White Privilage


spilledthebeer
#361
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Here is what you said:


"I thought this was mainly a Residential school problem and it rarely happened in mainstream schools, now what?"


How you came to this conclusion is known ony to yourself, as schools all across North America have been suing the various churches since the 1970s.

"The Christian Brothers in Canada more than 300 former pupils alleged physical and sexual abuse at the Mount Cashel Orphanage in Newfoundland. When allegations of physical and sexual abuse started to surface in the late 1980s, the government, police and local church leaders conspired in an unsuccessful cover-up. In Ontario in January 1993 the Christian Brothers reached a financial settlement totaling $23 million with 700 former students who alleged abuse."


It is time to put aside this residential school stuff- certainly it is a tragedy and should not be ignored but the ugly reality is we have much BIGGER and more immediate problems to face thanks to bigoted LIE-berals and their anti white rhetoric!


Consider this:


Here is an article illustrating the sort of madness that LIE-beral political correctness and twisted policy are fostering. With some comments of my own in brackets):

Wealthy Six Nations businessman wants to be judged by Indigenous family law.

By Sam Pazzano, Courts Bureau. Published: April 11, 2018. Updated: April 11, 2018 11:43 PM EDT

Filed Under: Toronto SUN/ News/ Ontario

A wealthy Six Nations entrepreneur will argue at Ontario’s highest court that Haudenosaunee laws should rule over Ontario family law when it comes to Indigenous people.

(Oh really? I was not aware that natives ever had a body of divorce law! So not only is the guy a slick entrepeneur- he is also apparently a clever writer of legal FICTION- an indigenous John Grisham! Such is the LIE-beral world we live in that such madness come to us as serious news!)

Ken Hill, co-owner of the Grand River Enterprises cigarette company, is battling a claim by his ex-partner, Brittany Beaver, to pay $33,183 per month in child support for their eight-year-old son and $85,701 per month in spousal support.

(These people are selling cigarettes to white people in defiance to tax law and yet in their arrogance HE wants to make up a bunch of native rules to get out of paying child support! Natives want to have their cake and smoke it too! They cherry pick their hypocrite way through lists of white laws that are SUPPOSED to apply to us all and yet natives obey as it pleases THEM- and then whine about RACISTS if or when they get jailed for being criminal morons!)

Hill, 59, will take his Charter challenge to the Ontario Court of Appeal in June, after losing a Superior Court decision last year where his lawyers asserted that court jurisdiction would violate the constitutional rights of natives.

(IN summer of 2017, LIE-berals released SEVEN accused killers and four other men accused of having STOLEN $44 million dollars in a pair of fraud cases - WITHOUT A TRIAL- simply because LIE-berals could not set up a trial in a reasonable time! But they CAN find time to listen to some native tax scammer whine about the rights of his “sovereign nation”- with the truth being that the guy is merely a tax cheat griping that his ex wife is a gold digging witch- and LIE-berals want to turn this into an “indigenous rights” issue? This is LIE-beral madness on a fantastic scale!)

Haudenosaunee family disputes should be resolved “according to the laws and governance of the Haudenosaunee,” argued Hill’s lawyers.

(And can ANY of these goofs PROVE what that native law looked like 200 years back? Uh- NO- they cannot! And there is a larger question related to citizenship and we should now ask if it is fair to allow some people to create their own foreign country within our larger one- especially since the new “Nations” are so heavily dependent on white welfare payments! If LIE-berals had any sense at all, they would shut this goof down for the good of ALL! With NO ROOM for appeals to any other court! After all- the wife would clearly suffer if her divorce was regulated by “native” law and she would then whine about her violated CANADIAN RIGHTS! This is the same argument that will hamper any future effort to impose Sharia Law on the Cdn public- unless LIE-berals get even more dictatorial on us- which is why they are meddling with Islamophobia 103 “Motion” led by hypocrite Iqra Khalid!)

Justice Deborah Chappel disagreed. Hill is appealing her decision.

Hill, who makes more than $2.1 million a year tax-free, has paid $10,000 a month for his eight-year-old son Brody, covered the cost of his private school education and provided a $1-million house in the Kitchener area for Beaver, 31, Brody — and the woman’s toddler son by her new boyfriend — his lawyers stated.

(Gosh- goopd money for a tax cheat!)

“Indigenous mothers and children should not get any less child support than non-indigenous mothers and children,” said Beaver’s lawyer Martha McCarthy.

“Unfortunately, the Ontario government is not stepping up to defend access to Ontario family law for all Ontarians. The task has fallen on our client, a stay-at-home mom of two kids, going to school full-time,” said McCarthy.

Hill’s spokesman Raj Rasalingam said the successful businessman “is not fighting to punish anyone, he’s fighting to change the attitudes that Haudenosaunee cannot determine their own future and family court disputes.”

