suds

There's a difference between being suspended for a month (as with Kempling) and being told to undergo social media training. Peterson claims he pays for this 'training' out of pocket for as long as it takes, until those administering the training are convinced he has been re-educated. This to me sounds a bit orwellian. Peterson also claims he is going to tape the proceedings and make them public. If not allowed to tape, he will make notes or do it by memory. If the goal is to make an example of Peterson, I figure they picked the wrong guy and instead may be creating a martyr. And according to Orwell... martyrs have always had the capability of destroying the things that led them to martyrdom. So stay tuned.... it ain't over yet.

So who exactly are these people who are going to re-educate Jordan Peterson? What are their qualifications? And if there's no intention of restricting Peterson's freedom of expression..... then why even bother??

Sounds more like a fiscal conservative to me. It takes one to know one.

Can't say I disagree with anything you've posted but you're missing the whole point. It's been 30 years since the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and 25 years since Kyoto. Do you see any improvement on total world GHG emissions? Do you see any signs of where it might improve in the near future with world population set to increase by 2.3 billion people over the next 60 years? I don't. Any chart I've seen shows world GHG emissions going up and up and up and up. This is a global problem and not a domestic problem, and realistically if we are to achieve set goals (while maintaining acceptable living standards) we have to embrace nuclear and drastically limit or reduce population growth as a main part of any solution. That's my whole point. And you're absolutely right about us (and the US as well) exporting all our dirty manufacturing jobs to places like China with low environmental standards. It does nothing for our economy and does nothing for reducing GHG emissions on a global scale. But it makes politicians look good, as if we're actually accomplishing something.

The UN's population division estimates world population will peak around 10.4 billion in 2086 which would be an increase of 2.3 billion from today's figure. Estimates from other sources claim population will peak between 2060-2070. Whatever, it might be wise to assume the worst case scenario of 2.3 billion more bodies to accommodate in 2086 if the increase in world population goes unchecked. What is a realistic number for world population in terms of dealing with climate change and resources while maintaining acceptable (and equitable) living standards for all? You tell me. If things aren't fair and equitable now, they're only going to get worse.

According to the chart, China's total GHG emissions have quadrupled since 1990, while the International Energy Agency estimates that China's GHG emissions/capita have tripled over the same time period. India's emissions/capita have doubled. Consider also that the vast majority of much smaller developing nations have substantially increased GHG emissions (per capita) in their desire to provide a more affluent western lifestyle for its citizens. Latest figures provided by the IEA show that total world GHG emissions increased by 6%. The factors affecting climate change don't care about GHG emissions/capita, but only TOTAL world GHG emissions. Any realistic (and fair) approach in reducing world GHG emisions would result in many countries taking quite a hit in living standards while others increased theirs. Or... do something about reducing world population on a drastic scale. No matter how you look at it, with the technology we have today any increase in world population will have a negative affect on climate change and on everyone's living standards. So it becomes a tradeoff. So why isn't anyone (except for the odd few) not taking reducing world population seriously?

I agree. Stalin brought in American industrialists to plan and run his factories during the USSR's period of industrialization. Does that make Stalin a capitalist? Of course not. So what are Hitler and Mussolini supposed to do? Shoot the capitalists running their factories and then have nobody left to run them? Again, of course not. I see no evidence of Mussolini or Hitler being capitalists. It just made perfect sense to keep the capitalists running things (and keeping them happy) while exercising almost total control over them. Whatever works. To put it another way..... what's the difference between allowing capitalists to run things and take their profits, or paying people appointed by the state to run things and pay them generous bonuses and better living conditions? Sure Hitler executed communists, he also executed liberals or anyone else who stood in his way to total power. He simply got rid of all opposition.

I would really like to know what impartialobserver found so funny about my post? Or am I just wasting my time asking?

Just remember that if you don't vote democrat then you are despised by democrats. Or perhaps even as far as being labelled 'enemies of the state'. And it makes not a shred of difference what race you are or what gender you identify with. People should be judged as individuals and not identity groups. They should also be judged by the content of their character and not by who they vote for. It's too bad that democrats who act so superior at times can't get these simple truths through their sanctimonious heads.

Dispelling all the legal 'bullshiteze', Trump should be disqualified and Biden be impeached. But that could only happen in a perfect world. One is really no better than the other, and are polling about the same for 2024. And the problems that plague America will go on as long as one of them hold office.

