they do things differnt in amurica. first he pissed 'em off, then he got to be a guest!
:?D
Conrad Black blasts Mulcair over British criminal ‘cheap shot’
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
:?D
Peter Gzofski put it so well when he refered to Black as Lord of Cross-dressing.
The guy thought he was too good to be amoung us mere peons so pee on him.
The guy thought he was too good to be amoung us mere peons so pee on him.
You're spinning it wrong.
They are more objective now that their funding was cut. Once we bring that figure down to $0, they will be fair and balanced, just like Fox.
*snaps finger* oh darn, we may not have the privilege of having him as a Canadian Citizen once more..... I don't know how I'll cope for the rest of the week.
No matter if he stays in the US, goes back to the UK or comes back to Canada, he's not going to escape the "gratuitous controversy" that surrounds him.
Such a poor soul, my heart goes out to him and his horrible life he leads :roll:
^ touché
Yes.
*snaps finger* oh darn, we may not have the privilege of having him as a Canadian Citizen once more..... I don't know how I'll cope for the rest of the week.
No matter if he stays in the US, goes back to the UK or comes back to Canada, he's not going to escape the "gratuitous controversy" that surrounds him.
Such a poor soul, my heart goes out to him and his horrible life he leads :roll:
^ touché
Yes.
Sorry, I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. I haven't seen any convictions for breaking Canadian laws and we can't keep people out just because we don't like them. As much of a prig as I have to agree he is!
Is is not scary that that can apply to a democracy, where a government can override the common rules, or at least threaten to override them, so as to scare someone into silence?
Very reassuring.
The government can pass laws, but then the laws ought to be abided by and not overruled on an minister's whims. That is dangerously too much power for one person to wield in a democracy.
Consider that many refugees have criminal records too.
But in the end, if the person is still a threat, he should still be in prison. If released, we must assume he's paid his dues.
The burning question with Conrad is "Are we better off with him (his money) or without him (his money)"? Unless you give him money to invest for you he's of no danger to anyone, albeit probably a pain in the ass if you have to socialize with him. :lol:
I have to disagree here. Even if he were broke and bankrupt, it would seem reasonable to allow a person to come back to the land of his birth. consider too the chicken and egg question. A poor person is more likely to end up in prison than a rich one in most cases, just as an ex-con is likely to be poorer than a non-ex-con.
From that point of view, the moment immigration starts to look at criminal records, it's essentially giving the rich a certain advantage not granted the poor.
Sure we could look at legitimate security concerns, but not the criminal record as the be all and end all.
They already give the rich an advantage over the poor............one of the main criteria for getting in is that you are self supporting or have someone who is willing and able to support you. I just very much doubt that there is a valid reason for keeping him out, I mean it's not like we have to let him into our house or share a bed with our wife.