Leaderboard

NO! They should be taught that their pre-marital sex comes with consequences!

Wokeness Has Replaced Socialism as the Great Conservative Bogeyman Can anyone here define what YOU mean by "woke"? I say it means to face up (awake) to the historical unfairness of society to mostly minority populations like black, brown, LGTBQ, etc.

He was successfully impeached. TWICE. The man tried to stay in office illegally after losing his election. He said over and over maybe he’d stay in office more than two terms. He made up phoney claims of a stolen election. He started a riot that left six dead. I don’t care how he goes to jail, but he needs to go to jail, because he is a criminal. Your defense of his criminality is that he hasn’t been convicted yet… but he most likely will be.

That was due ot the inclusion of women in credit consideratons. Prior to the mid 60's women's income was not allowed to be considered for things like mortages even for married couples. It was assumed that they would get pregnant and leave the workforce. Understandably women's rights groups fought against that. In the late 60's that changed. Now - the income a woman earned at the time would be considered when the couple was looking to buy a house etc. Well, even tho that was the right thing to do it had the unintended consequence of suddenly meaning people could afford to pay more for a house. Guess what happened to house prices. Over time it's come to the point where a family NEEDS two incomes to get buy and the idea of a stay at home wife is fading. It's not so much the workers or the work or even the pay - it's that changes to our society have lead to inflation that we simply can't take back. If you double the income you double the price of things - which means women spend less time giving birth to try to keep up and familes are smaller and our population growth is threatened.

While its true that the cost of housing and just about everything else has gone up exponentially. Even before Pixie-Dust went on his Rona spending spree, while doing his best to trample on the base of our economy, my wife and I saw this coming. Thus, we did what too many younger folks won't even think of...we "sacrificed" some things in our life, in order to provide homes for our kids. Now...admittedly I have been rather lucky in my professional life. But we create our own luck quite often, with hard work and..."sacrifice". I hear my daughter say things like, 'I don't know if we can afford to have kids and we want to travel and be free as long as we can.' I hold my tongue because I don't want a family squabble, but when I hear such things, I just shake my head and go have another beer. "Sacrifice"...is a noble act...at least it was. Or have the younger generation simply forsaken nobility?

Did you not see the second half? Celebrities don't actually get cancelled.

I don't think you need to worry about me voting for Trudeau, it hasn't happened yet. My attitude toward PP is, I don't like Trudeau so please give me a reason to vote for you.

I suppose some results from these but I think more and more of these increases are resulting from the inherently anti-social and environmentally unsustainable nature of our economy. Life is going to be a more hardscrabble experience for everyone. It's inescapable.

Not the ones I know. Boomers weren't the big recipients of the 600+ billion in new debt JT has racked up. I blame Canadians for him, I don't pick and choose.

A 2 state solution is the only solution for those who want peace and it is the only moral solution. It will never happen though. Leaders on both sides of the conflict benefit from ongoing conflict, apartheid and violence. Alternatively, they could become a single state with 2 equal cultures like French-German Belgium or English-French Canada or even French-German-Italian-Romanche Switzerland One side exterminating or expelling the other is not an option and not going to happen. Both peoples are descended from the area’s indigenous ancient Canaanite inhabitants and others who have since passed through this crossroads over the millennia. Neither has a more legitimate claim to the land than the other.

Pretty much. They kinda got laughed out of the room when lefties tried to call themselves "centrists" and "progressives." A goose stepper by any other name, huh?

Heard about a poll the other day claiming that support for Trump grew among undecided voters as a result of the indictments. Who knows what's true.

Agreed that timing matters. You don't cross certain lines. Earlier is safer. Public is safer. But I don't necessarily agree about a lie by omission--at least not to a degree that it's outside social norms for getting to know someone. Like many of those other examples, I think people omit a lot of details that could make them challenging or incompatible partners and don't reveal those things until they get to know people and establish some level of comfort. And then at a certain point, or when it becomes relevant, it becomes appropriate to share those details. Nobody leads with "I'm an alcoholic," or "I'm on antidepressants so I don't have much of a libido," or whatever. Those deeper truths usually come out after a few dates. And if we want to flip the script, he clearly didn't lead with "I'm an abusive a-hole with anger control problems." To be clear though, his reaction wasn't out of anger at her. Like most abusers, he was punishing her for triggering his insecurities. His being attracted to her challenged his sense of masculinity and heterosexuality. He was disgusted with himself and that manifested as anger at her for "making" him feel that way. "Look what you made me do!"

That's not what you said, but nice attempt at backtracking.

That's reasonable.

