Trudeaumetre - Bravo!

618 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

2nd promise kept, longform census reinstituted.

“Today, Canadians are reclaiming their right to accurate and more reliable information. With the 2016 census of population program, communities will once again have access to quality data they require to make decisions that will truly reflect the needs of the people, the businesses, institutions and organizations,” Bains told reporters.

MegB

Let's keep it on topic folks. No need to "berrate" each other. :) Unionist, resist the temptation please.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
2nd promise kept, longform census reinstituted.

But what if this means that Lockheed Martin can be compelled to use their software "back door" to report me to the Department of Homeland Security because I admit to having completed a bachelor's degree?

Pondering

MegB wrote:

Let's keep it on topic folks. No need to "berrate" each other. :) Unionist, resist the temptation please.

There are a few posters here who berate me in practically every post they write yet somehow they rarely seem catch your attention.

As long as you don't object it won't stop.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

That infers that if the mods do object, it will stop.

Yours is only one of many unwinnable battles the mods fight, 2.5 paid hours per week.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

MegB wrote:

Let's keep it on topic folks. No need to "berrate" each other. :) Unionist, resist the temptation please.

There are a few posters here who berate me in practically every post they write yet somehow they rarely seem catch your attention.

As long as you don't object it won't stop.

Funny you have proclaimed in many posts that you like be provocative but you object to the response.

You could just modify your posting style somewhat and things will cool off.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

MegB wrote:

Let's keep it on topic folks. No need to "berrate" each other. :) Unionist, resist the temptation please.

There are a few posters here who berate me in practically every post they write yet somehow they rarely seem catch your attention.

As long as you don't object it won't stop.

Funny you have proclaimed in many posts that you like be provocative but you object to the response.

You could just modify your posting style somewhat and things will cool off.

I don't know the long term history of this board or it's posters. I know that since I have been lurking/posting, Pondering is occasionally guilty of blatant obfustication/spin, but more often than not her points, including the valid ones, are disregarded and she is attacked just because "it's Pondering."

NorthReport

So Trudeau's environmental credibility appears to be at state over his comments about Keystone. Too bad, eh!  Frown

Too bad all the focus appears to be on fossil fuels and little or nothing about solar energy and research. 

  Days in office: 3  Not yet started: 180 of 184


  In progress: 2 of 184

 

 Achieved: 2 of 184

 

 Broken: 0 of 184

 

 

 

NorthReport

I thought Justin Trudeau was a man for the 21st century but it appears he is more a man for the 20th century.  Frown

Environmentalists emboldened by Obama's rejection of Keystone XL and "dirty" oil

http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/ewart-environmentalists-embolde...

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

And did you notice that this exchange started when she was responding to me -- not the other way around?

Thank you for reminding me. I had forgotten to track this exchange. You always attack first. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Funny you have proclaimed in many posts that you like be provocative but you object to the response.

You could just modify your posting style somewhat and things will cool off.

I have never proclaimed that I like to be provocative, that is from your fevered imagination.

The habitual attacks against me are from you and 1-3 other posters when they are around.  I couldn't care less if you cool off or not. That's your problem and the mods problem not mine.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

That infers that if the mods do object, it will stop.

Yours is only one of many unwinnable battles the mods fight, 2.5 paid hours per week.

It's not my battle it's theirs. It doesn't harm me. It doesn't even annoy me anymore. It impacts the reputation of the board first and foremost.

If the mods do object, it will stop. Less than a handful of posters account for 99% of the personal attacks not just against me but against anyone. This has been going on for years. Even 2.5 hours a week ought to make that clear.

No personal attacks/insults is a very clear rule. Every message board I have been on that has that rule is much easier to moderate.

The mods make their own job unnecessarily difficult but that too is their lookout not mine. I gather that babble isn't high priority and if it becomes too much trouble they will just shut it down and commenting will be relegated to the articles.

Pondering

Cody87 wrote:
The NDP will be able to bludgeon Trudeau with his FPTP promise if he doesn't keep it, and it WILL stick. All the left leaning soft liberal support can go to the NDP just as easily as it went to the Liberals. We saw that in 2011.

Changing FPTP is primarily an NDP supporters issue. It isn't a major driving motivator for Liberal voters particularly now that they have a majority government. Canadians in general have not agitated against FPTP.

