Leaderboard

I support abortion to whatever extent a woman and her doctor have determined is most appropriate.

There's lots of thngs he's done I don't like . But if you think I am gonna vote for a slimeball Pierre over Trudeau you are insane he has more baggage then even Trudeau lol. Give me a moderate con leader not a guy who's gonna play to pp supporters or the Maga Canadian group. There's a reason I voted NDP instead of liberal in 2019 O'Toole didn't scare me. I couldn't of cared less if he won a minority over Trudeau cause didn't see him as that bad. However Pierre is a different story if he's leader I 100 percent voting for liberal

It’s not about “deviance.” It’s about letting kids be kids and let sexuality come naturally when it’s developmentally appropriate. Kids generally don’t start sex ed. until Gr. 4 for a reason.

All three of Trumps selection agreed to do as they are told if Trump would select them, like literally every person Trump has ever selected for anything in his whole lifetime.. Bypassing their decisions anyway possible, as Biden is doing with his Executive order on abortion rights, is the only answer. We have to decide how to fix the court before we arbitrarily respect the court again. One way is to impeach. There is an obvious person that needs impeachment in the supreme court. The next step would to increase the size of the supreme court to take away the power of this hate Nazi court. Then set that number as the only number in the future that is acceptable. I don't care if the right can attempt to change it in the future, they would anyway. Just make it as hard as possible on them now and the near future. And yes, this is my opinion!

Does everyone still think going completely digital is the best idea ever?

Mike I shot a round of golf and am now on my deck enjoying a beautiful day by the pool...which is the best relief for a stiff back... It's not cold.

It’s kind of sad how the left lets itself get strung along WRT Trump, year after year. For instance, this thread was started over a year ago on some completely different attempt to get Trump. This thread was started on the event of Rudy Giuliani getting his home raided by the FBI. And of course Rudy is locked up now after they found all this evidence of crimes. And of course Rudy sang like a bird and Trump was arrested. Oh wait, none of that happened, did it? They didn’t find squat, because there was nothing to find. Rudy even offered them his copy of Hunter Biden’s laptop, but they didn’t even take it. They already have it. So hear we are almost 15 months later, and jbander says he expects Trump to get arrested in 2023! The delusion is stunning.

It's a False Flag Operation. Conservatives took down the Rogers network to make Trudeau look bad (worse?).

I think the main thing we should learn from this crisis is that there is absolutely no limit to what the Trudeau haters will blame on our foppish PM ?

It's pretty hard when the majority of the population is snoring and completely obedient to absolutely anything the government tells them to do, without any critical thinking or investigation. Enjoy your cricket paste. I don't think it's a coincidence that a new cricket factory for human consumption was just opened in Ontario and I don't believe you will have a choice about consuming cricket paste. The food shortages that require you to eat cricket paste are manufactured, the same as gas price increases, airport/passport chaos and the so-called pandemic were all manufactured. We're being led to the slaughterhouse and too many people think they're going to a day spa because the government tells them so. LILLEY: Dutch farmer protest sparked by policy Trudeau wants for Canada (msn.com) Ooops, sorry to wake you up.

1. I reject that the flag means "sexuality". 2. I disagree completely. It's about accepting people, period. It's about being free to being who you are and not having people hiding their eyes when you walk by. There's no reason why a same sex relationship is "sexual" and heterosexual parents aren't "sexual".

Good to see you in such a happy mood, big mike, spreading the happy face reaction around the forum!

Because life never happens and people never start in a good financial place and then lose that place. Parents never desert their families, or die. People never have good jobs and lose them through no fault of their own. BTW, why did you assume that it's women who are single parents and that they would have have kids irresponsibly? Those assumptions, combined with conservative attitudes towards women who accidentally get pregnant and access abortions so they aren't having kids "irresponsibly" sure looks like misogyny. I'll bet you also think that women who get raped need to be examined for fault in dress or location or behavior before the man can be held entirely responsible.

yeah I've never had reason to doubt Canadian judges before but I don't actually trust the judiciary anymore, after seeing what is going on now

yes they do if they do it the public will dislike them even more than they currently do and they won't succeed they have nothing and Trump's popularity will only grow it will backfire on them royally please do it

Sports cost money. Mac and cheese, hotdogs, chips and pop are cheaper than healthier options. Poor people make choices based on how much money they have, and healthy food costs more. Kicking them out to play is harder to do than it used to be because of news reports of kids being molested, kidnapped and killed. Parent's going out with kids to play with them is an option, but for some single parents holding down two jobs, probably not going to happen. The real world doesn't live in the same world as the arrogant and dismissive elites do.

I've rebutted your arguments you haven't rebutted mine and duck the argument altogether you argue in bad faith

Lol...what a scared little Tweenkie.

Still scared of Trump eh?

ha ha ha Trump will win again Grover Cleveland 2.0 the Democrats bringing trumped up charges against him will only make that win even bigger than it already will be

The answer of the right for all attacks on Trump , Hunter Biden, what a group of total idiots. These q anon quacks are the joke of the world. Who is voted the most dangerous man in the world, Not Putin , Yup the pile of shit Trump!

Of course I'm not watching that horseshit. I've seen people lie, and say things like "He grabbed the steering wheel", but that's not new: they've lied all along. Trump clearly said "stroll peacefully to the capitol" and the dems/media said that he told them to "march on Washington", which is a big of a lie as you could possibly make. One means 'stroll to', the other means 'attack'. You can get sucked in by all the propaganda you want, don't include me.

Enjoying your pics and commentary.