(Oh no- the hero dad just wants to KEEP more of his gravy!)

Hill and Beaver started dating in 2008, had moved in together by December of that year and she announced she was pregnant and had Brody in January 2009, court documents stated.

Within months, Hill “stopped coming home consistently and would be gone for days,” she stated. The couple’s relationship ended in November, 2013.

(Its hard to be sympathetic to either of these people- he is making a fortune running a business that causes lung cancer and which is made profitable only by breaking stupid tax laws which LIE-berals lack the guts to shut down; and its quite possible she is a gold digger! So I say to stupid LIE-berals: “quit wasting valuable court time; tell the idiots to shut up and have a judge impose a judgement- and lets get on with trying some killers and fraud artists for a change! Or should we just assume that LIE-berals prefer to listen to a native bigot rant about fictional traditional law just so long as he spends big on LAWYERS! Do LIE-berals consider this sort of case to be a bargain since LIE-berals only have to pay for the judge and much of that fee is covered by court costs? Are LIE-berals simply bleeding this native couple for gravy? Are LIE-berals THAT DESPERATE for more gravy? Looks like the answer is YES!)
 
Twin_Moose
+4
#362
The untold and ignored story that parallels the 60's scoop, will anybody take this seriously I doubt it even though it affects over 800,000 Canadians

Thousands of Canadian mothers were forced to give up their babies . Some were told to ‘get a puppy’ instead.

TORONTO — Their stories would not seem out of place in an episode of “The Handmaid's Tale”: pregnant women shuttered away, violently restrained during childbirth, banned from looking at their babies — and, finally, coerced by social workers into signing adoption papers.
More than a half-century after unmarried and largely non-consenting Canadian women were sent to maternity homes to give birth in relative secrecy, a report released Thursday by a Senate committee acknowledges a “disturbing chapter” in Canadian history, when the country’s adoption policies led to hundreds of thousands of unwed mothers being forced to give up their babies for adoption.
The report calls on the federal government to issue a formal apology for what it characterizes as a “common practice” from 1945 to the 1970s that has been “shrouded in secrecy.”
“There is another Scoop that needs to be acknowledged,” Art Eggleton, the senator who chaired the committee, told reporters. (He was referring to the “Sixties Scoop,” a 1960s government program that separated thousands of indigenous children from their families and put them up for adoption by non-indigenous parents.)
While adoption policies fell under the jurisdiction of Canada’s provinces and territories, the federal government provided them with social assistance grants, which were often used to address the needs of pregnant women. Those funds “specifically contributed to the maintenance of maternity homes for unmarried mothers, the provision of adoption and counseling services and supporting the casework of social workers.”
The report says that the “unethical” policy was in part rooted in the societal mores of the postwar period, when the social stigma of unwed women having “illegitimate” children and raising them in a nontraditional “nuclear family” was so significant that many women were sent to wait out their pregnancies at maternity homes, often run by religious groups or the Salvation Army. An estimated 95 percent of women who gave birth at maternity homes gave their children up for adoption, according to the report. Data from Statistics Canada shows that approximately 600,000 births from 1945 to 1971 were recorded as “illegitimate.”
According to Origins Canada, a nonprofit that helps people who have been separated from family members by adoption, it was thought that women who gave birth at maternity homes could be “made marriageable” again or “rehabilitated.”
Many of the women who testified before the committee described being subjected to various forms of abuse at maternity homes, having their movements controlled, being forced to assume fictitious surnames and having no contact with the outside world.
Eugenia Powell, who in 1963 was sent to a maternity home at the advice of a priest when she became pregnant at 17, testified that she felt “like a nonentity.”
“Shame and sadness were constant companions,” said Powell, who is the executive director of Origins Canada.
During labor, the report says, doctors would often forcibly strap women to beds or overmedicate them. Many were denied the opportunity to hold, feed or look at their babies, and some were never told whether they had given birth to a boy or a girl.
And then, they were forced — often through misinformation, deceit and violence — into giving up their babies for adoption. None were provided legal counsel or made aware of their legal rights. Others were told that “traditional, white, middle-class couples would provide loving homes without the shame.” And some were lied to, callously told that their babies were stillborn, when in fact they were not.
“I was told that I would eventually get married and forget my baby,” Powell testified. “How does a mother forget her baby?”
Sandra Jarvie, another woman who testified, said she still remembers what a social worker told her after she signed adoption papers: “You will never see your baby again as long as you live. If you search for the baby, you’ll destroy his life and the lives of the adoptive parents.”
Some women, the report notes, were told to “get a puppy” to fill the void of losing child and never to speak of what happened to them. Nearly one-third of the unwed women who were coerced into giving up their babies for adoption were so traumatized that they never had children again, according to the report.
“The treatment of unmarried mothers in postwar Canada may have been a product of the times, but it was cruel, nonetheless, from any perspective,” the report concludes.
“The profound pain and grief of losing my firstborn baby never left and often surfaced,” said Powell, who did get married and have other children. “I have simply never recovered from the trauma of losing my baby. . . . I had lived in what I call a fog because that was the only way I could cope through my life.”
Women and adoptees often faced difficulties trying to reunite. Many encountered bureaucratic red tape and found that their adoption records were fully or partially sealed.
“The journey to find my mother was the most traumatic experience of my life, a complicated mess to untangle,” testified Dianne Poitras, an adoptee.
The report says that the practice of forcing unwed women to give up their babies for adoption was also common in the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Australia.
Australia’s Senate conducted a study of the practice in its country that resulted in a national apology in 2013 by the then-prime minister.
Aside from a formal government apology from the Canadian government, the report recommends that the federal and provincial governments establish a fund to provide counseling for mothers and adoptees and for the country to implement a universal policy on access to adoption files.
“This unfortunate part of Canada’s history needs to be addressed,” Eggleton said in a press release. “We cannot reverse the harms that have taken place, but we can provide support for those who were wronged.”