Acknowledging that no one can literally predict the future it will be extremely difficult to beat the Liberals in 2019. Reading comments around the web people are ecstatic just over Trudeau's tone. He was cheered by civil servants. Scientists have been informed that they are allowed to speak without permission.

Trudeau will surely disappoint people and make mistakes, but he only has to be better than Harper. The pain of Harper's decade will not be easily forgotten. 

If moderate progressives have any inkling that the Conservatives could win even under a new leader they will swarm to the Liberals in even greater numbers than in this election. If the Conservatives implode and the Liberals are strong, voters might feel safe enough to switch to the NDP.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

MegB wrote:

Let's keep it on topic folks. No need to "berrate" each other. :) Unionist, resist the temptation please.

There are a few posters here who berate me in practically every post they write yet somehow they rarely seem catch your attention.

As long as you don't object it won't stop.

Funny you have proclaimed in many posts that you like be provocative but you object to the response.

You could just modify your posting style somewhat and things will cool off.

I don't know the long term history of this board or it's posters. I know that since I have been lurking/posting, Pondering is occasionally guilty of blatant obfustication/spin, but more often than not her points, including the valid ones, are disregarded and she is attacked just because "it's Pondering."

I disagree. I am usually very specific about what my reasons are for objection. My anger is built up over time but the substance for the posts I write is immediate. When Pondering writes something that is not in her typical style and content sometimes I don't reply and sometimes I do constructively. I explain if I post. I don't just post stuff against her that is not relevant to a specific post she has just made.

mark_alfred

I'm beginning to think the trudeaumetre.ca site is just a Liberal promo site.  I've pointed out the Liberal balanced budget promise (one of their less appealing promises that may involve cuts in the future) to them in numerous ways and they ignore it.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm beginning to think the trudeaumetre.ca site is just a Liberal promo site.  I've pointed out the Liberal balanced budget promise (one of their less appealing promises that may involve cuts in the future) to them in numerous ways and they ignore it.

You have to admit it would be clever to control the voice for your accountibility.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Sounds like someone needs to register the domain name "trudeaumetremetre" and start watching the watchdog.

jjuares

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

MegB wrote:

Let's keep it on topic folks. No need to "berrate" each other. :) Unionist, resist the temptation please.

There are a few posters here who berate me in practically every post they write yet somehow they rarely seem catch your attention.

As long as you don't object it won't stop.

Funny you have proclaimed in many posts that you like be provocative but you object to the response.

You could just modify your posting style somewhat and things will cool off.

I don't know the long term history of this board or it's posters. I know that since I have been lurking/posting, Pondering is occasionally guilty of blatant obfustication/spin, but more often than not her points, including the valid ones, are disregarded and she is attacked just because "it's Pondering."


To be fair to Pondering anyone who has been around here long enough runs into problems. In her case she has alienated people by posting what many believe to be inaccurate statements. The second area has been some of her provocative stands on issues such as: victims of sexual harassment, labour unions, youth and even Hitler. These stands are even more controversial because they are posted on the site that believes itself to be progressive. If she had posted these viewpoints on a right wing site they wouldn't have been as controversial ( with the exception of her Hitler comment which would have probably been a bridge too far for most right wing sites). But you are right people continue to respond to her and have threads derailed. I never respond to any of her posts or even read them for that matter. Why others who are so irritated by her can't go down that road remains a mystery to me.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
To be fair to Pondering anyone who has been around here long enough runs into problems. In her case she has alienated people by posting what many believe to be inaccurate statements. The second area has been some of her provocative stands on issues such as: victims of sexual harassment, labour unions, youth and even Hitler. These stands are even more controversial because they are posted on the site that believes itself to be progressive. If she had posted these viewpoints on a right wing site they wouldn't have been as controversial ( with the exception of her Hitler comment which would have probably been a bridge too far for most right wing sites). But you are right people continue to respond to her and have threads derailed. I never respond to any of her posts or even read them for that matter. Why others who are so irritated by her can't go down that road remains a mystery to me.

I used Hitler as an example of a successful leader in terms of skill even though what he led people to do was terrible. My point was that leadership skill is separate from moral goodness. I believe the conversation revolved around Harper's leadership.

