TreeBeard

Who are you referring too, precisely?

You know you’re getting your facts from a tv network that claims, in court, that people shouldn’t expect what Tucker says to be true, don’t you? FOX says viewers should know that this is for entertainment and will be exaggeration, and for entertainment purposes and that viewers know that they should take him with a dose of skepticism.

Read the actual judgement. I linked it above.

Like I said…. interpreting religious morals in a way to excuse your own behaviour.

Nuke ‘em both and let God/Allah sort it out?

More excuses for non-biblical behaviour while at the same time decrying the same behaviour by others.

Do you understand what a trope is?

Geez…. Trump says DeSantis would be working at a Pizza Hut if it weren’t for His endorsement! DeSantis came to Trump in TEARS! Tears!! What kind of simpering subordinate is he, anyway? Plus, Trump hinted his penis is tiny, and that he has no male genitalia. And this is your hero?

You’re interpreting biblical morality in order to excuse your own behaviour. Biblical values has usually meant, and still does, to mean abstinence and no sex before marriage. And yet, you decry the lack of biblical morality. Hypocrisy, at best. Cognitive dissonance at worst.

Don’t you belittle religious morals by “playing around for years”?

No, not quite. They did say healthcare is not a right, but the second part of your statement is a misrepresentation.

I see the claim as akin to saying “car accidents are a violation of Canadians’ right to life”. What happens when there are waits in a parallel private system? Do clinics get shut down for violating the right to life? It seems unworkable. However, the court’s ruling, at least in part, is that there is no right to healthcare. It’s an interesting read. I prefer to go past the media headlines, which often say nothing about the court’s reasons but are either simply giving a very superficial overview, or worse, a biased misrepresentation of what the court said. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/22/02/2022BCCA0245.htm#SCJTITLEBookMark787

It’s not an obvious difference. It’s a trope used to diminish women’s worth as human beings. Like talking about the Jews supposed love of money. No different.

Which ideals would those be? I ask because of this: This sounds like a very liberal attitude that diminishes family commitment, honour, respect…. at least, that’s the exact liberal attitude that other conservatives blame for the downfall of family values. I’m curious which ones you think are to blame.

Your post oozes with the insinuation, even if you’re afraid to say it.

A Stockwell Day conspiracy theory!! You got to dig deep for those!!

Why should they be kicked off land that they own? That’s your solution? Expel an entire population of people off the land and homes they’ve always lived at? If they don’t leave, should Israel just kill them all?

I’m supposed to refute your opinion that women are inferior to men? LOL There’s nothing there to refute; it’s pure drivel.

The difference is that birth control pill is a prescription, which can easily be covered under universal healthcare coverage. Condoms are not. However, there are still plenty of places to get free condoms, particularly if you’re a young person.

They were taught to hate in N. Ireland too. I’m sure many of them still hate each other. But, if they can be convinced that an agreement is better than a fight, it can change quickly. I’m not saying it will. America funding Israel to the extent it does actually enables them to keep fighting. Same goes for the Iranian support of Palestinian terrorists, although I read that support may be diminishing. So, will it be solved in a year? 2? 5? 25? No idea. However, I disagree that Israel is being constrained by the West. I think the opposite is true…. The West is an enabler of Israeli expansion.

Sexist claptrap. Women shouldn’t be allowed in politics because they’re not just like men. The 1800s called…. they want their bigotry back. Now tell us about what you think of the different skin colours being allowed in politics these days…

Isn’t that why there should be a “peace deal”? So that the conflict will stop and both sides will need to adhere to terms? You don’t make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies. Is your solution for Israel to kill all the Palestinians? That’s not very Christian of you….

I literally just said that an actual leader of a country does speak for the country, while a fringe politician, like May, does not. May is part of parliament, not part of the government. I’m not sure why that’s such a difficult concept for you to grasp. So, go ahead…. Name the leaders of countries who spoke out against the emergencies act. The “head of state” stuff is a strawman too. I never mentioned that, and it’s irrelevant. As if the GG is the only person who can speak for Canada! LOL

If E. May says something, it’s not speaking for the country. You’re simply wrong. She doesn’t have the authority as she’s not a sitting minister of any stripe. No, you made up a strawman to argue against. Obviously a leader of a country can speak for the country. Which leader of a country spoke out against the Emergencies Act?

No, she doesn’t speak for Canada. You’re either obtuse or dishonest.