White privilege in all it's glory SMFH
 
Tecumsehsbones
#363
Sigh.
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#364
Yes it is a sad
 
Tecumsehsbones
#365
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Yes it is a sad

Agreed. You are, indeed.

At what point did conservatism go from agreeing about the past, but disagreeing on the solutions to our problems, to denying that things kinda sucked for non-whites back in the day, and trying to prove that with the preposterous, downright stupid, assertion that if any white person ever suffered, that means there was no systemic advantage for white people?

Your version of conservatism tries to deny obvious truths. My version says "Yeah, being non-white carries with it some burdens, as does being ugly, being stupid, or being weak. But the proper solution to that is to ensure strict equity and give everyone a chance to "be all they can be," not to presume that because you belong to some designated group (and not to an undesignated group, like the ugly, the stupid, or the weak), that you are entitled to some standardized compensatory privilege whether or not you personally suffered disadvantage."
Last edited by Tecumsehsbones; Jul 21st, 2018 at 11:15 AM..
 
Gilgamesh
+2
#366
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

The untold and ignored story that parallels the 60's scoop, will anybody take this seriously I doubt it even though it affects over 800,000 Canadians

Thousands of Canadian mothers were forced to give up their babies . Some were told to ‘get a puppy’ instead.

TORONTO — Their stories would not seem out of place in an episode of “The Handmaid's Tale”: pregnant women shuttered away, violently restrained during childbirth, banned from looking at their babies — and, finally, coerced by social workers into signing adoption papers.
More than a half-century after unmarried and largely non-consenting Canadian women were sent to maternity homes to give birth in relative secrecy, a report released Thursday by a Senate committee acknowledges a “disturbing chapter” in Canadian history, when the country’s adoption policies led to hundreds of thousands of unwed mothers being forced to give up their babies for adoption.
The report calls on the federal government to issue a formal apology for what it characterizes as a “common practice” from 1945 to the 1970s that has been “shrouded in secrecy.”
“There is another Scoop that needs to be acknowledged,” Art Eggleton, the senator who chaired the committee, told reporters. (He was referring to the “Sixties Scoop,” a 1960s government program that separated thousands of indigenous children from their families and put them up for adoption by non-indigenous parents.)
While adoption policies fell under the jurisdiction of Canada’s provinces and territories, the federal government provided them with social assistance grants, which were often used to address the needs of pregnant women. Those funds “specifically contributed to the maintenance of maternity homes for unmarried mothers, the provision of adoption and counseling services and supporting the casework of social workers.”
The report says that the “unethical” policy was in part rooted in the societal mores of the postwar period, when the social stigma of unwed women having “illegitimate” children and raising them in a nontraditional “nuclear family” was so significant that many women were sent to wait out their pregnancies at maternity homes, often run by religious groups or the Salvation Army. An estimated 95 percent of women who gave birth at maternity homes gave their children up for adoption, according to the report. Data from Statistics Canada shows that approximately 600,000 births from 1945 to 1971 were recorded as “illegitimate.”
According to Origins Canada, a nonprofit that helps people who have been separated from family members by adoption, it was thought that women who gave birth at maternity homes could be “made marriageable” again or “rehabilitated.”
Many of the women who testified before the committee described being subjected to various forms of abuse at maternity homes, having their movements controlled, being forced to assume fictitious surnames and having no contact with the outside world.
Eugenia Powell, who in 1963 was sent to a maternity home at the advice of a priest when she became pregnant at 17, testified that she felt “like a nonentity.”
“Shame and sadness were constant companions,” said Powell, who is the executive director of Origins Canada.
During labor, the report says, doctors would often forcibly strap women to beds or overmedicate them. Many were denied the opportunity to hold, feed or look at their babies, and some were never told whether they had given birth to a boy or a girl.
And then, they were forced — often through misinformation, deceit and violence — into giving up their babies for adoption. None were provided legal counsel or made aware of their legal rights. Others were told that “traditional, white, middle-class couples would provide loving homes without the shame.” And some were lied to, callously told that their babies were stillborn, when in fact they were not.
“I was told that I would eventually get married and forget my baby,” Powell testified. “How does a mother forget her baby?”
Sandra Jarvie, another woman who testified, said she still remembers what a social worker told her after she signed adoption papers: “You will never see your baby again as long as you live. If you search for the baby, you’ll destroy his life and the lives of the adoptive parents.”
Some women, the report notes, were told to “get a puppy” to fill the void of losing child and never to speak of what happened to them. Nearly one-third of the unwed women who were coerced into giving up their babies for adoption were so traumatized that they never had children again, according to the report.
“The treatment of unmarried mothers in postwar Canada may have been a product of the times, but it was cruel, nonetheless, from any perspective,” the report concludes.
“The profound pain and grief of losing my firstborn baby never left and often surfaced,” said Powell, who did get married and have other children. “I have simply never recovered from the trauma of losing my baby. . . . I had lived in what I call a fog because that was the only way I could cope through my life.”
Women and adoptees often faced difficulties trying to reunite. Many encountered bureaucratic red tape and found that their adoption records were fully or partially sealed.
“The journey to find my mother was the most traumatic experience of my life, a complicated mess to untangle,” testified Dianne Poitras, an adoptee.
The report says that the practice of forcing unwed women to give up their babies for adoption was also common in the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Australia.
Australia’s Senate conducted a study of the practice in its country that resulted in a national apology in 2013 by the then-prime minister.
Aside from a formal government apology from the Canadian government, the report recommends that the federal and provincial governments establish a fund to provide counseling for mothers and adoptees and for the country to implement a universal policy on access to adoption files.
“This unfortunate part of Canada’s history needs to be addressed,” Eggleton said in a press release. “We cannot reverse the harms that have taken place, but we can provide support for those who were wronged.”

