I am Groot

https://www.amazon.ca/Winnwell-Premium-Collar-Senior-X-Large/dp/B086KSYN24/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=1A4IS0GOX5OB7&keywords=neck+guard&qid=1680213406&rnid=5264023011&s=sports&sprefix=neck+guard%2Caps%2C105&sr=1-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExOU85NERRWjBIWDIzJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMzc1MzE4TEdCSVFXOFdRRVVDJmVuY3J5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTA2OTcyMjQyODQ2MjFDOE5UTFZSJndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfYXRmJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ==

Maybe try something like this instead. https://www.amazon.ca/s?k=mandalorian+helmet&crid=3VTVF9U0NQZ2P&sprefix=mandalorian+helme%2Caps%2C114&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

Reinstate the law against vagrancy. Arrest them all. Those who refuse treatment for addiction never get out. Those with psychiatric problems get treated whether they approve or not. If they're untreatable or have shown they won't stick to a necessary drug regime then lock them up in a psychiatric facility. And yes, the above includes improved rehab/psychiatric treatment. Also, much more severe penalties for violence and repeat offenses. I'm not saying three strikes and you get life but for damned sure if you've gotten it up to thirty strikes you ain't getting out again.

I know what a liberal is supposed to be. That doesn't mean that's what a Liberal is. Certainly not THESE Liberals. Just to start with, respect for opinions different from ones own is just not there anymore. Trudeau made that clear when he stated, out of the blue and without consulting anyone else that no one who was pro-life could run for office in his party anymore. Likewise, anyone opposed to gay marriage, and probably now against trans rights. And I would say the same holds true for today's 'liberals' at colleges and universities unless we call them progressives or something new. And much of the adherence to identity politics and culture war stuff is profoundly illiberal. Including, as I said, the insistence you can't question it if a six-foot-four man with a beard suddenly decides he wishes to now be referred to as a woman and enter boxing or wrestling matches against women.

That word is outmoded now. White supremacy and 'hate' sounds better.

People are poor. What do you do? Conservatives We need to increase productivity through more intensive and targeted post-secondary training and apprenticeships, we need to stop subsidizing unproductive businesses and stop borrowing to fund social programs and subsidies. We also need to reduce the painful delays and expenses on business and industry from an oversized government and overregulation. This will allow us to reduce the number of public servants and cut taxes, which in turn will help increase productivity. Liberals We will give them billions of dollars! The public. I understood every word of the Liberals' program! They seem very generous! I'll vote for them!

But... but... ABORTION RIGHTS! GAY RIGHTS! GUNS! WHITE SUPREMACY!! ?

Agreed. There is a permissiveness in our legal/judicial system which does not come from the will of the people but the hand-wringing attempt at being 'tolerant' and 'understanding' of the progressive left. I read a saying somewhere to the effect that being merciful to the guilty is being cruel to the innocent. And that's how things have worked out. In order to be respectful and understanding and merciful to a comparative handful of drug addicts and people with untreated psychological/emotional problems we're being cruel to the great mass of citizens forced to cope with their violence, their disgusting, unhealthy lifestyles, the eyesore of their tent cities taking away people's parks and green spaces, and forcing parents to keep children indoors.

Nope. Fascism is not just a pejorative term for anyone authoritarian. It incorporates elements of economic and political doctrine that the Republicans do not. For one thing, far too many of them are libertarian-minded and don't want the 'guberment' telling them what to do (except about abortion and LBGT issues, of course). Most of the support for that fat fool Trump is simply, as you say, a reaction to the excesses of the progressive left. Is it any worse than the way the American mainstream media waits eagerly by their computers watching internet reports in hopes of finding a case of a black man killed by a white cop so they can race off to breathlessly cover it and shriek "Racism!" to the world? To the coverage of the 'mostly peaceful' BLM riots that caused billions in damages? It seems to me the media, especially ones like the Washington Post and New York Times, as well as our own CBC prioritize finding racism anywhere, however small, and trumpeting it to the world in screaming headlines. Not liking transgenderism is not in any way akin to being a nazi. Most people are uncomfortable with the idea that after operating by the scientific principle for the last few centuries we're suddenly supposed to disregard our eyes and ears and simply accept the claim that a man is a woman and a woman is a man without any valid scientific or medical evidence. Without even any questioning! Well then that's also the exact way the mainstream media and left-wing activists demonize the police. Are they nazis?

Are you suggesting liberals aren't left wing? I think that on this particular topic of identity politics and culture wars most of us who are conservatives have come to think of anyone on the diversity, equity and inclusiveness bandwagon as "left wing". Equity is equality of results vs equality of opportunity and strikes most of us as Marxian/socialist.

The words used to describe political positioning tend to be subjective. They also move around with time. Perhaps one of the problems is that no one takes Communism seriously, as if it doesn't exist. I tend to reflexively think this myself at times, so if we remove Communism from the political spectrum what should we term a position just to the right of where Communism ought to be? On the other side, we have people who refer to almost anyone even slightly right of centre on a single issue as 'Far right". And I think this is much more commonly used and as a pejorative. Tossing it back in the other direction is also a reflexive thing sometimes, depending on my mood and with whom and on what subject I've recently been talking. I'll concede suggesting academia is governed by the 'far left' was too inexact. Perhaps substituting 'progressives' would have been more accurate. As for Jordan and Marxists in colleges, I don't have much difficulty understanding what he means in that the new holy mecca of the progressive left is 'equity', meaning equality of outcomes for all regardless of their actual value, abilities, intelligence, efforts and productivity. It's the same sort of belief Marxism has been touting for a century that there should be no classes, no rich and no poor (which always just makes everyone poor in the end). Thus we have equity activists ending honors programs and programs for the gifted at schools, dropping college entrance exams and mandating the admission of people by identity group rather than abilities. In some areas, they're even watering down the curriculum and testing in order to ensure members of specific identity groups not noted for their devotion to studies graduate at the same rate as those who are. It's a profoundly anti-intellectual demand that everyone accepts that every individual is not an individual at all but simply part of a group, a cog as interchangeable as any other. And so every group must perform identically to every other group.

