Trudeaumetre - Bravo!

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering I believe that if Gregoire were someone else, not married to Trudeau and not a Liberal you would not be defending her.

I think this is the essential credibility problem you have here.

It is not believable that she did not know that she was to be the face of the event -- a white face where that is wrong. She ought to have known better.And yes public figures need to ask when given an invitation: "who else is involved?" Anyone not privileged and stunned would have had the answer.

To say her cluelessness is racist may sound harsh but the greatest feature of white racism today is not overt but this tradition of cluelessness- being oblivious. It is privelege that gives you that ability to be as stunned as she was. If you are going to be a public figure in these contexts and you do not take the time to check these things you are clueless, oblivious, prejudiced -- racist may sound harsh but, I am sorry, it is not inaccurate.

Race relations in Canada is not so much, most of the time, a question of getting a metaphorical fist in the face -- it is a question of getting the elbow. If you and Gregoire can't understand this, then you are, yourself, part of the problem. Sorry but this needs to be said.

Many of us are well-meaning. Many of us can make mistakes and at times do. Combatting racism is understanding our part of it. When we are unaware, due to privelege, we miss stuff. But after the fact things are clear and how we react to our mistakes defines character. Defending it saying it is not a problem is racist. Her inability to speak out after the event when it was clear what happened and apologize for it was racist even if her presence there and her little song was clueless. The result was clear. To think, her white priveleged self, was an appropriate focus for the event -- even after it when the media came out -- that is racist. And yes, she could have spoken out after -- saying that it was not her intention to hijack this.

She as the celebrity she is, could call a press conference and say here standing with me are the people you really should be hearing from, thank the people for attending and give the floor to the people who should ahve headlined the event. She is choosing to use her celebrity for herself and her husband rather than responsibly. She has a choice here and is perhaps too stunned to see it.

She can't see that, maybe, becuase she is priveleged and clueless. When this affects racial inequality we call that racist. She is not nasty or overt but don't tell me this behaviour is not racist. Think elbow not fist.

If ever you can take your Liberal rose coloured glasses off, there might be hope that you could see this. Try to stop behaving here as the defender and advocate of the Liberals and Trudeau and a little more aware. Please.

As Former First Lady Rosalynn Carter has said

You're going to be criticized it doesn't matter what you do. I could of stayed at the White House, poured teas, had receptions and I would have been criticized. As much as I was criticized outside for what I did. And I got a lot of criticism. You learn to live with as I said earlier. You live with it. You expect it and you live with it. Never let it influence me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e93n-845fRU

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Justin Trudeau phone call prompts husband of Burkina Faso victim to hang up

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/burkina-faso-relative-trudeau-1.3...

playing true to shallow form.

Quote:

''My prime minister called me and began speaking in such a canned manner, wishing me good luck, offering me his condolences and talking about them as a source of Canadian pride,'' he said.

''That's when I told him to stop his political blabbing.

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Unfortunately, she has tried to define this issue as bashing Sophie and how it will impact Justin's re-election chances. I guess if that is your only metric, how it impacts the Liberal chances of winning the next election, morality and ethics, respect, all those qualities become irrelevant. In some ways she does a great service here by demonstrating how uber partisanship affects your judgement. However, I am a little uncomfortable using the word racist though and I have not used it. Insensitive, clueless, narcissistic, uninformed, disrespectful are all accurate though.

 

The word is harsh but if you look at what causes this kind of cluelessness this is an important understanding. The cluelessness of privelege is racism. At some point you learn that racism is not just among the hateful people with bad intentions but among the people who have privelege and power who lack the desire to spend the time to think this through. This is racist.

People have to face the word and understand what this means and that is why I used the word elbow -- not intentional like a fist but with a similar effect.

I don't say this pretending that I have not myself been guilty of being blind to privelege and throwing the elbow without meaning to -- I am working on it. Something we all must do. Part of that is of course recognizing the racism that is at the core of not seeing and recognizing that racism is not limited to hateful poeple but includes people who do not see themselves as racist and mean well.

But there is an intent to a denial that is as significant as Gregoire's. This is not a minor case of bad judgment here. The bad judgment might have put her in the position. But she has since seen the pictures whch have been in the news, no doubt she has heard of the Vice story as it has been well reported. She has seen the CBC story with that sad focus on her. And she has not reacted appropriately. Like I said above, there is a possibility of mitigation. She can say that the people who should have been heard were not and use her celebrity to correct that. She is not doing that becuase she does not care to.