Well nothing could be further from the truth. the recession forced a deficit but there was HUGE fights over returning back to balance as soon as possible. The conservatives wanted to do it faster and the libs and ndp almost forced an election over it. In the end Harper promised a five year plan to get back to balance and people voted him in a majority. NOBODY accepted the idea of deficits being 'normal'. There was nothing "normalized' about it - deficits got smaller and smaller every year till they were at zero in five years and that's what the public demanded. They didn't become 'normal' till Trudeau, who inherited a balanced budget. And they failed and he won. And he balanced the budget. so how can you even suggest it was 'normalized'. Those are factors - and we would have gone up a small amount with those alone for sure. But - a significant amount of the inflation especially in Canada and the US is due to bad money policy. We should have been about 2 points lower or more the whole way through. That makes a huge difference when you consider the effects of compounding. First off - i'm not sure you know what 'normalizing' means, maybe pick a different word. Second off if you're trying to say that grocery prices aren't going up, that does not appear to be accurate. Particular items you favor may experience periods of rise and plateau but overall grocery prices are going up much faster than the overall inflation rate. And we never really get that back as a rule. if chicken prices rise to 20 dollars a chicken from ten, they tend to stay around there even after inflation stops. So - this is going to be a problem for people until wages catch up which is going to take a while.

I don't think anyone here is arguing there should be no social services. But there are, or ought to be limits based on our ability to pay for them. Men seem more aware of this than women. Running up huge debts is a relatively recent thing, too. Previously they only happened during wars, and after the war we tried to pay them down again. We're running up huge debts during peacetime, during good times and bad. And the higher the debt rises the more concerning it is. Yes, and the article helps to explain why. So why are you arguing with the points of the article? But you just pointed out conservatism has always skewed male and conservatism is well known as an ideology which prefers smaller government (and thus lower taxes) and more balanced books.

Also good points. However...we must consider the effect of the USA being the owners of the "Petro-Dollar" by the mid '70's. And how did that happen. Why it happened to be the most abundant currency in the world...by far. Still is. When the USA sneezes...Canada gets a cold.

Well you can just continue to yell at clouds.

Good points. In about 1965, my parents bought their first house. Brand new it cost them $25,000. My father's salary at the time was...$25,000. I bought my first house in 2001...in the middle of the city ...it cost $230,000. My salary at the time was...$60,000. So what happened? Well...lots of things but, 2 very significant things happened. 1. Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" welfare programs. 2. Nixon leaving the gold standard. The first made it necessary to spend WAY more money than was available. The second provided a method for generating the cash to pay for it all. The result...inflation. The '70's. We've been paying for those 2 bad decisions all along. The currency is devalued and prices go up. Wages did too, but not to the extent of inflation. On a side note...I find the Liberal ideals very contradictory for this very reason. "Oh you old fcks ruined everything for us with your conservatism." No...it is Liberal ideals that got us into this mess. We need to stop spending like spoiled brats and go to Gawd Damn work. Oh and...actually reintroducing the ideals of 'family' and 'responsibility' might help a tad as well...

So they don't have to pay for the kids poverty-stricken women bring into the world. Or pay for tracking down and getting money from the father. And, you poor baby - having to pay for "someone else's" birth control. Maybe take the unwanted (but not aborted) babies into your home, save that birth control money being taken out of your wallet.

Well i'll admit this isn't a field of study for me so i'm not that well versed, and i may be missing some of the picture but a few things do occur to me. 1 - The Palestinians have sworn to destroy isreal and elected gov'ts with that in their 'to do' list. I don't care how they got there. I don't care who did what. There's No WAY a two state system works when one side is dedicated to the destruction of the other. 2 - it doesn't make a damn bit of difference who's great great great grandfather lived where. Today this is where people are living and they need to continue living and countries and borders shift and change over time, get over it. I don't see any realistic path to peaceful coexistance for them. It is clear as a bell palestine doesn't want peace. And its pretty obvious isreal isn't going to sacrifice it's safety and wants a buffer, reasonable or not. So the only thing i can see being even remotely stable is to leave it basically the way it is and also to support isreal's position. Isreal obviously doesn't want to wipe them out, or they'd be dead. Palestine definitely DOES want to wipe isreal out, so they can't be allowed to have the kind of freedom and power that could make that happen. Maybe someday both sides will get sick of this and come to the table ready to do a deal, but until that happens i don't think you can force a solution. Keep palestine weak, keep isreal from going too far with retaliation, and wait and see if it simmers down in the next 100 years or so.

