Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Nothing to see here folks....move along and don’t ask questions.....oh yeah, clear and transparent government:

Ten men go out for beer. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

Nope.  Any business that rides the "black-owned" declaration is not innocent.  You understand the difference, right?  I'm not opposed to a black owned business, I'm opposed to a black owned business t

Posted Images

Nobody should tolerate the Liberals' WE tricks


  • Calgary Herald
  • 17 Oct 2020

“There probably isn't a smoking gun in these docs, but the Liberals on committee are certainly acting like there's one,” Andrew Macdougall, Stephen Harper's former press secretary, remarked on Twitter this week. He was referring to the pathetic, endless spectacle of Liberal members of two separate parliamentary committees — 21 hours of useless wrangling between them on Thursday — refusing to allow votes on motions concerning their party's WE Charity debacle.

Liberal members of the finance committee spent 11 hours on Thursday filibustering, moving hopeless amendments and otherwise avoiding a vote on a motion condemning heavy redactions in We-related emails released in August.

Those redactions were numerous enough that Phillipe Dufresne, the independent parliamentary law clerk, and even Wayne Easter, the Liberal chair of the committee, expressed some concern. Now, however, Liberals will move heaven and earth to keep those black lines where they are — and they don't mind how ridiculous they look doing it.

To wit: Also on Thursday, Liberals on the ethics committee spent 10 hours avoiding a vote on a motion to have the Speakers' Spotlight booking agency release receipts of various Trudeaus' paid speaking appearances over the years. The proceedings saw Liberal MP Han Dong expound at length about racism directed against Asian Canadians during the pandemic. When opposition MPS objected on grounds of relevance, Liberal MP Greg Fergus accused them of performing “the micro-aggressions that a lot of Canadians of colour face.”

Absolutely hideous. It's like Twitter come to life.

“It is all about COVID right now, this is what is critical for Canadians,” Liberal MP Brenda Shanahan complained last week during another marathon ethics committee session.

How is this not “all about COVID”?

The government came up with a very weird sub-minimum- wage summer jobs program to help young Canadians weather the COVID storm, farmed it out to cronies, and then it all exploded into a thousand pieces. Trudeau apologized for not recusing himself, in light of appearance fees paid for WE events to his brother and mother; Morneau apologized for not recusing himself, in light of his daughter working for WE (!), and vanished in a puff of smoke.

It later turned out the Kielburger brothers, who run WE, needed this gig so badly that when it all fell apart, they shut down their screaming- tweens/voluntourism charity in Canada altogether. What else should an ethics committee be investigating?

It would almost be better if they were covering something up. It's certainly conceivable that they are. But as Macdougall says, it's equally conceivable they're just doing this for sport. They're doing it because this is what committees in Ottawa do. We're the government, we own this information, and you can't have it. And nobody besides the opposition parties really cares.

Maybe that's understandable: This sort of behaviour is hardly a Trudeau Liberal invention. In their early days in minority government, the Harper Conservatives actually codified and distributed procedures how to do this sort of thing. Nobody cared about that either. If people expect their politicians to act like asses, politicians won't suffer for acting like asses.

But when the asses are braying to keep information from Parliament, and thereby the Canadian people, people really should care. Canadian officialdom guards information as a matter of principle: it is closed by default, no matter how benign the information in principle is. It is immensely frustrating and undemocratic, not to mention costly. But it also obviously means that any non-benign information will be guarded even more zealously.

Veteran Canadian journalist Michael Petrou told an amazing tale on Twitter on Thursday with respect to his investigation into aid Canada provided to Libyan rebels way back in 2011. At the time, he appealed one of the redactions in documents he had received through an access- to- information request. This week, seven years later, his appeal was upheld … and the foreign affairs department refused to nix the redaction anyway.

The information in question wouldn't have caused Harper's government any grief in 2011, let alone Trudeau's in 2020. This is simply opacity for its own sake.

It doesn't have to be this way. Non- journalist Canadians are often incredulous when you tell them how much more forthcoming American officialdom is with harmless information, but it's night and day. Communications officers in the U. S. government generally exist to communicate with the public, not to intermediate between grown- adult journalists and grown-adult civil servants and politicians who are perfectly capable of calling each other's telephones. We could do that too, if we wanted. But governments don't want it, and nobody cares, so it doesn't happen.