White privilege in all it's glory SMFH

It had absolutely nothing to do with white privilege per se.

It has much to do with religion and culture which comes in many flavours and coloure.
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#367
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Agreed. You are, indeed.

At what point did conservatism go from agreeing about the past, but disagreeing on the solutions to our problems, to denying that things kinda sucked for non-whites back in the day, and trying to prove that with the preposterous, downright stupid, assertion that if any white person ever suffered, that means there was no systemic advantage for white people?

Your version of conservatism tries to deny obvious truths. My version says "Yeah, being non-white carries with it some burdens, as does being ugly, being stupid, or being weak. But the proper solution to that is to ensure strict equity and give everyone a chance to "be all they can be," not to presume that because you belong to some designated group (and not to an undesignated group, like the ugly, the stupid, or the weak), that you are entitled to some standardized compensatory privilege whether or not you personally suffered disadvantage."

Nice rant like I have said before this is apart of my history sorry I'm not FN but I was apart of the scoop as well.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#368
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Nice rant

Yeah, throwing tennis balls at a tank.

Well, you can't say I didn't try.
 
spilledthebeer
+1
#369
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yeah, throwing tennis balls at a tank.

Well, you can't say I didn't try.


Only LIE-berals and Muslims try to use ANCIENT hardships as an excuse for


THEIR CURRENT BIGOTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Lots of things in history were tragic such as dying of Small Pox in some immigrant holding centre!!!!


At least our modern "irregular: entry illegals do not have to put up with such!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
spaminator
+1
#370
'I'M A WHITE, CLEAN GIRL': Woman allegedly tried to avoid DUI arrest with white entitlement
Postmedia News
Published:
August 8, 2018
Updated:
August 8, 2018 8:40 AM EDT
Lauren Cutshaw. (Beaufort County Detention Center)
A South Carolina woman pulled over for suspected drunk driving allegedly tried to use white entitlement as an excuse to avoid being cuffed.
But the cops weren’t buying it and she was arrested anyway.
Officers from the Bluffton Police Department pulled over Lauren Cutshaw, 32, early Saturday morning after she reportedly sped past a stop sign going 96 km/h. According to The Island Packet, Cutshaw was stopped after she drove through a four-way stop.
After being pulled over, the woman told cops she had two glasses of wine, according to a police report. When questioned about the size of the glasses that contained the two drinks, Cutshaw said, “I mean I was celebrating my birthday.”
The police report noted Cutshaw’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, her breath reeked of booze, and she slurred her speech. After failing on-scene sobriety tests – including blowing .18% blood alcohol level on a breathalyzer – Cutshaw gave a number of reasons why she shouldn’t be arrested.
The list of reasons included having perfect grades in school, graduating from a “high accredited university”, being a cheerleader and a sorority member, and that her boyfriend is also an officer.
“I’m a white, clean girl,” Cutshaw reportedly told the arresting officers. When asked what she meant, the woman’s reply was blunt.
“You’re a cop, you should know what that means.’
The arrest reported noted the cops were taken aback by Cutshaw’s comments.
“Making statements such as these as a means to justify not being arrested are unusual in my experience as a law enforcement officer and I believe further demonstrate the suspect’s level of intoxication,” the report stated.
Regardless, Cutshaw was arrested and charged with speeding, ignoring a stop sign, possession of marijuana, driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia.
The woman was taken to Beaufort County Detention Center but was no longer in custody as of Tuesday.

