Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, caroljane said:

I know the answer!  Roberts thinks he is someone who knows more about the Supreme Court, and lawyering and the Constitution and all that folderol, than the President does!

No doubt he will be set right soon.

Irrelevant.

--Brant

it's what's beneath the surface

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

It will be interesting to see if the President takes this minor scolding with good grace.

You mean because of his long, real, non-fake history of having "meltdowns" and "tantrums" and being "enraged" and throwing "tirades" and such?

What would it mean for him to take it "with good grace"? Do you mean that he should not counter others' comments and opinions? He should just shut up and cave in to the left like a McCain, Romney or Ryan would?

Also, Billy, you're not naive enough to buy into Roberts' pretend belief that "the U.S. doesn’t have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” are you?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, caroljane said:

I know the answer!  Roberts thinks he is someone who knows more about the Supreme Court, and lawyering and the Constitution and all that folderol, than the President does!

Yay! Then let's just trust his authority and believe everything that he says!

Pay no attention to how judges rule, because they're not political at all. No need to look into it. Trust Roberts. Politics does not enter into their decisions. They set their political views aside. Wait, no, they don't even have any political views. Completely neutral, and they don't have any knowledge, curiosity or interest in anything political.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QAnon sez "Trust the Plan." 

DsjOiFKX4AAzD9C.jpg

Edited by william.scherk
Image didn't embed first time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Yay! Then let's just trust his authority and believe everything that he says!

Pay no attention to how judges rule, because they're not political at all. No need to look into it. Trust Roberts. Politics does not enter into their decisions. They set their political views aside. Wait, no, they don't even have any political views. Completely neutral, and they don't have any knowledge, curiosity or interest in anything political.

J

He won’t engage with you. He dislikes looking stupid.

Expect some sad and/or confused emoticons. He enjoys emoting instead of using words. He likes playing sad and confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to make friends and influence people ... on the Supreme Court.

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It will be interesting to see if the President takes this minor scolding with good grace.

Or not interesting at all.  Except to the usual suspects, of course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Far too many of those faces are still respiring.

Sharpen the guillotines!!

Is that the order in which they die and become zombies? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

How to make friends and influence people ... on the Supreme Court.

So, you're saying that Justices can be influenced, and rather easily? They're very petty, and need to be buttered up, or they'll rule against you? A president should always keep in mind the idea of "making friends and influencing" the Court by never disagreeing with any of them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

The suicide note left by Fidel Castro’s eldest son has rocked the Cuban nation this week, with the most astonishing revelation being the claim that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was his half-brother and the son of the late Fidel Castro.

http://whatsupic.com/index/cuba-justin-trudeau-fidel-castros-son/

I think we were talking about this before here but someone really said the timeline was impossible . 

Just saying 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marc said:

I think we were talking about this before here but someone really said the timeline was impossible . 

Just saying 

I don’t think so, no.

All that was demonstrated before that I recall was that news links found online reports giving certain times and places the two met and were together.

Then the assumption was made that they were together ONLY on those occasions, because, I can’t be sure, but I suppose because, the news media would know about and report all their meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An assertion in a headline: "Cuba Claims Justin Trudeau Is Fidel Castro’s Son!" It truly does bear tagging with an exclamation mark, but maybe an icon indicating contested truth. 🤨

Diligent readers will be struck by a lack of warrant for that claim. You know, which Cuban official or officials 'claim' Justin? Who said that? For that matter, who wrote this story?

Hmmm. Interesting. Tell me more. Where did you get the quote from -- was there a longer story?  Did you perhaps copy the text from another site? Hello?

17 hours ago, Jon Letendre, quoting an unreliable site, said:

The suicide note left by Fidel Castro’s eldest son has rocked the Cuban nation this week

The story at the link is unpersuasive to me, not least for the reasoning I offered already here on October 4th**.  I read the contemporaneous accounts of the suicide as being somewhat shocking to Cubans for its breaching of the privacy curtain.  So the frank discussion of the suicide in official (what else?) organs was the thing that rocked ...

As for interesting but true stories ...

Margaret Trudeau was under intense public scrutiny from the moment of her marriage to Pierre. She was 22 to his 48.  It was half-shocking, half-endearing to Canadians, for Trudeau himself had till then seemed to be 'French' in terms of his love-life, meaning no one expected an adventurer to keep a wife. Media in those early days observed the French-ish JFK era rule in not making fusses about who was hooking up, especially bachelors. Gerda Munsinger notwithstanding.

So, Margaret changed that. She was a cover-girl. She had a baby on Christmas Day. She had another baby on Christmas Day.  No wife of a prime minister had had a public role rivaling her husband. Margaret was free-spirited, West Coast, beautiful, a cover-girl of youth. And by the time their marriage dissolved media had moved on to actually talking about Pierre's dates and hook-ups, though with some lingering discretion (eg, we didn't learn of Pierre's affair with a Newfie until she bore him his fourth child, a daughter, the Trudeau boys weren't plagued by papparazzi as had been their mother). Celebrity.