I won't go into the rest but it is mostly along the same lines.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm beginning to think the trudeaumetre.ca site is just a Liberal promo site.  I've pointed out the Liberal balanced budget promise (one of their less appealing promises that may involve cuts in the future) to them in numerous ways and they ignore it.

You have to admit it would be clever to control the voice for your accountibility.

The Trudeau metre is tracking platform items. Neither running a deficit nor balancing the budget in the third year were platform commitments.

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm beginning to think the trudeaumetre.ca site is just a Liberal promo site.  I've pointed out the Liberal balanced budget promise (one of their less appealing promises that may involve cuts in the future) to them in numerous ways and they ignore it.

You have to admit it would be clever to control the voice for your accountibility.

The Trudeau metre is tracking platform items. Neither running a deficit nor balancing the budget in the third year were platform commitments.

Mostly incorrect. Both running a deficit and balancing the budget in 2019 (not the third year, but that was not claimed in the posts you quoted) are in the platform.

"We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure and our middle class.

After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019."

http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/investing-now/

Pondering

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm beginning to think the trudeaumetre.ca site is just a Liberal promo site.  I've pointed out the Liberal balanced budget promise (one of their less appealing promises that may involve cuts in the future) to them in numerous ways and they ignore it.

You have to admit it would be clever to control the voice for your accountibility.

The Trudeau metre is tracking platform items. Neither running a deficit nor balancing the budget in the third year were platform commitments.

Mostly incorrect. Both running a deficit and balancing the budget in 2019 (not the third year, but that was not claimed in the posts you quoted) are in the platform.

"We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure and our middle class.

After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019."

http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/investing-now/

I stand corrected. I hope they add those in then.

NorthReport
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
To be fair to Pondering anyone who has been around here long enough runs into problems. In her case she has alienated people by posting what many believe to be inaccurate statements. The second area has been some of her provocative stands on issues such as: victims of sexual harassment, labour unions, youth and even Hitler. These stands are even more controversial because they are posted on the site that believes itself to be progressive. If she had posted these viewpoints on a right wing site they wouldn't have been as controversial ( with the exception of her Hitler comment which would have probably been a bridge too far for most right wing sites). But you are right people continue to respond to her and have threads derailed. I never respond to any of her posts or even read them for that matter. Why others who are so irritated by her can't go down that road remains a mystery to me.

I used Hitler as an example of a successful leader in terms of skill even though what he led people to do was terrible. My point was that leadership skill is separate from moral goodness. I believe the conversation revolved around Harper's leadership.

I won't go into the rest but it is mostly along the same lines.

Well, given that Remembrance Day is upcoming, I just need to speak to this, your DELIBERATE CHOICE OF HITLER. You are despicable Pondering.

As a Vet of 30 years, your commentary shows to me, you have no understanding at all how egrecious your choice of Hitler is. And as the son of a World War 2 Vet, second man off his landing craft at Juno, first wave, who fought thorugh France and Belgium, I GAURNANTEE, he and ANY OTHER VET, would take umberage and feel insult at your insensitive commentary. It is typical of you. You are shamless, tone-deaf, and obtuse (deliebrate or other wise), in the very worst way. Not one of them would accept your saying you were just trying to make a point. NOT ONE OF THEM would understand how you could do so in ANY WAY!

Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame! Vets died for you! Vets served for you. NONE of us served to PROECT you so you could talk about Hitler as an example of leadership. Attillia the Hun was a "Great Leader", but no one in their RIGHT MIND, would sight him, either.

Shame Pondering. How offensive! Shame, shame, shame!

NorthReport

Laughing

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Sounds like someone needs to register the domain name "trudeaumetremetre" and start watching the watchdog.

Pondering

AC, surprisingly you do not have a monopoly on family who served in WWII. My father served, suffered lifelong injuries and he lost a brother. I imagine many posters here are of an age that has relatives who were directly affected by WWII. It is very important to remember how a skilled leader can so twist the population of a developed country that they follow him into madness.

Using this issue to condemn someone on a message board doesn't seem respectful.

quizzical

yep like this:

Quote:
"The pace of Canada's aerial bombardment against ISIL has picked up since Justin Trudeau became prime minister, a curious scenario given his campaign pledge to withdraw from the US-led mssion in Iraq and Syria.

And the mission is set to continue until the government recalls its forces. 'It's part of Operation Impact; which is continuing under the mandate given to it by Parliament until direction is provided otherwise..."

http://www.canada.com/news/world/pace+canadian+strikes+against+isil+pick...