Sorry, but I do not mind being harsh now.

As far as Pondering --she is acting as we have come to expect.

16 pages of bashing on Sophie! For Trudeau's detractors this is a gold mine they've found! And isn't it a huge political coup!

and

In reality it's obviously a nothing issue that is only going to hurt Trudeau amongst his rabidly hating opposition anyway. It can be seen by the LIberals as about as good as it's going to get for the opposition until the rabid right and the rabid left get their ducks lined up on an issue that matters.

And why is it that I'm starting to suspect that the Conservatives and the NDP will finally come together and demand that Trudeau leave the 6 jet bombers in the US led wars? It's a done deal for the Cons but now it's only a question of how the NDP will be able to do it too?

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

[Certainly if she had made some statement after that would have improved the situation.

Well, in fairness to Ms. Gregoire, improve WHAT situation? It's not like there have been howls of outrage from black Canadians(the group presumbaly most justified in taking offense over this). In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of ONE black Canadian who has complained, let alone one who would be qualified to speak on behalf of black Canadians as a whole.

Outside of babble, most of the complaining I've seen has come from on-line comment sections(CBC, etc), mostly from people who never liked the Liberals to begin with, and one guy on Ezra Levant's Rebel media, again, saying pretty much what you'd expect given his pre-existing views. I wouldn't exactly call this a mass wave of outrage to which Sophie Gregoire is obligated to reply.

Now, don't get me wrong, I thought the performance was cheezy as hell, definitely self-indlugent, and maybe even a little racist. But until people from the relevant communities start making an issue of it, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the rest of us to be demandning that Ms. G do this, that, or the other thing.

TL/DR: Why should Ms. Gregoire respond to a controversy that so far seems to exist only in the minds of a few dozen on-line commenters?

terrytowel wrote:

monty1 wrote:

And why is it that I'm starting to suspect that the Conservatives and the NDP will finally come together and demand that Trudeau leave the 6 jet bombers in the US led wars? It's a done deal for the Cons but now it's only a question of how the NDP will be able to do it too?

If the NDP does that they might as well hold the upcoming election in a phone booth. The grassroots will not accept leaving the firejets where they are.

They're already in a large phone booth anyway. And I think you have seriously missed the mark when you guage the sentiments of the NDP's grass roots. Becuase the majority of Canadians want Trudeau to leave the bombers there and escalate Canada's contribution while we know the Conservatives only have about 30 -35% support. How ya gonna square that with reality? 

terrytowel wrote:

monty1 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

monty1 wrote:

And why is it that I'm starting to suspect that the Conservatives and the NDP will finally come together and demand that Trudeau leave the 6 jet bombers in the US led wars? It's a done deal for the Cons but now it's only a question of how the NDP will be able to do it too?

If the NDP does that they might as well hold the upcoming election in a phone booth. The grassroots will not accept leaving the firejets where they are.

They're already in a large phone booth anyway. And I think you have seriously missed the mark when you guage the sentiments of the NDP's grass roots. Becuase the majority of Canadians want Trudeau to leave the bombers there and escalate Canada's contribution while we know the Conservatives only have about 30 -35% support. How ya gonna square that with reality? 

As Megan Leslie once said you have to govern not by public opinion, but what is right. There is NO WAY NDP members support keeping the jets there. If they do a 180, then the party will lose all credibility not only with their members, but the public as well.

You argue what I said but you don't square it as I asked. Who are these politically active Canadians who want the bombers to stay and for Trudeau to increas Canada's contribution. I'm going to bet you a buck that a lot of NDP supporters are not in the antiwar camp on that. 

Well said voice of the damned! 

Let's all put our heads together and find something really, really bad that we can use to bash on Trudeau! Maybe something from one of Harper's campaign ads can be revived and made to work, even though they were dismal failures at the time? 

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

[Certainly if she had made some statement after that would have improved the situation.

Well, in fairness to Ms. Gregoire, improve WHAT situation? It's not like there have been howls of outrage from black Canadians(the group presumbaly most justified in taking offense over this). In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of ONE black Canadian who has complained, let alone one who would be qualified to speak on behalf of black Canadians as a whole.

Outside of babble, most of the complaining I've seen has come from on-line comment sections(CBC, etc), mostly from people who never liked the Liberals to begin with, and one guy on Ezra Levant's Rebel media, again, saying pretty much what you'd expect given his pre-existing views. I wouldn't exactly call this a mass wave of outrage to which Sophie Gregoire is obligated to reply.