Trudeau pere et fils:

trudeau.jpg

Many years later she and we would discover that Margaret had been manic-depressive (bi-polar), that she had suffered in her marriage, and had suffered from her freedom, her ability to scandalize New York. Club 54, Mick Jagger ... that photo of her possibly-unpantied pudenda. Some might say Donald Trump tried it on, but I think the timing is wrong.

Anyway, the CUBA CLAIMS JUSTIN story ...

Although there are inline links to off-site sources such as the Globe and Mail, the key fact claim offers no link. Huh?

Going further, nowhere on the CubaDebate site is there mention that a 'suicide note' rocked Cuba with a Trudeau revelation. Most importantly to the substance of the claim, they do not publish (in Spanish) anything as cited within the quotes ('quoats'?); they do not mention the word canadiense and hermano in the context of a nota de suicidio.

Tentative hypothesis: as this is unsupported, it is likely "fun" with misinformation. No byline, no link to the Money Shot? I love how everything goes in the Donald Trump thread.

Doesn't matter. But while we're here and I have a chance to bore you about Pierre Trudeau, let's just review what we know about him.

Well-born, to a Scottish-Montreal father and a French-Canadian-Montreal mother, educated by Jesuits, showing a keen athletic edge and an intellectual drive, a desire to write and act on issues of the day. When he first became a public figure in Quebec, it was as a passionate lawyer for reform during the infamous Asbestos strike (which contributed to Quebec's Quiet Revolution -- when the religious part of the Quebec state was cut away, old ways of entrenched elites, Catholic social mores, guilt, shame, control of education and medicine and social services, orphans, the insane ... replaced with a secular state and a 'national policy.'

That took another ten years after the strike, and Trudeau by then had published his first book (of 24) which told of Communist China or rather his adventures there ...

His big book Federalism and the French Canadians made him famous coast-to-coast because it served as a blueprint and point of departure for national debate -- analyzing and solving for a seemingly intractable "problem" of nationalism in Quebec, the ethnic 'apartness,' balkanization.

We knew him by then as Justice minister, who drolly told us "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation," and abolished criminal sanctions for consensual homosexual behaviour, and reformed the criminal code in other ways. By the time Margaret came along, we had been knowing this man in power for a relatively short time, but in that short time, he had seized the imagination if not the affection or allegiance of Canadians. He was not of Trump stature, but he was arrogant indeed, bold, some would say reckless.

The biggest challenge of his first mandates as the prime minister came with the October Crisis. He became briefly the leader of a nation at war, he decreed a suspension of civil liberties in Quebec, allowed mass detentions -- after the assassination of a provincial cabinet member by the Front de libération du Québec.

The guy showed his mettle during the crisis, satisfying no one, making no excuses.

But what is perhaps his most enduring legacy is the reforms in immigration alongside bilingualism and multiculturalism, a 'solving' of Canada's other 'crisis,' that of national unity throughout the seventies. He wrote Canada's modern constitution, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and cut the last juridicial and legislative ties with the English crown.  The Queen signed those instruments of Canadian independence with a great flourish.

I am leaving out all his great arrogant blunders, which Jules and Caroljane and Marc can fill in.

My most remarkable memories of Pierre Elliott Trudeau were of the endless funereal business.  He got the right royal sendoff, state funeral with extra trimmings, a cortege on a train that slowly rolled from lying in state in Ottawa to lying in state in Montreal, with the remaining two sons (the third killed in an avalanche) aboard with the coffin. People came out of their homes to line the track and crossings along the way, a first in Canada's history.  He had been hated in his life with great passion, but even the haters marked his passing as if a founder, a man whose singular purpose had changed the nation in a single generation.

I was most struck by all the citizen faces on television and interviews who were brown and black and otherwise from away, by their passionate patriotism -- what you see now as the faces of Canada, variously hued.  They explained that their new lives in Canada had been formed by Trudeau policies and guidance and they felt touched by the passing of a great man who'd made some of their successes possible, who'd built the framework of their freedoms, the Charter that binds us.

Those who grieved most publicly were Margaret and Justin. She bore three boys who carried the Trudeau name and she grieved for their father and her partner in their upraising. Showy but effective. Justin's actorish performance struck the gong amongst many: "he could run for Parliament with that kind of showboaty public speaking." Nobody had heard that passionate voice of continued 'Trudeau values' ...

So, basically, Trudeau the elder was an impactful, consequential prime minister, very much an architect of reform. Liberal reform, but hey. Buncha potheads and grifters.

Spoiler

 

Ted Kennedy, Jack Nicholson and more juicy bits from Margaret Trudeau’s new book

In her latest self-help book, the former prime minister’s wife gives sound advice — and dishes about her colourful past.

by
Margaret Trudeau

Photo courtesy of HarperCollins.

