Chrystia's Second Try Today...
Is her redemption at all in sight today, in Parliament's second session since her criminality was announced?
#CeaseFalseFreeland
Chrystia's Second Try Today...
Is her redemption at all in sight today, in Parliament's second session since her criminality was announced?
I tuned in eagerly:
Darrel Samson yells at us to start the show HOW MUCH FOR YOU THE LIBERALS HAVE DONE, EH? And we haven't really felt it, have we? Through his laundry list of random programs there's nothing comprehensive, like a UBI. Why not? We have the 'bug' of fiat currency, we might as well have this feature. CERB was but a pittance compared to military spending.
I am glad to hear that two of these programs are now indexed to inflation, which was touted like a new feature in Windows '95, but the obvious question cries out: why aren't *all* programs indexed to inflation? Well, then you'd get more material benefit from the fiat state!
Then a Liberal tells us a tale of the Ottawa Hindu temple, with a brief synopsis of Hinduism, including mention of early practice of HUMAN SACRIFICE -- as if our governments have truly given it up! The irony is lost on everyone present.
Then, Ziad gets down to business: the liberals should not appeal moseley's ruling and should admit that they were wrong, that she was wrong: Chrystia Freeland, whose last name is as ironic as her job to keep the country’s FINANCE system working properly -- it didn't, if you recall, keep working properly: she shut it all down on Valentine's day -- “SHUT'ER DOWN” I'm sure some psychic couple felt in their bedroom when their ubereats order failed -- and it was Chrystia, in the purse and therefore the bedroom at that time and romantic date, of anyone, and therefore everyone, archetypally, in Canada, at that moment. The pervert.
The Liberals change the topic, to TAIWAN, and tell us that they've just completed their 8th Presidential Election ever -- nice, but what a pivot! (And will we copy their example when it comes to software, and install direct demcoracy here and there, in the manner of pol.is and Audrey Tang? Of course not, we get THE ARRIVECAN APP and our democracy is just for show, controlled opposition, whereas TAIWAN is still a REAL democracy... for now -- because the birth of democracy in their country is still in living memory.)
Some perfunctory remarks intervene, and then we hear about DENTAL HEALTH -- yeah, it's a problem, but the purpose of this entry is to GLOAT because it's merely stating what they've already done -- what is NEXT red liberal?
Laila Goodridge, suddenly perks up, the only one seemingly wide awake in the whole auditorium, she speaks with urgency, and sincerity, about the addictions crisis, and the moral empathy in her voice is palpable, but her proposal is cruel in a way only the fake, older men around her might understand, as they look on, approvingly -- she calls it, not just an addictions crisis, but a 'cruel decriminalization experiement' -- there's two things she doesn't understand here:
1. addictions stem from social situation, and from trauma, like in the rat park studies -- and in this context, housed people would have less incentive to be addicts
2. decriminalization isn't the problem, it's SELECTIVE decriminaliation, and as a conservative, she can understand this from the business side: the black market Trudeau promised to push out didn't move, it just changed product so as to maintain its profit margin, moving to fentanyl from weed, because their rent did not go down when their whole business model collapsed, because of weed legalization, in fact it doubled under Justin, and the drugs that remained illegal remained profitiable. Legalize all drugs and end big pharma intellectual property and suddenly people will make safer choices, when all choices are available, that's why Vancouver police asked for LEGAL HEROIN, and yes, it's paradoxical: if you decriminalize safe drugs only, criminals will only sell *dangerous* drugs. It's that simple, folks, it's just paradoxical. A little. LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS AND SAVE A LIFE TODAY!
Laila, I share your concern, I really do, and I can hear it in your voice. You're not an actress and I say that as a compliment.
East York's 100th Birthday is up next -- Agnes McPhail the first Female MP came from there... and also John Candy? lol okay! He was cool... what happened to CANADA since?
Then Scarpaleggia tells about a government music program that helped out a grade three class... cool, but is this more promo for the election, spending valuable collective problem-solving time on the floor? Buy your own ad-time, Liberals.
