suds

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.

I would prefer not to believe that. If natural rights did exist then they would be universal (or inalienable) and could not be repealed by a majority legislature or a stacked supreme court. The most quoted inalienable right being in the US Declaration of Independence .... the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I wonder if we may have missed an opportunity with AUKUS. Some military planners claim that surface warships may soon be a thing of the past, being too slow, too conspicuous, and under threat of being taken out by too many means. It may have been a start anyway.

So we developed our own nuclear reactors and sold them around the world but using nuclear to power a Canadian submarine is out of the question. That's why I asked in the first place because (as you also seem to agree) ..... it's sort of stupid isn't it? I have to wonder sometimes what our priorities are when it comes to military spending. Top priorities should be defending our borders (and sovereignty) and insuring that those men and women who undertake that task are properly equipped to do the job. Then comes NATO and peacekeeping.

A couple of simple questions for you guys as you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about this military stuff. There's no question we need new fighter aircraft and whatever that entails, but shouldn't we be seriously considering nuclear powered subs for maintaining our sovereignty in the Arctic? And what is it about this reluctance to get nuclear powered ones? Is it cost, or something else?

If one has nothing to lose, then sure, say whatever you want. You can't be cancelled because there's nothing to cancel. On the other hand, many are being coerced into self censorship over fear of retribution. Others are losing their jobs, positions, or reputations over things they may have said 10 or 15 years ago. I wish I understood what you're talking about.

While I value your opinions, I personally don't have any problems with those who post too often or use too many words. Posting is, after all, the lifeblood of this board. This is just an observation on my part. Carry on.

It's entirely possible (depending on one's situation or condition) that they may be materially better off with one party in power over another. However, what's under discussion is our rights and freedoms which isn't quite the same thing. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated..."The very lifeblood of democracy is the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Government overreach, censorship, and suppression are dangerous to democracy and human rights" (CCLA). The U.S. Supreme Court has stated..."Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Without it, other fundamental rights like the right to vote would wither and die" (ALCU). Freedom of expression (or free speech) is the canary in the coal mine. When free speech comes under attack, all rights come under attack because free speech is the cornerstone of everything. What I see happening today with government policy, at the university level, at school board meetings, the justice system, it doesn't exactly remind me of right wing extremism. It's the exact opposite in most cases.

It's interesting how closely the top 10 countries in the Human Freedom Index matches the top 10 in Statista's 2023 Economic Freedom Index. Canada and the U.S. remain relatively in their same positions in both. But I believe most of us already understand how debt and tax burden influences economic freedom, and how economic freedom influences individual freedom. You seldom have one without the other. Dare I mention capitalism?

noun: slush fund; plural noun: slush funds "a reserve of money used for illicit purposes, especially political bribery." The difference is that a 'Congressional slush fund' is a slush fund financed by the taxpayers for such cases as sexual harassment that Congress would rather keep secret. Is it hypocritical? Of course it is.

Bell has been my ISP for a few years now and have absolutely no complaints. About a year ago, Bell contractors ran a fibre network through my area. A short while ago, a 3rd party offered me a pretty good (cable) internet deal with a speed of 100Mbps where they send you everything in a box and you have to do the hookup yourself. When I told them I was currently on a fibre network, they told me that wasn't a problem but they couldn't go higher than 25Mbps. I could be wrong but it seemed that while 3rd parties could rent/utilize the Bell fibre there were certain restrictions put into place where the 3rd parties (and their customers) couldn't utilize it to its full potential. If that IS the way it works, it sounds like a reasonably fair accommodation by the CRTC for Bell's competitors.

Less than 10% of the 4800 job losses will be with Bell Media. The vast majority of the layoffs will be in the telecom sector specifically targeting old, outdated, and costly to maintain legacy phone systems. I can't say I blame Bell (which is owned by shareholders), but it must have been a huge gut punch for a lot of those who lost their jobs and didn't see it coming. It's a sad day for all of us when these types of things happen.

It's my understanding that only 'local' television content has been cancelled in some areas, and that the radio stations dropped by Bell have already been sold or are in the process of being sold to much smaller (independent I presume) media outlets. Why is a media giant (monopoly) selling off some of its acquisitions such a bad idea?