http://islandpacket.com/news/local/c...216168760.html
http://torontosun.com/news/world/im-...hite-privilege
 
Danbones
+1
#371
Quote:

“Making statements such as these as a means to justify not being arrested are unusual in my experience as a law enforcement officer and I believe further demonstrate the suspect’s level of intoxication,”

Only an idiot with an agenda holds drunk talk against a drunk.

Now when someone like Bill Clinton says Obama should be off getting coffee for the boys, that's a different ballgame altogether.
 
spilledthebeer
#372
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

Only an idiot with an agenda holds drunk talk against a drunk.

Now when someone like Bill Clinton says Obama should be off getting coffee for the boys, that's a different ballgame altogether.


Right on!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-berals have INSISTED for years that a drunk woman is not responsible for her actions!!!!!!


And now LIE-beral hypocrites want to pillory a drunk woman for saying stupid things!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Walter
+1
#373
More exclamation marks, please.
 
taxslave
+3
#374
Too bad she wasn't black. Then she could have claimed racial profiling and probably got off.
 
captain morgan
+1
#375
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminator View Post

'I'M A WHITE, CLEAN GIRL': Woman allegedly tried to avoid DUI arrest with white entitlement


Must be a slow news day for the all-whities-is-bad crowd.


... I feel for 'em
 
spilledthebeer
+1
#376
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Too bad she wasn't black. Then she could have claimed racial profiling and probably got off.


Yeah- you are probably right about her getting off if she was black!!!!!!!!


But it would have taken gang of lawyers and LIE-beral politicians to spring her!!!!!!!!


Cops would not have done it on their own!!!!!!!!!!!


Cops have more integrity than any number of LIE-berals!!!!!!

 
Gilgamesh
+2
#377
I am truly ashamed to be in that (evidently) mentally, spiritually, ethically, & morally crippled group known as 'white males'. Being in my Alzheimers tainted 80's, I can only say-----

Eat my shorts.
 
spilledthebeer
#378
Quote: Originally Posted by Gilgamesh View Post

I am truly ashamed to be in that (evidently) mentally, spiritually, ethically, & morally crippled group known as 'white males'. Being in my Alzheimers tainted 80's, I can only say-----

Eat my shorts.


Ah!!!!!!!!! Now we have a FULL explanation for the ravings of Gilgamesh!!!!!!!!!!!



He has a long history of working in the nuclear industry "nuking" his brain and an additional problem with Alzheimers!!!!


So what excuse is Our idiot Boy Justin using???????????????
 
Gilgamesh
+3
#379
Mea culpa.

Mea maxima culpa.

FTR the word 'maxima' does not refer to a Nissan of that name.

Today the weather is great but I still labour away under the terrible ever-present burden of my despicable white male-ishness (sob).

It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it (more sobs).
 
DaSleeper
#380
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

Ah!!!!!!!!! Now we have a FULL explanation for the ravings of Gilgamesh!!!!!!!!!!!


What is your excuse.... Fool?

 
Cliffy
#381
 
Danbones
+2
#382
So...you are hinting Indian's can't spell..how racist is that?

say, if you hate white so much, does that mean you only eat YELLOW snow?

PS: nice white men guns you guys got there!
 
spilledthebeer
+1
#383
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

So...you are hinting Indian's can't spell..how racist is that?

say, if you hate white so much, does that mean you only eat YELLOW snow?

PS: nice white men guns you guys got there!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Crazy LIE-beral wants to cry RACIST if it is even hinted that natives cannot spell!!!!!!!!!!!!