Electoral reform remains Trudeau's signature broken promise, if only because he broke it so flamboyantly, so insultingly, and at such great expense. But at least he felt the need to humour the proportional representation fans who fell for his grift, setting up a committee and pretending to be interested in its findings. His promise to fix access-to-information procedures and timelines, his “open by default” pledge, didn't even get that. It got chucked behind a sofa and forgotten.

Flying this blind, Canadians are relying enormously on their politicians' honour, good intentions and backbone to stay on the straight and narrow. They should tune into the ethics or finance committee some day soon and ask themselves if that's wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau Liberals are carnival barkers on pandemic spending

Canadians shaking hands with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or any Liberal MP these days would be wise to count their fingers afterward.

At this point, they have the collective credibility of carnival barkers.

Liberal MPs are filibustering (i.e. impeding the investigations of) two parliamentary committees seeking documents related to Trudeau’s central role in approving a $500 million, untendered contract to the WE Charity for a now-cancelled student volunteer pandemic relief program.

This after WE paid Trudeau family members more than $560,000 in speaking fees and expenses.

Desperate to avoid producing these documents in a minority government where the opposition parties control the committees, Trudeau prorogued Parliament in August, shutting them down.

So much for Trudeau’s 2015 election promise that: “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny. Stephen Harper has used prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances. We will not.”

Ditto his Jan. 23, 2010 tweet as a Liberal MP that he was, “Marching against prorogation in Mtl (Montreal). You know it’s a good day when even the Communist Party comes out for democracy.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ambassador Cong, apologize or leave


  • Calgary Sun
  • 18 Oct 2020
We agree with Conservative leader Erin O'toole in the wake of China's ambassador to Canada threatening the safety of 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong, if Prime  minister Justin Trudeau grants political asylum to pro-democracy demonstrators there.

As O'toole said, Trudeau should demand that Cong Peiwu publicly apologize, and send him packing if he won't.

Cong's thinly veiled threat was conveyed to Canadians during a video press conference from the Chinese embassy in Ottawa last week.

“We strongly urge the Canadian side not (to) grant so-called political asylum to those violent criminals in Hong Kong, because it is ... interference in China's domestic affairs. And certainly it will embolden those violent criminals,” Cong said.

“So if the Canadian side really cares about the stability and the prosperity in Hong Kong, and really cares about the good health and safety of those 300,000 Canadian passport-holders in Hong Kong, and the large number of Canadian companies operating in Hong Kong, you should support those efforts to fight violent crimes.”

The vast majority of prodemocracy demonstrators in Hong Kong seeking asylum in Canada are doing so because of Beijing's imposition of a draconian national security law.

China's communist dictators have reneged on Beijing's 1984 promise to the international community to grant Hong Kong 50 years of autonomy based on the principle of “one country, two systems”, leading up to its 1997 takeover of the city from British control.

We understand Trudeau is in a difficult position. We urge him to accept a reasonable number of Hong Kongers who are legitimately seeking asylum in Canada from political persecution because of their pro-democracy views.

We support Trudeau's continuing refusal to trade Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou — wanted on criminal charges in the United States — for Canada's two Michaels — Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig.

China arbitrarily arrested them in retaliation for Meng's lawful detention under our extradition treaty with the U.S. Since then they've been held for 679 days in horrible conditions on trumped up charges of spying, while Canada has treated Meng humanely as her extradition trial proceeds in Vancouver.

Enough is enough.

It's not enough for the Trudeau government to publicly scold Cong.

If he won't apologize and retract his threats, boot him back to Beijing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Law of Unintended Consequences file:


Dozens of gang members have been exploiting the $500 weekly government cheques to obtain illegal handguns smuggled into the country from the U.S., sources told the Toronto Sun.

“We have learned of dozens across the GTA who are doing this. This enables them to buy more handguns, ‘dirty weapons’ (previously used in crimes) for between $400 and $800, and new Glocks, which are reliable and have strong stopping power, for $3,000,” the source said.

The increased firepower has led to more shootings as gangsters — often packing firearms with extra-capacity magazines — wreak havoc on enemies from other neighbourhoods, a source said.

Geezus...don’t these guys know these are restricted weapons and have strict rules governing their ownership??  It’s not like you can just carry one around with you  in your tricked out beemer or Benz!!!

Wait til Justin finds out about this....he will take it very seriously because the safety of Canadians is first and foremost, he will have our back, and you don’t need a handgun to shoot your enemy or make a video.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


Desperate: Liberals Willing To Risk Election Rather Than Be Honest About Corruption

The Liberal government is clearly doing everything they can to avoid being transparent, leaving Canadians to wonder why they are so afraid of the truth.

