I am Groot

That they have a more realistic view of history than us? Maybe because it was a stupid idea then, and still is. After years of this nonsense natives are not more reconciled to being Canadians but less. They're not less angry, but more angry. They're not readier now to stand on their own two feet but instead more eager to embrace and wallow in their martyred sense of victimhood - while demanding endless reparations from the rest of us. No, we're not. I notice you don't have anything else to answer to that. Because progressives DO ignore the misogyny in the Muslim world, or make excuses for it, both abroad and here in Canada. In fact, one of the things one notices about Canada (and the US) and the obsession our mass media has with racism is that it's a one way obsession. I.e., any story of a white person being racist gets nationwide coverage. Any story about racism or bigotry on the part of a minority - and there are MANY - gets completely ignored. The most racist, bigoted people in Canada are its minorities. But you'll never find progressives mentioning that. Likewise, you'll find the US media ignoring things like the repeated violent attacks on Asians by Blacks who are acting our of pure hatred. Same thing happens in Canada and our media ignore it too.

Of course you can. Evil countries like uh, Sweden do it all the time.

But we don't. If you want to integrate people into whatever sort of culture/values Canada is becoming they need to have a sense of common, shared identity in a nation they can be proud of. Trudeau and his ilk are doing everything they can to ensure that doesn't happen, and that no one anywhere has pride in Canada. What do you think children are taught in school today about Canada's past? Are they taught how people with axes and mules built a nation or are they treated to a litany of exaggerated sob stories about how cruel and unjust everyone prior to this generation was towards every imaginable minority.

What do you believe the typical applicant to the military is like? Do you think he/she is more likely to be on the left side of the political fence or the right? Someone who works with their hands, or someone who sits behind a computer? Blue collar or white collar? Visible minorities make up 28% of the population and almost all of them are immigrants who come from countries where soldiers are neither admired nor trusted- nor paid very well. They didn't come all the way here to be soldiers or to have their kids join the army or navy either. And the fact almost everyone knows the military is ignored, neglected and short-changed by the government, with castoff forty year old gear almost certainly plays a major roll in why people aren't joining up. And why people are leaving. A lot of young men joined the military to experience overseas missions which we no longer have because we can't afford them. This surprises you? Women have never had much interest in soldiering. Women have particular interests and men do too. This is why women rarely elect to take computer engineering or mathematics in school, opting for teaching, sociology and medicine instead. No, it really isn't. Nor has the military ever reflected our demographics. Nor is there any advantage I can see to it doing so. Donald Trump.

Nobody ever denied it. But now it's like the media, politicians, artists and academics are obsessed with the worst elements of our history and are doing their best to exaggerate it, grind our faces in it and ensure that neither we nor any immigrants arriving have the slightest pride in Canada and its history. This is all imported straight from the US, like an infection, including the cancelling of historical figures and the pulling down of statues.

Yeah, until you need them. Same for the cops. Of course, once you need them it's a little late to try and rebuild.

Nobody cares outside the influence of the American anglosphere. If you tried to suggest to Italians or Arabs or Frenchmen or the Chinese that they should look back on their history and ancient leaders with contempt because they mistreated people they'd probably laugh in your face. I disagree. Progressives do it constantly. Look at how outraged they get at any deviation from respect for the equality of women compared to how they almost entirely exempt the Muslim world from any judgement on its misogyny, or, for that matter, ignore the misogyny of Muslims organizations in Canada. Are you saying we should be better people because our religion is better than others?

I find there's an weird mix of self-loathing and arrogant superiority in the way so many Anglos seem to look at slavery. On the one hand they believe it's worse than original sin and use it, among other faults, to utterly condemn our ancestors as beyond the pale. No one else does this, though. Nor do those who condemn our ancestors ever show the same outrage, indignation and contempt for other peoples' ancestors for acting just as bad or worse. It's like they subconsciously think our white skin puts us on such a higher plateau, makes us so much better that, unlike the brown-skinned people, they really ought to have known better.

