Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,895
- Points
- 1,260
I think Colin was trying to say that he has personal experience in this regard. You might want to listen to him.
Agreed.
I think Colin was trying to say that he has personal experience in this regard. You might want to listen to him.
Trudeau's values differ from yours (and others on here) but his values aren't fundamentally uncanadian, and he shares the values of a huge portion of the Canadian population.
Trudeau's values differ from yours (and others on here) but his values aren't fundamentally uncanadian, and he shares the values of a huge portion of the Canadian population.
I understand what you're saying here but it's also a sad truth when you consider his behavior and lack of ethics. It explains why so many Canadians don't care about shit like pressuring an attorney general to bend rules for strategic friends. Or losing billions of tax dollars.
@Lumber , dude, your one of many "dangerous" people occupying this country.
What will it take for you to criticize Trudeau? Does he personally need to douse a bus full of disabled children and set them ablaze before you decide he is a "questionable" person?
Ethics convictions? SNC-Lavalin? We Scandal? Jody Wilson-Rabold? Celina Casear-Chavennes? Jane Philpott? Leona Allesev? Election 2021? Emergency Act? Chinese electoral interference?
I ask where is your integrity.
The media will get him over the line in the next election.I actually think more people care than you and I realized. If you look at polling, and I know that's not always worth much, its not looking good for JT or the LPC in the next election.
@Lumber , dude, your one of many "dangerous" people occupying this country.
What will it take for you to criticize Trudeau? Does he personally need to douse a bus full of disabled children and set them ablaze before you decide he is a "questionable" person?
Ethics convictions? SNC-Lavalin? We Scandal? Jody Wilson-Rabold? Celina Casear-Chavennes? Jane Philpott? Leona Allesev? Election 2021? Emergency Act? Chinese electoral interference?
I ask where is your integrity.
The bought media. At least The Line on Substack won’t be a part of his next win.The media will get him over the line in the next election.
What I mean is this.AR, thats not fair. @Lumber isn't dangerous. He is allowed to cast his vote as he sees fit. If he agrees with what JT has done and plans to do then he should vote in that direction.
We chew the same dirt, but lets take the high road brother.
Meh, let him have his opinion.What I mean is this.
He is entitled to vote. Its his lawful right, in my opinion, its his DUTY to vote (If I was grand emporer, I would make Canadians vote by law).
How you use that vote is up to you.
When people are reckless, cultish, partisan or just plain dumb with their votes, we end up with a JT. Over and over again.
Its similar to a car. You can own one. You can choose to drive with care or be a reckless fool with it.
Now, an update. He says he did NOT vote Trudeau. I will take his statement as truthful.
I can not wrap my head around why he defends or excuses Trudeau's behaviour, and completely runs down Pierre.
Maybe dangerous is the wrong word. I have to let my brain simmer and find the right word.
And that is why C-11 and the others come in. They know what they are doing.The bought media. At least The Line on Substack won’t be a part of his next win.
Well on his way to transmutation into pure light and consciousness.There comes a point in time where sitting on the fence is so obviously a fraudulent stance. We've reached that with Trudeau.
For example, after everything else that has been going on and we get this: "Look he didn't raise his voice for 2 minutes. Yay!".
In a nut shell? I'm acting as an "anechoic" force. Echo chambers are dangerous. I'm sorry to say, but ALL of us (myself included) have flawed and incomplete opinions and positions. If you don't get challenged on your views/opinions, you won't ever better yourself and make better/more informed decisions.I can not wrap my head around why he defends or excuses Trudeau's behaviour, and completely runs down Pierre.
Maybe dangerous is the wrong word. I have to let my brain simmer and find the right word.
I appreciate the civility you are bringing to the disucssion.So let me start this off by saying I actually do respect your viewpoints & how you've written them here.
I disagree whole heartedly, but I appreciate the insight into why you view our situation the way you do.
In terms of suspecting something under the surface vs face value...
To me, whether we look at what he says purely as it's said or written - and we do not infer ANY connection to an ulterior agenda - I still don't think he shares Canadian values.
We can start with SNC Lavalin as an easy example...
He's approached by the head honchos at SNC Lavalin who are asking him to change certain laws that are relevant to their situation.