Amusingly the two aren't incompatible and are easily interchangeable, so they feel no need to choose

Good thing you don't decide what gets covered by our Healthcare system.

I have to agree. Once the Watergate investigations began, Nixon fired one Justice department official after another, in an effort to get one who would stop the investigations into his crimes by firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. It finally stopped when he appointed Bork, who fired Cox immediately, in an effort to stop and cover up the Watergate crimes. It was utterly shocking that Reagan tried to appoint this Watergate criminal to the SCOTUS.

Great! What a good dad you are. My parents helped me too. White Privilege, I suppose. A lot of Millennials aren't so fortunate, so they've decided they won't even consider parenthood. Is covered by OHIP (or whatever provincial insurance plan you use) better? My Vasectomy was "Free". As "Free" as the birth of both my children were. Semantics much?

Considering how expensive a kid is. . . yeah. I'm sure you don't want the taxpayer-funding fetus killing.

Looking at us and Canadian governments over the past generation or so, since 2000, it seems to be pretty even splits between conservative and liberal type governments. I wouldn't be surprised if that went back to the last 50 years also.

I can't see the OP because I have the user on ignore, but based on the title of the thread it's more low quality troll bait.

Isn't Canada "two state", with Quebec and the rest of Canada?? We are based on language rather thanreligion.

Quebec vacillates between fascism and communism. It’s the most highly taxed jurisdiction in North America, yet its roads are in terrible condition and the province is full of young misinformed activists on welfare. The smart money left Quebec 40 years ago. Quebec trounces on religious rights and has undermined its own cultural roots in the process. Now they desperately fall back on fascist moves like banning headscarves in the public sector. Oh well, at least they have pretty old buildings, Hydro Quebec, and a few big companies that rely heavily on Canadian favouritism.

Republicans are the party of equal opportunity for all without regard to race, etc. Democrats are the party of racism and paternalistic, “We know how you should live and what you deserve.” As for your assessment of parents as generally being abusive towards their own children, I would say that’s exactly the leftist perspective, that the state should be raising kids because parents can’t be trusted to raise their own children. This is actually the overriding leftist theme: People can’t be trusted with the freedom to make their own decisions. The state knows better. If a parent abuses a child, that of course requires outside interference, but these situations are dealt with and reported on individually. Of course the left won’t see how bringing kids to drag queen reading hour might be inappropriate or how affirming sex change surgery for children might be abusive. Clearly biological reality doesn’t matter to some of these people. People elect governments and pay politicians to look out for their interests. Government is accountable to the people in a democracy. As for economic opportunity? People figured out pretty fast that the opportunity is in Republican states and are leaving the blue states in the thousands. Instead of letting the state take more of workers’ money and using it to make people live according to dubious values, people are wisely choosing to keep more of their own money and to keep the creepy and depraved radical left-wing politicians as far away as possible. ?

I mean, you can lie if you want, but Republicans have been pretty consistent in wanted to eliminate sex ed. Florida just made news again, this time for trying to ban girls from asking questions about their periods. https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-declare-war-sex-education-seek-restrictions-public-schools-1777650 https://truthout.org/articles/post-roe-republicans-continue-to-take-aim-at-comprehensive-sex-ed-classes/ https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/sex-education-belongs-schools-republicans-want-it-out-n1295332 https://truthout.org/articles/post-roe-republicans-continue-to-take-aim-at-comprehensive-sex-ed-classes/ Obvious projection. No serious politician or activist is saying we should do this. Though I'm sure y'all want to do that during your homeschooling sessions. But if kids are going to school, there's a better chance it's going to get out that you're abusing your kids. Again, kids who get sex ed are more likely to tell someone if they'd been abused. Nope, most abuse takes place in the home. And sure, some teachers do abuse kids, which is another reason why it's important to teach sex ed. I'm talking about today's Republicans. Republicans of the past weren't this far-right on economic issues. So much of what the Republicans call "far-left radical Socialism" was the norm a few decades ago. Plus, when they started this far-right shift, Americans as a whole were more conservative. Today, the Republicans are in a tough place. They've gone to the extreme Right, while Americans as a whole have moved to the Left on both economics and social justice issues. That's why Republicans have to obsess over the one social justice issue that a lot of Americans are on the fence about, which is trans rights. And even that's a losing issue because trans rights do win out by a slight majority. This is also why Republicans have given up on winning democratically and are now focusing on voter restriction laws. Yes, Trump played a huge role in forcing the Republicans to embrace fascism, but they were on this path before Trump. Most New Yorkers didn't want Amazon because of their demands, plus the impact it would have had on local businesses. You're not on a right-wing circle jerk site, here you actually have to expect to be called out on the things your Facebook meme page told you. Is Zeitgeist your other account? I was talking to them when I said this, not you. Unless you really do have multiple accounts, then I guess I was talking to you.