If the Liberals were confident that they had done nothing wrong with regards to corruption, they would be acting far differently than they currently are.

Yet, their current behaviour shows how desperate they are.

With the Conservatives seeking to create an anti-corruption committee, the Liberals are so desperate to stop that from happening that they are willing to risk an election.

Liberal House leader Pablo Rodriguez has said that the Liberals may try to declare the vote on the creation of the anti-corruption committee as a confidence measure, even though the creation of committees is never considered a confidence vote.

Here’s what Rodriguez said:

“The Conservative motion that is there on the table, if it was to be debated tomorrow, would send a clear message that there is no confidence in the government. They cross the line when they say that the ministers and the public servants will spend all their time working on this instead of working for Canadians. So, you know, when you do things there are consequences.”

That means the creation of the committee could lead to an election, unless the opposition loses the vote.

In response to Rodriguez, Conservative House leader Gerard Deltell slammed the Liberals:

“That you are even entertaining such speculation demonstrates to me — as it would to all Canadians — the desperate ends to which the Liberal government will go to further its coverup of a very troubling scandal which reeks of corruption.”


Notably, the Liberal threat appears aimed at the weakened NDP, a party that is struggling to raise money and maintain any momentum under the incompetent leadership of Jagmeet Singh.

And it may be working:

“Our message to the Liberals is calm down, we have work to do,” said Charlie Angus.

“Work with us,” Angus added.

That sounds like the NDP is prepared to surrender again, once more letting the Liberals get away with it.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no faith, despite their moral outrage of the liberal coverup and philibustering, Jagmeet will take the bait on the election threat and  will make a deal with trudeau to muzzle the committees.

And I have zero faith in the Canadian voting public....after Gropegate, Mark Norman, Lavalin, China and the 2 Michaels, .... as long as the $$$$$ keep flowing, Trudeau is safe. Cut off somebodies entitlement, cerb, Ui, then the public starts screaming.

The independent  media??? Nuff said.     And one pet peeve of mine is the reference to the leader of the opposition from CBC reporters....they refer to “OToole” (dropping any form of respect) but never refer to the pm as Trudeau or the  leader of the ndp as “Singh”....they either get a title or use proper name. Maybe its just me being overly sensitive but it’s still a subtle slight.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal insider warned of 'potential for a scandal' in judicial appointment process

Official in Lametti's office said PMO's outsized role in picking judges 'raises ... concerns'

A Liberal official complained to his superiors last year about the Prime Minister's Office playing an overbearing role in the judicial appointment process, warning that partisan considerations have created the "potential for a scandal," according to emails obtained by Radio-Canada.

The internal warning came from François Landry, a political aide who worked directly on the judicial appointment process in the office of Justice Minister David Lametti at the time.


"Need to talk about what PMO requires us to do prior to a judicial appointment. It raises some concerns," Landry wrote to chief of staff Rachel Doran on February 18, 2019.

"I think we need to be more cautious considering what is happening. I want to protect the minister … and myself."

Concerns within the federal government about the PMO's role in the vetting process for candidates for judicial office — and its insistence on consultations with cabinet ministers, Liberal MPs, plugged-in lawyers and Liberal officials before appointments are made — go beyond Landry's stated qualms, according to sources and other internal government emails.

I denounced practices that raised serious ethical issues. I would have much to say on the topic and feel it would be in the public interest.- Former political aide François Landry

On judicial nominations in Alberta, for example, the PMO asked for the input of Robbie Schuett, a Calgary lawyer and president of the party's Alberta branch, according to documents obtained by Radio-Canada.

The Liberal Research Bureau also participates in the background checks on judicial candidates, according to federal sources and an internal government email. The LRB is a taxpayer-funded entity that offers research and communications services to the Liberal caucus.

In the case of judicial appointments, a source said, the LRB goes through public databases like Google News and Infomart to see what sort of information on a specific candidate is in the public domain.

The PMO also tracks candidates' contributions to political parties and candidates and regularly obtains lists of lawyers who are eligible for judicial appointments, allowing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's inner circle to keep a close eye on the process, sources said.

As previously reported by The Globe and Mail, internal government emails show that the PMO has used the Liberal Party of Canada's private database — called Liberalist — in the vetting process for would-be judges, allowing the government to learn the full extent of a candidate's contributions to the party. The database states whether and when someone was a member of the Liberal Party and whether they participated in electoral campaigns or leadership races.

Wilson-Raybould says she tried to 'insulate the process'

In an interview with Radio-Canada, former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould confirmed the existence of political pressure in the selection of new judges. She said she is proud of the more than 200 judicial appointments she oversaw but acknowledged she felt a need to "insulate that process" from partisan considerations.

"During my time as minister, there were people in the centre, the Prime Minister's Office, other ministers, Liberal partisans, who would take great interest in the appointments process," she said.

"There is a sense that some people still carry that appointments, whether they be to the bench or otherwise, that you can curry favour if you are a partisan or if you have done something to benefit the party."

Asked to respond to Wilson-Raybould's comments, Lametti insisted that there are "no partisan considerations" involved in his judicial appointments.

"During my tenure as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I have not experienced pressure to appoint a specific candidate to the bench," Lametti told Radio-Canada in a written statement. "The decision on which candidate to recommend to cabinet is mine alone, and is based on needs of the court, the quality of the candidates and the diversity of the bench."

Through a spokesperson, Lametti's office defended the judicial appointment process, saying new judges are named based on each court's specific needs and in service of government objectives such as increasing diversity on the bench.

"All judicial appointments are made on the basis of merit," said press secretary Rachel Rappaport. "Partisan considerations do not play a role in determining the candidate that minister Lametti will put forward to cabinet."

Political donations don't tilt the scales: Lametti's office

Lametti's office added that the government only compiles information on a candidate's past professional and partisan activities to ensure the minister is ready to answer questions "as he prepares for the cabinet discussion, as well as to respond to any potential questions from members of the media, Parliamentarians, or Canadians."

"Political donations neither advantage nor exclude a candidate from being appointed to the bench," Rappaport said. "We are proud of the high quality of jurists that have been produced under our reformed system, and the positive feedback that we continue to receive from the broader legal community across Canada."

Landry said in his Feb. 18 email that he had consulted three colleagues on the judicial appointments process in place. While one was "not very concerned," he said, two others told him they "both think there is potential for a scandal."

Landry, who worked previously as a Liberal aide in Quebec City, warned Lametti's chief of staff that the process in Ottawa reminded him of the political meddling that marred judicial nominations in Quebec when the Charest government was in power. In 2010, then-premier Jean Charest appointed former Supreme Court justice Michel Bastarache to lead a commission of inquiry into the judicial appointment process.

"What we are doing is similar to what led to the Commission d'enquête sur le processus de nomination des juges, back in 2010 in Quebec, also known as Commission Bastarache," Landry added.

Landry left his job in the justice minister's office last year. Sources tell Radio-Canada it was not an amicable split.

In response to questions, Landry issued a statement saying he would only answer further questions before a parliamentary committee that offers witnesses protection from lawsuits and is able to make recommendations to improve the nomination system. (The testimony provided by witnesses before parliamentary committees cannot be used in other legal proceedings.)

"I denounced practices that raised serious ethical issues. I would have much to say on the topic and feel it would be in the public interest," he said.

In 2016, Trudeau's government reformed the judicial appointment process — especially in relation to the work of the Judicial Advisory Committees (JACs) that decide whether applicants are recommended, highly recommended or not recommended at all for a nomination. Among other things, the government removed the requirement that a representative of the policing community sit on a JAC, which was introduced by the previous Conservative government.

"The measures we are introducing today will make the judicial appointments process more open, transparent and accountable for future appointments, resulting in a judiciary that is more reflective of Canada's diversity," Wilson-Raybould said at the time.

System lacks transparency, say critics

But many experts argue the system remains opaque — particularly the process used to determine which candidates, among the hundreds of lawyers recommended by JACs, actually receive judicial appointments.

While similar committees in Ontario, Quebec and the United Kingdom draw up short lists of candidates for each vacancy, the federal government gives itself much more leeway.

"Under the current framework, there are no formal constraints placed on the manner in which the minister of justice decides which candidates to recommend for appointment, nor on the degree to which he involves cabinet colleagues in scrutinizing the candidate," said Nathalie Drouin, deputy minister of justice, in a briefing note shared with Lametti's office in 2019.

Patrick Taillon, a law professor at Laval University in Quebec City, said the government has to act in a way that preserves the trust Canadians have in their judiciary.

"The problem is the profoundly political characteristic of the final phase of the process," he told Radio-Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadians need to wake up to the financial mess we're in

It's as if we’ve been given the opposite of a truth serum, some drug that renders us groggily incapable of blurting out what we know.