Now, don't get me wrong, I thought the performance was cheezy as hell, definitely self-indlugent, and maybe even a little racist. But until people from the relevant communities start making an issue of it, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the rest of us to be demandning that Ms. G do this, that, or the other thing.

TL/DR: Why should Ms. Gregoire respond to a controversy that so far seems to exist only in the minds of a few dozen on-line commenters?

Well, I don't decide if things are wrong by the number of online complaints or the volume of outrage in the media. As quaint as it is I just follow my conscience. And knowing something of the civil rights struggle I was disgusted by her insensitivity and lack of respect. I did not ask her to do anything. I simply agreed that she could mitigate this by a comment afterwards. But as I said I don't expect that self reflection is going to the strong suit of this government and consequently I won't hold my breath. Because remember she got a standing ovation and as one of our uber partisans noted the Liberals won't lose any votes over this. So it must be all good.

Well, yeah, that standing ovation does count for something, I'd say.

Maybe I think certain jokes should be especially offensive to my friend Bill. But, if I see people telling the jokes to Bill, and Bill subsequently collapsing into fits of helpless laughter, well, I'm not really gonna bother going around denouncing the joke-tellers. Whatever the actual offensiveness of the jokes according to some textbook standard, if Bill himself can't be bothered to take offense(or even wants to hear more of the jokes), why should I do anything about it?

Actually, a more profitable course of action for me might be to convince Bill himself why he should be offended by the jokes. Having the complaint coming from Bill might give it a bit more credibility than just me bewailing the humour, while Bill rolls around in stitches on the floor.

So, anyone up for penning A WHITE GUY'S MANIFESTO ON WHY BLACKS NEED TO BE MORE OFFENDED BY SOPHIE GREGOIRE?

jjuares wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

[Certainly if she had made some statement after that would have improved the situation.

Well, in fairness to Ms. Gregoire, improve WHAT situation? It's not like there have been howls of outrage from black Canadians(the group presumbaly most justified in taking offense over this). In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of ONE black Canadian who has complained, let alone one who would be qualified to speak on behalf of black Canadians as a whole.

Outside of babble, most of the complaining I've seen has come from on-line comment sections(CBC, etc), mostly from people who never liked the Liberals to begin with, and one guy on Ezra Levant's Rebel media, again, saying pretty much what you'd expect given his pre-existing views. I wouldn't exactly call this a mass wave of outrage to which Sophie Gregoire is obligated to reply.

Now, don't get me wrong, I thought the performance was cheezy as hell, definitely self-indlugent, and maybe even a little racist. But until people from the relevant communities start making an issue of it, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the rest of us to be demandning that Ms. G do this, that, or the other thing.

TL/DR: Why should Ms. Gregoire respond to a controversy that so far seems to exist only in the minds of a few dozen on-line commenters?

Well, I don't decide if things are wrong by the number of online complaints or the volume of outrage in the media. As quaint as it is I just follow my conscience. And knowing something of the civil rights struggle I was disgusted by her insensitivity and lack of respect. I did not ask her to do anything. I simply agreed that she could mitigate this by a comment afterwards. But as I said I don't expect that self reflection is going to the strong suit of this government and consequently I won't hold my breath. Because remember she got a standing ovation and as one of our uber partisans noted the Liberals won't lose any votes over this. So it must be all good.

Well, yeah, that standing ovation does count for something, I'd say.

Maybe I think certain jokes should be especially offensive to my friend Bill. But, if I see people telling the jokes to Bill, and Bill subsequently collapsing into fits of helpless laughter, well, I'm not really gonna bother going around denouncing the joke-tellers. Whatever the actual offensiveness of the jokes according to some textbook standard, if Bill himself can't be bothered to take offense(or even wants to hear more of the jokes), why should I do anything about it?

Actually, a more profitable course of action for me might be to convince Bill himself why he should be offended by the jokes. Having the complaint coming from Bill might give it a bit more credibility than just me bewailing the humour, while Bill rolls around in stitches on the floor.

So, anyone up for penning A WHITE GUY'S MANIFESTO ON WHY BLACKS NEED TO BE MORE OFFENDED BY SOPHIE GREGOIRE?

