I am Groot

Okay. I just went to the NP site and these are the main front page stories. I see one story about the federal Liberals. And nothing that even remotely strikes me, or should strike any well-adjusted person as resembling Nazis. "It's upside down': Delta plane crashes at Toronto Pearson Airport and everyone survives. Trump waved a 1908 treaty as ammo in his disputes with Canada. Here's what you need to know. Dangerous landings at Canadian airports a longstanding concern for aviation Inside this once-a-lifetime legal overhaul of the veterinary profession Ontario election 2025: Here's how to cast your vote on or before Feb 27 "It's a crime to be a girl" The forgotten women of Afghanistan First reading: How to actually Trump-proof the Canadian economy Canada's doctors can't practice anywhere in the country due to interprovincial barriers. Flights resume at Pearson after crash Monday, investigators... Who won the second Ontario leaders' debate? Michael Maisonneuve: Only an election can save Canada from the old, tired Liberals Yuan Yi Zhu: MAID's decade of expansion shows how Canada's slippery slope was actually a cliff

I was responding to: From the Post which is so right wing we call it the Nazional Post! I would think my question entirely appropriate. Which was my point. And it's not even all that right-wing either.

Whatever it is it's not Nazism.

CBSA officers explain why they can't do their jobs. Because the Liberals basically have an open border attitude, and t he people they have appointed to the refugee boards are 'far left ideologues'. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/hunter-cbsa-officers-put-border-blame-on-trudeau-refugee-board

Who is 'we'? The hard left who have no judgment or wisdom?

He has said before in an interview, and he said it with absolutely zero sympathy and great determination, that companies that don't get on board with fighting climate change will be driven into bankruptcy by government taxes.

TO ACCOMPLISH NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE. Two trillion dollars to achieve an artificial reduction goal that will make no detectable difference in world co2 levels now or in the future. F*ck that.

The best option for what? For getting to an arbitrary reduction point that will make absolutely no difference? Have you seen the report by the Royal bank that says it will cost Canada $2,000,000,000,000 (two trillion) dollars to reach net zero over the next thirty years? What do you imagine that's going to do to our economy and standard of living? To accomplish... nothing of substance!?

I'll look when they stop building coal plants and their CO2 emissions stop rising.

That becomes a game of chicken fairly easily, with the Liberals talking tough and insulting Trump and Poilievre being portrayed as weak, refusing to 'stand up for' Canada, and too hesitant to criticize the great orange evil.

I give a damn. Tell me what you plan to do that will make a difference that won't bankrupt us. So far, no politician has come up with such a plan. I'm not willing to see us spending two trillion dollars just to virtue signal.

Our emissions will attract global attention from whom? 66% of emissions come from the developing world, where there are no carbon taxes. Another 11% come from the US where there are no carbon taxes. Of the two hundred members of the UN perhaps two dozen at most and probably not that many, are actively putting their money into reducing CO2 emissions, and none are likely to meet their targets. And even if they did it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Yes. It could hardly be worse. The existing one costs billions and accomplishes nothing whatsoever. All his new plan has to do is either cost less or accomplish... something. Anything. And it'll be better.

Right now 76% of carbon emissions come from countries with no emission reduction targets or plans. And Bjorn Lomborg has demonstrated fairly obviously with basic math that the costs we are incurring today in a desperate and futile quest to lower our emissions (in the West ONLY) are actually more than the cost of doing nothing will be 75 years from now. The only way to reduce emissions is to do so intelligently through improvements in technology, not these pointless carbon taxes that just make energy more expensive in the West while Asia and the rest of the developing world enthusiastically build coal plants to power the industries we drive offshore.

Things are bound to get better now that the Liberals have cut back on immigration, right? Not so fast there, you sweet summer child. It seems that while their words were laden with action their actions were mostly just words. The number of foreign workers has likewise remained the same. Despite a series of Trudeau government pledges to dramatically curb immigration, a new report finds that Canadian population growth has largely stuck to its previously sky-high levels. the interim four months, a new analysis by Desjardins finds that Canada is still accepting roughly the same amount of temporary foreign workers and permanent immigrants. As such, the report said that Canadian population growth is about the same as it was before the October cuts, and isn’t likely to change without “more aggressive reductions.” “We remain skeptical that the Government of Canada will be able to reach its (lower) target for admissions of newcomers,” it read. Desjardins added that the Trudeau government often seems to make promises that it fails to fulfill, and that immigration reduction is a prime candidate for this. Trudeau government missing targets on pledge to bring down immigration | National Post

