This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

European Commissioner calls for strong measures against judicial reforms in Poland

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Guest


Guest
The reform of Poland's judicial system, initiated about a year and a half ago by the Law and Justice party and later passed by the Sejm, became a stumbling point between the European Commission and Poland's government. The main idea of changes proposed by the party of Jarosław Kaczyński contradicts the European values and human democratic rights. Unsurprisingly the reform triggered the public and caused massive disturbances in Poland, and criticism from the European leaders as well. A high possibility of sanctions against Poland and exclusion from decision-making in the Council of EU leaders made president Andrzej Duda back down and veto the reform.

However there is still no solution to the problem. Polish representatives of the European Commission and European Parliament familiar with the situation continue to show their disapproval of the PiS actions and question the views of Kaczynski and his team. Notably, this was mentioned by Elżbieta Bieńkowska, European Commissioner for Internal Market, Industry, Enterpreneurship and SMEs, in her letter to Frans Timmermans, First Vice President of the European Commission.



Bieńkowska openly admits the democratic rights in Poland are being encroached on. She believes the problem is far more important than the upcoming federal election in Germany since losing Poland may result in the breakup of the European Union. Bieńkowska may well be exaggerating, but a series of conflicts with the EU started by Poland prove that we could witness the Polexit even earlier than the first 'exit'-makers finally break away.

You can find Putin's fingerprints all over efforts to disrupt Nato and the European Union. He is not limited to disruptions of American elections. His announced goal of returning to the Soviet realm is a known factor behind his subversion.

View user profile
He also didn't respect Obama's pink lines.

That must've been perplexing. An unnamed source said Obama cried.

View user profile
He also didn't respect Obama's pink lines.

That must've been perplexing. An unnamed source said Obama cried.


Now that is funny. If pink lines can cause your currency to drop in half in value, and send your GDP into the dumpster below Brazil and Italy now, I guess you would interfere in an election to support Hillary to make sure you could get some more pink lines........but history has shown us that was not the fact. The fact was they supported a person who talked tough like you desire, but did nothing to punish bad behavior. I get a kick out of that raid against Syria where America gave them a half hour warning to move their planes.....oooooooolala.....the Mooch and Trumpster playing bad asz, or actually having policies which are bad asz........simple choices.

View user profile
Hillary has no problem using the military. There's a doctrine in progressivism that Samantha powers speaks strongly of called the "responsibility to protect"... it's a bit vague in that it seems to coincide with profit as in Libya... while no action in Somalia. Hillary either believes in it... or was manipulated by it's proponents. Either way... she had clear militaristic characteristics. I'm not saying that played into the election... but it's plain stupid to ignore it as you just did. If anything... she had easily as much tie to Russia as Trump. Unless you're a useful idiot you can acknowledge that.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:... she had easily as much tie to Russia as Trump. Unless you're a useful idiot you can acknowledge that.

Geopolitical relations v money laundering ....

.... I'll admit that there may be some overlap, but not nearly as much as useful idiots like to pretend.

View user profile
Sal wrote:
PkrBum wrote:... she had easily as much tie to Russia as Trump. Unless you're a useful idiot you can acknowledge that.

Geopolitical relations v money laundering ....

.... I'll admit that there may be some overlap, but not nearly as much as useful idiots like to pretend.

See: uranium one scandal which coincidentally landed bill a 500k speaking fee and tens of millions to the Clinton slushfund foundation.

View user profile
uranium one scandal

What scandal. Do you understand the total uranium reserves America has? I cannot fix parroting stupid.

View user profile
Do you even bother to look at the facts before you parrot propaganda?

Let me help you. How much of that company's production will be exported? The Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia control more than 80% of the world's uranium production and all three nations are our ally , so exactly what is the scandal when the supply is abundant and the amount this company mines is such a small percentage of production of the three nations who work closely within trade agreements, and the best part.....not an ounce of that American production is exported by the American subsidiary and licensee.

Now your parroting assumes that the uranium is being exported to the Russians and that this deed was instigated by contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which is funny in and of itself when you understand the small quantity of uranium reserves this company controls, but Snopes and the NY times just gutted the quid pro quo part of the Clinton Foundation, which again is like saying the Clinton Foundation took a bribe from the Russians to allow the Russians to buy a woodworking shop in New Jersey.....same strategic importance, but here is the big lie:

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:


His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton.

So now the absurdity that the measly amount of the production of Uranium this represents and how absurd the false premise is that we sold our production to Russia when we can buy Uranium from Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia which represent 47,000 tons of production when the entire American production is a little over one thousand tons and is not exported......Stupid is hard to fix. So again, please explain the scandal?

View user profile
There were all kind of irregularities... taxes had to be amended... and they even dissolved the slushfund.

You can only connect dots against pubs... we know. The Clintons are as shady as shit.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum