Leaderboard

Environmentalism has been marketed as "for profit", with the intent to make it attractive to investors. Thus it becomes an industry. That is all I said and it is by and large true. I never mentioned conspiracy, that is not in my view realistic. By theft I presume you mean fraud. That is quite possible, and likely, whenever there is really big money involved. Feel free to ruminate on this, and the grievous error you have made, and draw whatever moral conclusions you wish.

Instead of making stuff up about people maybe you should just answer the questions put to you. Quit running away from them.

Wow! You're way out there....a troll I guess. Truth is, Liberals and Conservatives have seldom been that far apart - both relatively centrist with one leaning towards bigger government and the other towards personal responsibility - but really, quite close in keeping Canada on a pragmatic course. Trudeau has really upset the apple cart in veering so far to the Left in following the ideology of his (as I said previously) his un-elected advisers, dividing the country, and creating a fraudulent anti-immigration shield for his globalist, open borders recklessness. Modest deficits and a balanced budget that have stretched to over $80 billion with hundreds of billions yet to come. In a similar vein, a carbon tax that "starts" at $10 and $20 per ton but ideologically will rise to $300 - without telling Canadians! Will all that revenue be returned to Canadians as with the first $10 or $20? Would you trust his backroom boys. These are not your father's Liberals. They are an aberration who have sullied the Liberal brand - and like Kathleen Wynne - they will pay the price dearly.

You say that but I don't see any more 747 flying into skyscraper... most of the terrorism we get is home grown now. Europe on the other hand, is the direct result of letting massive influx of vetted immigrant from the middle east into their liberal western democracy. Also anyone who kill or kidnap American citizens usually gets hunted down by our special ops unit. As long as there are people who want to chant death to america then I see no problem helping them meet their god sooner.

Your link does not prove what you think it does. It does not say what those 2 apprehensions were about. Being apprehended under the mental health act is not a diagnosis. Again, a statement from the family through a paid shill who was revealed to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Also not a diagnosis.

I find any discussion that frames today's economic or political experience as "hard times" to be laughable compared to generations past. "Liberal times are hard times" is only a Canadian punchline.

I'd think you were being sarcastic but sadly, I think you actually believe what you say! But Monty - you still haven't got back to me: "Disliking" Justin Trudeau and his competence is not a partisan issue anymore. I personally have gone on record to say that this Liberal Party would have had a much more centrist and reasonable agenda had they elected Marc Garneau as leader. The divisiveness and indeed danger that we face is that Trudeau is so obviously not the leader of our country - but simply a parrot for his un-elected advisers, the main one being Gerald Butts. These two brief videos speak volumes of his competence. Have a look and tell us what you think - I mean really, take off your partisan blinders and tell us if you still think he's becoming one of Canada's greatest Prime Ministers........ Justin Trudeau on Ethics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15-5O4UPM0U Justin Trudeau on Trade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oedaSfUU0vc

No, because it's a moronic accusation without any evidence made by a poster with no credibility or understanding of politics or life.

As you're continuing your strategy of hurling scurrilous insinuations and engaging in 'ad hominem' attacks rather than in rational debate, there appears to be little point in engaging you further. As for goofy Trudeau, it's an observation supported by objective evidence. An editorial published yesterday in the generally pro-Lib Toronto Star advised Trudeau to stop preening and also to treat his opponents' views with more respect. (You might learn something there.) The guy got where he is is on the basis of image far more than substance, one pair of fancy socks and self-absorbed photobomb at a time. When his allies in the media believe his behavior too often veers into narcissism and superficiality, are those who don't support him likely to think otherwise? My view about immigration, by the way, is that anybody who wants to come to Canada to work, contribute and integrate is welcome, within the contexts of the capacity of Canada's economy to absorb a reasonable number of immigrants and the requirement that the skills of newcomers match actual economic needs and available opportunities.

