Leaderboard

Why counter made-up information with real research ? We know from these kinds of posts that it is like arguing in a comic strip - the real world doesn't come into it. Your personal 'research' means nothing to those of use who have read this kind of made-up stuff before. It's propaganda and you should really go elsewhere. 'Discrediting something' without any substance is completely proper. We don't know you - so post some reference with an actual reputation if you want it to be respected. 'Bigotry' is all your fake sources are. Nobody should pay attention, and you should stop posting.

Why would you try to discuss facts with someone who clearly will not or cannot accept reality?

The original poster clearly stated: Please stay on topic as all trolling will be reported - this discussion is about M-103, and nothing else. The only problem is the original post was about anything but M-103.

There should be no PM or any other politician in Canada being able to have the power to stall or kill energy projects. On the contrary, the PM and politicians should be there to encourage energy creating projects and the jobs that will be created from those projects. Unless a project was going to have a some kind of detrimental impact on the environment or destroy people's lives in some way then all should be a go.

Ok, well so much for freedom of speech. My assertion is that your thesis is dishonest, that you have no credible sources, and that it's better for the site for you to not post indefensible make-believe material. Good luck in getting my freedom of speech shut down.

1. That's incorrect. You are spreading falsehoods here. 2. Also incorrect. These are bills that address social cohesion in a society. You are spreading a ridiculous falsehood, a conspiracy theory that tries to propagandize and spread hate and disunity. Your ethos is anti-democratic and anti-western and people aren't buying it, thank goodness. 3. You have already shown your propensity to spread lies, and here it's pretty obvious that you are planning to ban religion. ----- We don't need anti-democratic dictators such as the ones you would support. Please stop posting here, your opinions aren't valuable.

So why single out one religion? And what is the solution? You want to ban religion? If so, then you have a strong dictatorial instinct.