A new geopolitical order is taking shape. The globe is rapidly realigning under American and Chinese spheres of influence and the pandemic has only raised the stakes. How can Canada finally get serious about its internal stability and external security so it can effectively play a role as a middle power? That is the question this National Post series will answer. Today: John Robson discusses Canadians’ stupor when it comes to government spending.

In an early instalment in this series Sean Speer sure woke me up by writing “We need to snap out of this collective stupor.” Exactly. He was talking geopolitics, but his appeal applies far more broadly, from health care to the rule of law. And the topic I’m here to deliver a slap on, public finances.


As Dale Carnegie warned, you never persuade anyone with “You’re an idiot because” let alone “You’re a stunned idiot because.” But you can shout “Hey, wake up, the house is on fire,” and even shake them if necessary. It is.


Why are we not living within our means?


As I was drafting this column the C.D. Howe Institute released one of its typical studies by a smart, detail-oriented guy, Don Drummond, warning of “Canada’s Foggy Economic and Fiscal Future.” And, as so often, it hit the mark exactly and missed by a mile at the same time, not easy with a single shaft.

As part of my offend-everyone plan, language like “The next generation may be hard pressed to handle a large stock of inherited debt” is not well-calculated to dispel any looming stupor. But not because its English translation “We’re putting our kids in hock up to their eyeballs” is wrong. The problem is that if people were willing to listen to such analysis, it wouldn’t be necessary. It would be intuitively obvious, and we wouldn’t be in this mess.

For years I’ve been preoccupied less with what we should be doing in public policy than with why we’re not, from defence to health to living within our means. It’s rare that both problem and solution aren’t obvious. But we’ve been given the opposite of a truth serum, some drug that renders us groggily incapable of blurting out what we know.

parliament-1.png?quality=100&strip=all&w Prime Minister Justin Trudeau officially tables the throne speech, outlining government spending plans, as Parliament resumes in Ottawa on Sept. 23, 2020. PHOTO BY PATRICK DOYLE/REUTERS

Thus the Canadian Snowbird Association recently did a victory dance over forcing the Ontario government to cover their medical bills in warm, sunny climes they can afford to go to. Some court said refusing to would violate the CHA’s “portability” provisions or some such wealth-conjuring oogabooga. And as my colleague Kelly McParland, wrote “Seniors, as did most Ontarians, voted heavily for Ford and his pledge to get spending under control” but “Apparently their concern applied only to limits on other age groups.” 

What explains this facile, unconscious hypocrisy? “Baby boomers have spent a lifetime electing governments that borrowed heavily to finance generous programs to make life easier, creating a legacy of debt that future generations will have to deal with.” And, he added, not just boomers. “Canadians have for years indicated they want a country they can’t afford.”

Indeed, when challenged about our parlous national finances, new Finance Minister of Everything Chrystia Freeland said “these are things we just can’t afford not to do.” Now McParland is not responsible for anything I say, let alone how. But these are his words: “That’s not an answer, it’s a slogan, and a tired, empty one at that. No country can afford to live on loans forever … Country after country has discovered the price of that reality.”

You can’t play make-believe forever


Note again the language of fog, tiredness, lack of mental acuity. Or consider Doug Ford’s decision to cut power prices in Ontario because the system is drowning in debt and excessive costs due to idiotic decisions by Dalton McGuinty and his not-so-merry-persons that voters somehow slept through and applauded simultaneously.

The only thing to do was say from now on we pay the real cost and yes it’s going to hurt because the problem is real. Which no politician or voter is going to do.

Well, until they have to. At some point, Kipling warned, the Gods of the Copybook Headings return in a foul temper. You can’t play make-believe forever. What? House fire? Leave me alone. Zzzzzzzzzzz. Owwwwww.

So with all due respect to Don Drummond and his four thoughtful, data-driven scenarios sticking in a tree way over yonder, here’s what a serious nation would be serious about fiscally:

• Wealth must be created before it can be distributed;
• Money is not wealth;
• Borrowing has costs;
• Who does not work shall not eat; and
• Stealing from your kids is wrong.

In some sense refusing to face reality is childish and stupid. But of course it’s ingrained with a great many who are chronologically adults and not formally stupid. As Thomas Sowell wrote in A Conflict of Visions, too many people have always believed we can have whatever we can imagine, provided our sunny ways turn to a vicious snarl if anyone tries to disturb our pipe dreams of world peace, free love or free money with practical difficulties and past experience.

