Leaderboard

Should we suspend relations? I mean, it would be their loss, since they're exporting way more to us than the other way around.

It's a nothing party with no future. Ontarions, like the rest of English Canada, are not NEARLY so pro multiculturalism as the national media would have it. The national media hates Ford but he still won a majority. The English media would be horrified if Doug Ford brought in the same kind of anti-face covering legislation Quebec has, but a poll showed 2/3rds of Canadians wish their province would bring in that same legislation. Two thirds of Canadians have also told various polls that immigrants aren't doing enough to assimilate. But these people will never appear in the media. And the media will crucify any politician at any level who expresses those sentiments.

They're detention camps. When they start gassing people you can call them concentration camps.

NYC: Giant sculpture proclaiming “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet” goes up at Ground Zero

"This is what democracy looks like !!! "

There is no conspiracy in the similar behaviour and thought of like-minded people. Even if they act like dicks.

What's Good for the Goose. There's a Christian Heritage Party in Canada.

Main street doesn't get funded now. When you put money in Bay Street or Wall Street's hands, all it is used for is to inflate the value of the underlying equities. Business needs to be an investment target, not a plaything for financiers. THIS is why corporate governance has gone to hell - it is not the best business person running things, it is those who will best give the finance community gains without the bother of being a business. Reality is: we need the US to do the same thing, but after seeing what it is like to run a branch plant economy at the whims of American masters, we really don't need THAT kind of investment at all - as it is seldom an actual investment. You are exhibiting the kind of cowardice that lets us screw up the entire world of business and simply surrendering it to the world of finance without a fight because we are individually to frigging greedy and useless to actually be productive and too gutless to stand up for what is right.

I think this is part of a broader indigenous strategy. If indigenous activists achieve a situation whereby what essentially amounts to universal consent is required for any resource project to proceed, resource development in this country will grind to a halt. Everybody else, including federal Libs, should seriously consider the implications of this. The more radical indigenous activists seems to equate 'reconciliation' with capitulation. If this approach prevails, we face a future of escalating conflict rather than the sunny ways JT promised.

What unlawful action are you talking about? The only nation here is Canada. Native tribes are not nations under any legal definition.

As I understand it, 20 democratically elected Chiefs and Councils along the Eagle Spirit LNG pipeline along with roughly 125 of 130 hereditary Chiefs, have all said yes to the pipeline and related $600 million in benefits that flow to aboriginals Should these 5 hereditary Chiefs should have VETO over our economy and the lives of people who need this pipeline.