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

AC, surprisingly you do not have a monopoly on family who served in WWII. My father served, suffered lifelong injuries and he lost a brother. I imagine many posters here are of an age that has relatives who were directly affected by WWII. It is very important to remember how a skilled leader can so twist the population of a developed country that they follow him into madness.

Using this issue to condemn someone on a message board doesn't seem respectful.

You pompos twit Citing Hitler as an example of leadership was the ultimate insult All you do Pondering, is insult people. I thank yur father for his service. But I'll bet he doesn't think Hitler is someone you'd cite about anything. If anything, you insulted your Dad. you tone-deaf idiot!

I'm glad you're a Liberal. It makes me easier to remain convinced I have the moral highground.

ETA: go to a Remembrance Day Service tomorrow. And PAY ATTENITON!

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

yep like this:

Quote:
"The pace of Canada's aerial bombardment against ISIL has picked up since Justin Trudeau became prime minister, a curious scenario given his campaign pledge to withdraw from the US-led mssion in Iraq and Syria.

And the mission is set to continue until the government recalls its forces. 'It's part of Operation Impact; which is continuing under the mandate given to it by Parliament until direction is provided otherwise..."

http://www.canada.com/news/world/pace+canadian+strikes+against+isil+pick...

 

What are the responses to this?

I don't understand why the Trudeau government could not have pulled these back right away. This one is as simple as an order. The Military works for our govenrment. BS on the claim that it is operational.

Bombing is not the answer and the Liberals campaigned against it.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sean, how would he pull back the bombing mission? Has the cabinet even met? Could he do it through and Order-in-Council?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'd like to go on record that Harper was pretty damn close to Atilla The Hun. Good riddance.Unfortunately his crew of zombies are the Opposition.

I'm only interested in the Liberal's promises. I'm patient. It won't happen overnight.

At least the facade remains stable, http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/prime-minister-trudeau-says-bombardier-needs-...

This certainly is better than Harper. Imagine Herr Harper addressing labour.

terrytowel

NDP Peter Stoffer has said "The voters are never wrong"

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

NDP Peter Stoffer has said "The voters are never wrong"

Sounds like the only time he was right.

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

yep like this:

Quote:
"The pace of Canada's aerial bombardment against ISIL has picked up since Justin Trudeau became prime minister, a curious scenario given his campaign pledge to withdraw from the US-led mssion in Iraq and Syria.

And the mission is set to continue until the government recalls its forces. 'It's part of Operation Impact; which is continuing under the mandate given to it by Parliament until direction is provided otherwise..."

http://www.canada.com/news/world/pace+canadian+strikes+against+isil+pick...

Maybe they are using up their stock of bombs, maybe they are staying until the currrent agreement expires.

Trudeau's argument has primarily been that there are better ways for us to contribute to the fight, not that we are morally wrong to be part of the bombing mission. His position has been that it's not the most effective way for us to participate and the misson is ill-defined.

I hope that he cancels the mission sooner but I suspect that he will allow our current commitment to run out after which we will be aiding in some other manner. Sudden withdrawal would probably be diplomatically difficult.

Pondering

My father didn't speak of the war much. He said that war gives men bloodlust and nurtures cruelty. He said he shot men who were still boys. He wasn't proud of his metals. Germany had to be stopped because Hitler had awakened the monster within the people of Germany but that war had awakened the monster in many of the men he fought side by side with.

My father said honouring the dead should remind us of the horrible cost of war and that there is no glory in it.

My father said that there is no devil tempting people to be evil, no god to protect us. He said Hitler was just a man who knew how to manipulate people. He just need the right circumstances to rise. It suits the Hitlers of the world very much if we inflate Hitler into some sort of evil genius incomparable to any other instead of examining how he gained power, what he appealed to within us because he was a man of flesh and blood like any other.

"Little Eichmanns" is a phrase used to describe persons participating in society who, while on an individual scale may seem relatively harmless even to themselves, taken collectively create destructive and immoral systems in which they are actually complicit. The phrase gets its name from Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi bureaucrat who unfeelingly helped to orchestrate the Holocaust. The use of "Eichmann" as an archetype stems from Hannah Arendt's notion of the banality of evil; she wrote in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil that Eichmann relied on propaganda rather than thinking for himself, and carried out Nazi goals mostly to advance his career. She called him the embodiment of the "banality of evil" as he appeared at his trial to have an ordinary and common personality and displayed neither guilt nor hatred. She suggested that this most strikingly discredits the idea that the Nazi criminals were manifestly psychopathic and fundamentally different from ordinary people.