The day the county hauls our belongings away ’cuz we’re busted, dumping us unceremoniously on the bare floor, we will wonder how we could have been so stupored.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this came from a poster on here a few years ago. Regardless, it still holds true, even more so today.


“The danger to Canada is not Justin Trudeau but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the job of Prime Minister.

It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a Trudeau than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their Prime Minister in the first place.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Trudeau, who is a mere symptom of what ails Canada. Blaming the ‘prince of fools’ should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The country can survive a Justin Trudeau, who is, after all, merely a fool and puppet.

It is less likely to survive the multitude of fools who made him their leader.”

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

“If an election happens, the Liberals and Justin Trudeau are 100% to blame.

After all, the Opposition is simply pushing for a committee to investigate possible government corruption.

If the Liberals didn’t fear their corruption being exposed, they wouldn’t be trying to stop the committee from being created.
If they didn’t fear what the truth would reveal, they wouldn’t be threatening to make the vote on the committee a confidence matter.

And if they truly believed they had done the right thing, the Liberals wouldn’t be threatening to push Canada into an election during the CCP Virus pandemic.

As we know, the creation of a Parliamentary Committee is never seen as a confidence vote.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Trudeau walks into a Bank to cash a cheque in front of me one day: As he approaches the cashier he says, "Good morning, Ma'am, could you please cash this cheque for me?”

Cashier: "It would be my pleasure to do that sir. Could you please show me your ID?"

Trudeau: "Truthfully, I didn't  bring any "ID" with me as I didn't think there would be any reason, he says, I'm the leader of the Liberal Party, "I am the Prime minister of Canada....

Cashier: "Yes sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks today because of all the impostors and forgers and requirements of the CIDC legislation, etc., I must insist on seeing your ID."

Trudeau: "Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am."

Cashier: "I am sorry, Mr. Trudeau, but these are the rules and I must follow them."

Trudeau: I am urging you, please, cash this cheque."

Cashier: "Look Mr. Trudeau , here is an example of what we can do. One day, Mike Weir came into the bank without ID. To prove he was Mike Weir he pulled out his putter and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be Mike weir and cashed his cheque for him.

Another time, Wayne Gretzky came in without ID. He pulled out his hockey stick and made a fabulous shot with a hockey puck it landed in an over turned trash can at the other end of the bank. With that shot we cashed his cheque.

So, Mr. Trudeau, what can you do to prove that it is really you, and only you?"

Trudeau stands there thinking, and thinking, and finally says, ummmm "Honestly, my mind is totally blank, I have absolutely no idea what to do, I don't have a clue." I really don't have a clue.

Cashier: Says, Ok thanks Will that be large or small bills, Mr Trudeau?"


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jaydee said:

It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a Trudeau than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their Prime Minister in the first place.


The very heart of the problem IMO. 

Throw in a manifestly corrupt media and the rampant hypocrisy displayed by buffoons who dwell in the fringes of the far left and right and you end up with the polarization we have now.

Virtually impossible to penetrate the narrative.... I have a relative that has written off 4 cars due to serial tailgating. She is working diligently on a fifth and still thinks the physical laws of the universe don't apply to her. You can explain reaction time, brake effectiveness, coefficient of friction, dynamic, viscous and rubber reversion hydroplaning, show her the formulas, do the calculations and it all falls on deaf ears. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like the NDP have blinked (surprise).....Singh has indicated he won’t give trudeau his election.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to see the results of a poll of average Canadians:

1) are you aware the liberals just created a situation where they would call anther election in this pandemic?

2) do you realize it was caused by the liberals refusal to answer opposition questions over the WE scandal?

Sadly, I think it would be 80% no to both questions!



Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, st27 said:

Well, it looks like the NDP have blinked (surprise).....Singh has indicated he won’t give trudeau his election.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to see the results of a poll of average Canadians:

1) are you aware the liberals just created a situation where they would call anther election in this pandemic?

2) do you realize it was caused by the liberals refusal to answer opposition questions over the WE scandal?

Sadly, I think it would be 80% no to both questions!



They could maybe abstain from the vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, st27 said:

Sadly, I think it would be 80% no to both questions!

And I think a corrupt media plays a huge role in that. 

CNN, their ilk, and their acolytes, have largely (I'll say completely because I haven't seen it) ignored historic peace initiatives that I wouldn't have thought achievable. A bit like the military flick I watched on NETFLIX last night.... not only don't they try to get it right, they aren't the slightest bit embarrassed by the obvious nature of the failings.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
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.

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.