ExFlyer

Are you against helping Ukraine fight back against the Russians?

Libbie and Con and Dipper jerk-offs. Not a matter of me feeling better, just making sure you understand what and who you are accusing.

Then include the conservatives in your criticism and not only liberal. Include NDP as well as BC was one of the worst with restrictions. Oh and, don't forget the Saskatchewan Party and CAQ and Consensus Government (NWT and Nunavut) Heck, why not just say all Canadian Governments LOL

As I said in that post Point - CounterPoint. You had one and I had another. Carrying on was useless. Your analogies strain for similarity and are over dramatic. Hence the "OK".

OK.

Quebec also said you cannot wear a hijab, cross on a chain or, yarmulkes. World, civilized world. Th w whole world had restrictions. Point..... Counter-Point

No one is extorting. Take it or not, your choice.

Can't fly if your are intoxicated either. Your decision, and the consequences of it. US requires you to be vaccinated, as do some other countries too https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/proof-of-vaccination.html Countries that are open to vaccinated travellers https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/countries-accepting-vaccinated-travelers

No federal travel bans.

There is no federal travel ban whatsoever. As I also said, masks required on aircraft are world wide. Not a Canadian invention nor Canadians alone. https://thepointsguy.com/news/which-airlines-flights-require-wear-face-mask/

You do realize that the mask mandates and even the "jabbing" is provincial edicts? And many of those are conservative governments? Oh and, the only one still with a mask mandates is Quebec. (don't mention airlines and only 6 airlines in the world do not have mandatory masks requirement)

If God is so loving, why did he invent Hell?

Not absent. Even if some points have merit, some points leaves one with shaking heads. No sense discussing or trying to discuss because of the unintelligible retorts and accusations. Just because someone disagrees with certain points does not make them "traitors" Waiting for them LOL

As I tried to explain a while ago, there is political will to do it but, it is too much political will. Interference by every ministerial department and that departments will to "piss on the hydrant" makes procurement near impossible to buy anything quickly. In the case of the Liberals, for sure they are not military friendly, never have been. having said that, Canada has never really been military friendly and the Military only gets resources when the old ones no longer can be repaired or used. And then, we fumble through the politics and get only what the government wants and not what the military needs or wants (and how much the military wants or needs).

Trying to.

I have many times said I was being civil and was.

Firstly, I suspect if the Military was called in to be an "Aid to Civil Power" they would most assuredly go in without weapons (or if weapons, non lethal ones). I do not believe any soldier was ever given a direct order to kill someone (perhaps a sniper has different orders). They would go into situations to defend themselves and their positions or objectives but to be ordered to just shoot and kill people, I would find that hard to believe. I have never been infantry and in situations like they may be in but, I think ordering to shoot and kill would be unlawful by any stretch. As for the trucker thing, I do agree with you. They did brings some things to the forefront. My objection though was, when was it enough? When a point is made and when things were announced as changing, then it is time to leave. Belabouring only divides and turns against the principal, as eventually happened. Notice we no longer discuss the whys of the protest but the breakup and outcome. As for the Rebel, well, we all seem to choose whatever media suits our narrative so, you choose yours, I choose mine and others choose theirs.

You do like to make shit up. That is why everything you say is suspect. There should be a fact check warning to every one of your posts LOL I state my opinion, no need for you to embellish it LOL

You misread again. Name calling again too.

I have never once "called you out". You insist on name calling, by all means, satisfy your Christian self. I know who and what I am and what I did. As I said, I tried to be civil and will remain so.

Your offensiveness belays your Christianity unfortunately. Again, sorry for trying to be civil and have a civil conversation wiht you.

I am sorry I tried to be civil with you. Aid to Civil Power in no way means orders to shoot and kill Canadians. It means "Aid to (or of) the Civil Power, the calling out of military troops by the civil authorities to help maintain or restore public order" Meaning the military has authority of a constable in the police force. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/queens-regulations-orders/vol-1-administration/ch-23-duties-aid-civil-power.html

I never "castigate" anothers opinion. All I ever say is that I have the right to an opinion as well and that I do not have to agree or disagree with others. That is called debating. I am sorry you agree with taxme when he says that a Canadian solider would shoot and kill another Canadian if ordered.

I too have very close American Military and Coast Guard friends. Mine are in the SAR world like yours were in the soldier world. My objection and offence was that taxme insinuated we (military) would shoot and kill Canadians (protesters).