As I believe any sensible and objective voter should do, I vote differently in elections depending on party platforms and the quality of local candidates. I've been voting for more than four decades, never missing the opportunity to cast a ballot in every federal and provincial (Ontario) election during that period, and have at different times voted for candidates representing all three major political party brands. In the last federal election, convinced that Harper's time was up and utterly unimpressed by Trudeau (my instincts were good there), I voted for the local NDP candidate, whom I quite admire. She lost to a high-profile Lib candidate, which, while unfortunate, didn't surprise me. Even were I more impressed with Trudeau now, which I'm not, I couldn't support the incumbent Lib in my riding as I was utterly unimpressed by a conversation I had with him during the 2015 election campaign when I thought him to be completely out of touch with the struggles of ordinary citizens and taxpayers. As for my views on immigrants, perhaps you don't read my posts. If you did, you'd know that my own mother was a post-WWII immigrant who moved to Canada after she married my Canadian father. You shouldn't make assumptions about other peoples' views or motives, and in particular you should avoid libeling others with accusations or insinuations of racism or other equally dubious motivations. In any case, your approach leads me to wonder whether you're promoting anti-Caucasian and anti-Christian views? If you actually look at Canadian society objectively, you might figure out, as have many external observers, that it's among the most tolerant in the world. Criticism of Canada's current large-scale immigration program and refugee system is in many instances quite reasonably grounded in the economic costs and impacts associated with these policies. This is an inconvenient reality for those, like goofy Trudeau himself, who simply choose to emotionally, conveniently, lazily and very often inaccurately dismiss such critics as bigots.

Certainly part of the present course towards "hard times" is a result of people no longer considering objective reality as important. People don't care what the truth is, they only care about the narrative that best fits their purpose or mindset. Hence the social media and normal media echo chambers, where people wallow in outrage of trivialities while remaining totally uninformed of reality. For an example, look at how those on the left can accuse the right of science denial, while seeing no contradiction in their own opposition to GMOs, which is an anti-science stance. Most aren't even aware of the fact that the scientific consensus behind the safety of GMOs is as prevalent and overwhelming as the consensus behind climate change, and if given cites to that effect, would deny them with the exact same tactics and vehemence and illogic as those on the right deny climate change. For another example, look at the resurgent flat Earth movement. Fully 2% of Americans, that's 6.5 million people, strongly believe the Earth is flat, and are allergically averse to the omnipresent and incontrovertible proof to the the contrary. A further 14% (!!!) aren't sure whether its round or flat. The numbers are 4% of solid belief in flat Earth and 30% (!!!) not sure among millennials, a true embarrassment to my generation. Democrats are less likely to believe the Earth is round than Republicans, too, which might surprise many on the left who think that it's the right that is more anti-science. Cite: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/04/04/only-two-thirds-of-american-millennials-believe-the-earth-is-round/#78d903c47ec6 And then of course there is religion, which is fundamentally the source of so many people's acceptance of such magical thinking. Religion trains people from birth to believe what they want to believe rather than what there is evidence for, short-circuiting their brain's ability to reason properly from an early age. On the left, modern "progressive" ideology serves the same function as religion does on the right.

To get this thread back on topic: Yes, humans are responsible for climate change. Experts in the field are almost unanimous on that fact. Or rather, they are unanimous and those that don't agree aren't experts. They're paid shills of Big Oil or some other interest group that finds profit in lying. I've purposely made it unambiguous so that the denialists will recognize it as a challenge. It's a challenge to Conservative party supporters who don't believe in manmade climate change but like to pretend they do because they don't think it's a safe platform for the Con party..

Different moral and strategic core, and at least a modicum of knowledge about the world - none of which Trump possesses.

That's actually a really good point with regard to doping. I could not do that to bulk up, I'd have to work out for a year to get a lot of this flab off my body. This really is a damn good point though and should really be part of this conversation.

Finally, a post from you with which I can agree. Merry Christmas.

I agree...America is a very diverse country....and having traveled to several nations around the world....please don't presume to know what is better for them either. Since the USA has been the #1 destination for the world's immigrants for over 100 years (including Canadians), it can't be as bad as you insist it is. You have admitted to owning property in Florida....which speaks volumes compared to anything you may type here. Florida is also where a Canadian diplomat's sons robbed and murdered an American drug dealer....so maybe work on those "Canadian values" a little harder back home. There are also gated communities in Canada...as in Kelowna, B.C.