Should we remind nitwit LIE-beral that only TWENTY FIVE PERCENT of natives currently graduate from high school- which by


definition- means they cannot spell since literacy is a requirement for graduation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-beral speaks with twisted tongue- can use it to open wine bottles!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Gilgamesh
+1
#384
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Poor Rummy lives in the illusions of white history. Archaeology has shown that people have been living in the Americas for many thousands of years before the ice age and that there was no big invasion from Asia. Yes, some came here during the last ice age but not in numbers enough to wipe out those living here. Europeans came here during the last ice age too but they were not as blood thirsty or as greedy as those who followed Columbus. That was the result of the control of the Catholic Church and the Papal Bulls that declared native populations that were not "Christian" were not humans and therefore could be enslaved and slaughtered with impunity.

You must have learned history from Sesame St.
 
spilledthebeer
+1
#385
Quote: Originally Posted by Gilgamesh View Post

You must have learned history from Sesame St.


POOR STUPID LIE-BERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I GUESS WE SHOULD REMIND THEM THAT IT WAS LIE-BERAL MACKENZIE KING WHO WAS PRIME MINSTER WHEN ALL THOSE JEWS WERE TRYING TO ESCAPE FROM EUROPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HOLLYWOOD EVEN MADE A MOVIE ABOUT ONE SHIPLOAD OF JEWS WHO CAME HERE SEEKING SAFE HAVEN AND GOT TURNED AWAY BY LIE-BERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


AND VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE JEWS ON THAT SHIP TURNED AWAY BY LIE-BERALS ENDED UP AT AUSCHWITZ!!!!!!!!!!!



Sadly, Lie-berals have a LONG history of ignoring Cdn security and LIE-beral prime minister Mackenzie King was the poster boy and model for all future Lie-beral security plans! Just so long as they get votes, security can go to hell! Consider this”

Lie-beral prime minister Mackenzie King traveled to Munich Germany in 1936 and entered into one on one talks with Adolf Hitler. King came back to Canada and announced in parliament that “Hitler was a dour but basically good man who was simply bringing some much needed hope and discipline to the German people”! King went on to dismiss warnings about Nazi intentions and re-arming of Germany as not important! He was also quick to smear Winston Churchill as “a rabble rouser and a war monger”!

After King died and his diaries were opened, the true scale and scope of Kings MADNESS were revealed: The man got his best advice from his mother (who had been DEAD for twenty years) and from his BEAGLE DOGS-and some of them were DEAD as well! Yes, the Lie-beral leader with the most terms of office talked to dead people and dogs! But he BOUGHT enough friends to get elected!!!

King is the model for all future Lie-beral leaders-utterly selfish, muddle headed, irresponsible and simply willing to BUY any support he needed and to hell with fiscal consequences. He was strong armed by our allies and shamed by Cdn public opinion into supporting the war against Hitler; but King was (fortunately) wise enough to simply stay out of the way and let an all party coalition run the war effort....and in true Lie-beral fashion King would have blamed the coalition if Canada were defeated thanks to years of Lie-beral neglect of Cdn armed forces which the all party coalition had to overcome!

And call me cynical but I think that in the event of Nazi victory, King would have been nicely placed to become the head of a Cdn puppet Nazi party since he had already spoken in favour of Hitler and it was a coalition of other Cdns who made war on Nazi Germany-with King presenting himself as the moderate and sensible Cdn! King was a consummate fence sitter-with his famous slogan: “not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary” while the Cdn army bled out and went short of men! When Hitler stood at a party rally in Nuremberg in front of half a million cheering Germans and stated “Germany will build its future in blood and iron” King was unconcerned! We will never know if King might have been our version of the Norwegian traitor Quisling but the cynics among us can guess!

Other Lie-beral military historical highlights include Pierre Trudeau trying to establish a dock workers union so he could arrange strikes in Montreal to interfere with the shipment of vital war supplies to Britain and hamper what Trudope saw as “Britains war of imperialism against Nazi Germany.

We also have Lie-beral Jean Chretien cancelling the purchase of EH 101 helicopters simply because a Conservative ordered them. And the EH 101 was the strongest and safest craft flying-already being mass produced for various air forces-with a proven track record.

When a civilian aircraft went down in northern Manitoba and the first people on the scene were media types in a rented CIVILIAN helicopter. Chretien was SHAMED into buying new copters. So Chretien bought a smaller (CHEAPER) model just coming on the market-with NO maintenance track record- and then had to deal with EXPENSIVE cracks in the overly fragile tail rotors. The purchase price plus the tail rotor mess plus the FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR fine he paid for canceling the EH 101 contract would have bought us the safer and stronger EH 101 craft. And of course the smaller craft have to do multiple trips with extra wear and tear and risks, for tasks the EH 101 could do in one hop.

The EH 101 had 3 engines and was GUARANTEED to get back safely to base on 2 engines if one failed-though it might have to dump electronics and weapons and other such gear to lighten the load-that PROVEN TRACK RECORD being in place.....the helicopter substitute chosen Chretien has TWO engines and if one engine fails it is simply guaranteed not to be completely WRECKED when it hits the ground during an engine failure!

