An accountant and an engineer are asked what 3+3 equals.
The accountant says "it is definitely 6."
The engineer says "it's probably 6...but to be safe let's say 7."
In my experience the engineer says "it's probably 6... but we should ask this out of scope question of our suppliers to answer so in the case 6 is the wrong answer we can be absolved of fault."
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 04-10-2024 at 12:22 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
Our PM refusing to listen and doubting our own intelligence agency because he did not like what they were telling him is quite the revelation.
The Liberal Party's lackadaisical approach to national security is exactly why the leak occurred in the first place. The leaker is a national hero who chose to bring attention this glaring inaction, and where none of this information would have been made public had Liberals had their way, and continued to blockade with their special rapporteur sham and voting against this very inquiry.
As Telford eloquently handwrote in one of the meetings, "amplifying CPC narrative" was really the biggest concern that the Liberals had in regards to foreign interference.
Speaking of Telford, she once gave this testimony when questioned about Trudeau: "Everything the prime minister receives he spends a lot of time with and he most definitely reads. So I can confirm that if there are documents that he received, he absolutely read them," said Telford.
Now we have Trudeau himself stating he doesn't read briefing notes and only gets verbally briefed on a need to know basis by his own staff. Most media have already started blasting Trudeau and the Liberals on this clear contradiction.
There should be an RCMP investigation in the Liberal MP that had security clearance and warned Han Dong of the ongoing CSIS surveillance and revealed confidential info vital to Canadian national security.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
Our PM refusing to listen and doubting our own intelligence agency because he did not like what they were telling him is quite the revelation.
The Liberal Party's lackadaisical approach to national security is exactly why the leak occurred in the first place. The leaker is a national hero who chose to bring attention this glaring inaction, and where none of this information would have been made public had Liberals had their way, and continued to blockade with their special rapporteur sham and voting against this very inquiry.
As Telford eloquently handwrote in one of the meetings, "amplifying CPC narrative" was really the biggest concern that the Liberals had in regards to foreign interference.
Speaking of Telford, she once gave this testimony when questioned about Trudeau: "Everything the prime minister receives he spends a lot of time with and he most definitely reads. So I can confirm that if there are documents that he received, he absolutely read them," said Telford.
Now we have Trudeau himself stating he doesn't read briefing notes and only gets verbally briefed on a need to know basis by his own staff. Most media have already started blasting Trudeau and the Liberals on this clear contradiction.
There should be an RCMP investigation in the Liberal MP that had security clearance and warned Han Dong of the ongoing CSIS surveillance and revealed confidential info vital to Canadian national security.
Another interesting comment that has been revealed during this is "dragging is not doing." Telford specifically made note of that comment in her very minimal notes and it is attributed to Trudeau. Basically dismissing claims that we're being made by Chinese diplomats.
Our PM refusing to listen and doubting our own intelligence agency because he did not like what they were telling him is quite the revelation.
The Liberal Party's lackadaisical approach to national security is exactly why the leak occurred in the first place. The leaker is a national hero who chose to bring attention this glaring inaction, and where none of this information would have been made public had Liberals had their way, and continued to blockade with their special rapporteur sham and voting against this very inquiry.
As Telford eloquently handwrote in one of the meetings, "amplifying CPC narrative" was really the biggest concern that the Liberals had in regards to foreign interference.
Speaking of Telford, she once gave this testimony when questioned about Trudeau: "Everything the prime minister receives he spends a lot of time with and he most definitely reads. So I can confirm that if there are documents that he received, he absolutely read them," said Telford.
Now we have Trudeau himself stating he doesn't read briefing notes and only gets verbally briefed on a need to know basis by his own staff. Most media have already started blasting Trudeau and the Liberals on this clear contradiction.
There should be an RCMP investigation in the Liberal MP that had security clearance and warned Han Dong of the ongoing CSIS surveillance and revealed confidential info vital to Canadian national security.