These are the words

It's an exaggeration, but he's not wrong in that the people most likely to care about such things, i.e., sensitive, progressive, liberal types, are the least likely to want anything to do with the military. The ones who would be interested are Hillary Clinton's deplorables: people with filthy mouths, who tell racist, sexist jokes, and think everyone else is a 'p*ssy'. Which presents a problem when you try to fumigate these military and paramilitary organizations of those sorts of politically incorrect sentiments and beliefs. What are you going to have left? And are they going to be capable of charging into gunfire? Those are also the people most likely to join the police, btw. And yes, I realize I'm using a kind of cliché, here. But I doubt many of those wandering into recruiting centres are impressed with identity politics and political correctness.

Again, there was slavery throughout the Americas before the white men showed up. The reason Europeans took slaves of Africans, generally, is that they found themselves in control of vast tracts of land in the southern hemisphere without the ability to work the land because of tropical diseases, esp Malaria, they could not survive. That is why Africans were purchased from their black owners and brought to Haiti, the Bahamas, Brazil and the southern US.

All perfectly legal (since the Liberals refuse to introduce any legislation banning interference in Canadian elections). Nothing to see here. Move on. Move on. https://nationalpost.com/news/china-friendly-candidates-canadian-elections

It might have had little effect compared to the Russian war and China eating its own tail over covid, but it will damn sure have a growing effect on the future of Canada if we continue to borrow tens of billions of dollars every year under interest rates which are multiple times greater than they were when Trudeau was elected. Just servicing the debt will grow enormously as we not only borrow more but have to refinance past debt which was borrowed at rock bottom interest rates under what we have to pay now.

Like everywhere else on Earth Africans routinely took slaves long, long before the coming of either Arabic or European slavers. And even at the heigh of the Atlantic slave trade the majority of African slaves were in - Africa.

Your statement has nothing to do with mine.

Your statement has nothing to do with mine.

What harm? Do please tell me. If we look at the economic and social status of the Black family in 1960 we find that they have been racing upwards towards economic equality with the great majority of Black children born and raised in two-parent families. Ten years later their economic progress had basically halted and the Black family was in tatters. Yet the 1960s were the years of civil rights improvement and expansion, increased welfare spending, an end to segregation, affirmative action programs across America, busing programs to send Black kids to better schools. All of that from the generous and caring hands of the government. And the result? More impoverishment, more crime, more social breakdown. It wasn't slavery or segregation which have kept Black people back but big government taking them into its embrace and taking control of their destiny while telling them nothing was their fault. The American government has instilled in many the view it is up to society, up to the government to improve Black people's lot in life, and led them into the role of dependent children with no responsibility to improve their lives.

Every place on Earth has racism and social inequality today. And for most of the world it's far worse than in North America or Europe. Do you blame all of it on the trans-Atlantic slave trade?

No, the Portuguese did.

This whole topic is a sad indictment on the poor education of people in the Western world, especially as regards history. It's also a sorry example of how the progressive narrative in media has turned people's minds to pudding on subjects where only one side of the story is ever told. Slavery is an institution which was endemic throughout the world going back as far as written languages document. Peoples all over the world took slaves, mostly of the weak or defenseless, the conquered, the unorganized. Africans took other Africans slaves for thousands of years before the coming of Europeans. So did Asians, people on the Indian subcontinent, Polynesians, North and South Americans - again before the coming of Europeans. Nowhere is free from it. But somehow, poor education and progressive zealotry has convinced a lot of people that slavery is mostly about African slaves being taken to the United States, that it was mostly White people taking slaves of Africans. Well, that's the power of television and culture, I suppose. The truth is Europe was too poor and disorganized and backward to take slaves from anywhere but Europe for most of its history. In fact, for much of history Europeans were more likely to be grabbed by seafaring slavers and taken to the Barbary Coast for sale in the middle east than they were to take any other peoples slaves. In the darker days of the seventeenth century English fishermen were afraid to put to sea for fear of either being captured by slavers, or of being away when slavers attacked their village. It wasn't until late in the 17th century that Europe saw off the final attempt by Muslim warlords to conquer Europe. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade lasted about 400 years, which is an eyeblink in the life of the world. The only thing which made it unique was that slaves were transported so far. And, more importantly, it was the first time in history any slave-taking peoples decided it was wrong and - stopped. No one else ever had. Europeans ended slavery for themselves, then forced every other nation to give it up, as well. The Americans, of course, had a bloody war over it. The Anglosphere, probably due to Hollywood, seems to be just about the only people on Earth are still banging their heads and wringing their hands about their distant past history. Every other nation honors their ancient ancestors, taking pride in them being powerful and defeating/conquering other nations. The descendents of the Azteks or Incans aren't ashamed of them, nor are the Haida on the west coast who were such big slave takers. The Egyptians are proud of their ancient pharaohs and their conquests. Just as the Italians are proud of ancient Rome and the Chinese are proud of their ancient emperors. Why we allow ourselves to feel guilty over harm we never caused and try to make amends to people who never suffered from that harm is beyond me