There is also the submarine purchase engineered by Chretien. British budget limitations meant that Royal Navy had 4 spare diesel electric subs available and wanted to simply GIVE the boats to Canada in exchange for access to Cdn training bases and such....Royal Navy being so generous in part because they planned to get their money back eventually by selling us spare parts for the subs.

Diesel electric subs run on 18 volts and there is not a large supply of parts available-by comparison nuclear subs run on 24 volts and due to the number of nuclear subs out there (Britain, France and US all run them) parts for Nuclear subs-radar and sonar, torpedoes, missiles, air scrubbers and all that are CHEAPER....so Chretien ordered the diesel electric subs to be COMPLETELY rewired to use 24 volt equipment. This pissed off Britain-cannot sell 18 volt parts for subs rewired for 24 volts! So the cost of re-wiring the subs soared. While Chretien argued over cost the subs sat rusting in harbour for several years and so Chretien ordered them back to Canada to have the work done here-with one of the subs having a LEAKING MAIN HATCH.

The north Atlantic is ROUGH in November and nobody should be surprised that enough seawater got into the leaking main hatch to short out wiring and cause a fire that killed a Cdn seaman? What price Lie-beral penny pinching?

And now we have the boy with nice hair refusing to be concerned about Isis and abandoning our allies and trying to put a good face on his decision to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian jihadist security risks into Canada!

William Lyon Mackenzie (with ally Joseph Papaneau) did us all a favour by hitting at and persuading British to remove the grossly greedy Family Compact running Canada and milking it like a cash cow.......now who will free us from the greed of the new Family Compact- the wretched Lie-berals and their civil service union allies with their endless entitlements?

Mackenzie King was never a patriot-merely a cynical opportunist and cunning lunatic who communed with the dead and who would have sold out the country to Adolf Hitler (along with Pierre Trudeau) in a heart beat if it kept him in power! So lets all hail Mackenzie King as he is the model Lie-beral leader from which all later Lie-beral leaders are built-INCLUDING the cynical Boy with nice hair....FOR BRAINS!
 
Gilgamesh
+1
#386
All very true, but the average voter is too dumb to understand. Add to that an overwhelmingly Left wing media composed in part of the CBC, Toronto Star, Macleans etc. and Canada continues to be f*cked.

In fact the PCs are really not much different.

It is all a charade.
 
spilledthebeer
#387
Quote: Originally Posted by Gilgamesh View Post

All very true, but the average voter is too dumb to understand. Add to that an overwhelmingly Left wing media composed in part of the CBC, Toronto Star, Macleans etc. and Canada continues to be f*cked.

In fact the PCs are really not much different.

It is all a charade.


WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-BERALS MUST TRULY BE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


FIRST GILGAMUSHFORBRAINS ADMITS THAT MOST CDN MEDIA HAS BEEN CAUGHT OUT BEING WILDLY BIGOTED IN FAVOUR OF LIE-BERALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THEN THE TORONTO (RED) STAR DOES AN ARTICLE ADMITTING LIE-BERALS ARE IN NEED OF A POLICY "RESET"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


AND VARIOUS POLLS INDICATE THAT IF AN ELECTION WERE HELD TOMORROW- THAT OUR IDIOT BOY JUSTIN WOULD BE LUCKY TO LEAD A SHORT LIVED MINORITY GOVT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ALL LIE-BERAL POLICY IS FAILING AND LIE-BERALS ARE IN DISGRACE WITH THE GENERAL; PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


EVEN NORMALLY STAUNCH LIE-BERAL SUPPORTERS SUCH AS OUR CIVIL SERVICE UNION HOGS HAVE SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT LIVING UNDER LIE-BERAL SUNNY WAYS THAT THROUGH OUT SO MUCH CLOUD AND RAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ON THE PLUS SIDE- MAYBE- IS THE LIE-BERAL CLAIM THAT THEIR FUNDING JUMPED BY 25 PERCENT RECENTLY- SUGGESTING THEY SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED OUT JUST YET.........


BUT THEN WE SHOULD RECALL THAT THESE ARE THE SAME LIE-BERALS WHO TOLD US THAT SMART METERS WOULD SAVE US MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!


TOLD US THEY WOULD SAVE US 15 PERCENT ON OUR CAR INSURANCE- AND THEN CUT OUR BENEFITS BY FIFTY PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!


TOLD US THEIR MASSIVE NEW HEALTH LEVY- IMPOSED BY DALTON MCGINTY WOULD SAVE OUR HEALTH CARE!!!!!!!!


TOLD US GREEN ENERGY WOULD SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT WHEN ALL IT DOES IS CLEAN CASH FROM WALLETS AND LEAVES THE DIRT IN THE AIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!