Just so were straight on this. By your " logic" we shouldn't be offended by racism unless the victims complain? Great, I have a truckload of women, Jewish, ( the one about the Holocaust is a real howler) and black jokes I am going to start telling now and keep telling until one of the members from one of these groups objects. Meanwhile, a Jew, a black, and a woman walk into a bar...

Knock yourself out. If you tell the jokes at a gathering hosted by a group representing the interests of blacks, Jews, and women, get a standing ovation, plus commendation from a spokesperson for the group, and if furthermore after the video hits the news sites and YouTube I don't hear a single complaint from blacks, Jews or women, then, yeah, I think you're pretty much entitled to tell the jokes all you want.

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

[Certainly if she had made some statement after that would have improved the situation.

Well, in fairness to Ms. Gregoire, improve WHAT situation? It's not like there have been howls of outrage from black Canadians(the group presumbaly most justified in taking offense over this). In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of ONE black Canadian who has complained, let alone one who would be qualified to speak on behalf of black Canadians as a whole.

Outside of babble, most of the complaining I've seen has come from on-line comment sections(CBC, etc), mostly from people who never liked the Liberals to begin with, and one guy on Ezra Levant's Rebel media, again, saying pretty much what you'd expect given his pre-existing views. I wouldn't exactly call this a mass wave of outrage to which Sophie Gregoire is obligated to reply.

Now, don't get me wrong, I thought the performance was cheezy as hell, definitely self-indlugent, and maybe even a little racist. But until people from the relevant communities start making an issue of it, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the rest of us to be demandning that Ms. G do this, that, or the other thing.

TL/DR: Why should Ms. Gregoire respond to a controversy that so far seems to exist only in the minds of a few dozen on-line commenters?

Well, I don't decide if things are wrong by the number of online complaints or the volume of outrage in the media. As quaint as it is I just follow my conscience. And knowing something of the civil rights struggle I was disgusted by her insensitivity and lack of respect. I did not ask her to do anything. I simply agreed that she could mitigate this by a comment afterwards. But as I said I don't expect that self reflection is going to the strong suit of this government and consequently I won't hold my breath. Because remember she got a standing ovation and as one of our uber partisans noted the Liberals won't lose any votes over this. So it must be all good.

Well, yeah, that standing ovation does count for something, I'd say.

Maybe I think certain jokes should be especially offensive to my friend Bill. But, if I see people telling the jokes to Bill, and Bill subsequently collapsing into fits of helpless laughter, well, I'm not really gonna bother going around denouncing the joke-tellers. Whatever the actual offensiveness of the jokes according to some textbook standard, if Bill himself can't be bothered to take offense(or even wants to hear more of the jokes), why should I do anything about it?

Actually, a more profitable course of action for me might be to convince Bill himself why he should be offended by the jokes. Having the complaint coming from Bill might give it a bit more credibility than just me bewailing the humour, while Bill rolls around in stitches on the floor.

So, anyone up for penning A WHITE GUY'S MANIFESTO ON WHY BLACKS NEED TO BE MORE OFFENDED BY SOPHIE GREGOIRE?

Just so were straight on this. By your " logic" we shouldn't be offended by racism unless the victims complain? Great, I have a truckload of women, Jewish, ( the one about the Holocaust is a real howler) and black jokes I am going to start telling now and keep telling until one of the members from one of these groups objects. Meanwhile, a Jew, a black, and a woman walk into a bar...

Knock yourself out. If you tell the jokes at a gathering hosted by a group representing the interests of blacks, Jews, and women, get a standing ovation, plus commendation from a spokesperson for the group, and if furthermore after the video hits the news sites and YouTube I don't hear a single complaint from blacks, Jews or women, then, yeah, I think you're pretty much entitled to tell the jokes all you want.

Why do we need political parties? It would seem we just need pollsters to tell us what their push polls have told them and MBA's hired to put those policies into effect. The NDP should not stand for anything unless a pollster says it is the view of the majority. Who need expensive conventions to determine policy that members of a political party want to present to the population. Its not like the people can ever be swayed from the push poll numbers by a party making coherent principled arguments.

jjuares wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

jjuares wrote:

[Certainly if she had made some statement after that would have improved the situation.

Well, in fairness to Ms. Gregoire, improve WHAT situation? It's not like there have been howls of outrage from black Canadians(the group presumbaly most justified in taking offense over this). In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of ONE black Canadian who has complained, let alone one who would be qualified to speak on behalf of black Canadians as a whole.

