It's
not two sets of rules. One is a possible rape that happened a long time ago, and one is just an embarrassing thing that happened a long time ago. The two are not comparable and are like comparing apples to oranges.
You think that a possibly reprehensible criminal act is comparable to a stupid act that's non-criminal? How??
How do you come to this obviously flawed conclusion?
BigSteve wrote:Kavanagh never raped anyone.
I never said that he did, but you really don't care about that, do you? Read what I wrote above...(
Possible).
I was also making a comparison that
Finfinder brought up, and was only comparing it on the basis of the
potential CRIME. A
potential rape is not comparable to a guy going black-face. One is a potential crime, whereas the other is potentially embarrassing. I was pointing out the stupidity of the comparison, and not whether or not he actually did it.
Finfinder wrote:What do you think about Obama meddling in Canada's election process?
Obama saying something isn't meddling. People are entitled to their opinions. Are Canadians going to listen to a former US President? Unlikely. They'll either agree with him, or not. There is no coercion. I doubt Obama has
any influence on Canadians.
BigSteve wrote:Godstud certainly seems to feel that way...
Only because YOU made the same comment about Canadians commenting on American politics.
I don't give a shit about what Trudeau did 18 years ago, as it was simply embarrassing to him, and not relevant to politics now, and was not, in any way, criminal. Embarrassing as hell? Yes. Does he deserve ridicule for doing it? Sure thing!
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson