CdnFox

Nope. A lot of experts agreed with Harper. It seemed an excellent compromise solution given the previous failures. It made a lot of sense - allow the provinces to present a short list and the pm is still choosing. THe consensus at the time was that should be acceptable, it's still the PM making the choice and a future pm could always undo it so they weren't bound to it But lets take a step back. YOU claimed he didn't do a single thing to even try. Now suddenly you've magically become an expert on the fact he did try and tried very hard. Sooooo - you either lied then or you're just making shit up now. Ether way, your credibility is taking a serious beating here. Which is why i mentioned it was on top of his other efforts, and it IS a necessary part of decentralization. So nobody suggested that transfer increases were the same thing. So now you can't even be honest about what I said. Well well. Here's a hint in life kid - if you have to lie to make your point, it's probably not a very good point. It was actually. Maybe you meant to say something different. Well as we've seen your 'bad' harper things didn't exist. So it's not even an issue. But at the end of the day gov'ts will screw up one way or another. Scope and scale DOES matter. ANd clearly there's a long history that says if conservative voters don't think the gov't is being above board or is corrupt they destroy them. Liberal voters don't have that track record.

Apparently

The feds put antifa on a terrorist watch list They are the biggest threat. sorry if the truth is inconvenient. They 've hurt a lot of people, they've damaged a LOT of property and whether you are one of the 'violent' ones or not if you stand with an organization that allows that from it's members you're an accomplice and no different. I seriously question your ability to ask a serious question - but i'll answer as honestly as i can. In self defense i do as a general concept, with lots of caveats. I think what SOME people consider to be 'self defense' might stretch the term. I'm not a million percent sure what you mean by 'sit in'. I think if you're deliberately impeding someone else's lawful protest, you're on the wrong side of history and morality. I don't really like protests. I think they're kind of a waste and i think that they should be curtailed legally to prevent them interfering with people's rights. But i do recognzie that lawful protest is a thing and must be tolerated. In that respect i see no difference beteween a gov't stealing that right from someone or a bigoted and frequently violent group doing it. IT's wrong Awww that's sweet of you They seem to think of it more and more as excessive awareness if you will. And i think we'll see tolerance for it slide further. In america the left are the facists. And what you failed to note from that poll si that only 32 percent of people in the US think being called woke is a compliment. Most consider it an insult. Even with the more positive definition So it would appear you're not correct there. Although i'm fairly confidient without evidence at hand that you're right that the term 'woke' gets applied to anything the right leaning people don't like about leftist policy or actions without really thinking about the term.

No, there is no tos for that. It was an arbitrary decision. We've tried to explain Canadian 'private' schools to you previously in the thread i believe. But he didn't break in as you suggested. Ok - enough. Show me this 'TOS" he broke. Show me which section he violated. Just more of your lies. This was an arbitrary decision. And if he did nothing wrong then this STILL is 100 percent on them. So now we'll find out well i doubt they'll get shut down for their discrimination. I think again you don't really grasp how 'private' schools work here. Of course denying a platform is every bit as facist as arresting them for it. They both have exactly the same intent - to repress the person's right to speech and to prevent that speech from being heard. Unless you have lawful excuse (such as they are being found to be doing actual criminal hate speech by a lawful authority),then it's the same thing The REASON that people on the left try to make a distinction is because they want to do the former to others, but don't want the latter done to them. But yes, if you just attempt to deplatform someone because you don't like what they say - that is absolutely facist. If you do it using force or the threat of it it's even more so, What they really mean is that leftists are using facist methods to attack and repress those they don't agree with . Which is true. Oh you mean like throwing a kid in jail because he didn't say the right thing in school? Gotcha And you were sooooo happy they did that. They do . Soooo most americans have it right And got burned hard for it and saw profits crash. Now they've fired the woke and are rebranding to try to save it. You'd think - they have more of a budget. But nope. 2018 and 19's they took it 2020's was sony pictures 2021 was sony 2022 was paramount So - less than half. Did you want to send me your address and we'll meet there or just mail me the keys? Disney's profits have been sliding and as we know their movies are only a fraction of what they make these days. Their profits have been stagnant or dropping for a while. middle of last year they got rid of the woke. profts are now rising again like fire Did anyone anywhere suggest that? Guys love women super heros. More tights and action poses please It was the horrible diversity hires, the treatment of staff who dared say anything non woke, the treatment of the fans who complained about it. etc. Sorry kiddo - get woke go broke is becoming a weil known fact. Because at the end of the day it's just not good for business and in disney's case, it was no replacement for good story telling. You lose.