Then we hear more about Car-Theft, but the opposition leader told the story better yesterday, or was it a few days ago? Anyway, then we hear from the Libs about a lady who was an aeronautical engineer: Elsie McGill -- like I really love that, in fact, my grandmother's name was Elsie, but what does it have to do with policy today? THE ELSIE INITIATIVE is the proposal: we will sure make sure there are women at the UN peacekeeping meetings! I sure hope this works, I mean, that the women are really feminist in a way that causes a contagious outbreak of world peace among the top brass via that social network -- but can we mandate diversity of political disposition as well, to ensure there are a pacifist or two among the board? Please.
I'm beginning to think there's no pressing need to talk about this today, but that it's a drumroll as they warm up the crowd for Freeland, who they hope to name an initiative after, after she becomes Prime Minister. Or will she?
And then, my hometown MP speaks: BARRIE -- of COURSE it's still conservative, HERE WE GO, what's the Barrie guy going to say...people are using food banks, the carbon tax is punishing us, etc, this has no BARRIE FLAVOUR, these are talking points from on-high, and the audience might be more like urban voters -- are there even foodbanks north of Midhurst? He complains about the private jets... yeah, this guy is NOT representing Barrie in this timeslot, he is representing POLLIEVRE, oh well!
And then we hear from Falk more of the same: the carbon tax is to blame. the carbon tax is to blame. the carbon tax is to blame. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WAR? Well, we can't fight about that war in the war room, gentlemen!
Ben Carr brings up Manitoba letting women vote before the others, another drumroll warming us up for Chrystia: how to frame her, not as perpetrator, but as specimen! But the court got to us first and let us know what ELSE to have in mind, THE EMERGENCIES ACT!
Gord Johns, NDP MP, has a good speech prepared about reconcilliation -- he sounds sincere! Well that's a relief...
The Bloc now has a sailing story for us, and an award they want to set up about some men who saved some lives! Here here...
STRAHL gives the party line his best white-guy energy next as he delivers the party line -- anything new here? Nope.
DHALIWAL comes next, with a memorial. Rest in peace.
PIERRE turns up now, the first non-NPC on the floor to speak:
He has a laundry list of things that Trudeau wasted money on—okay we all can make one... it's MS FREELAND in response, however, it's THE CRIMINAL HERSELF:
Let's see..she starts in French, she says it's DANGEROUS to vote conservative because of what he will cut, and gives a different list, and he says no, I already listed what I will cut. And asks about the carbon tax’s proposed carve-out for The Farmers -- she says "Quebec understands the importance of industrial investments in the green economy" but this has nothing to do with carbon taxes, Chrystia, how condescending and distracting from the argument!
Pierre then pivots back to the ARRIVECAN app, okay I always knew that they would overspend on this one, but so would the tories: remember when congress tried to make a website?
Chrystia leads in her reply with an 'as a mother' move beause she appeals to fears that Pollieve will cancel federal child care -- he doesn't deny it, to be fair, but changes the subject AGAIN to Trudeau's trip and the cost and emissions of it...
"Since we're asking questions of MPs I want to ask about..." is how she begins her reply -- it's what-aboutism again, but then she asks for details about his finances, TYPICAL of her, and PRESUMPTIVE as usual as well, for she sets him up for the perfect reply: "I PAY FOR MY OWN VACATIONS" lol -- soundbite of the year but will he dodge the question? DID he cash his carbon rebate yet, before he cancels ours? This is why you never ask two questions at once Chrystia! Tsk tsk:
He dodges it! And pivots back to the farmer's carve out for the carbon tax. So will he cancel rebates also?
"You know Mr Speaker, people who live in glass houses" oh my god, she's saying it again, CHRYSTIA, YOU'RE DRUNK, YOU ALREADY USED THAT ONE YESTERDAY, or rather, the line is one she probably uses when she's drunk, for "what aboutism" is every free-associating half-remembering drunkard’s favourite NON ARGUMENT STRUCTURE, just in literary form here with a HOUSE metaphor, which does, to be fair, keep us vaguely on the topic of the housing crisis, but will glass houses be allowed? Yes, they're the only kind so Chrystia can see into your money bags, darling.
Her own party visibly winces as she launches deeper into the joke she recycled from *last* night: HE DOESN'T PAY ANY RENT! HE'S ON GOVERNMENT PAYROLL! AND HE WANTS TO TAKE THE REBATES AWAY!—Does he?