Pasted from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns>

So on Remembrance day I am reminded to beware not of the devil but of the Hitlers that walk among us and the Eichmanns ready to follow.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I'm glad you're a Liberal. It makes me easier to remain convinced I have the moral highground.

I have said numerous times that I am not "a Liberal" but you insist on repeating it because you want to generate anger. You indulge your hostility by jumping on every opportunity to insult me then look for excuses to justify yourself. A person doing that has no claim to moral high ground.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
But I'll bet he doesn't think Hitler is someone you'd cite about anything.

My father would definitely want me and the world to remember just how easily people are manipulated by the Hitlers of the world to do things we want to believe we and our neighbours are not even capable of because we are "civilized". Germany and Hitler are important reminders that just because we are "civilized" doesn't mean we are inoculated against a leader that sets people against one another and uses xenophobia and military pride to gain support for launching wars.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

I hope that he cancels the mission sooner but I suspect that he will allow our current commitment to run out after which we will be aiding in some other manner. Sudden withdrawal would probably be diplomatically difficult.

As long as he, and you, realize that every death since November 4 is on his bloody hands.

What I haven't heard yet, is the f***ing NDP demanding that Trudeau stop the killing. Until they do, every death is on their bloody hands as well.

I'm not expecting the "official" opposition to ask for this.

Pondering, just a personal little question: How dare you cite diplomatic difficulty when the issue is stopping murder and aggression? Just curious. Or are you merely trying to explain Mr. Trudeau's twisted thinking?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, the military, "doesn't use something untill hasn't got any more". I was on a ship at Sea. I know first hand. Sorry, that's a whopper of an excuse. Nope. I don't think so Pondering.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I hope that he cancels the mission sooner but I suspect that he will allow our current commitment to run out after which we will be aiding in some other manner. Sudden withdrawal would probably be diplomatically difficult.

As long as he, and you, realize that every death since November 4 is on his bloody hands.

What I haven't heard yet, is the f***ing NDP demanding that Trudeau stop the killing. Until they do, every death is on their bloody hands as well.

I'm not expecting the "official" opposition to ask for this.

Pondering, just a personal little question: How dare you cite diplomatic difficulty when the issue is stopping murder and aggression? Just curious. Or are you merely trying to explain Mr. Trudeau's twisted thinking?

 

I agree with everything you wrote, especially the criticism of the NDP. What a bunch of cowards!

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Sean, how would he pull back the bombing mission? Has the cabinet even met? Could he do it through and Order-in-Council?

Yes cabinet has met and I am sure it can give orders to the Canadian Forces to stop bombing.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
yep like this:

Quote:
"The pace of Canada's aerial bombardment against ISIL has picked up since Justin Trudeau became prime minister, a curious scenario given his campaign pledge to withdraw from the US-led mssion in Iraq and Syria.

And the mission is set to continue until the government recalls its forces. 'It's part of Operation Impact; which is continuing under the mandate given to it by Parliament until direction is provided otherwise..."

 

Maybe they are using up their stock of bombs, maybe they are staying until the currrent agreement expires.

Trudeau's argument has primarily been that there are better ways for us to contribute to the fight, not that we are morally wrong to be part of the bombing mission. His position has been that it's not the most effective way for us to participate and the misson is ill-defined.

I hope that he cancels the mission sooner but I suspect that he will allow our current commitment to run out after which we will be aiding in some other manner. Sudden withdrawal would probably be diplomatically difficult

what a bunch of pandering bs. pondering don't ever ever ever pretend you have a "progressive" bone in your body again.

diplomacy is more important than lives??????? are you fking for real?????? using up a stock of bombs??????? it's people getting bombed.....

sickens me...........

webgear in another thread said they could get them back within 4 months.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I hope that he cancels the mission sooner but I suspect that he will allow our current commitment to run out after which we will be aiding in some other manner. Sudden withdrawal would probably be diplomatically difficult.

As long as he, and you, realize that every death since November 4 is on his bloody hands.