And silly. Though I would also say that things like drag queens reading to children is largely being done to be deliberately provocative against the right wing. And much of the transgender debate seems similar and hysterical on both sides. The fanaticism of the pro-transgender side is beyond the pale, especially with the constant threats of violence and rape against women who object. No, it's not. It's certainly conservative, but it's not 'far right', though of course, that's a subjective description. You can't simply label everything that's on the right side of the political spectrum 'far right' and have any reasonable discussion. Further, there are such mountainous positions staked out by the major media these days that you simply will not read about something that goes too strongly against the agenda they're pushing, or toubles their narrative too much. Stories like this rarely or never appear in centrist or left wing media, any more than you'll read or see news features on large groups of black flash mobs pillaging stores, malls, fairgrounds and the like. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That's not how it works. What the right-wing media does is expose and condemn the excesses of the Left. What the Left-wing media does is trumpets and celebrates those excesses. Likewise, you'll find the mainstream media largely ignoring police shootings of White people (especially if the police are Black) but wallowing in stories of police shooting Black people. Which is why, in this case, ESPN, owned by Disney, will include a male-bodied individual crushing smaller, weaker female opponents in a celebration of womens history month.

What did you find nonsensical about my post? Perhaps true but I didn't insult you at all so I'm not certain why you bring such examples up.

It's such a waste of money and resources. This country could do so well if the regulatory and tax burdens were lifted off a little, but instead, we get more borrowing, which means an increasing debt servicing cost that will rise to $50 billion in a few years - or sooner if inflation rises. That's just a waste of money. That's almost twice what we spend on defense. and it's only going to get worse.

Namely, incompetent and dishonest spendthrifts. The budget increases spending in a wide variety of areas, ignoring their own muttering about being fiscally prudent, then lies about it rather blatantly by pretending they're cutting spending when they're really not. And, of course, there's more billions (tens of billions) for a variety of green energy initiatives. But all of them are filled with rules and regulations about how the money is to be spent, including the pay rate of employees. This is another income redistribution budget with zero real effort at increasing productivity or strengthening the economy. The budget points to $15.6-billion in savings, a declining deficit and an easing of the debt burden relative to the economy. Indeed, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland described Tuesday’s budget, her third, as an effort in line with Canada’s “proud tradition of fiscal responsibility.” That is all a fiscal fantasy: the Liberal budget is built on a cloud of sleight-of-hand projections and the hope that Canadians are suffering from collective amnesia. To start with, more than half of the savings touted by the Liberals were announced in last year’s budget, with a review to find and reallocate $9-billion in spending through to fiscal 2027-28. This year’s budget merely fills in some details. And the government’s austerity measures are exceptionally unambitious. Spending on travel and consulting is to decline by 15 per cent – but that is only discretionary spending rather than the entire budget line. And the full savings don’t kick in until two years from now. Even worse, the second part of the Liberals’ fiscal restraint efforts, a 3-per-cent reduction in “eligible” spending, will deliver savings of exactly $0.00 in the coming fiscal year. The remainder of the so-called savings come from reallocating $6.38-billion in previously announced budget measures that, somehow, the government was unable to spend. Rather than taking the smallest step toward fiscal prudence – simply not spending that money – the Liberals have instead chosen to roll those funds into future budgets, with the added temerity of touting that as proof of “effective government.” The Liberals are projecting what looks like a significant cut in real terms in the operating expenses of government, with such expenses dropping from $131.4-billion in the current fiscal year to $119.9-billion three years hence, in fiscal 2026. Prudence incarnate, yes? No, not if one flips through last year’s budget, when operating expenses for fiscal 2026 were projected at $113.8-billion – or in the budget before that, with forecasted operating expenses of $110.1-billion for that fiscal year. In reality, the government is larding on another $10-billion from what it foresaw just two years ago. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-the-trudeau-liberals-build-a-budget-on-a-cloud-and-collective-amnesia/

Perhaps. Perhaps they also don't feel someone should be executed for working on the sabbath or wearing a shirt with two different types of thread in it.

Well, I'm no expert on the history of the world, but protestants didn't exactly show a lot of kindness and gentleness to 'heretics' themselves in the Netherlands, nor in colonies the dutch took over. And the English protestants weren't all that kindly to their own Catholics, never mind those in Ireland, where Catholic clergy were banned on pain of death.

And those protestant churches quickly set about torturing and murdering people just as much as the Catholics had.

I know of no major Christian church that takes the bible literally, including the Roman Catholic Church.

Their one consistent story is "We're the reliable money managers". They can't be spewing out money from firehoses like the NPD and Liberals.

It demonstrates that a party that offers lots of free stuff is going to be more popular than a party that doesn't and that people suspect might take some of their free stuff away.

Well, partly muffed. And I didn't think much when I read it. You wrote 'I just started a process of hiring someone in October 2023" Using the past tense caused me to think you'd done this last year. However, if you're coming here to complain about that you've come to the wrong place. If I started a process now there is no way in hell I'd be hiring anyone in October. That is WAY too efficient for our government. If I'd just started a process now I'd hope to be hiring someone around this time next year. If it was a simple process.

The legislation needs to be removed and rewritten so that indigenous groups have far fewer excuses to use for legal action. And if necessary, put under the notwithstanding clause to keep the interfering busybodies in the courts from sticking their noses into it.