Sadly now, the bloc starts talking—we'll never know! Until it happens... don't vote for Liberals OR Conservatives this election season, it's tiring, their bickering, it isn't substantive, it's show! They are a duopoly. They are collusion. They are controlled opposition. Vote NDP, demand they break the deal with the Liberals and fight for ideological independence! (Ask them also to run me against Ms Freeland -- write to ndp.ca/contact…)
Then we hear that immigration's part of the problem -- sometimes it is, but we ALWAYS hear that it is...
The Liberals say that they are building units with Quebec to welcome newcomers who will come and also build houses -- nice! But that has nothing to do with the overall numbers, we can deduce nothing from this nice picture mathematically—is capacity going to keep up or will it worsen even more? The latter will be fatal even more than the current situation!
Singh opens with a zinger: "What do you get with a Toronto full of Liberal MPs? A housing crisis!" Snap! So is the deal off, then? I hope so!
"Mr. Speaker" Freeland pipes up, hoping for a vaguely friendly face in Singh, she drops the name of Toronto like she's been there sometimes, and doesn't address any of the policies that doubled housing prices during her term!
Singh continues in French, about the PRICE FIXING with major grocers -- the response? CHAMPAGNE, ironicaly, responds that cheaper food is coming... just after one more class of Champagne, I'm sure...
Lantsman finally speaks. THIS will be easy to understand. She lays in to party talking points, but speaks with her actual own voice, she wants to CANCEL the carbon tax immediately! But will she ever propose to tax the rich instead of molecules? Not until she crosses the aisle, but today she mainly seems to want to cross it to throttle Chrystia—her anger here is palpable, because Ms Freeland in response to cutting the carbon tax, she PIVOTS AGAIN to other cuts, and Lantsman pivots harder: can we believe that Chrystia talked about cancelling disney plus instead of mothers watering down their milk and Chrystia retorts that she is LESS OUT OF TOUCH THAN MELISSA, more or less—okay, but the argument is not that Melissa is more in touch and so she's better, but that the POLICY is more in touch with the ECONOMIC reality; really Chyrstia, I thought you were a FINANCE minister, offer Lantsman the respect she deserves of saying WHY, by making ANY kind of argument comparing an alternative to the carbon tax -- the push here is so monomaniacal it reminds me of any push to take a novel pharmaceutical instead of various out-of-copyright alternatives, why no alernatives on the table? Why do the globalists, via Chrystia, want this solution and this solution only? It beggars the mind…
Shannon Stubs butts in and joins the chorus: YEAH, YOU'RE OUT OF TOUCH! Okay ladies, but what are the arguments pro and contra the carbon tax? The men aren't making them either!
Freeland takes the proverbial podium again, and reveals her frame: this is all about how she compares to the conservatives in public perception, not discussing policy! This is a campaign ad and a competition for SEEMING more empathetic, not a fight of two contesting policies.
Now the liberals complain about TUCKER CARLSON, here we go -- is it because his name sounds like TRUCKER? It can be that, can't it?
The audience GROANS and GROANS and the speaker has to interevene!
The consevatives just keep on rolling with Lianne Rood: the cost of living sucks! Not worth the cost! We've got it, guys!
Lawrence MacCauly intervenes next: Liberal and crotchety he declares, WE WILL LOOK OUT FOR FARMERS. Got it.
Rood says that is nothing! LOWER CARBON PRICES FOR FARMERS
What do they say, the libs?
The speaker has to calm them down first: MacCauly says THE ENVIRONMENT is important for farmers... but will he charge them the same for carbon? Apparently so.
The Bloc has questions about asylum seekers, the Liberals say "we got you on this one, don't you remember our chat?" Something like that. A calm back-and-forth about asylum-seekers ensues. This seems like a real conversation for a few seconds as they politely exchange information! Good work guys! Now back to rhetoric:
Shelby the conservative screeches THE DREAM OF HOME OWNERSHIP IS DEAD WHEN WILL YOU ADDRESS THE HOUSING HELL IN CANADA? Well I agree, but do you have to put it like that?
Sean Fraser comes back smoothly with a suggestion: you are preying on the insecurities of Candians and RAGE FARMING -- Well, that sure explains the tone, Shelby! Pierre does it more muted-like...conservative populism doesn't work as a dog-whistle if you can hear the quiet part!