With the new changes to the upcoming firearms legislation to greatly expand the definition of 'assault like weapons' to include all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which carry more than five bullets It becomes obvious the Liberals are intent on doing whatever is necessary to distract people from their incompetence. We know, and let's face it, they know such a broad measure will do nothing useful to combat firearms crime. All police chiefs have basically said as much, including York region just yesterday. York police say all seizures of guns used in violent crime whose origins were traced came from the US. They know just how much anger it will create among hunters and rural people - more divisiveness - but don't care. Those people don't matter in their calculation since most of them won't vote Liberal anyway. This will look good to urban liberals, though, most of whom know nothing about firearms other than they don't like them. So the Liberals will be able to show how they're 'doing something', or at least, pretend to be doing something. If they have to buy this many guns back the cost will be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. But hey, it's just monopoly taxpayers money. They can always borrow more. They can't afford to run the next election on their record, that's for sure. So they'll run another scaremongering campaign on guns, abortion, gays, vaccines and 'nazis'. Probably with some cryptocurrency jeering and climate change hysteria thrown in. They'll do anything they can to keep the message away from the economy, the debt, or uncomfortable subjects like national security. The problem for the Conservatives is unless they have a BIG MESSAGE that catches attention the Liberal plan will work. Especially since Poilievre is now so tightly identified with the truckers. The media is pretty progressive on social policy issues and hot-button issues which get people riled up are excellent clickbait. So they'll cooperate fully. If the Conservatives are to have any chance they need to have a platform that promises big things. I don't know what - a complete revamping of healthcare, a flat tax, an easily understandable new program for economic expansion. Something. Or they'll lose again.

Yes, moderates on both sides are fed up with the election deniers. It was that which allowed the Democrats to hang onto the Senate. But given there is so much BAD about Republican policy, such as it is, so little to attract people, it ought to also alarm Democrats and liberals that so many minorities are now shifting uneasily in place and glowering at the Democrats they see as making cities a mess with crime and homelessness and out of control drug addicts Democratic prosecutors refuse to lock up. Schools in urban centers consume vast quantities of taxes but churn out poorly educated students while fixating on racial and identity politics and a bizarre fixation on transgender and other sexual choices. People fear for their kids futures and are getting angrier. I would wager that if the Republicans hadn't put forth so many election deniers as to scare people into thinking they were going to end democracy they'd have won in a landslide. But election denial is not social conservatism so much as brainless stupidity. No. He won because people were fed up with the Liberals. And then he turned out to be competent, and the Liberal and NDP scaremongering turned out to be so much nonsense. Canadians are rarely in a hurry to evict a party once they're in power unless they really get pissed off. I'm not generally in favor of muzzling public representatives. There was a time when there were anti-abortion MPs and candidates in the Liberal party too, until Trudeau abruptly threw them all out because they didn't agree with his views. The Conservative party is better than that. But what he should have done was allow one of his people to put out a private members bill to ban abortion. Let it run right through, and allow a free vote so that it could be put to rest by a wide margin - which it would have been. Unfortunately, people got tired of fiscal conservatism. They wanted a free-spending government. They thought they could borrow money forever and inflation would never return, and with it high interest rates. They enjoyed getting paid off by their government to do nothing. It's all about instant gratification now and to hell with what might happen ten years down the road. So what? Any Conservative majority - and it would have to be a majority because otherwise the NDP would prop up the Liberals - would need dozens of new MPs from central and eastern Canada. That would make it impossible for any kind of social conservative agenda to get passed. What do you care if some of the MPs from out west are against abortion? They'd never get anything passed anyway.

Why are you talking about Americans in a topic about China infiltrating the Canadian government? And isn't Flynn an all-out Qanon nutter?