TreeBeard

No, I wouldn’t say that’s an issue. The security council is probably a necessity. I don’t think most nations on earth should have the same voting power as others. If anything, the security council should be restricted to nations that meet certain criteria; that being full democracies committed to following the rule of law. They should also have to be members of the International Court of Justice. I don’t think anything other than a full democracy should have any sort of veto power. Is that the UN’s fault that it has no enforcement powers? Of course not. All they can do is offer solutions. If a nation chooses not to follow it, that’s not the fault of the UN. Your argument against the UN seems to be that it should have MORE power, like a one-world government might…

Where did I say I was in favour of a one-world government? Or that it would be better than what we have?

If you get to revert to a Euro-centric model of what Canada should be, why is it not right for the people who were here before Europeans to do the same? “Kick out all the other cultures other than the First Peoples”.

Where can I find documents that the goal of the UN is a one-world government? I don’t think the UN is particularly effective at stopping wars, or passing effective resolutions when nations get out of line. But their work outside of the member nations voting on resolutions is quite amazing. It has laid the groundwork for many treaties among nations with regard to things like stopping over-fishing, food security, health issues like Ebola and AIDS…. The list goes on. If you’re judging the UN based solely on when the nations get together and try to come up with an agreement over some conflict you’re mistaken in a couple ways: It is the fault of the nations involved, not the UN, when the world can’t agree on a topic. You ignore the vast amount of work the UN does.

Is this an example of how low Canada has sunk, or….???

I keep hearing about how bad it would be from some folks, but there are never any accompanying reasons. I’m guessing in @blackbird’s case it will be biblical reasons, but it would be interesting to have a discussion about it.

I did delete it.

What is wrong with one-world government?

Can you give a concrete example?

if this were the case, wouldn’t you care about climate change? Do you think a baby in a hospital in Gaza should be cared for as much by everyone as a baby in a hospital in Israel? If Hamas were hiding in an Israeli hospital, would you be in favour of blowing up the hospital and the Israeli babies to kill Hamas?

Thinking that this is the one and only life we get to live and that the world is the only place we have so we’d better take care of it sounds like a much better way to live than thinking this is a place we can just wipe our dirty feet and the next place will be better. Why take care of this world or the people in it if there’s a better place waiting for us?

What will happen next?

How will it be nasty? I mean, if “leftists” are incorrect about genders and sports, then it will be reflected in the rules of the sport. Nothing nasty about that.

If these women want changes, walk out on the events en masse. If they don’t, then they implicitly agree with the governance.

SMRs will be here once the USA companies, through huge government subsidies, manage to build them. PP won’t have a hand in their development. But, maybe he’ll fund them with Bitcoin? So far, SMRs are science fiction. https://www.science.org/content/article/deal-build-pint-size-nuclear-reactors-canceled …a coalition of community-owned power systems in seven western states, withdrew from a deal to build the plant, designed by NuScale Power, because too few members agreed to buy into it. The project, subsidized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), sought to revive the moribund U.S. nuclear industry, but its cost had more than doubled to $9.3 billion. What can he say, other than “we’ll be on the forefront of being a Bitcoin…. Errr…. SMR nation”.

Tax breaks increase inflation. This forces a rise in interest rates. This hurts middle and low income earners. What should be done are tax increases on excess profits and income tax increases on higher earners during high inflation and spending that on the deficit. Creating more government programs will also add inflationary pressure. Remove taxes on food and other necessities and increase taxes on luxury goods. This would place a larger tax burden on those who could afford luxury goods.

If high speed rail is important to someone as an Ontario voter, you’ll need to vote for someone other than Conservatives. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/the-toronto-to-montreal-high-speed-train-just-got-another-step-closer-1.6337371 The Kathleen Wynne Liberal government proposed a 250 km/hr high-speed train that would have travelled from Toronto to Windsor in just two hours, but funding was paused in 2019 by the Doug Ford government.

So…. it turns out it actually was for the impairment. Like is said. ?

Fair enough! I hope it worked for you.

I’m pretty sure the impairment is part of the enjoyment, don’t you think? Has marijuana use gone up since legalization? Is it easier to keep out of the hands of underage people when it’s legalized? Why should it be any of your business if someone wants to get impaired as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else?

How socially conservative are the children of immigrants? The answer is no more so than any other Canadian. I don’t think Canada will be bringing in 30 million Muslims.

The Pope is infallible in the teachings of doctrine…. Until he’s not! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Ummm…. You do know that we have a Constitution and laws that allow alcohol, don’t you? It was religious Conservatives who banned alcohol in Canada. That was overturned by secular law.

Only in restaurants? How far would you really take laws against free speech? You mentioned movies in the past. What about books? Should blasphemous books be banned?

Your laser focus on Islam is odd to me. Why would we focus on a religion when it should be the views of the individual that needs to be scrutinized?