Shelby hollers back, less rage-farmey now, but now the party lines shine through and rise into the repetitive climax -- WHAT ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO DO?
Mr. Fraser calmly rolls out a list of stuff they've tried, but not results, because the polls don't lie and poll respondents know the price of rent, or of their house.
The Tories soldier on: the students in Montreal are in a homeless shelter! We know, it's like that here at UofT as well, but what does the current Tory speaking say? "INFLATIONARY BUDGETS HELP NO ONE" um, that's a sweeping generalization and doesn't show the economic acumen that's supposed to distinguish conservatives from liberals.
Sean Fraser tells us, laughably, that they JUST YESTERDAY started a program to build more houses for students... but when did you start *admitting them without building*? Awhile ago -- so long ago that we've had to abruptly halt on international students, a discontinity no math major should expect!
He has a good line saved up though: "Conservatives will tap into people's anxieties for political gain; Liberals will actually pass policies that address them" Well, touche! But what is next?
A Conservative is irate, demanding attention pivot back to the raw numbers: the housing failure, the rising cost, the numbers of evictions, the number of deaths. And what do they say, The Liberals?
Ferrada says they brought in a GREAT PLAN; okay, how's that working out for you?
The NDP interjects, via Rachel Blaney, that CORPORATE GREED is going on amid this crisis -- record profits! Thank you Rachel, why did we talk constantly about the carbon tax and NOT the greed of corporate emitters -- which is all corporations? An hour in, the psyop is dismantled slightly, for a nanosecond: WE COULD TAX THE RICH! A person starts to think...
Seamus the Liberal retorts that, hey, we did stuff for seniors! But conveniently lets the CORPORATE GREED point slide out of discussion without mention, and the idea fades with it, that we could tax the rich -- oh well, there was one flicker of hope in the entire first hour.
The NDP now goes on the offensive against Netanyahu, bringing up The War for the FIRST TIME TODAY IN PARLIAMENT, as if the carbon tax was all there was to the cost-of-living--The Liberals just say "Hey, we're sending aid to Gaza!" *shrug* Nothing about the deeper issues of the war.
Salma Zahid chimes in, from the Liberals, about the rise in hate crimes, but is there a rise in hate crimes against Liberals, or are those ones thought crimes?
Kamal Khera, also liberal, adds on about an anti-hate fund they have going... how does it work? Where does the money go in?
The Tories ask then why we don't compensate towns to speed up building—the Liberal response is snide and pivoting: what about the policy, guys?
The Liberals complain, again, about insults from yesterday, nothing about the policy in way of substantive debate...
Kyle the conservative stands up, gets cut off twice—it's funny, but wastes our time: he finally continues, he has a bunch of numbers -- his conclusion? IT'S THEIR MESS, NOT OURS — okay, but propose a policy, Kyle, that’s what the numbers are for!
PhoenixPay is the next topic, a lot like ARRIVECAN -- *sigh* we need better software developers in governement but the salaries don't compete with silicon valley in the slightest, folks! You have to spend MORE to spend less on these...
Conservatives swing around now to a major topic: ATTACKING MMT--Here we go, that's Freelands CUE--she STANDS UP, having just heard this nonsense about 'balanced budgets', what does she say to that? Will she channel Stephanie Kelton successfully today? "When conservatives talk about this, they're talking about CUTTING X, Y and Z" *names pet issues* But does that mean that balanced budgets don't matter, or that the conservatives will cut the wrong things to get there? Come on now, Ms. Freeland, where's our condescending economics lesson today the conservatives enjoy so much?
She merely mentions a specific program they will cut, and sits herself down, never to speak again, FOR TODAY -- but where's the substance? This is just a game of ping-pong, not a policy debate worthy of even an *undergraduate* classroom. And that was it -- that's all she wrote, and was redemption in the mix today? Not-at-all, she barely spoke at all, and never on the topic of her criminality: not a word about what-she-did-last-valetine's -- I mean two valetine's ago, when she paused everybody’s confidence in finance in this country, and she had one job.
And did she reply when the opposition said they should respect the court? Respect the rule or law? Of course not, for, it's “Rules for me, and rules for thee.”, in Freeland's Canada.
Cease. False. Freedom:
#CeaseFalseFreeland
--
adamgolding.ca for University-Rosedale