SkyHigh

I don't disagree that we should be concerned about levels of toxicity in our lakes etc...(again i see a direct link with that and climate change) Where i do disagree is the idea that we need to put one aside to focus on the other. Pardon my use of a military analogy, but an army can attack on two fronts, its often the best strategy

Again the purpose of algebra is to teach the mind how to process complicated problems, a tool used in most aspects of life independent of "Mathematics" i.e. anytime one employs logic or reason. That being said, still not clear on your contention that the study of mathematics is somehow inherently bias towards conservatives, please explain

Seems to me the two are interconnected (pesticides used in agriculture for example), but even if they were completely separate issues, why would you ignore one to fix the other? Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time

Algebra and Calculus are most definitely important, though most won't use them directly in professional life. The point of such studies is to train our brains to analyze, interpret and resolve complex problems. Though I don't subscribe to your slanted, bias, partisan take on the situation, nor can i wrap my mind around how one could consider teaching math to be anti conservative. I firmly agree that courses on things like, civics, and how to balance a household budget should be part of the secondary curriculum

With a defeatist attitude like that ,(anything and everything is negative) not sure how you manage to get out of bed in the morning. Here is an anecdotal example of what I mean. I owned a small event production company. It's an industry that often leaves a large carbon footprint, being sensitive to that fact, and being unsatisfied with what the gov't offers, I tasked an employee to find a better way to offset our emissions. She found an NGO in south america whos work is geared towards diminishing carbon emissions from third world countries. The technology exists, we have the money (used pragmatically, as my original post suggests) all we need is the will. If the logic you chose to employ is fallacious, I agree, little positive impact will result

For me at least, like in most most cases, I'm not really concerned with how much I'm taxed (with a certain variance according to priority/impact etc..) Where my concern lies, is in how said taxes are spent, if I knew that a few thousand of my dollars per year would have a direct effect, I'm more then ok with that

No idea what this incoherent rant has to do with my post (or reality for that matter), but if you say something intelligible or at least comprehensible, I'd be happy to respond

Unlike you I will not resort to adhomenims. When did i even suggest that laws can't be manipulated? You asked for an example of something that came from Quebec that benefited the ROC (terrible expression by the way), and I gave you campaign finance. Being unable to debate the actual policy ,you resorted to finding potential loopholes, and that is a passive admission that you agree with the law but chose to continue with your bad faith demagoguery

No corporate donations, individuals capped at 100$, these are laws brought about by a Quebec( separatist) provincial gov't . If you're reduced to arguing potential loop holes, it means you fundamentally agree with the policy. Therefore disproving your contention that nothing that benefited Canada as a whole

Don't recall advocating in any way for the PRC. If you agree that the comparison is not a good faith argument, not sure why you felt the necessity to debate semantics, being that neither( communism or fascism) in any way correspond to Canada's political system

So you don't like campaign finance restrictions?

First off, he never made that distinction. Second it's most certainly classified as a communist regime. Thirdly and most important, nothing to do with the crux of my argument that equating the two is intellectually dishonest

Campaign finance laws, just to mention one

By equating the people's Republic of China to our system demonstrates one of a few things. 1) you don't know the meaning of the word communism 2) you're oblivious to the concepts of epistemology and logic 3) you have no actual political philosophy and simply enjoy trying to get under people's skin Whichever one it is , this is obviously not an attempt at a good faith argument