of mine lost both balls and a small portion of his intestines during an animal IED attack and was awarded 1500.00 cdn, he redressed it through vets affairs and they sent him an extra 300.00....He sent both checks back with a FU written on them.....he can never have a family, he has issues with his intestines...i could give you hundreds of examples of other vets being brushed off, or given peanuts, mind you i also seen some of the top awards being paid out...250, k does not go far when you can't work and a family to raise...But on the bright side at least the terrorist got paid well...To be honest it not vets affairs its the government that makes these policies and awards....i have had nothing but good stories when dealing with vet affairs in Gagetown.