Turned out the left was even worse OVER stating the problem than the right was understating it. ANd more on the left SAY they do but their actions say otherwise. I mean seriously - do you have any idea how big al gore's carbon foot print is? Do you think it would be if he really believed what was in his movie? Still the democrats i'm afraid. And really bad books too - Can't have dr seuss on the shelves now can we No, that's just an image teh left likes to portray. I love how you think there's no religious democrats The nutball who just went after pelosi's husband is a left winger for example. Compared to the liars ad the 1619 project who are desperately trying to rewrite history despite massive evidence they're wrong? Or the groups that say every american icon statue INCLUDING LINCON should be torn down? Yeah - no problems on the left Much of which turned out to be true. Remember when it was ultra racists to suggest Covid came from wuhan labs?Only now that's where they think it came from? remember Hunter's notebook and the media? Remember when conservatives said that social media companies were targeting them and were told that's a conspiracy - till suddenly they had to admit it? Remember when cnn edited the trayvon martin tapes to make it sound like the guy made racist comments when he didn't and they got in crap for it? And then there's the left wing comments about right wing media. Remember when the convoy was all funded by republicans from the us? LOL That would still be the left. Jordan peterson can't be allowed on campus he's a nazi!!! (He coudn't be further from being a nazi). Etc etc. No, the left is worse at most of those things. But - they play a better game of it in the media. The left these days is all about 'muh feels' and facts and science can be damned unless they happen to support the feels Conservatives question, they allow questions, they look at data, they follow the science for the most part. Not always and not all conservatives. But it certainly leans that way.

Well as we will see that isn't true. So - harper actually went to court to win the right to do that - the supreme court shot him down and he got into a huge pissing match with them saying it should absolutely be lawful but they ruled it wasn't and he couldn't, so he didn't fill seats for ages even tho he could have loaded up the senate with conservatives. You don't know your history very well do you. He made a major effort spanning years. once again the opposite is true. You REALLY don't know your history. Not only that he increased provincial transfer funds (despite a recession) to help provinces do what they already were responsible for. No, they had to add back a lot of that infrastructure first. Trudeau has been on a massive federal employee hiring spree for ages and has radically expanded the size of gov't. That is why. Buddy - you came here with outright fabrications that 2 seconds of googling could have told you were BRUTALLY wrong and you think WE should have more humility? Not only did harper deliver on those promises or make every effort to do so, he did it in a minority with no ndp backing him up. Further, if it was true in some alternate universe are you SERIOUSLY proposing that not changing the senate is on par with what trudeau has done and somehow is so bad justin is BETTER? Tamporing with the justice system? The new censorship law? The attack on gun owners rights? LETTING CHINA BUY AN ELECTION??? Those things aren't as bad as harper not delivering reform in the senate? Are you OUT of your MIND? Nice attempt at trolling i guess but jeez - at least make an effort next time

Fine, you're projecting if you prefer to call it that It's not lying at all. Sorry. You would be the one lying. As has already been noted it's not only tehcnically true, but it's also practically accurate. Lets get real, the problem here isn't that its' false, its that you don't like that it's not false. In a headline? They didn't purposefully leave out anything - it's a headline with limited space. Hell they even had to cut the 'and' between man and woman. And while he wasn't charged with 'having an opinion' he was arrested directly as a result of his opinion. If you take the opinion away, he would never have been arrested. This has all been explained to you and is absolutely the truth. And it's not stupid to point out that men and women are different. Sorry. Do you have ANY stats to back that up? No? Thought not. What a childish thing to suggest. They did it because they WANT people to read the article. That's how they make money - there will be ADVERTISING around the article. Duh. So the point of it is to catch the readers interest and get them wondering HOW this could be. So they open up the story and read. And the second sentance explains the circumstances of his arrest. It's not like they bury it. Your hatred colours how you look at everything.

see? Confused again. Didn't break in. He showed up to attend class and they were waiting for him. And if it weren't for his opinion doing that would have been perfectly fine. School was open, classes were starting, that's where he's supposed to be. But - he voiced his opinion. And they took action against him as a result. Agreed, this is not in america. Oh wait - did you think canada was in america? Actually the facists are all on the left now. "antifa" is just a cover name to hide the facism of that group I guess that's why only 18 percent americans support antifa. So maybe you're right, they just don't like facists https://www.newswars.com/rasmussen-poll-just-18-of-americans-support-antifa/ But - the fact is the evidence suggests woke was MORE acceptable as a term in the states not long ago. So... still seems like it's starting to slip. People are getting sick of the 'woke' agenda. Look at what happened at disney with star wars. You keep that hatred and bigotry going now, y'hear?