What I haven't heard yet, is the f***ing NDP demanding that Trudeau stop the killing. Until they do, every death is on their bloody hands as well.

I'm not expecting the "official" opposition to ask for this.

Pondering, just a personal little question: How dare you cite diplomatic difficulty when the issue is stopping murder and aggression? Just curious. Or are you merely trying to explain Mr. Trudeau's twisted thinking?

I am not expressing approval. If we don't acknowledge or consider the real parameters that are impacting the decisions government makes it doesn't make them vanish. Public opinion is another parameter, a very important one.

You interpret it as murder and aggression but not everyone agrees. Some just think it's counter productive for us to do it not that ISIS shouldn't be bombed by somebody to stop their advance. From that perspective the bombing is stopping murder and aggression. That is the perspective of people who support the bombing.

I believe he will withdraw us from the bombing mission but I don't have any expectation on timing because he didn't specify and I have no idea what it entails.

Contrary to what many think I did not vote for Trudeau wearing rose coloured glasses. He is not the messiah but then neither was anyone else on the ballot.

Calling people twisted, saying they have blood on their hands, that they are murderers, may be emotionally satisfying but it doesn't convince people that you are right. Just the opposite.

Name-calling and insults didn't convince me the bombing is wrong and counter-productive. Information and coming to my own conclusions convinced me.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Calling people twisted, saying they have blood on their hands, that they are murderers, may be emotionally satisfying but it doesn't convince people that you are right. Just the opposite.

 

Not interested in convincing them. They are the enemy. And those who claimed to oppose the bombing, and are now continuing it, can't be trusted to avoid, say, committing genocide in Canada too.

There were people who thought the Jews deserved it (talking about the genocide that destroyed my family). Not interested in convincing them otherwise. If you don't like me telling the truth about these non-human kinds of savages, fill your boots. But you won't stop me telling the truth.

I politely wrote to Trudeau, asking him to keep his promise and stop the bombing. I have to be polite with him. Because what he does goes down in the books as the deeds of Canada - i.e., me. So I need to be diplomatic and yet ensure that I'm on record that he is not acting in my name.

As for those folks who try to justify what he's doing - like those who tried to justify the NDP's support for slaughtering Libyans and being complicit in regime change - I feel I can speak a little more openly. I feel I can refer to them as the contemptuous conscience-less scum that they are. If you can't figure out that much, go somewhere else to hear a convincing argument. All you'll hear from me are warnings, to watch your step, because those who live by the sword, are proverbially at serious risk of dying by the sword. Ask Hitler and his cheerleaders if you don't get my meaning.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I hope that he cancels the mission sooner but I suspect that he will allow our current commitment to run out after which we will be aiding in some other manner. Sudden withdrawal would probably be diplomatically difficult.

As long as he, and you, realize that every death since November 4 is on his bloody hands.

What I haven't heard yet, is the f***ing NDP demanding that Trudeau stop the killing. Until they do, every death is on their bloody hands as well.

I'm not expecting the "official" opposition to ask for this.

Pondering, just a personal little question: How dare you cite diplomatic difficulty when the issue is stopping murder and aggression? Just curious. Or are you merely trying to explain Mr. Trudeau's twisted thinking?

I am not expressing approval. If we don't acknowledge or consider the real parameters that are impacting the decisions government makes it doesn't make them vanish. Public opinion is another parameter, a very important one.

You interpret it as murder and aggression but not everyone agrees. Some just think it's counter productive for us to do it not that ISIS shouldn't be bombed by somebody to stop their advance. From that perspective the bombing is stopping murder and aggression. That is the perspective of people who support the bombing.

And what about you Pondering, do you support the bombing, or not? Yes, or no? Its a simple question, ansnwer it!

Pondering wrote:

I believe he will withdraw us from the bombing mission but I don't have any expectation on timing because he didn't specify and I have no idea what it entails.

Here's what it entails. He tells the Minister of National Defence to direct the CDS to tell ground Commanders to stand down. That's all it takes. It'd take all of an hour; any other questions. Its called Flash Traffic. Everyone in the CF knows what to do when that comes in.

Pondering wrote:

Contrary to what many think I did not vote for Trudeau wearing rose coloured glasses. He is not the messiah but then neither was anyone else on the ballot.

Sorry Pondering, no one who is sentinent here belives that whopper!

