suds

Give me a ruling by the Supreme Court you didn't agree with and felt unfairly punished by. At least then I'll know what you're referring to.

And I judge everyone as individuals regardless of being a minority, marginalized, oppressed, or oppressor. So there we have it. Anything else you want to get off your chest? But if the Supreme Court wishes to take into consideration past transgressions against marginalized groups who they believe were not treated fairly, I have no problem with that either. In general, justice has to be blind but it also has to be fair.

When it comes to rights the Supreme Court has to consider the rights of everyone, not just the majority. When rights conflict they usually tend to side with minority or marginalized groups which is not a bad thing in my opinion. Societies are judged by how their minorities and marginalized groups are treated.

Well obviously then, you have something against trans people. I do not. Although the sports thing with biological men competing against biological women really isn't fair.

I meant no offense to anyone. You gotta lighten up a bit bud! 😉

You mean one that has a vagina?

Good points!

Generally speaking, in Canada mortgage interest is not tax deductible (unless you're renting the residence out) and there are no capital gains as long as it was your principal residence. But there are exceptions. The U.S. does the exact opposite (but again there are exceptions). It would be nice if young people buying their first home and planning on raising a family had a choice.

A former Bank of Canada governor was saying recently that any new government spending should be aimed at increasing economic productivity. Increasing capital gains taxes does the exact opposite. But that doesn't exactly help any government win a few votes short term. Then there's the deficits and mounting debt. Servicing the debt takes a lot of money off the table that could be used elsewhere. If you want to win elections you're far more likely to win if you spend spend spend. Austerity gets you nowhere unless things get really bad. I love democracies, but it does bring with it some inherent problems.

And who exactly wants business to tell government what to do? The governments prime responsibilities in regulating business and the economy is to provide a level playing field for all participants, protect consumers, and to protect assets and property. What's being described here sounds a little coercive in my opinion. It's sort of like ... do exactly what we tell you to do or we're gonna pass laws and force you to do it. It's petty and stupid.

Doesn't Guilbeault or his government have better things to do? Just another sign of a desperate government in free-fall.

Ok have it your way then. Meanwhile, that little chart of world greenhouse gas emissions keeps marching up and up with no end in sight. And that little chart is the only thing we should be concerned about.

From a global perspective a reasonable question would ask.... where should a threshold for world population be set so that climate change was effectively dealt with and that minimal acceptable living standards could be attained by all in a world of finite resources? But they don't really care about world population do they? Or at least it's not very high on their priority list. It tends to make one believe that redistribution of wealth is their main concern.

Here's a liberal I can identify with. A liberal who can actually think for himself....

This is just a wild guess, but there are likely more pro-Palestinian demonstrations around the world because Muslims outnumber Jews about 1,250 to 1. This vote in Parliament is nothing more than crass domestic political posturing. The NDP want the muslim vote which outnumbers the jewish vote by about 4 to 1 and solves nothing. I too would like to see a 2 state solution, but it's inconceivable seeing the two 'living side by side with dignity' (as the present government puts it) as long as an Iran backed Hamas exists.

Fascism has never considered the state and 'corporate interests' to be treated as equals. As with communism, the state controls everything. But as I've mentioned once before there's little difference between fascism allowing private ownership of the means of production and those in charge to take profits, and communism which doesn't allow private ownership but gives those in charge hefty bonuses. The difference is that Communism is more ideologically driven while fascism doesn't care about ownership only about control. If one had to make a choice between fascist and communist economics, fascism makes a lot more sense. China, for example, has come to realize that. It's not really capitalism either is it when the state owns 51% (for control) and not the barrel of a gun.

Fiona Hill is a senior fellow and director at the Brookings Institute and former U.S. Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia. In a July 2016 article posted by the Institute, Hill claims that as far as Putin and his inner circle were concerned, it was Secretary of State Clinton who enticed or financed the 2011-2012 protests directed against Putin when running for his 3rd term. Putin took this as a cover for regime change. To back this up, on March 20, 2017, former FBI James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee (about Russian interference in the 2016 election) that Putin hated Secretary Clinton and preferred Trump as President. Other sources claim that it was Trump or Bernie Sanders. **So, did Putin have a valid reason for interfering in the U.S. election? It certainly sounds to me as if he may have. The U.S. in particular doesn't exactly have a stellar record for NOT interfering in other countries' elections. But they sure get mad as hell when somebody does it to them. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/3-reasons-russias-vladimir-putin-might-want-to-interfere-in-the-u-s-presidential-elections/

Generally speaking the right support dictators that support capitalism, while the left support dictators that support communism. That is if you had to take a side between the two. Originally, fascism was seen to be as 'middle ground' between capitalism and socialism and deemed to be more experimental than a bad idea. Trump's investments in Russia may have had some affect on foreign policy, and so might whatever China has hanging over the heads of Joe and Hunter Biden today. It wasn't all that long ago either when the Democrats were in love with Putin, especially when the Clintons were padding their own pockets with Russian cash. And then everything changed when Hillary interfered with Russian elections, and in turn Putin interfered with U.S. elections. There's always reasons (not always in the country's best interests) why politicians do the things they do. Mostly it's a question of following the money.

Yep! What they basically want to do is force government approved speech or self censorship on everyone. And the commission that has been set up has all the tools to do it.

If they would have left the reporting of internet child pornography stand alone they would have had little to no opposition. Which makes me wonder what the real purpose of this Bill actual is.

Conflicts of interest do exist. Especially concerning the origins of the virus, gain of function research, and the funding and careers which could be cut off in the case of a lab leak. So it's not just the Chinese government or politics standing in the way of truth but a lot of other things as well. I'm sick and tired of listening to 'experts' who may be prejudiced in their opinions so I'll go with whatever makes the most sense. And right about now with no solid evidence that a natural spillover event occurred, I'll go with the lab leak theory. Just my opinion.

Ok, and to a large extent... it's been dealt with. So let's wash our hands of it and move on. And when the next pandemic comes along (which one will) we'll just play it by ear. After all, we can't embarrass foreign governments and there's nothing to be learned from this one. If that's your plan... it's not a very good one.

A lot of shit happens that the world has to deal with. Wars, pandemics, genocides etc. And normally, those who are responsible are held accountable. But as far as you're concerned...not in this case. So why is that???

The carbon tax is going up and so are emissions.... And so is world population growth. The claim world population is in decline means only that population growth as a yearly percentage is declining. It is expected to peak sometime in the next 30 to 50 years and possibly add as many as another 2.5 billion people. Now factor that in as well.

Actually, 'The Intercept' published these proposals as far back as Sept. 2021, and the U.S. government did in fact help fund the Wuhan lab's gain of function research albeit through 3rd parties (which Fauci allegedly played some role in). Basically it works like this.... the 'furin cleavage site' allows the coronavirus to bind to a human cell. Gain of function research allows it to bind to the cell more efficiently making it more transmissible and likely more lethal. When the genetic sequence was analyzed, they found a sequence pertaining to the furin cleavage site which exists no where else in nature, and that a number of virologists believed was man-made. So this proposal comes out in 2018 and covid-19 materializes out of no where in 2019. Coincidence or just bullshit conspiracy theory? Regardless of what anyone calls it, I'll stick with the latter.