You’re quickly becoming one of my favourite posters on here.
You’re quickly becoming one of my favourite posters on here.
Always so over the top lol
Why hello iggy_oi, welcome! I am surprised you of all people would show up to comment. What's your constructive input on the inquiry, considering your past checkered history on this subject where you continuously tried to deflect and spin away from the scandal?
I will help out, remember this exchange? We can revisit now that we have more info and a summary of the transcript itself publicly released by CSIS itself instead of an unsubstantiated 'anonymous source', if I recall you had some very interesting arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Yeah and one of the allegations that was made is that Dong claimed releasing the Michael’s without delay would make the CPC look good. Do you care to respond to whether or not you have a theory as to how he could have possibly came to that conclusion? I’m honestly very interested to hear your response on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
CPC and Erin O'Toole were very vocal at the time to have retaliatory actions against China following the detainment of the Michaels. Releasing the Michaels prior to the election would turn China into an election rallying point for the CPC in particular, while Liberals could deflect the China question until after the election, stating how the situation is delicate (which is exactly what they did and shamed the CPC claiming they are partisan). Releasing the Michaels at that time would have allowed the CPC to say their pressure on the Liberals helped free the Michaels and give wind to being tougher on China, the same way they cheered when Katie Telford to testify was championed by Poilievre. How that line of thought could not be a possibility to you, I don't know what to tell you. You can see for yourself O'Toole's stance on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
That still doesn’t answer how anyone could possibly come to the conclusion that the CPC would have more to gain than the Liberals if the Liberals would have gotten the 2 Michael’s released earlier.
Mr. Dong expressed the view that even if the PRC released the ‘Two Michaels’ at that moment, opposition parties would view the PRC’s action as an affirmation of the effectiveness of a hardline Canadian approach to the PRC,” read the report.
Never thought that Han Dong himself would provide the answer for me
Care to revise your response and argument now that we have more info from CSIS and Han Dong himself validated my conclusion (still allegedly of course), among the countless times you have been wrong on this subject (including CSIS's role that you kept deflecting towards instead of the actual interference)? I would love to hear how you spin this one. Wait...let me guess. It's not the actual transcript, just a summary of the transcript and CSIS is poorly run and cannot be trusted to be accurate in its summary. Did I get the spin right?
Why do I feel that even if we had the transcript and recording itself publicly released confirming the summary, you would still be first to spin on it?
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
AS for the Liberal member who tipped off Dong. That has to be investigated fully by the RCMP and CSIS, at the very least its interfering in an active investigation, worst he did it at the behest of the PRC.
Bad Bad Bad.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
This government has never been serious about anything in its existence, it's been a failure since day #1/ The level of incompetence, fraud, biases, division, lack of seriousness regarding serious matters and more is just jaw dropping. I just don't understand how Canadians voted for this government and for people who continue to support this government and it's leadership. It's tough to wrap your head around. It's just optics all the time and a smokescreen for a lot of the policies brought forth.
Before any of the usual posters come out and accuse me of being a partisan hack, people can vote and should vote for whomever they want. Literally every single Liberal leader in my life has been substantially better than these losers and there isn't a leader or party I would rank lower then them at the federal level. The Green party and it's former leader May could probably be a more serious and functional government with their 2 MP's than these clowns.
I understand the allure of a lot of politicians and their electorate across different parties and different countries. I just can't figure this one out at all, especially considering how much evidence is out there about how much of a joke this government has been.
This is a classic example of supporters being in an abusive relationship, getting gaslit and making excuses for why the abuse should continue. You know your getting screwed, it's hurtful, painful and your being told to like it all while signing a lovely song about it.
This government has never been serious about anything in its existence, it's been a failure since day #1/ The level of incompetence, fraud, biases, division, lack of seriousness regarding serious matters and more is just jaw dropping. I just don't understand how Canadians voted for this government and for people who continue to support this government and it's leadership. It's tough to wrap your head around. It's just optics all the time and a smokescreen for a lot of the policies brought forth.
