Jariax

I would love it if Bill Gates controlled the world. Pretty sure he'd do a much better job than whoever is in charge now.

In terms of feasibility: 1) Trudeau wouldn't have a problem with it. He is the least Catholic PM we have ever had, including the guy who put the communion wafer in his pocket. 2) As others have pointed out, the Constitutional protections could be gotten around, if there is an appetite for it - it would just take longer. 3) Ford would never do it. He's the front runner for Christian votes right now, and he isn't going to screw that up, and send them to the Liberals. 4) Just because 51+% support the idea, doesn't mean it makes political sense. That's not how politics works. In terms of economics: 1) Yes, one study said there would be huge savings. This isn't gospel. (See what I did there?) 2) Other amalgamations (that promised big savings) actually ended up costing more. https://fcpp.org/pdf/FB036AmalgamationCostSavingsIllusory.pdf 3) The main cost is the cost of educating the students. The administrative costs are a drop in the bucket comparatively. 4) There's already decent cooperation between Catholic and TDSB in terms of bussing etc. 5) There would be a tremendous upfront cost of amalgamation - as well as community division. Do some schools shut down? Do the boundaries get redrawn? In terms of fairness: 1) There is something inherently wrong with one religion getting government-funded schools and not the others. 2) Tory suggested funding all the religions, which is the main reason he lost the Provincial election after leading. 3) The current public school system could really be called the 'atheist' school system, where all symbols of religion are forbidden, and Christian traditions are being stamped out - carols, Christmas trees etc. Religious children are essentially told to 'keep it in the closet' 4) So, transforming all schools into secular schools seems fair if you're an atheist, since your beliefs will be upheld at the expense of all others. 5) Instead, they should look at expanding the faiths in the Catholic schools - to include other religions - so that there are religious and secular schools.

I understand the parallel that you guys are drawing, but there's something that you are overlooking: All of those groups - blacks, LGT, Aboriginals etc, have a history of being oppressed - and generally by whites. They are also much smaller (at least in North America), than the white population. Instead of celebrating whiteness, you can celebrate your German, Polish, Italian, Irish, English, Scottish, Danish etc ancestry. But to take all those cultures together, and call them white, and celebrate that, seems exclusionary, because whites make up such a large percentage of the North American population.

The sheen has worn off Trudeau Jr. And his bag of tricks seems to only contain feel-good announcements, oversimplified vilification of his detractors and contrived outrage at the most minor of sleights.

Anyone who believes a referendum should be used to determine economic policy puts far too much faith in the general populous.

Which is it? Do you want women treated equally in politics? Or do you want 50% women in politics? You can't have both.

I think I prefer the openness, as opposed to companies that don't come out and say they aren't hiring a white male candidate, and waste everyone's time.

Not a fan of Trudeau, but Shapiro comes across looking like an ass here. Quote: "The guy's only famous because his dad was Gary Trudeau."

Disagree. The government needs to charge enough to cover: - profits for the provincial government - profits for the federal government - profits for the producers, and their costs covered. - generous salaries and benefits to all government employees involved in the sale and distribution. - extra money to pay for drug rehab programs etc, to put a good spin on things, So, based on that, they'll need to have a high price, which they can maintain by ensuring some fentanyl slips into the black market supply, so that people will feel more comfortable going to the MCBO instead of the local drug dealer. It worked for alcohol. You could get illegal moonshine for $5 a bottle, but do we know anyone who does that?

If that's what we're using to decide what should be legal, then it follows that we should also ban alcohol, junk food and video games.

An oversimplification, that if followed could get you fired. Would I ask my mother for a hug? yes. Co-worker? No. Would I compliment my mother, if she changed her hair, bought a new outfit? yes. Co-worker? No. Would I ask my mother to lunch, and buy her drinks? yes. Co-worker.? No. Would I make a joke that has some element of sex in front of my mother? Yes. Co-worker? No.

"The Trudeau government has earmarked more than $100 million to compensate members of the military and other federal agencies whose careers were sidelined or ended due to their sexual orientation, The Canadian Press has learned." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/100-million-apology-gay-purge-victims-1.4421921 Now, on the surface it seems asinine. But if the money is being used to settle a variety of lawsuits which would have had the same result plus plenty of time and money being wasted in the courts, it may actually make financial sense. The bigger problem is the constant barrage of lawsuits and handouts to aggrieved groups 20+ years later. The fact of the matter is that our values change from generation to generation.Will the government be sued for not allowing gay marriages? Will they be sued for allowing discrimination against trans people in housing and employment? Will they be sued for not allowing people to use their preferred pronouns on all correspondence? Fifty years from now, will bigamists and incestuous couples be suing the government because they weren't allowed to be married/because they were imprisoned? We need to put a statute of limitations on the egregious lawsuits that all taxpayers are on the hook for, as values change over the years, and we look back twenty years ago, and realize some of the things we did were wrong.

It's a bit disengenuous to say that he voted against a woman's right to choose. "M-312 called for the formation of a committee "to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth"." Really not the same thing at all. Not sure if you're just parroting Liberal talking points or you're being intellectually dishonest.