Pondering wrote:

Calling people twisted, saying they have blood on their hands, that they are murderers, may be emotionally satisfying but it doesn't convince people that you are right. Just the opposite.

Yeah Unionist, be nice! Peace in our time!

Pondering wrote:

Name-calling and insults didn't convince me the bombing is wrong and counter-productive. Information and coming to my own conclusions convinced me.

Oh, really?

NDPP

After more than a year and a half it should be obvious to all that Canada, USA and the rest of the western coalition hasn't been doing much killing of ISIS at all. Au contraire they grew it even bigger.  The primary purpose of this adventure was never ISIS but  regime change in Syria. In that ISIS and the West are on the same page.

Bring the bums home. It's very expensive and they're only acting as usual as Uncle Sam's waterboys anyway.

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Calling people twisted, saying they have blood on their hands, that they are murderers, may be emotionally satisfying but it doesn't convince people that you are right. Just the opposite.

Not interested in convincing them. They are the enemy. And those who claimed to oppose the bombing, and are now continuing it, can't be trusted to avoid, say, committing genocide in Canada too.

There were people who thought the Jews deserved it (talking about the genocide that destroyed my family). Not interested in convincing them otherwise. If you don't like me telling the truth about these non-human kinds of savages, fill your boots. But you won't stop me telling the truth.

I politely wrote to Trudeau, asking him to keep his promise and stop the bombing. I have to be polite with him. Because what he does goes down in the books as the deeds of Canada - i.e., me. So I need to be diplomatic and yet ensure that I'm on record that he is not acting in my name.

As for those folks who try to justify what he's doing - like those who tried to justify the NDP's support for slaughtering Libyans and being complicit in regime change - I feel I can speak a little more openly. I feel I can refer to them as the contemptuous conscience-less scum that they are. If you can't figure out that much, go somewhere else to hear a convincing argument. All you'll hear from me are warnings, to watch your step, because those who live by the sword, are proverbially at serious risk of dying by the sword. Ask Hitler and his cheerleaders if you don't get my meaning.

There are people who believe not stopping ISIS and not stopping the Russians would be like not stopping Hitler.They are not your enemies.

If the goal is to stop Canada from bombing in this particular mission it will soon be done. The sooner the better but it is unlikely anything you do will change the outcome. Trudeau already wants to bring us back to "peacekeeping". If you want us out of the Ukraine, and out of the weapons business, and out of dubious "peacekeeping" then you will need the support of people you call your enemies.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

There are people who believe not stopping ISIS and not stopping the Russians would be like not stopping Hitler.They are not your enemies.

Why are you on about the Russians?

Quote:
If the goal is to stop Canada from bombing in this particular mission it will soon be done.

What does "soon" mean, when we are murdering innocent foreigners without any figleaf of U.N. approval?

Quote:
Trudeau already wants to bring us back to "peacekeeping".

If I follow your logic, some people believe that to keep the peace, we need to send bombers to foreign countries. So I'll be extra careful about Trudeau's "peacekeeping" ambitions, right?

Quote:
If you want us out of the Ukraine, and out of the weapons business, and out of dubious "peacekeeping" then you will need the support of people you call your enemies.

Why are you going on about Ukraine and weapons and the like? Is it in reference to something I said?

All I said was that every Syrian or Iraqi who dies after November 4 as a result of Canadian bombing - their blood is on Trudeau's head, and I daresay on the head of every apologist and sycophant that makes excuses for Trudeau violating his promise to end the "mission".

Allow me to repeat that.

And I could have sworn Trudeau explained to Obama that Canada was out.

Was there a 180 day cancellation clause or something? Or have we not filled our quota of murdering foreigners?

 

NDPP

And again, by the way, the presence and operations of CF in both Iraq and Syria are proceeding without the consent or permission of either government or the UN and as such constitute egregious and outrageous violations of international law. There should be some very uncomfortable questions asked of Canadian politicians about the lack of any legal mandate to do what has been done to the countries and peoples of Iraq and Syria and Canadian involvement in these high crimes.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Why are you going on about Ukraine and weapons and the like? Is it in reference to something I said?

All I said was that every Syrian or Iraqi who dies after November 4 as a result of Canadian bombing - their blood is on Trudeau's head, and I daresay on the head of every apologist and sycophant that makes excuses for Trudeau violating his promise to end the "mission".

