OftenWrong

The CRTC regulates communications and the internet in Canada. If Canada's network is based on a monopoly where one company would take the whole show down, this needs a serious re-think. It's not about whether you can order your morning latte on your phone app. Millions of dollars in trade are being compromised. Whether we were intentionally hacked by one of our enemies, or someone goofed up an upgrade, there should be an investigation into what happened. Why we need a federal regulator is another issue.

This stinks like China to me. Lest we forget- the Candian (sic) Government made an unpopular announcement about Huawei just about one month ago. Unpopular for China, that is. China was already making threats in December. Cong Peiwu, China’s ambassador to Canada, warned in December that Canada would “pay a price for their erroneous deeds and actions” if it were to ban Huawei. (Globull)

Of course. There must be some reason why the bought media are so afraid of him. They know.

Some talk is ok. Sadly our society is so f-ed up that it's better for kids to be given guidance, for their protection from liberal creeps. However, running it up the flag pole? That's a paddlin'...

Repeating again does not add to your argument. You ignore the issue being raised here by myself and others. It is not that people object to teaching about mommy and mommy. It's just whether schoolyards need to fly this flag overhead. For most of us parents there are far more important issues to teach about. We want a quality education for our children. We don't like to see political wedge issues brought into the elementary school classroom. Is there a need for it at this age.

Ok, so now we’re finally over the definition part. I personally have nothing against teaching children about sexuality. In fact it’s a necessity. But I do question the need to do that to the extent we fly the flag and start teaching more complex sexual issues to a six year old. There are many important issues. So while this may be a tempest in a teapot for some, for others it becomes a wedge issue. I prefer we let the kids be children and their natural curiosity will eventually arise...

Ok. So it exposes children to sexuality.

No it’s not about “sex”. It’s about sexuality.

Yes you made a lot of obtuse points in your effort to obfuscate the predominantly sexual symbolism of the gay pride flag, as it is called. No one is buying it.

Hahaha, watching the dunderheads panic without their computers. What shall they do?? I read some even called 911. Me, I’m on Telus.

You mean you lied, or were sadly mistaken. The LGBTQ flag as it’s called represents these sexual preferences but excludes hetero sexuality.

Nonsense. I never said they were identical. You are just grasping at straws here to try and refute what I’ve said. I saw a documentary about Churchill years ago. It explained he was political persona non-grata for years, until the rise of the Hun. That’s when he showed great leadership. As a politician, Churchill was perceived by some observers to have been largely motivated by personal ambition rather than political principle. During his early parliamentary career, he was often deliberately provocative and argumentative to an unusual degree; and his barbed rhetorical style earned him many enemies in parliament. Note the part I bolded.

That's up to you. The rainbow flag is a symbol of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and queer pride and LGBT social movements. Also known as the gay pride flag or LGBT pride flag, the colors reflect the diversity of the LGBT community and the spectrum of human sexuality and gender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag_(LGBT) Reality stands resolute.

CBC article says all the same things I mentioned, but little else. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6513075 The main reason is scandals involving improper behaviour, parties during Covid. Other stuff like Covid and health care promises that didn’t materialize are mentioned way at the bottom, as these are obviously weaker arguments. Not surprised that the left approves of a democratically elected PM being ousted for no reason. They invented the reasons, through a media driven program of outrage. That’s the new modern manipulation tool that keeps folks believing they’re making all the right choices. Ironically some of the best leaders in Canadian and US history were considered rude and outspoken. Even Winston Churchill, I believe. He was felt to be the only man possible who could take on the challenge of leadership during that incredibly difficult time. These men would never last in today’s environment. They would be replaced by a virtue signalling coward who says all the right words.

Again, just a bunch of hooey. Not even good or interesting political hooey. I already wrote about that earlier, you’re still not adding anything of value to the thread. I guess I dig a little deeper, and faster, than you. Practically every Brit aged 50+ makes “unwanted sexual advances” from time to time. This was not even Johnson, it was someone else. I didn’t see where he lost over 50 cabinet members. I read it was several cabinet members followed by a few dozen lesser officials. The kind of people who get persuaded to quit, with a firm offer of re-employment once he’s gone.

I am trying to understand it. So far all you’ve given is “because others in his government walked out.” Maybe you need to dig a little deeper. There’s a lot more at play here than what you read on tabloid headlines in the grocery aisle. ... which is about the extent of most people’s political knowledge.

You tell me. It’s your thread. I gave the info from WSJ. Those are the main reasons. Brits are more about decorum than function. They need things prim and proper. They’d rather have a leader who acts the part according to their pre-conceived notions of a PM, even if incompetent, than one who is ill-mannered and rude but gets the job done. That and the fact they are slaves to the mainstream, consolidated media. The exact same goes for Canada. That’s why we have Trudeau.

Lest we all forget reality... BoJo’s job was to extract the UK from the Europeon Union (sic) via Brexit. As such, he is an enemy of globalism. He would’ve had a hell of a lot of enemies. The media attacks were never-ending, coming from an infinite well of funding. The same funding’ that’s got you people spinning your heads round and round.

Yeah that’s what I thought. Nothing there. Since you people refuse to answer, I asked the mighty Google oracle and here’s what it said: (Wall Street Journal): What is the turmoil in Boris Johnson’s government about? Mr. Johnson’s premiership has been rocked by a chain of scandals in recent months after government officials were found to have held several partiesin his Downing Street headquarters while the rest of the country was under strict Covid-19 lockdowns. He apologized to Buckingham Palace after staff held parties on the night before the funeral of Prince Philip, where Queen Elizabeth had to sit alone to comply with social-distancing requirements. Most recently, Mr. Johnson had to apologize for appointing as a senior parliamentary official a man whom he knew had a history of allegedly making unwanted sexual advances. So that’s it? The Queen had to sit alone?? Awwww....

He would lose another one just a week later? Sounds like demockracy to me. Representative, no less

Still would like to know what the actual problems were. Besides getting a hand-job from one’s girlfriend, I mean...

I dont read BBC much, but I work with a Brit who hates Bojo. He tells me whats going on. All I hear is “Scandals”. Sounds like a whole lotta whoopie to me.

Demockracy...

I thought there already was one last week, and he survived it. Should’ve been case closed, but evidently not.

Why is that? I heard he got a handjob while in his office, by someone he later married. He also held some parties during quarantine. Sounds more like a Clinton than a Trump.