Outside of babble, most of the complaining I've seen has come from on-line comment sections(CBC, etc), mostly from people who never liked the Liberals to begin with, and one guy on Ezra Levant's Rebel media, again, saying pretty much what you'd expect given his pre-existing views. I wouldn't exactly call this a mass wave of outrage to which Sophie Gregoire is obligated to reply.

Now, don't get me wrong, I thought the performance was cheezy as hell, definitely self-indlugent, and maybe even a little racist. But until people from the relevant communities start making an issue of it, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the rest of us to be demandning that Ms. G do this, that, or the other thing.

TL/DR: Why should Ms. Gregoire respond to a controversy that so far seems to exist only in the minds of a few dozen on-line commenters?

Well, I don't decide if things are wrong by the number of online complaints or the volume of outrage in the media. As quaint as it is I just follow my conscience. And knowing something of the civil rights struggle I was disgusted by her insensitivity and lack of respect. I did not ask her to do anything. I simply agreed that she could mitigate this by a comment afterwards. But as I said I don't expect that self reflection is going to the strong suit of this government and consequently I won't hold my breath. Because remember she got a standing ovation and as one of our uber partisans noted the Liberals won't lose any votes over this. So it must be all good.

Well, yeah, that standing ovation does count for something, I'd say.

Maybe I think certain jokes should be especially offensive to my friend Bill. But, if I see people telling the jokes to Bill, and Bill subsequently collapsing into fits of helpless laughter, well, I'm not really gonna bother going around denouncing the joke-tellers. Whatever the actual offensiveness of the jokes according to some textbook standard, if Bill himself can't be bothered to take offense(or even wants to hear more of the jokes), why should I do anything about it?

Actually, a more profitable course of action for me might be to convince Bill himself why he should be offended by the jokes. Having the complaint coming from Bill might give it a bit more credibility than just me bewailing the humour, while Bill rolls around in stitches on the floor.

So, anyone up for penning A WHITE GUY'S MANIFESTO ON WHY BLACKS NEED TO BE MORE OFFENDED BY SOPHIE GREGOIRE?

Just so were straight on this. By your " logic" we shouldn't be offended by racism unless the victims complain? Great, I have a truckload of women, Jewish, ( the one about the Holocaust is a real howler) and black jokes I am going to start telling now and keep telling until one of the members from one of these groups objects. Meanwhile, a Jew, a black, and a woman walk into a bar...

Knock yourself out. If you tell the jokes at a gathering hosted by a group representing the interests of blacks, Jews, and women, get a standing ovation, plus commendation from a spokesperson for the group, and if furthermore after the video hits the news sites and YouTube I don't hear a single complaint from blacks, Jews or women, then, yeah, I think you're pretty much entitled to tell the jokes all you want.

Now how do you know who was or wasn't offended? Some writers have said it was inappropriate. I don't know their races but I guess you do. It is interesting you make assumptions about people's races here and elsewhere. As for your understanding of respecting diversity it is perfect for real right wing Republicans, maybe. Some of them would probably not agree with your reactionary views on race. And finally you do realize that is not the policyof the site you are on. You do something the mods deem racist, they ban you. They don't survey members of the group your missive is aimed at to decide if it's racist.

Well, on a website with a policy against racist speech, it's a little hard to conduct an impromptu survey of the members every time someone drops the N-Word. So, the mods govern according to pre-set ideas about which words/phrases/ideas etc are appropriate.

The public square is a little bit different, though. I'd say the fact that neither you nor I know the race of any of the complainants is probably a pretty good indication that no one credibly able to speak on behalf of those groups has come forward with a complaint.

Which I think is usually what would happen in a case where there was a lot of genuine outrage. If you look at, for example, the controversy over the Washington football team's name, you don't have to look too hard to find examples of Fist Nations people, both individuals and groups, expressing anger about the name. It's not just a bunch of white Dallas fans sitting around on the internet trash-talking the name.

This is how Sophie introduced the song:

Because I have heard my fellow human beings and friends here today sing, this is not planned, trust me, I'm going to step up, yes, and sing you a song that I wrote for my daughter Ella-Grace at a moment where I was going through a difficult time and where I reminde myself of all the hope there is in one's life and all the hope there is in love and helping out one another and it's called Smile Back at Me.

So Sean, did you enjoy listening to the other speakers when you attended this event? Who were the other singers? You do live in Ottawa right?

So I've no identifiable interest and I should just shut up? Seriously?