Why can’t we sell arms to the Saudis? Are you being a racist or a religious bigot?

They always do.... That's great...but guess what....the U.S. has far more of those things already in play. Americans have already bankrolled many projects in Canada, because it lacks sufficient domestic capital and market size. American corps own 50% of Canada's manufacturing base, and a good portion of oil/bitumen production. Canadians flee to the United States for much better opportunities as well (see "Brain Drain"). Canada thinks so little of the "ugly" United States, 75% of all exports go there. No other country in the world is so dependent on a single nation for exports. American media dominates Canada, and has done so for generations. Enjoy those American Super Bowl® commercials again this year ! Thanks for proving my point yet again...you have/want property in Florida....I have no property in Canada and don't need any. The U.S. has no need to annex Canada....everything is for sale, including "Canadian values". I say again, far more Canadians visit/live in the United States than Americans going to Canada...and the U.S. has 10X the population. I leave the math to you. Unlike you, I have no designs on what your government should or should not do. Canada is for Canadians (where there are also plenty of guns). But I understand your "paranoid" need to worry about what the Americans are doing...24/7.

As montgomery has already identified his (I'm assuming gender here) bias, he apparently believes that his positions are unassailable, at least in his own mind. He's a committed Lib, through and through, no matter the realities of public opinion nor the existence of objective evidence refuting the logic or benefits of Lib policies.

Why don't you just answer the questions? Afraid to? Some of us are more concerned about where we're headed than where we are, and where ever growing mountains of debt will lead us. Odd how they did the opposite last time around. Very odd, that. Got an explanation for it?

Let's be honest here. The overarching tactic employed by both of Canada's major political parties when in government has been to identify and buy off voting blocs. Anybody who believes otherwise doesn't understand Canadian politics. And the concept of "socially responsible" government is simply a smoke screen. Governments have a primary obligation to be responsible to all voters and particularly to taxpayers. In practice, the application of the concept of social responsibility has too often resulted in governments picking (their preferred) winners to the detriment of the legitimate interests of others. In reality, it's no way to run a successful country. Governments cannot and should not guarantee equality of outcomes. Just a hint here: Governments in general have a bad track record where social engineering schemes are concerned.

Both have already changed their policies quite a bit, so if you're going to insist everyone 'understand' your dishonest view of the world you're not going to get anywhere. More likely he pays taxes and you do not. Thus you berate him for caring about money, yet you place your vote on whichever party offers YOU the most money, the most programs and services FOR FREE, because other people have to pay for it.

1.) Well, you've been on this site for all of about five minutes, metaphorically speaking, and yet have pigeonholed my views and presumably those of others who don't blindly support your party and its leader. You, by the way, suggested I look at the other nine countries on the top-ten happiness list to look for other examples of good governance. I chose Australia, because of its may similarities (excluding climate) to Canada in comparison to the rest. Now though, you're trashing Australia for its relatively tougher approach to immigration. It seems you're trying to have it both ways. 2.) Logically, immigration policy must always be grounded in economic realities in order to benefit a receiving country. To do otherwise is to undermine living standards and the viability of public programs. Mr. Trudeau might believe that budgets balance themselves and that his immigration program is unquestionably beneficial to Canada. I think most prudent and intelligent voters interpret his certainty on such matters to be pure political malarkey. 3.) I don't hate Trudeau. I just don't have much respect for him and his "progressive" coterie and I believe his government's record has been, at best, mediocre. I evaluate political parties and leaders on the depth and breadth of their policy expertise as well as their openness to both public input and criticism. As today's Star editorial ('Voters deserve the best choice) noted - and the Star has a reputation for solidly supporting Trudeau's agenda - to be taken seriously the Libs have to avoid demonizing their critics as the election approaches.

