SkyHigh

Seriously, you're hilarious

First, The people I know aren't bureaucrats, but even if they were, you attacked them on a personal level and that's just a dick move Second, still nothing to do with free speech. Based on the fact that all you're doing is trying to go down semi related rabbit trails and don't seem able to have a conversation without resorting to adhom attacks (on people you don't even know), I see no path forward to a fruitful discussion Take care

First, I would in no way classify the trucker convoy as anything resembling terrorism. Civil disobedience maybe, but a civil disobedience I would support and to make it clear I think that what the "truckers" were "fighting for" by the time the convoy arrived in Ottawa was silly, and that's without negating the original problem of border crossings that was legitimate That being said, when you disrupt the free flow of commerce in a capitalist society, justified or not then you must be willing to accept the consequences.

You'll get no argument from. I will reiterate for the purposes of clarity, I was just saying that the standard we apply to those seeking that high of an office should be higher

Honestly, I never really got into the weeds on this, but agree things were done incorrectly by the govt. I will say that taking money from foreign donors could (again not sure) violate some financial laws My point was that by just blocking a road , it negates the ability to call it a simple infringement free speech

Come on, I promise I won't say a word. Because if this is not an act, you seriously need to talk to a mental health professional. Immediately.

I agree 100%, well 99, or 100 with a small caveat. When aspiring to be "leader of the free world" who one chooses to surround themselves with should be in some very small way (like way down on the priority list) considered in the balance Also, I very much enjoyed the Spaceballs shout out, but please don't mention my plumber, I'm not legally permitted to speak about it. Hahahaha

Self absorbed Jack asses? First, you've just confirmed the assertions I made about your character. I have been nothing but civil. I mentioned people in Ottawa who's lives were disrupted ( Note: nowhere did I ( or the friends I spoke of)even suggest that they weren't completely within their rights and I would even go as far as to say that, it was a great way to demonstrate and shake up the system,regardless of if I agree with the underlying argument or not. (See that's what real freedom lovers do) in that it was done peacefully and without violence. But Second, it was not a simple matter of free speech. Personal anecdote, shortly after the end of the blockade (for lack of a better word) I stopped at Herb's going between MTL and Ottawa. There were dozens of vehicles with Fùck Trudeau, and even more inside having some sort of pow wow to gripe (they took up almost half the restaurant) Now mind you there were no mask laws at the time. So how again was their speech restricted?

I think you're an idiöt , with no grip on reality, that would greatly benefit from reading a few textbooks. They're written by unbiased, truth seeking people, not the partisan hacks that you get your "information" from. To be clear partisan hacks exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

I didn't support the convoy, but don't support Canadians having their bank accounts frozen (well at least not until they've had the opportunity to defend themselves in court). But the idea that it was a free speech issue isn't true. When you park your truck and remove the wheels, you're no longer just expressing your free speech. They should have been removed by force much earlier.

Dude you're literally arguing against yourself. Small l liberal I'll accept, as that is defined as protecting the minority from decisions made by the majority and I'm all for that. As far as Marxist, Communist, Socialist (all words you clearly don't understand) or leftist (a word that doesn't mean anything) neither I nor the Democrats are any of those things. Again I don't support the Democrats and if I was American (again I'm Canadian, so I don't vote in the US) I would have numerous problems with their policies, but all of my problems are rooted in reality, therefore will never comport with the mad incoherent ravings coming out of your mouth. You're just sad

What does any of that have to do with free speech?

Well, I have friends that live downtown Ottawa and from their perspective, what they did was a heck of a lot more than just speech. So not relevant. I'm not saying I agree with what happened, just that it's not a case of violating free speech.

If I was expecting a thoughtful conversation in which I could grow in my understanding of life and the cosmos, I would completely agree. But, since I'm just bored because I'm stuck in some podunk town and other than helping my mom and doing some work around her house, have nothing to occupy my brain. I think my time is well spent laughing at simpletons, beats making fun of the kids at the primary school a few blocks away. Hahahaha

This always seemed a non-issue to me. If a private company chooses not to provide their services for any reason (legitimate or not) should have the right to do that. Personally I wouldn't turn down a client whatever (save those promoting violence or hate) they may stand for. I once did a union event for some big wigs and I think unions are for the most part useless and are a large contributor to the bureaucratic waste stalling every attempt to improve the lives of the masses, but I digress. Public services of course must accept all

Or maybe it's because the opportunities for women to seek higher education have greatly improved over the last few generations, not to mention women that have migrated from countries where women are actively discouraged from attending school and when given the opportunity jump on it. As well, if I were just leaving High School today, I would most certainly study a trade. I recently read something that said that 15 years from now a plumbers income will be comparable to that of an MD and trades are still highly dominated by men.

Honestly, his opinions are as empty as Capones vault.

Sharia law for everyone

Robert Morris

Come on, I won't tell anyone. You're really some genius master troll, right?

As far as the accusations themselves, they are from the Daily Mail and even Fox News says they can't confirm them(he also denied hitting that girl and an affair between consenting adults, I don't think either of us care), but for the sake of argument I'll grant it My post was addressing the double standard in using the bad people on the other side (whichever side that may be) without admitting that their side has just as many bad people. The same people that would call Trump a fascist or Harris a Marxist So, yes if proved credible, it just most certainly should be front page news. True journalism should be as unbiased as humanly possible. As well, Trump is partially responsible The man is all style no substance, all form no function. If he focused more on actual policies he wouldn't be such a target for the irrelevant stuff. I do think his die hard supporters secretly like that, so they don't have to look at the glaring professional deficiencies he has, that break the idea of Trump he has crafted. The man is a brilliant self promoter, shameless but brilliant

Really?

I will accept that, as I believe it was expressed in good faith.

Yes I know we pay for health care (it does cost us less per capita than Americans and we rank higher on many comparisons) but that's irrelevant, my(and the heritage foundations) point was that in terms of financial freedom (maybe the one I care most about) the ability to change jobs and/or start something yourself and possibly hire new employees, is exponentially easier when you don't need to worry about (you or your possible dependents or potential employees and their possible dependants) getting sick. Much more than the ability to say something offensive or hateful. So unless you can provide an example where someone faced any true government prosecution for simple speech, I fall to see how we have less freedom of speech than our neighbors to the south, regardless of if it's enshrined in their constitution. Oh and I did say "Arguably" more freedom, an important distinction.

Yet you continue to accuse me of the opposite. The problem is you don't have a point, all you have is silly partisan talking points that you yourself betray in order to "own the libs" even if the other interlocutor isn't a "lib" You're just sad