dialamah

Right this did not impact, or interest you, so you personally, hold no responsibility. In the same vein, what happens between FNs and the Canadian government has no impact on you, personally, so why are you saying anything about it.

I criticize JT for his hateful rhetoric just as I criticize conservatives for their hateful rhetoric.

1. Jehovah's Witness. 2. The NHL decided to leave CBC; would you expect a publicly funded media to put out 5.2 billion dollars to keep it's most popular program? 3. Many truckers did not support the convoy. 4. Pipe dream.

1. And Liberals are willing to tolerate. They don't see why they should be forced to endorse what seems wrong or insane to them. 2. Conservatives need to learn to respect others, instead of treating others with disdain and arrogance.

So? I didn't say I agreed with that.

Some of those things happened in your lifetime.

Yes, what extremists do is rarely "legitimate". Does this picture lie?

Yet, they'll compel women to be pregnant, regardless of the emotional, mental and physical effects. Conservatives would compel LGBTQ people to hide who they are. Conservatives would compel children to recite prayers, regardless of whether or not they 'believed'. Conservatives would compel people like Colin Kapernick to shut up and sit down. Don't hand out BS about how Conservatives are all for individual rights, freedom of religion, or freedom of expression.

Yes, nut cases. Just as I said on this forum that the extremists of the convoy participants were the ones displaying the Nazi flags, and that they didn't represent everyone present. Just because I didn't support the convoy doesn't mean I thought everyone there was evil. I don't support the upside down Canadian flag I still see too often, just as I don't support the burning of the American flag. I've already said that I don't condone or excuse the death threats against Kavanaugh. If you can't respond to what I say, but instead put me into some "evil leftist" box then there's no point in discussing with you.

1. Silly questions. 2. Thank you; I disagree wholeheartedly. Anyone who loses can claim that "they were unfairly treated"; the claim does not make it true. That goes for the claims of vote rigging, illegal votes and a stolen election by Trump and Company. January 6 wasn't a quiet stroll through the capital. The overtly expressed intent of the rioters was to remove the democratically elected President, and install Trump in his place. That's insurrection.

I do see the irony. But perhaps a more equal division between red and blue in any State would result in more balance between between progressive and conservative policies, and overall a better place to live for everyone. But I think that's a pipe dream - political corruption and division is the name of the game now, and that's likely going to lead to some kind of disaster.

I'd be content with viability, as long as the mother wasn't somehow endangered by carrying the baby to term. Viability is considered to be around 24 weeks. Virtually no woman is going to choose to abort a baby in the third trimester without very compelling reason. If you think that there isn't significant portion of Americans who want a theocracy, you haven't been paying attention. They may not realize that's what they're rooting for, but when you have people declaring that the States is built on Christianity and that's its losing it's Christianity, and pushing for laws based on biblical principles, what else can you call it.

Yes, my mistake.

It wasn't a peaceful demonstration; it was noisy, disruptive and intimidating to folks who lived nearby. I don't approve of the Old Growth Forest people who are blocking traffic during rush hour in the Lower Mainland. The police move them away, sometimes physically. Do you support their protest or do you support the police moving them?

1. As an JW, when my daughter in school, I chose to have her sit out in the hallway during morning prayers, because everyone else was "false", whether aetheist, Christian, Muslim or Jews and were praying to a false God. So, no, they aren't all "the same". 2. It's hardly the fault of the CBC that conservatives have some bee in their bonnet about it. Conservatives (in general, not you specfically) are expert at putting down anything Canadian that they don't like, it seems. Calling Canada fascist and a dictatorship, calling liberal minded people Nazis and marxists. Maybe a little more CBC in their lives would help them appreciate Canada more.

1. How would you know who it bothered? What about the kids who's parents followed a different religion - do you suppose they felt comfortable, accepted, respected, or even allowed to admit their difference, and they're forced to recite a prayer to a God they didn't worship? 2. There are other ways to team build, or nation build. CBC is good for nation building, but conservatives hate it. 3. I'd support that.

1. There's a difference between religious freedom and things like racism and homophobia. Selecting a certain group to exclude because of who they are is nothing like praying in public. 2. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. 3. Shouldn't you follow your own advise, before handing it out to others.

I don't know; however, I fully support the movement of liberal people to conservative areas. The conservative gerrymandering effects will be mitigated, as more people move. I see it as a win-win.

The court's decision is an infringement of the 14th Amendment, as it violates women's right to privacy.

Economic reasons.

I'm not upset that the ruling; why would I be? I think religion is stupid, and so I think praying in any circumstance is stupid - but people are gonna do what they gonna do. However, I have my doubts that that particular right will be universal - which you'd have understood if you'd actually read my posts.

Removing rights will stave of civil war? Are you sure you don't mean oppression will stave off civil war.

Let's hope not.

And the same States that will outlaw abortion will take the opportunity to eliminate even more rights.

And the controlling of women elsewhere is covered in altruistic BS - usually something along the lines of "women need protecting" from men who can't control their urges. It's all for the women's benefit, they claim.