Dude, I don't really care bout MTG. She's a step above the squadsters and on equal footing with Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer and Hillary. She's not really fit to be a high-level politician, but probably 40% of Senators and Congressmen are in that boat, plus ? & ? in the WH.

AOC, MGT and Boebert do not represent the United States. May does not represent Canada. They do represent enough people to win their respective constituencies.

When was bearing children the natural design of your body?

Well it's always wise to keep one's powder dry till all the cards are on the table. But honestly - i'd rather see you vote ndp or green than justin That guy has GOT to go But - election's a long time off (theoretically). So who knows - perhaps the elderly will get their act together and come around to pp a bit more

Sure she does. She's a gov't representative. She can't enter agreements but yeah, when she talks she's representing canadians. That's what it means to be an mp and leader of a party in the house of commons. Did you not know this was a democracy? She might not represent ALL of canada but as we noted neither does justin. In fact - justin got about the same number of votes as she did. Sorry - if you didn't know that an mp is speaking on behalf of the people when they speak then i'm afraid your education is severely lacking. Swing and a miss kiddo.

Not sure why you blame Boomers for JT. Most I know don't like him.

To you it does dougie. To a Canadian it means more than that. But - you've made it clear you're not a real canadian and don't have much in the way of honour anyway, so you wouldn't understand.

Army Guy: Also Army Guy:

No it isn't, both of them have been in use and neither were declared unconstitutional. I've read the 2nd Amendment and it seems to me it is the only part of your Constitution you have read, even though you don't seem to understand it. Switzerland has a well regulated militia as do countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland. The US has a bunch of Bubba's with guns.

Favourite line from Bill Maher the other night. ”Trump is being indicted and he is really pissed off. I don’t blame him, he spends his whole life stiffing people and the one time he pays someone, this happens”.

Bork did Nixon's dirty work when those with INTEGRITY RESIGNED (see Saturday Night Massacre). That ALONE disqualified HIM.

What we're seeing now is the further emasculation of western society, which was already underway especially in German and British societies, where men have been reduced to virtual ladyboys. Only this time trannys are being used to take it step further. The men themselves become women, fully on but even more so. More extreme, more outrageous. A characture of women. And this is specifically for presenting to the kids. It's many things but for one an assault on women's dignity. Carry on...

Kid - you are just too dumb for this conversation. I never criticized anything. I accurately pointed out the rich would be fine without taxes. So right off the bat you screwed that up. And no - the 'welfare state' policies are not what made america a 'first world' country. No, historically that's not true. HIstorically the wealthy simply become wealthier and the peasants remain in poverty creating the wealth. That's why you get things like the french revolution. If you're going to argue something is true, pick something that doesn't have 2000 years of history proving you wrong. As it stands, the big 'benefit' to our modern society is that the poor and the middle class do pretty well for themselves compared to the past and most people think that's a good thing. But it's not a financial 'benefit' to the rich. "trickle down" and "trickle up" are terms that people who don't understand keynes use. They were never his terms, and they're not accurate in either case. The rich do just fine in a capitalist economy like ours or the us etc. They also do fine in many other models. They do just fine in aristocracies, even socialist models etc. Putin isn't starved for cash and neither is Xi. But - low and middle class ONLY do well capitalist models. So once again - capitalism is for the benefit of the poor and middle class, not the rich. It's not complicated. Next time actually pay attention to what people are saying, you're just making yourself look retarded accusing others of making statements they didn't make.

Not at all. Not even close. What does the word "prohibit" mean to you? Again, not even in the ballpark. Now I know why someone was able to con you into joining a terrorist group. There's no such thing as liberals "just wanting to help the workers" lol. Do you think a large welfare state "helps the workers"? It just means they pay more taxes. Do you think massive illegal immigration helps the workers? It's the exact opposite. Allowing 2 million people into the country who are mostly going to work under the table undercuts American workers who need to earn enough to pay taxes. It doesn't help at all. It hurts. Where do you think illegal immigrants live? Do they move to Pelosi's neighbourhood and drive up the cost of mansions? Or do they compete for low-income housing and drive up the prices there? The net effect of illegal immigration is that the Pelosis of the world can hire cheap labour and rent out their slums for more money. She's not the friend of workers at all, and you were over 15 you'd know that.

well ... in fairness they haven't been voting as long as we have. Maybe they'll get better at it?