Tucker reveals the great replacement theory is coming from the Democrats The one thing that a cult demands is that you do not believe your own eyes and ears - only what they say. FOX news completely downplays the Buffalo shooter being triggered by racist broadcasts from their own network and even omitted references to replacement theory and the shooter's manifesto. I guess that's the 'truth' around the FOX-Republican-violence cycle. Mentally ill people being fed racist lies for profit is an excusable practice as long as we get the truth about Hunter Biden's laptop out there. It's seeping over the border too - we even had a poster here call for the 'destruction' of Marxist-Democrats. Politics is about communication, not calling for apocalyptic violence. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-democratic-party-change-electorate

You guys seem to be having trouble with this question "What exactly is the great reset?" so I thought I'd find you some help. I don't know if you know who the YouTuber, Bearing is but he has a simplified yet novel and often humorous take on complicated social issues. Here's his explanation of what the great reset is:

Thank you for your clear and understandable explanation. I like the way you've presented these systems as not being 'good or bad' in and of themselves; it's refreshing. I'm afraid my response is not going to give your explanation justice, other than to say that I believe that almost any system is subject to corruption and unequal (or even dishonest) results because people are involved. I wonder if there is a system that would work to provide a decent standard of living for all citizens, without also limiting the drive and ambition of those who want more than a 'decent' standard of living. I think it's valid to ask why, in a rich country such as Canada, there are still homeless people or people who are not food secure. I suppose that's what the 'Great Reset' is supposed to be about, but even assuming it's a completely foolproof plan, there'll be enough pushback, using true and false arguments, to scuttle it altogether or create a watered down version that would end up with the same extreme wealth inequality we have now.

Thank you for your curiousity. A variety of definitions of 'capitalism', 'socialism' and related words. But, I would argue that the most useful of these definitions are the traditional definitions, which you will still find some version of in dictionaries. Here are definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. The reason why I think the traditional definitions are the most useful is because they both deal with the allocation of capital within society, which is very important for the prosperity of society. In economics, physical capital would refer to things such as tools, buildings, computers, etc.; really anything physical that workers use to be more productive and produce goods and services. If a society has more physical capital, it can usually produce more goods and services as its workers will be more productive, resulting in a more prosperous society. There are other forms of capital, such as intangible capital (software, trademarks, patents, etc.) and human capital (the education/experience/knowledge of workers), although the traditional definitions of capitalism and socialism may often focus more on physical capital. Since capital in society is a scarce resource, how it is allocated can affect the ability of society to produce goods and services. As an example, you might have 2 factories that produce crayons, but one might be more productive than the other (such as having a better manager, a more innovative production process, or a workforce with better mental health); as a result, the decision about which factory should be able to expand its production first could have consequences for the production of crayons within society. In addition, a society would (implicitly or explicitly) have decisions not just about which factories should get additional capital, but also which industries should get additional capital, and if some of society's productive capacity should be used to produce future capital goods rather than future consumption goods. The disagreement between capitalism and socialism under the traditional definitions isn't so much one of inequality of income in society, but rather a question of efficiency. Is a society more productive if it has a central planner (i.e. government) control the means of production and allocate capital, or is it better to have decentralized decision making and competition of capital? Socialists of the past argued that a central planner might be better able to coordinate the production of goods and services in society and might be more altruistic in the allocation of scarce resources within society. Capitalists of the past argued that that a central planner might not have perfect information, might not properly understand the preferences of the people (i.e. what goods and services do people actually want), might have limited ability to process all the complex information in society (whereas decentralizing decision making could better process all the information), and that the central planner might be susceptible to corruption. This was a dominant question during the cold war, and the results of the cold war suggest that the capitalists may have had the stronger position. In present day North America, the definitions used have become various, vague, and/or shifted from their traditional definitions. People might often refer to 'capitalism' to mean 'free-market capitalism', an extreme form of capitalism with very limited state intervention in the economy. On the other hand, people might use 'socialism' to refer to any economic system with some state intervention in the economy (such as state provided healthcare services). One issue with these new definitions is that they remove the importance of the allocation of capital in society. A second problem is that these definitions allow people to use disingenuous bait-and-switch tactics to try to convince people to their economic position. Such as a socialist saying 'if you think that their should be some government intervention in healthcare then you must be against capitalism and for socialism' or a conservative saying 'if you support any government intervention in healthcare then you must be a socialist or communist'. With respect to the issue of income inequality within society, while it is possible to have unequal capitalism (such as free-market capitalism) and egalitarian socialism (such as communism) it is also possible to have egalitarian capitalism and unequal socialism. A good example, of egalitarian capitalism would be Norway, where you have private ownership of capital, to take advantage of decentralized decision making and competition over the allocation of capital, but the government then taxes the economy somewhat to reduce income inequality and provide some goods and services for society. On the other hand, the various forms of fascism, such as nazism, are examples of unequal socialism, since they advocate for mass central planning and state control over the economy while simultaneously advocating for an unequal society. This is why nazi stands for national socialists (national socialist worker's party), and why fascist leaders such as Mussolini said things such as "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." To make things more confusing, there is also the usage of 'crony capitalism'. In crony capitalism, you might have corporations and supposedly private ownership of capital. But, corporations would only tend to do well if they are friends with the government in power (so get special treatment) or proclaim their ideological allegiance to the government in order to get special treatment. In a crony capitalist society, the government would pick and choose winners and losers, by taxing or regulating the losers, while giving special treatment to the preferred companies. While crony capitalism might appear to be capitalism according to the law, in effect it isn't capitalism since the society is not taking advantage of the decentralization of decision making within society nor of the competition over the allocation of capital. The fascist regimes of the past engaged in crony capitalism. The Chinese Communist Party also engages in crony capitalism, since only companies that proclaim their allegiance to the CCP will be allowed perform well. A cynic might even argue that many Canadian governments at the federal or provincial level frequently engage in crony capitalism, rather than allowing for competition to occur.