Of course it's true. Sadly these days more than ever. you could make an argument that there are some sciences which align left more but not many. Sadly the left loves to preach the idea of 'evidence based' thinking but doesn't actually practice it,

No, it doesn't. Nato can't decide to order canadian forces to attack bulgaria. Or do anything else for that matter. If there is a nato specific mission then a chain of command is agreed upon for that purpose, but we can decide we don't agree to that or to being a part of nato if we wish. At the end of the day agreeing to work together is not the same as "they have full control of our forces". Wagner would have been a better example of a non state military.

It doesn't say. Only a stupid person would make the assumption all the facts were in the headline. It implies that his opinion later resulted in his arrest and that's actually accurate, there is a connection there. Correct. They never say he was arrested or charged for having that opinion. it doesn't say 'Charged with opinon". LOL - this from a guy who couldn't get past the headline without making incorrect assumptions Which would make the news story incorrect... how? It was the second sentence in the whole article. It probably just felt like 5 pages for you because you have to sound each word out.

LOL - you're so transparent when you realize you're losing a debate that it's a wonder we can still see you Lets unpack a little here... Harper spun the truth and put a good face on things like every politician but real lies and deceit? Not really. I notice you didn' provide any examples of these terrible 'lies and decept" you obviously think he did But hey - you explain to me when he lied in a similar way as trudeau has about not being briefed on china. Or when he deceived the voters about something the way trudeau has been. And don't just waste our time posting some news article about things he did you didn't like.

Awww muffin Tell me you know you're losing a discussion without telling me LOL Of course the statement implies that the reason he wound up getting arrested is because of his correct statement that men and women are different. And that is demonstrably true, that is how he wound up being arrested, there is a direct connection there. But it does NOT say he was arrested FOR that or charged FOR that. It implies a connection, and there is one. I'm sure even you wouldn't be stupid enough to claim the events aren't connected at all. So it's entirely true. Sorry sparkie - there's dozens of medical texts that refer to men and sex. In fact men's sexual issues are a pretty common topic. In fact - dictionary definition time: MAN plural men ˈmen in compounds ˌmen, or mən : an individual human especially : an adult male human OHHHH NOOOOOOEESS - The DICTIONARY is transphobic and thinks that men are male!!!!!!!! Men and women refer to adult male and female people. It's still about sex kiddo Let me know when you get tired of being wrong.

Sure. Ultimately that is the case. Although part of the problem is that education facilities and most gov'ts tend to promote and foster the idea. It's really not how it works. It's more about perceived value and priority. Beer is considered to be valuable. But there is no sense of getting something important back from spending on the military. If the gov't is going to cut money the public will notice it less if they cut from the military. Not really. If you read most of the stories in the last decade, if they discuss our guys in the field it's all about the 'training' we're doing for other countries, not about our actual fighting. And there's not much in there about gear. We get some stuff like the new fighters but that's always downplayed as "oh the current ones are fine, we should take our time and really ake sure we've got the right choices", which we saw for the replacement of the sea kings and the f-18's. Then we hear about the gear just as new gear is being purchased. The northern rangers get new rifles and we hear all about how their old ones barely fired any more - but so what, they're getting new ones so problem solved. It was the same with the pistols. Every now and then someone notes that some of teh gear is 'older than the young men using it'. but they never say there's a real problem or anything. So everyone kinda knows in a general sense that our gear isn't top of the line, but they don't really think there's a problem. Seems like everything's ok regardless. It's not so much an 'active choice' as just not realizing how serious the problem is. BUt - pretty much yeah.

But they don't. In fact they've been known on more than one occasion to completely destroy their party rather than continue to vote for corrupt versions of it. Federally there's the old PC party - When they became corrupt the voters reduced them to 4 seats and started a new party that eventualy absorbed them. It's the same provincially too - the socreds were wiped out when it was percieved they were corrupt in bc for example. And least we forget - provincially the ndp voters have been willing to do the same to their party when corruption shows it's head. No - it's just the liberal party in Canada that keeps voting again and again for corruption in gov't. They are unique in that respect.

the current version of the left has amazing powers of self deception and is focused on 'muh feels' rather than facts. So for them there is no corruption. The china thing is sticking a bit but honestly - they can simply say 'it's just a right wing talking point" and then say "look! PP will sell us to the russians FOR SURE and also ban all human rights so no matter what we can't vote for him". It is very unfortunate. Their leader can do no wrong essentially because it can be dismissed if you don't care about facts.