If we take the classical liberal concept of "We should have the freedom to do what we want as long as that freedom doesn't impose upon the freedom of others to act in the same way," the acts of speech that cause harm to others is included. An example of today's "movements" are like those who presently use the media to accuse some public figure of some act of sexual violation, implied especially with the most direct means to harm one's reputation in ways that no amount of anything short of admitting guilt and repentance is expected. I used to favor feminist concerns, for instance, where the average of society seemed to prove that women were 'systematically' abused by men who were often understood to be directly abusive because of those men who treated them as something less than they were as humans. But this was about particular behaviors of only specific kinds of men represented by their tendency to abuse anyone, including other men, by this action. It doesn't mean that my 'feminism' of this type was about the whole class of men nor women as today's redefined extension to hold the whole class of women as victims and men as predators. What was understood as 'systematic' to me was about the means of others looking the other way while their own friends and family would actively abuse. Continuing with this example (not the only present 'cultural' beliefs about whole genetic subclasses of humans), when we enable laws that permit cultural adjustments DIRECTLY through laws, if those who believe some subclass of victimhood requires treating the defined class genetically, as is being done, it holds not merely the voluntary behavior of people accountable to particular acts of abuse, but assigns some whole GENETICALLY defined class accountable regardless of the particular members of those defined classes. But this is precisely what created the kinds of thinking of the past PARTICULAR abusers: they assumed something true about the behavior of any arbitrary member of the GENERAL class they themselves were treating as 'laws of nature'. Obviously, if the intent is to stop abuses realized and shared by all or most universally, you have to focus on the particular classes of those who hold strong culturally particular beliefs about GENETIC causation 'systematically'. So, to me, when I hear of some collection of people supporting the class WOMEN against MEN distinctly rather than some recognition of distinction of the CULTURE OF PARTICULAR beliefs of those who hold stereotypes about the whole classes of men and women, I have to ask whether these fighters are not merely trying to stop the actual cultural causes of the harms of their nemesis or are trying to avenge the whole class in mere opposition of the prior stereotypes by ALTERING those who are the abusers versus the victims. This makes these kinds of 'feminists' EQUAL in respect to the very POWER they want in kind of the abuser, but doesn't STOP THE ABUSE!! ** To keep laws that favor creating laws that directly manipulate culture when culture itself is non-genetically relevant is to prove that those supporting such power in lawmaking have some of their own agenda to maintain power THROUGH laws that give them DISTINCT POWER based upon some belief about their own GENETICS and of all others. They only hold 'diversity' as a virtue in the same way one might prefer the value of a zoo: Lots of variety of different animals held in distinct cages where they and their own unique genetic classes are the ones empowered to play the role of the human visiting these zoos. They 'love' the animals but believe they are nevertheless distinct creatures who are most threatening if they were to mingle freely among them. THIS is what our "Multiculuralism" is about. They want the power of being the zookeepers of people believing in the distinctions of peoples ENVIRONMENTAL options to behave as though they are specie-distinct and inevitable. We might be entertained by watching bear families play safely but know that we cannot allow them to mingle because bears are intrinsically incompatible with humans. When you get multiple groups of similar thinkers, they act as though they respect their differences because they share seeing each of their own groups as like distinct animals. They thus believe in sharing power in a grand zoo where they have walls that prevent the violation of each from interfering with each other. But they also share the view that no one should be allowed to freely mix independently outside of cages. They believe these are necessary to preserve the purity of their own or they risk the POWER they hold on the culture as a whole they believe is significantly due to their own genetic roots. **Compare this kind of reasoning regarding guns: to stop the abuses of those using guns, some suggest that instead of tackling the problem, guns, empower all people EQUALLY to abuse. The belief is that if the 'victims' of gun abuse is EMPOWERED by being able to own guns, they can overcome the risk of the enemy who holds guns by 'cancelling' their power out. But now imagine if those very lovers of guns who abuse ARE the ones EMPOWERED in law to disarm those they believe are GENETICALLY classed abusers!!

Is there any down side to the US building a border wall?

That's nice....Americans know Trump going back to the 1970's, and the scams he was pulling, so we made him our president.

You’ll find out soon enough. I knew about trump back in the nineties and the scams he was pulling, he was so bad he couldnt get a loan from an American bank..multiple bankruptcies and failures, His Panama hotel busted for laundering Russian money...unexplainable cash purchases of golf resorts ....I could go on..but the proof will be soon...I don’t expect nor care whether you believe it or not. It is what it is.

I don't really want it both ways, however just because you don't want a stream of people flooding your borders doesn't mean that you care about them - that's a very juvenile stance. A country should have borders and if it takes a wall to protect that border, then so be it. The democrats shouldn't promise sanctuary for anyone willing to show up at the border - that's very irresponsible.

Because the money never even gets where it supposed to and this is basically skimming us to pay for corporate welfare, because Canada is so uncompetative Canada has to bribe them to come here, it is such a gulag, that I cannot in all good conscience throw more people into a gulag, whoever has escaped the gulag, I'm just gonna look the other way. I actually want the Federal Government to go bankrupt, because that's the only way it will ever be restrained.

See, Ghost, that is what changed, the thing that was preventing Globalism was the Cold War, when the Cold War ended, there was no structure which stopped the flow of trade anymore, so we've gone back to the 19th century, because the 19th century was globalized because it was all European Empires. The thing that tore the world in two, was two World Wars and a Cold War. But that all stopped on 9 November 1989. It wasn't anything that anybody in the West did that created Globalism, the Soviets created Globalism, when they capitulated.

Not much we can do, this is Canada.

I doubt that he cares at all. He and his ministers seemed mystified as to why many Canadians were upset about the situation just as they were adamant about the legitimacy of their notion of justice in the Khadr case. The federal Libs seem to be directed by a moral compass that's out of sync with mainstream Canada's. But, then again, Trudeau believes there is no mainstream in Canada. Let's hope that in 2019 voters remind him there is.