Before any of the usual posters come out and accuse me of being a partisan hack, people can vote and should vote for whomever they want. Literally every single Liberal leader in my life has been substantially better than these losers and there isn't a leader or party I would rank lower then them at the federal level. The Green party and it's former leader May could probably be a more serious and functional government with their 2 MP's than these clowns.
I understand the allure of a lot of politicians and their electorate across different parties and different countries. I just can't figure this one out at all, especially considering how much evidence is out there about how much of a joke this government has been.
This is a classic example of supporters being in an abusive relationship, getting gaslit and making excuses for why the abuse should continue. You know your getting screwed, it's hurtful, painful and your being told to like it all while signing a lovely song about it.
I don’t disagree with some of your comments
I will say why the #### does the CPC keep moving right.
Put out a solid progressive Centrist candidate and policy.
It might win them the election.
####ing baffling
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Why hello iggy_oi, welcome! I am surprised you of all people would show up to comment. What's your constructive input on the inquiry, considering your past checkered history on this subject where you continuously tried to deflect and spin away from the scandal?
Checkered history? Lol if you say so then it must be true.
Quote:
I will help out, remember this exchange? We can revisit now that we have more info and a summary of the transcript itself publicly released by CSIS itself instead of an unsubstantiated 'anonymous source', if I recall you had some very interesting arguments.
Never thought that Han Dong himself would provide the answer for me[/QUOTE]
There is a very big difference between anticipating/acknowledging the reaction of political rivals and actually suggesting delaying the release of the two prisoners. Assuming you understand this and given that you appear to be desperately eager to make me look like I’m wrong in this or defending him for calling for the delay of the release can you please point to any documents provided by CSIS or anyone else’s testimony that show Dong actually calling for the delay of their release? I’m guessing probably not.
Quote:
Care to revise your response and argument now that we have more info from CSIS and Han Dong himself validated my conclusion (still allegedly of course), among the countless times you have been wrong on this subject (including CSIS's role that you kept deflecting towards instead of the actual interference)? I would love to hear how you spin this one. Wait...let me guess. It's not the actual transcript, just a summary of the transcript and CSIS is poorly run and cannot be trusted to be accurate in its summary. Did I get the spin right?
Sorry can you clearly, in like a sentence or 2, explain what specific point I’m wrong about or that I’m spinning? You seem to be agreeing with me that there isn’t any hard evidence(meaning actual proof not just speculation) that Dong actually tried to delay the release of the two Michaels so I’m not sure what you’re getting at, if you are in fact getting to anything and not just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. If you’re more interested in simply trying to claim that anyone who disagrees with you are always trying to spin things then that’s fine, it’s entertaining after all even if it doesn’t reflect very well on you.
Quote:
Why do I feel that even if we had the transcript and recording itself publicly released confirming the summary, you would still be first to spin on it?
I don’t know why you feel that way but you tend to make a lot of bizarre statements/accusations that aren’t based in reality so this one doesn’t really surprise me. You’re essentially saying that because I’m saying no hard evidence has been presented thus far that I wouldn’t acknowledge it if/when it is presented, which is both absurd and completely unfounded.
This government has never been serious about anything in its existence, it's been a failure since day #1/ The level of incompetence, fraud, biases, division, lack of seriousness regarding serious matters and more is just jaw dropping. I just don't understand how Canadians voted for this government and for people who continue to support this government and it's leadership. It's tough to wrap your head around. It's just optics all the time and a smokescreen for a lot of the policies brought forth.
Before any of the usual posters come out and accuse me of being a partisan hack, people can vote and should vote for whomever they want. Literally every single Liberal leader in my life has been substantially better than these losers and there isn't a leader or party I would rank lower then them at the federal level. The Green party and it's former leader May could probably be a more serious and functional government with their 2 MP's than these clowns.