If part of the duties of the state guard are to replace the national guard should they become federalized.... shouldn't the state guard have the same resources such as equipment and training as the national guard? Of course they should, and that's the reason why most state guards are highly militarized. If you're going to fund a state guard to handle state emergencies then it should be capable of handling all emergencies. Otherwise why even bother? But as usual partisan politics trumps common sense.

My advice to these homeless refugees in Canada would be to head south. You might be lucky enough to end up in Martha's vineyard.

Who uses paper money anyway? I suppose it's useful if you want to pay someone under the table or leave as tips. But really you're further ahead using reward credit cards.

This is shear nonsense. Another smear job on DeSantis, and people like you buy into it. State Guards are allowed under US federal law, so DeSantis 'created' nothing that wasn't there before. At least 20 states have them and the only real difference between State Guards and the National Guard is that State Guards cannot be 'federalized' because unlike the National Guard they are not part of the US Armed Forces. ALL State Guards fall under the direct command of the state governor. So please explain how the Florida State Guard or Ron DeSantis is any more 'fascistic' than the State Guards of California or New York which are highly militaristic and are also under the direct command of their state governors? You won't because you can't.... because there is no difference except that DeSantis is a republican who could be the next US president. By the way, California's State Guard for example has a maritime patrol, army, and air force, all under the command of the state governor.

A recent AP-NORC poll shows that only 1 in 10 Americans approve of the way democracy is working in the US, or how well it represents the interests of most Americans. How much of this dissatisfaction is created by the practice by both democrats and republicans in utilizing special interest groups and 'client politics' in order to gain political support? When general public policy is based on what a minority of voters believe, you undermine democracy, efficiency, accountability, impartiality, and in a much broader sense... the rule of law. (And please, don't confuse this with minority rights.) In short, this party politics is killing us and don't think it's any different here in Canada. If we must have political parties then the good of the country must come before party. As voters we must insist on it.

I believe the saying goes... ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. The thing is that with so much dust under my bed, I don't know if they're comin or goin.

If you really want to get picky, the elements that make up all life on planet earth either originated from the big bang or the interior of stars. We are all technically star dust. That would include Martians, Vegans, and pretty much everything else in the universe.

If life was stagnant there would be no benefit. But life isn't stagnant. People get older and expect pensions, infrastructure deteriorates, and governments can't help themselves from going into more and more debt. So governments require increased economic growth to generate more and more revenue to sustain funding these (in many cases) unfunded liabilities such as debt, pensions, and infrastructure upkeep. The easiest way to increase economic growth (and revenues) is to expand the workforce and therefore the population as a whole. If this sounds like a ponzi scheme, it is.

We have cold winters, high costs of living, housing shortages, doctor shortages, inflation..... and oddly enough Canada doesn't keep any statistics on the retention rates of newly arrived immigrants. Perhaps because there's no accurate way of doing so. I think I'd try my luck in the US where at least the weather's nicer and the cost of living's more realistic.

You asked 2 questions pal, and I responded to the latter. Somebody can't count.

Please, try and do a bit of research. The filibuster has been used hundreds of times by both parties in the US Senate. In reality, both parties want the filibuster and it's only when they're the majority party that they're against it. Proof? It would only require a simple majority vote to change the rules since it's not a constitutional issue.

I would presume a very high standard would have to be set for the court's to see speech as defamatory. Otherwise you end up with mass self censorship and say good-bye to free speech. I don't believe this particular case passes that high standard.

This I believe is where things get complicated. There's a balancing act between an individual's reputation and the right to free speech. Saying someone is 'bigoted' 'hateful' can be seen as honest opinion or fair comment. How can someone prove they're not bigoted? The acts by the B.C. and Ontario governments were designed to enable the courts an easy way to throw out frivolous lawsuits that were intended to limit free speech. The Supreme Court is bound to those acts (laws). Opinion is usually considered not to be defamatory unless it can be proven it's done with malicious intent. Let's also not forget who started the whole charade and launched the lawsuit.

I agree with that, but what proof have you that the court's are being 'inconsistent'?

It's relevant because Neufeld does sound a bit like a bigot when it comes to certain types of individuals. Although there's not much I can find about the exact wording of his online postings.