Who’d have thought Margaret Trudeau would be giving sage advice to women in their golden years? In her latest book, The Time of Your Life (out April 7), Trudeau passionately advocates for women over 65 to seek out a “vibrant joyful future” and guides those in their 40s and 50s on to prepare for a fulfilling third act now. She’s done her research, talked to experts and gathered truly inspiring stories of women killing it late in life. And there’s plenty of first-hand lessons from Trudeau herself, who says she started feeling her age (65) when she experienced three traumatic events in the space of a few months: she dislocated her shoulder in a skiing accident, her mother died and a close friend was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Trudeau is honest and hilarious about her senior years and tells plenty of stories about her marriage to Pierre Trudeau and her Studio 54 days. Here are 10 of the book’s juiciest moments.

 

Quote

 

Margaret Trudeau 1971 Chatelaine cover

Margaret Trudeau on a 1971 Chatelaine cover.

1. On why you should take her advice
“I have seen the best and the worst of what life has to offer. I have danced in the arms of presidents, dressed in haute couture and I have been confined in a psychiatric institution, my bank account — and life — in shambles. I have ridden a motorcycle through the desert, clinging to a king for all I was worth, and I have attended AA meetings with the unemployed and homeless . . . Change is the order of life, and I have experienced this natural law as vividly as anyone.”

2. What Pierre Trudeau thought of Ms. magazine
“When Pierre and I were living at 24 Sussex, Gloria Steinem sent me a present. It was a subscription to Ms., a liberal feminist magazine. I was delighted . . . Pierre, however, was less than impressed. It seems ironic that the man who established Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms would take issue with his wife reading Ms. For all his ideals, I think Pierre, like many men of his generation, believed that true equality stopped at the front door.”

3. The strong, silent type
“I always admired Pierre for his tremendous ability to be silent. When he was prime minister, he would often come home and complain not about the stress, but about the noise — he was a man who needed peace and solitude. He taught me to embrace solitude as well. On Saturday afternoons, he would often take the boys so I could have time for myself.”

4. Pierre Trudeau channels Eleanor Roosevelt — and Spider-Man
“When I left my first husband, Pierre Trudeau, I told him it was because I wanted to be free . . . I have never forgotten his condescending reply: ‘But, Margaret — with freedom comes great responsibility.'”

[...]

 

**

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link back to timeline comment from October here in the Endless Thread of Love

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marc said:

I think we were talking about this before here but someone really said the timeline was impossible . 

Just saying 

See? The timeline isn’t impossible. Billyboy gladly made you think that, though, didn’t he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

The timeline isn’t impossible.

What is the motivation, though -- whose actual plot is this and why oh why? 

Margaret gave birth nine months after the marriage. We have photos of them on their honeymoon, not in Cuba. Why oh why oh why would Margaret allow herself to be taken from her honeymoon to be impregnated by Fidel? Didn't any of the attendant media notice extra flights, a broody Pierre, Margaret not spotted for the duration of a round of in-utero impregnation in (presumably) Havana.

Why? Why would anyone suggest such a protracted procedure?

It is easier for me to conclude that the story above is a confection, based on its main assertions being unsupported even by its cites. What kind of standards of analysis and mentation are you using, Jon? Can you share that with the Front Porch readers?

I promise to give you a trophy and maybe a heart if you do that.  Maybe you will be hounded for a thousand days to 'solve the paradox' of Margaret, Handmaid of Castro, the inconvenient timeline, and the lack of warrants ...

Then Tony will go after you, and Jonathan will turn on you, and other endless abusive comments will be engendered. It'll be like old times with Greg Mamishian, assholism triumphant. Trophies for all!

Given that plausible scenario, might you then give a reasonably objectivish argument as to why anybody should take the story as other than confection?  I don't actually believe you believe, so.

Edited by william.scherk
Parenthesis shift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It'll be like old times with Greg Mamishian...

 

2 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

I wonder if Greg survived the California wildfires...

I wonder if he got what he deserved...

(Hey... come on... who could resist that?)

:) 

But I do hope he is well.

Michael

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

I wonder if he got what he deserved...

(Hey... come on... who could resist that?)

:) 

But I do hope he is well.

Michael

Hahaha!!!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Maybe you will be hounded for a thousand days to 'solve the paradox' of Margaret, Handmaid of Castro, the inconvenient timeline, and the lack of warrants ...

It's not really about the "paradox." It's actually a study in something else.

 

11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Then Tony will go after you, and Jonathan will turn on you...

Jonathan turns on people? How would verify that, versus that it's the other way around, or sometimes the other way around? Jonathan, master of the one-person tango?

 

Quote

...and other endless abusive comments will be engendered. It'll be like old times with Greg Mamishian, assholism triumphant. Trophies for all!

It sounds as if we're being scolded, being Othered. Was that the intent, or have I misread? We should be above normal human interaction, psychology and behavior in response to others? We are all equally petty and guilty?

J

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I don’t think so, no.

All that was demonstrated before that I recall was that news links found online reports giving certain times and places the two met and were together.

Then the assumption was made that they were together ONLY on those occasions, because, I can’t be sure, but I suppose because, the news media would know about and report all their meetings.

Lolll , no  I was being sarcastic because a  poster got upset when I mentioned this before . Now it just looks like that post makes more sense that our PM may be the son of Fidel. 

It all makes sense now. 

God bless President Trump 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...