It might be where the story stopped but not where the sentiment and public perception did. You get kids today yelling how we're peacekeepers who weren't even out of diapers when the last mission happened, and ignoring that we've had a number of combat missions since, I can see how it would look that way but no, it really is patriotism the way many on the left see it. The politicians just pander to what the public buys into. Understanding that is an important step to helping combat it, but it is fairly well ingrained. We have this weird dichotomy tho - when soldiers do die OR if they can't do a mission due to lack of gear then there's much hubbub about how we should be equipping them right - and suddenly that's a part of our identity, but it fades quickly and we're back to being peacekeepers. Most canadians have no idea that there is. Or that there's a problem with the gear. Other than a general sense of "oh i think i heard some of our gear is old'. the army can't talk about it, the media won't report on it, the politicans don't worry about it and the public is oblivious to it. Until things change with how the public sees the military it's going to be a problem.

Yes, one leads to the other. If he had not voiced his opinion then there was no trespass violation, his presence on that day would have been perfectly acceptable. It is quite reasonable and accurate to say that his stating his opinion lead to his arrest. Just not that he was arrested for his opinion.

Sadly in our media driven world that leads to the media giving the public the impression that they're all just racists - which is basically what happened to scheer. Remember they'd been asking that question for days, it wasn't going away. It died after that answer tho It's the game. And it's critical to be able to play it well especially during elections. Scheer got hammered when he didnt' have an answer ready for the abortion question which everyone knew would be coming. o'toole got murdered looking wishy washy over the gun question. They're already trying to paint PP as a convoy enthusiast and racist, you have to have an answer for that or you get creamed. So fortunately he had a pretty good response.

every good writer knows you have to write to the level of your audience The post was for you after all Whenever i use reason and common sense you seem to get confused. I 'm just trying to make it digestible for you The counter point is that the school has much of its TOS set by the mandate it operates under. It's not a private independent facility with no ties to the gov't. It has certain duties it takes on board. If the school overstepped then it's the school that must be changed. Actually it does funny enough. People are getting sick of the 'woke' and it's starting to have an impact But that's not relevant. What we do in this case as i noted is change the school.

Well they do influence people. So it is kind of important to call them on their bullcrap. But it looks bad to the public to just do that, so he does it in a round about way like this and its considered funny and clever instead of just hostile. It's effective.

It is clear - i think i posted it as well when we discussed it but here's the link to the whole article so that you can see it. I had assumed when you said you couldn't read the 'article' that you could see the headline tho, and that the article was blocked due to adblocker software or the like. Next time you can just ask https://www.foxnews.com/media/canadian-catholic-student-arrested-charged-saying-men-women-different-embarrassing Canadian Catholic student arrested, charged after saying men, women are different: 'Embarrassing' So leaving out the 'embarrassing' part which is subjective, it is true that the student was in fact arrested and charged after expressing that men and women are different. He made those statements and at a later time after he was arrested. Now - as i'm sure you'll recall i said that headline was a little misleading even tho it is true. A person might read it as he was arrested immediately after saying that for saying that. Like, he said it and they slapped on cuffs. Which isn't accurate. But headlines are meant to convey the story in a very very compressed space and there is no doubt that his statements and the schools response lead directly to his arrest later. So the headline is not a lie. It's just not the whole story, But as you can see they certainly tell the whole story. So even if someone was confused by the headline the story itself contains all the facts. So there's no lie. Emotionally charged language in the article to create a sense of outrage? Sure -that's media today. But i think you'll have a tough time pointing to anything that's factually untrue.

The headline from fox was not actually a lie. which makes your statement a lie. Why do you feel the need to lie to justify your position? If your position can't stand on it's own without lies then maybe you need to reconsider your position.

It's a publicly funded school performing a publicly mandated service. It's not just someone's restaurant. They do have duties beyond that. School is a place for such discussions, and for daring to have one the kid's educational future was put in jeopardy. That is utterly unacceptable. It is the job of the teachers and the school to guide them through a learning process, not to ban-hammer them because they don't like what they say.

I don't think pp gives a damn about the blacface. And most conservatives didn't - even during the election scheer basically said several times he didn't think it was a big deal but what pissed him off is that trudeau lied about it and then lied about how many times and his apology is pretty hollow. However - the thing is that the liberals and their supports do think blackface is a big deal and have MANY times demanded that conservatives step down for doing what THEY consider to be LESS of an offense. So what he is saying is if the media is going to give the conservatives a tough time on racism just for meeting with someone the left doesn't like, how do they justify giving Justin a free ride on what he did?