TOLD US THAT COAL USED FOR GENERATING ELECTRICITY WAS KILLING OUR ENVIRONMENT AN NO PRICE WAS TO HIGH TO PAY TO PHASE OUT COAL USE- AND THEN WENT AND BOUGHT INTO A YANKEE POWER COMPANY USING COAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO THINK A $10 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT IS NO WORSE THAN A $30 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT- BECAUSE THEY INTEND TO TAKE ALL THEIR GOLD AND GO BEFORE THE BILLS COME DUE!!!!!!!



TOOK THREE TRIES TO EXPLAIN THEIR 2018 BUDGET AND RELEASED THREE SEPARATE SETS OF CONTRADICTORY NUMBERS - AFTER REFUSING TO LET THE AUDITOR GENERAL LOOK AT THE BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


IN OTHER WORDS- LIE-BERALS WOULD DO BETTER IF THEY ABANDONED POLITICS AND BECAME FICTION WRITERS!!!!!!!!


AND NOW LIE-BERALS SaY THEIR FUNDING EFFORTS ARE GOING WELL-- SO I GUESS IT MEANS THEY HAVE $20.00 IN THEIR FUND INSTEAD OF $15.00?


OR MAYBE THEY TOOK MY ADVICE AND NOW THEY DO HAVE MORE MONEY????????????


DID WYNNE-BAG FORM A COVER BAND AS I ADVISED?????????????


HAS SHE BEEN OUT ON OPEN MIKE NIGHTS SIGNING BRYAN ADAMS: "DONT FORGET ME WHEN I`M GONE


MY HEART WOULD BREAK


I HAVE ROBBED YOU FOR SO LONG


FOR HEAVENS SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Gilgamesh
+1
#388
I have always known and loudly stated that the CBC, Toronto Star etc. are dishonest shills for the Liberal Party. I took that position during the days of that Marxist dirtbag P.E.T.

That is probably longer than you have existed

This is why I believe that Prince Shiny Pony may well get reelected. Yucch!

OTOH I look at the PC's and sadly note that their platform doesn't differ that much from the Liberals.

FTR I would only vote NDipper at the point of a gun.
 
spilledthebeer
#389
Quote: Originally Posted by Gilgamesh View Post

I have always known and loudly stated that the CBC, Toronto Star etc. are dishonest shills for the Liberal Party. I took that position during the days of that Marxist dirtbag P.E.T.

That is probably longer than you have existed

This is why I believe that Prince Shiny Pony may well get reelected. Yucch!

OTOH I look at the PC's and sadly note that their platform doesn't differ that much from the Liberals.

FTR I would only vote NDipper at the point of a gun.




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



GILGAMUSHFORBRAINS HAS NOW OFFICIALLY JUMPED THE SHARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-beral fortunes have apparently fallen so low that it is embarrassing for him to be PUBLICLY identified as a LIE-beral!!!!!!!!!!!


Hence the massive hypocrite change in his posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
Twin_Moose
+1
#390
Maya Rudolph Claims Some Of Her White Male ‘Saturday Night Live’ Colleagues Would Make Fun Of Her Hair
Quote:

Maya Rudolph admitted some of her male "Saturday Night Live" colleagues would comment on her hair as she spoke out about having to spend hours on altering the texture of it for the show.
The 46-year-old told the New York Times Magazinethat she would have a "Friday night blow-out appointment" with her friend Jodi Mancuso, who ran the hair department.
She then went on to say that every week she'd hear "some white guy" making the same remarks.
Rudolph, who starred on "SNL" from 2000 to 2007, explained: “[The blow-dry station] was on the same hallway as a lot of the dudes’ dressing rooms. And every [expletive] Friday night, we’d hear some [expletive] white guy walking down the hall going, ‘Is something burning in here? What’s burning?’ I’m like — I’m. Get-ting. My. Hair. Done."
RELATED: Maya Rudolph Unveils Her Hilarious Impression Of Perpetually Excited Jimmy Fallon
Not ending the chat there, Rudolph also said of her pre-"SNL" jobs: “Every time I’d work, they’d be like, ‘I really don’t — like, can I touch? — I really don’t know what to do with your hair.’ They would just say the most awful, disgusting things.
“My hair was natural when I started ‘Saturday Night Live’, but it was so thick to get under the wigs.”
RELATED: First Look At Fred Armisen And Maya Rudolph In Amazon’s ‘Forever’
The actress' candid chat also saw her suggest that she felt like some of her white "SNL" castmates would automatically bag some of the better roles.
She told the publication, “There were times I was frustrated, like, ‘Why can’t I [expletive] just play that role?’ But obviously the person next to me that’s white is going to play that white character.”

It's discrimination I tells ya



She's white isn't she? maybe it's not racism, maybe it's because she isn't a very good actress?