Why are they asking him to change the law? Because they are breaking it, blatantly, in terms of corruption, bribery, racketeering, etc. They are under investigation by the RCMP and are nervous about being found guilty, because they are...however if Trudeau changed the law, they'd be off the hook.
Trudeau doesn't say "No, stop breaking the law!" or reject the idea out of hand. He actually considers accommodating it...so much so that he approaches the Attorney General about the idea.
Being that she's the Attorney General, she advises him to not change the law as it stands in order to accommodate people breaking it.
He didn't like that advise, so he fired her...
He fired the Attorney General for advising him not to break the law or assist others to do so.
^A majority of Canadians would most likely say they don't share this value
Or Chinese influence for something more recent...
Or more recently when it comes to the matter of Chinese influence over our elections, which really ultimately translates into China's influence over our government's decision making.
He was asking several, several times by the official Opposition as to whether or not he had been briefed by CSIS or the RCMP in regards to 11 Liberal candidates receiving donations from China during the election.
He clearly stated, more than once, that he had not been briefed & new nothing of the matter.
...Turns out, he was briefed. Multiple times...
He straight up lied when asked a simple yes or no question, during Question Period in the HoC, that has potentially MASSIVE national security concerns attached to his answer.
I'm willing to bet that most Canadians would say they don't share that value with him either
To be fair, I don't think I've ever learned about a bill from an official statement/announcement from the PM/PMO.In regards to Bill C-11, did anybody here find out about Bill C-11 by an official press release by the PMO?
Did anybody first hear about it in a speech by the PM?
(That's an open question...not rhetorical. I certainly didn't find out about C-11 because the PM made an announcement of it, but maybe he did?)
The point is, the bill will determine the algorithms used by various websites, including Google, that will limit what information Canadians can access.
Right now, Google has targeted 4% of Canadians with reduced access to information, as they work out the bugs for if this bill actually passes.
The government of Canada has not only introduced proposed legislation that affects what Canadians can access on the internet, but they are trying to bypass the usual safeguards we have in place and ram it through.
They even censored the debate about the bill, which ironically enough is about censorship.
Canadians DO NOT SHARE THESE VALUES, on mass.
While I certainly don't speak for everyone, I have high confidence that I'm not alone in feeling this way.
With 100% sincerity, THANK YOU.Final example, then I have to scoot for work...
The Freedom Convoys & the Emergencies Act, re seizing people's bank accounts.
I won't go over the whole Freedom Convoy thing because I think we all know & understand what the intended purpose was.
But there's a few key things I want to point out...
- The protestors who attended the Freedom rallies were peaceful, very peaceful. Yes they were an inconvenience, but that's literally the whole point of protesting an issue - to cause enough disruption that the other side has to take the time to discuss the matter, and hopefully come up with a solution that works for both sides.
The government just froze their accounts with ZERO legal authority to do so, and a blatant violation of your right to due process under the Charter. And those accounts were just unfrozen over the last month or two.
Think about this...what happens if you have a family? We all have rent or mortgage payments, how do they pay rent? Buy groceries? Put gas in their car or pay their bills?
This is incorrect. Only around 210-220 accounts were frozen, and they were assocaited with people either AT the protest and refusing to leave, or those already suspected of illegal activities related to the protest. Ordinary donors of the Freedom Convoy did not have their bank accounts frozen.Who do they call for help? The CRA? A lawyer? Who?
They weren't donating to ISIS or a terror network. They weren't money laundering.
All of this happened because they donated a few bucks to their fellow citizens who all drove from various parts of this massive country to exercise their fundamental right to protest.
Whether we agree with the Freedom Convoys or not, that isn't the issue. The issue is the federal government can take it upon themselves to freeze your bank accounts if you donate to a cause they don't want people donating to - and your supposedly guaranteed legal rights under the Charter don't mean jack.
AND therein lies the problem. It is what is good for the LPC that drives JT et al - not what is good for Canada.Actually last piece, I 100% think Trudeau and the LPC are chronic cronies. I just don't think they are out to amass power and destroy freedom in Canada.
@Lumber Your defending your views a lot here. Kind of telling. I still think your wrong. I still can wrap my head around how you come to your line of thinking but to each their own.