Trudeau is a complete and total idiot, and it seems as though he's doing his level best to destroy the country by simultaneously destroying our economy and racking up massive amounts of debt. In his attempt to be the next J Chretien, Trudeau stopped bombing Islamic State. He also elevated returning Islamic State members to the level of "returning soldiers" by refusing to recognize them as war criminals, even when they brag about it. He even gave Omar Khadr $10.5M of our tax dollars when it wasn't his place to do so and it was done erroneously (there was also no precedent for that kind of money going to an actual terrorist, because other accused terrorists who were awarded settlements were actually found to be innocent). It was an insult to Albertans to take billion$ in equalization payments, kill the economy, drive away over a hundred billion in investment, and then offer a $1.6B loan. How about if you give me $10M and then I get you fired and give you a $16K loan? I don't know who called you a commie, or a socialist, but I don't see evidence of that in the few posts I read. I'd say you're naive and that you're intentionally ignorant because you love virtue signalling. You are being disingenuous by saying "accepting" people in, when you're really talking about people muscling their way across the border whether we like it or not, and then staying on the public tit for life if they so choose. We're all immigrants of some stripe unless we're 100% native, but our forefathers came here, learned the language, and then worked or starved. They also obeyed the laws and didn't demand that the majority changed their ways to be less offensive to them. Skin colour isn't a problem for anyone. Culture is a problem. Just like you have a problem with Republicans because they don't believe in open borders, other Canadians have a problem with "accepting" people in who don't appreciate our way of life or our freedoms, we don't like being taken advantage of, we don't like terrorism, we don't like people who support genocide and we don't like our laws being challenged just because they're not medieval enough. People who are happy to contribute to our economy and respect our way of life are welcome. It's important to have some "Republican types" who insist on maintaining our values and upholding our standards. It would be ridiculous to just let people in here when they have the intent of draining the economy, being involved in criminal activity, or changing our way of life for the worse. I know that you call that racist. I call it understanding that freedom and democracy are still just an experiment, compared to thousands of years of the various forms of authoritarianism all across the planet. Look around the world and think about how many countries there are that you would actually call free or truly democratic. What percentage of the earth's population live in countries that aren't free? We're a minority, and not by skin colour. It's by our form of government and way of life.

You really do need to educate yourself instead of just watching the CBC or reading The Star. The first wave of "migrants that Americans hate" were almost exclusively from Haiti - refugees who came to the US under a TPS program (Temporary Protection Status) put in place due to the 2011 earthquake. After determining that is was safe to return to Haiti, refugees were given 18 months' notice that their TPS status would be ending. Canada had an identical policy for Haitians but ended it more than a year prior to Trump's announcement. As a result, almost all Haitians that rushed to the border as a result of Trudeau's idiotic tweet, are/have been ineligible for refugee status. Trump is simply doing what Canada SHOULD be doing. Refugees are precisely that = people seeking temporary refuge and ultimately/hopefully returning to their countries when deemed safe to do so. It is not/should not be viewed as an alternate path to immigration/citizenship. Refugees are refugees. Immigrants are immigrants. Different rules, obligations and expectations. Trudeau and his CBC enablers constantly combine immigration with refugees and "asylum seekers" - specifically to paint those who want better control of our borders and refugee/asylum processes as "anti immigration". It's a perfect example of why this Prime Minister is the most divisive in Canadian history.

I said no such thing. You have deliberately misquoted me, and also personally called me out in a thread, without linking to my user name. Learn to write in this forum without attacking posters, and you will not be reported.

I have a "problem" with any attempt to disenfranchise people of their right to freedom of speech/expression, regardless of their stance on "climate change". Constitutional rights trump the climate change religion and its rabid zealots.

No, we don't. We have claims from his family and a paid shill. And the police say he was involved in 2 incidents, but don't elaborate on what those incidents were. He wasn't on any kind of watch list for either extremism or mental illness so it could have been nothing more than him beaking off too much at a cashier or store clerk and the police were called. We don't know.

It says that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. I have a copy of it right in front of me and I've actually read it.