Well I've never voted Liberal either. Should I shut up there too?

The reason this grinds is all the character stacks on Ton and NDP supporters by LPC sycophants. If it had been Tom the protest would never stop. Yeah this doesn't matter a hell of a lot but it still grinds!

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Ivory tower? I spent 30 years in the Navy protecting your sorry butt Pondering; and now I work a minimum wage job in a warehouse. Ivory tower? Seriously? Get lost!

Ivory tower does not refer to wealth.

Full Definition of ivory tower

1. 1 :  an impractical often escapist attitude marked by aloof lack of concern with or interest in practical matters or urgent problems

2. 2 :  a secluded place that affords the means of treating practical issues with an impractical often escapist attitude; especially :  a place of learning

Definition 1 is the one I was using. All the outrage, which is very small indeed, has not been generated by the black community. It is generated by professional and amateur activists and followers immersed in academic interpretations and theories of racism and expecting everyone else to march in lockstep.

I've never attended an event to honour someone in the black community in Montreal. Have you done so where you live? Had Sophie stopped at just giving the speech we probably wouldn't have even heard of the event.

Just guessing, but my sense is this is not on the radar of the black community in Canada. I don't think they would feel insulted by Sophie singing at the event or even at the digital promotion pictures of two white people whose presence made it notable enough for people to pay attention to the event. It's more insulting that it takes two high status white people to get people to pay attention to the event. At least those two particular white people are bringing more attention to the event.

Pretty hypocritical as no one here would even know about this event much less be discussing it if Sophie had not been there so who has more reason for guilt and apology?

Anyone here planning to attend the event next year? If no such community event occurs in your area maybe you could start one?

Pondering wrote:

This is ivory tower criticism full of smugness and conceit directed at people who, if flawed, are trying to make this world a better place.

this bs. i'm Metis. though not looking absolutely a visible minority i do get racists who ask me what my heritage is. they seem to know.

my cousins look FN and been called dirty lazy indians their whole life and i've had to fight other kids to protect them when we were little.

i have relatives suffering from extreme addictions because of no hope and racism. if you want to call it lucky, i was luckier than them by looking like my mom. at least i didn't have to deal with racism every minute of every day.

don't you go trying to belittle my words and feelings because you want to pretend Justin and Sophie and the Liberals are golden and want to make the world a better place.

they wouldn't be pretending to be royalty if they really were trying to make the world a better place.

pondering i've already made the case of Justin and Sophie pretending to be royalty right down to hiring Kate's designer to design some of her clothes and the thousands of dollars fru fru little hat she tried to get away with wearing.

don't pretend they're not trying to pretend they're Canadian royalty please. all people need to do is google it, or read back in this thread.

if they were trying to make the world a better place they would've never done the Vogue photo shoot, or paid thousands for a hat, or paying to low of wages to their child care providers. nor would've Sophie made a MLK event all about her.

and i could also say nor would they be Liberals........

quizzical wrote:

pondering i've already made the case of Justin and Sophie pretending to be royalty right down to hiring Kate's designer to design some of her clothes and the thousands of dollars fru fru little hat she tried to get away with wearing.

don't pretend they're not trying to pretend they're Canadian royalty please. all people need to do is google it, or read back in this thread.

if they were trying to make the world a better place they would've never done the Vogue photo shoot, or paid thousands for a hat, or paying to low of wages to their child care providers. nor would've Sophie made a MLK event all about her.

and i could also say nor would they be Liberals........

pondering your response doesn't negate the truth in my stating they're not tying to make the world a better at all. their actions prove me right.

and what you mean Joe Clark? lmaoooooooooooooooooooo

monty1 wrote:

 

In reality it's obviously a nothing issue that is only going to hurt Trudeau amongst his rabidly hating opposition anyway.

WTF

Let's just not worry about racism unless it impacts the election of Fucking Liberals.

Now that we got that settled how about talking about selfies?

i'm trying not to let it get to me but am not too successful i guess. i found after responding here i worded things poorly in another thread and made unionist mad at me.

quizzical wrote:

i'm trying not to let it get to me but am not too successful i guess. i found after responding here i worded things poorly in another thread and made unionist mad at me.

Don't worry. Unionist gets mad at times but he does know who is on the same side when it comes to social justice and I am sure it is obvious that you are on that side. He gets mad at me as well. Don't worry about Unionist, you will be fine with him.

Pondering does not matter.