I understand the allure of a lot of politicians and their electorate across different parties and different countries. I just can't figure this one out at all, especially considering how much evidence is out there about how much of a joke this government has been.
This is a classic example of supporters being in an abusive relationship, getting gaslit and making excuses for why the abuse should continue. You know your getting screwed, it's hurtful, painful and your being told to like it all while signing a lovely song about it.
I loved Paul Martin, I think he had the potential to be a tremendous PM, and I voted for him. Then he crossed the wrong guy in Jean Chretien, who kicked Martin in the nuts and punched him in the face on the way out the door.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I will say why the #### does the CPC keep moving right.
Put out a solid progressive Centrist candidate and policy.
It might win them the election.
####ing baffling
I am pretty confident that we will see a more moderate and less attack dog style Pierre in the months to come. I am sure the policy will be strong and focused.
We are already seeing a more moderate Pierre in some ways, some of the complaints from people within the party is already of a softening of him, which is to be expected. Pierre isn't Harper, he won't be as soft in my opinion and he will be more of a revolution as opposed to evolutionary. He also doesn't have the same runway that Harper had. Harper should have beaten Trudeau in 2015 but the campaign was poor and the messaging was weak and incoherent. Harper had entrusted Jason Kenney to work his tail off to bring in a lot of new Canadians and immigrants into the fold and they did themselves in with some stupid messaging. Pierre won't have multiple cracks at a majority or longevity unless he focuses on middle of the road policies and transforms issues for all Canadians. Laser focused on economic, health and long term issues etc.
People, countries, policies and leaders are always moving left and right within the spectrum. The messaging thus far and the budget announcements from the Liberals is very different from 2015, a lot of the younger people who voted for him then are grown up now and are having serious grown up concerns and issues.
I am pretty confident that we will see a more moderate and less attack dog style Pierre in the months to come. I am sure the policy will be strong and focused.
We are already seeing a more moderate Pierre in some ways, some of the complaints from people within the party is already of a softening of him, which is to be expected. Pierre isn't Harper, he won't be as soft in my opinion and he will be more of a revolution as opposed to evolutionary. He also doesn't have the same runway that Harper had. Harper should have beaten Trudeau in 2015 but the campaign was poor and the messaging was weak and incoherent. Harper had entrusted Jason Kenney to work his tail off to bring in a lot of new Canadians and immigrants into the fold and they did themselves in with some stupid messaging. Pierre won't have multiple cracks at a majority or longevity unless he focuses on middle of the road policies and transforms issues for all Canadians. Laser focused on economic, health and long term issues etc.
People, countries, policies and leaders are always moving left and right within the spectrum. The messaging thus far and the budget announcements from the Liberals is very different from 2015, a lot of the younger people who voted for him then are grown up now and are having serious grown up concerns and issues.
Why do you ignore people who tell you who they are? Pierre isn't going to moderate anything. he's been building towards this version for decades, how could you possibly convince yourself he would change?
He's already followed Smith's lead in saying he has no time for experts. If you want to see what a PP government looks like, check out Danielle. If you don't like Danielle, how could you possibly think PP is a good option? Unless you do like Danielle, in which case, well...you already know how I feel about that.
I just don't get how people think a politician will be what they want them to be, not what they are. Delusional, I guess.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I am pretty confident that we will see a more moderate and less attack dog style Pierre in the months to come. I am sure the policy will be strong and focused.
We are already seeing a more moderate Pierre in some ways, some of the complaints from people within the party is already of a softening of him, which is to be expected. Pierre isn't Harper, he won't be as soft in my opinion and he will be more of a revolution as opposed to evolutionary. He also doesn't have the same runway that Harper had. Harper should have beaten Trudeau in 2015 but the campaign was poor and the messaging was weak and incoherent. Harper had entrusted Jason Kenney to work his tail off to bring in a lot of new Canadians and immigrants into the fold and they did themselves in with some stupid messaging. Pierre won't have multiple cracks at a majority or longevity unless he focuses on middle of the road policies and transforms issues for all Canadians. Laser focused on economic, health and long term issues etc.
People, countries, policies and leaders are always moving left and right within the spectrum. The messaging thus far and the budget announcements from the Liberals is very different from 2015, a lot of the younger people who voted for him then are grown up now and are having serious grown up concerns and issues.
Yeah, not sure about that.
I think the CPC & PP will be okay in their first term, but I have no doubt that if in power long enough all this garbage would happen to them as well.
Which is why the Liberals need to turf Trudeau and get someone else running.
If Pierre is going to do a 'revolution' I want no part of that. Nothing he does or says demonstrates good leadership, tact, humility or grace. He's a career politician who's riding populist fervor and also positioned to just take the mantle given the typical nine year shelf life of the previous PMs.
Revolution is a dangerous word, especially with his current base. He just needs to have a realistic plan to fix government things that doesn't hurt others. That's it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Assuming you understand this and given that you appear to be desperately eager to make me look like I’m wrong in this or defending him for calling for the delay of the release can you please point to any documents provided by CSIS or anyone else’s testimony that show Dong actually calling for the delay of their release? I’m guessing probably not.
Reread what I quoted and try again. I mean I even bolded it for you. You couldn't ascertain how on earth the CPC could benefit from the Michaels being released early, and you still can't acknowledge when the CSIS summary has Han Dong giving the exact same conclusion I did.
The summary states that Dong strongly insinuated that the release of the Michaels early would help the CPC, but even as the summary states this, you are going about 'well it still doesn't say to actually delay the Michaels release'.
Spin spin spin.
Quote:
I don’t know why you feel that way but you tend to make a lot of bizarre statements/accusations that aren’t based in reality so this one doesn’t really surprise me. You’re essentially saying that because I’m saying no hard evidence has been presented thus far that I wouldn’t acknowledge it if/when it is presented, which is both absurd and completely unfounded.
You already don't acknowledge CSIS's words as you continuously discredit them, and even the summary of the source, which confirms the leaker source as legitimate, is not enough for you. If you want to hinge all hope on the transcript translations that's your hill to die on. There's a reason why Han Dong stated he doesn't recall what he said in a conversation, because he knows the transcripts exist, and his whole defense hinges on a mistranslation (of a transcript which is still confidential at this time but of which we have a summary no less).
You know what else was revealed in Han Dong's testimony and cross examination that I did not mention?
Quote:
The CSIS intelligence summary also alleges Dong “stressed that any transparency provided by the PRC in relation to the ‘Two Michaels’ such as a court hearing or a court date, would help to placate Canadian public opinion and provide some valuable talking points to his own political party against the opposition.”
That conversation occurred in Feb 2021. What happened within a month after that conversation?
China court dates set for detained Canadians Michael Spavor, Kovrig: Feds
The Canadian Press.
WASHINGTON - The federal government says Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, who have been in custody in China for more than two years, will have court hearings in the coming days.
Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau says the Canadian Embassy in Beijing was notified today that Spavor's court hearing will take place Friday and Kovrig's will happen Monday.
He says their detentions are "arbitrary" and that Canada continues to work "tirelessly" to secure their release.
How convenient! Of course you will be right here to state this court date release is a pure coincidence and pure conjecture and spin it again.
You want to continue this silly spin path? If anything it's only going to get worse as we get more info. The transcript exists, CSIS is aware of the info and what actually transpired (as does Dong). It being confidential does not exonerate Han Dong nor does it make you win an argument by default on the basis of 'no evidence'.
What I don't understand is why you are even on such a staunch defense to begin with for any reason outside of blind partisanship.
Last edited by Firebot; 04-11-2024 at 03:53 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
You couldn't ascertain how on earth the CPC could benefit from the Michaels being released early, and you still can't acknowledge when the CSIS summary has Han Dong giving the exact same conclusion I did. 
. 