The other day, some guy identified as a professor of International Relations suggested we refuse Trump's appointed ambassador - whoever that is, to teach him a lesson, I guess. This is an example of that perplexing situation, where allegedly smart, educated 'experts' give really, astoundingly dumb advice. I'm not a professor of international relations but I know damned well that if we were to refuse his ambassador he would take it personally, probably kick ours out, and then take revenge in some way that would not harm an international relations professor but certainly would be harmful to Canada. Mark Carney is another of those 'experts' giving astoundingly dumb advice. Liz Truss, his last government boss, if you will, said his policies had been a disaster in the UK, and little wonder. Carney is a guy who has been captured by a dream, by an ideology that has become almost a religion to some. And in religious matters, you have faith and pay little attention to logic. His suggestion that big emitters would not pass the cost down is baffling from an economist. Clearly, they would. And not just steel makers, either. Everyone from concrete makers to car makers to oil producers to every kind of factory in the country would pass those costs on down to us. Those who can't would flee Canada for places like China, Mexico, and even the US, where they face lower taxes and cheaper energy (often coal). And Carney's solution to that? Why, he'll put tariffs on any country that doesn't have a proper emissions reduction program. Got that? He'll start a tariff war with the US, Mexico, China, India, and much of the rest of the world while making our costs higher and, not incidentally, doing his best to destroy our oil and gas industries. This leads to the question: Does Mark Carney not actually understand economics? Or business? Is he so engaged in his pointless, futile effort at tilting at windmills, at fighting a hopeless, pointless fight that can't accomplish anything that he's willing to heavily damage this country just to put his chin up and show everyone what a noble, virtuous guy he is?

LOL. Why on Earth would you think they'd have a problem with this when they give out sentences on the basis of race? On the absurd theory that we have to take it easy on a criminal who isn't white because, well, they've endured the horror of the vicious, brutal racism of Canada their whole life. As have their ancestors going all the way back to their parents who immigrated here. Assuming they themselves aren't immigrants, of course. And many are. Carney is already taking up where Trudeau left off, purposefully dissing Trump and his policies in hopes of getting Trump to say nasty things about Canada again, and hopefully put more tariffs on us. That way he can be 'Captain Canada' standing up to the evil forces of 'conservatism' and defending Canada from the horrible 'conservatives' and reminding people they shouldn't be voting for more conservatives, especially ones who are just like Trump! https://x.com/MarkJCarney/status/1889451335218610603

Poilievre has had a lot to say about a lot of things that are unrelated to carbon taxes. Including cutting immigration, freeing up our natural resource sector, rebuilding the military, and reigning in crime. And the Liberals are not getting rid of the carbon tax. Carney's plan is to hide it by shifting it onto industries and business so that people merely pay it secondhand through higher prices - without the rebates. As for driving industry out of Canada or into bankruptcy, his plan it to start a tariff war with the US, China, Mexico, and India, among others. Not that I think Carney actually cares about Canadian companies being driven bankrupt. He's on record (and video) as saying with some degree of satisfaction that industries and businesses that don't get with the green program will be forced into bankruptcy. And while he's been doing his best to destroy the oil and gas industry in Canada his company has been actively investing in oil and gas in Nigeria.

Indians are absolutely racist. https://www.algoafm.co.za/algoa-fm-breakfast-with-wayne-lee-and-charlie-t/map-shows-world-s-most-racist-countries The rich don't 'earn' in the way the taxes they increased had any impact. The rich don't make their money from salaries.

And what are the odds that an Indian manager today would hire a white man if they could hire an Indian? Sure, in the context of inciting class warfare. Remember that one of his main promises was to take more money from 'the rich' and give it to the middle class. Of course, he didn't actually take money from the rich but from the upper middle class.

That is not what he said. He said "There is a fever gripping America. And while it rages, Canadians will continue to remain true to our values. While America engages in a war on woke, Canadians will continue to value inclusiveness. In other words, Canadian values involve 'inclusiveness'. And the problem with that word is that it is inextricably bound up in DEI and has become a statement in itself that means "We're going to go well out of our way to hire/promote/enroll/give grants and recognition to anyone other than straight white people. Screw merit. We make all decisions based on identity group membership." That is NOT a Canadian value. It is left LIBERAL value. It is an NDP value. It is also, btw, a sneer at Trump and his party. Is that really wise? If he intends being prime minister, is it a good idea to start by publicly sneering at a central part of their ideology? For what reason? Just to virtue signal?

In the context of the government, it means pretending every governmental institution is 'systemically racist', despite there being no evidence of this. It means tilting the playing field in favor of every group other than straight white males - tilting it more depending on how high on the hierarchy of victimhood various identity groups are, and allocating resources to them ahead of others, including hiring, promotions, awards and grants. As well as requiring all people and organizations bow to the same social justice view or face governmental punishment. It means giving preference in applications, be it for awards, grants, jobs, or university admission to people whose skin color is not white to somehow or other recognize this 'racism' even though the great majority of them were either not born in Canada, or are children of first-generation immigrants. This was and is a moronic policy in the US but at least they could claim they were trying to make it up to blacks for slavery, segregation, etc. There is no excuse here but the Left simply lifted the whole social justice framework from their progressive American counterparts and plunked it down here.

The Left made up the term to describe how noble and enlightened they were.