Allow me to repeat that.

And I could have sworn Trudeau explained to Obama that Canada was out.

Was there a 180 day cancellation clause or something? Or have we not filled our quota of murdering foreigners?

I'm assuming the goal is not to stop just this particular bombing but to stop as much of the violence as possible. We are doing a lot of stuff aside from bombing that is causing death and suffering.

I am not "excusing" Trudeau because I believe he is going to keep his commitment to pull the CF-18s out of Iraq. I never understood it to mean that he would make the order the instant he took the oath of office. I'm sorry if that was your expectation.

Trudeau has never said that he is against the bombing, only that there are better ways for us to contribute to the fight against ISIS. I have no reason to disbelieve him.

If I were not on this message board I might support the bombing as necessary to stop ISIS from terrorizing Iraqi and Syrians. I've read that the beheading thing is deliberate because ISIS wants to incite the US to attack to destabilize the Mid east so they can take over. I'm not sure that I buy that, but without remembering the specifics, I have read enough to understand that the Mid East is a complex place and that Libya and Iraq do not seem like better places to live since they were "liberated". So I am against bombing but my thinking on it is very simplistic. I would not be able to convince other people that we shouldn't be bombing.

I have a difficult time seeing all these issues as simple black and white choices the way that you do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/world/europe/ukraine-frozen-zone-virtu...

The changes came fast for Ms. Filatova. Startled by the rebels’ takeover of the regional government, her flock of friends and fellow young professionals scattered like birds. Very few, if any, have returned. Some determined souls, like her, stayed.

Things went from bad to worse. The rebel zone rapidly sank into a chaotic and lawless state that had no place for the tax auditing company where she had worked.

When the firm folded, Ms. Filatova’s once-respectable salary for Ukraine of about $750 a month turned to dust. She now earns a paltry $85 a month keeping the books for a public school.

But the new job came with a catch. Ms. Filatova was required to join a separatist youth group, the Young Republic, where she has been expected to volunteer her free time for Communist-themed activities, like marching with flags on holidays....

The war between the Russian-backed so-called People’s Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk and the Ukrainian government broke out in April 2014 and quickly escalated in cruelty and intensity, killing nearly 8,000 people, according to the United Nations. About 1.3 million have been displaced.

The guns went quiet in eastern Ukraine in September, wrapping up with a cease-fire but with no final settlement. This is a common arc of post-Soviet conflict, visible in the Georgian enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan and in Transnistria, a strip of land on Moldova’s border with Ukraine.

In each case, the Kremlin intervened or provided arms on the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians or local allies, then it installed pro-Russian governments that it has used to manipulate events in the host countries. The contested borders of frozen zones also effectively guard against any further expansion of NATO, since no country with an unresolved border conflict can join the alliance.

“It is an amazing injustice, to be honest,” Ms. Filatova said of the Kremlin’s policy of creating frozen zones.

“You sit here and think, ‘Why me?’ ” she said. “ ‘Why my family? Why did my life at one moment turn out completely differently?’ And it’s not just me. Hundreds of thousands of people just fell through the looking glass.”

Not just the people, perhaps, but the entire territory. In the frozen zone, they live in ruins, amid a ruined ideology, in the ruins of the old empire.

The following is a post-election video interview with the defence minister Harjit Sajjan including his viewpoints on C - 51.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/defence-minister-says-he-warned...

It's long but it was well worth listening all the way to the end for me. Maybe I am just a sucker but this man seems smart and sincere to me. I'm willing to give the Trudeau government more than 5 days to get it all together.

Rev Pesky

Just a little note, Pondering. The New York Times has about as much credibility as Baron Munchhausen. It was the home, after all, of Judith Miller, notorious for her lying stories about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. If you're looking for a credible source, and I assume you are, the NYT would (should) be at the bottom of the list, probably somewhere after the National Enquirer. At least with the Enquirer we know they're joking...

NorthReport

Time is starting to fly by

We are now into the second week of the Trudeau regime and still no action on 178 out of 184 Liberal election campaign committments. That's quite a dismal batting average. Frown

 

NorthReport

Be a promise tracker:

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/login

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Libs back tracking on Veterans Affairs promises already, http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1321999-liberals-no-longer-promi...

Pages

Topic locked