CdnFox

Waaaaaaah - i don't have time to change diapers. Everything you said has already been verified as being wrong. By several people. So there you go.

No you excused the war with dishonestly and lies. Even russia never claimed it was about nato. And nato wanted nothing to do with ukraine. The war started because putin wanted a war - and he wanted a war because he got crimea so easily that he thought he could bag ukraine with no interference as well. Simple truth. And you want to cheer him on and praise him for it. While suggesting that even tho it didn't work last time if we just give him what he wants it's BOUND to work this time!!!! Appeasing his type hasn't worked a single time in 3000 years of human history but this time for sure. Just as the blood of the dead in poland in ww2 and the subsequent dead of that conflict were on the hands of chamberlin and others like him, the blood of this conflict is 100 percent on putin and people like you who encourage him.

I shall forego the obvious joke that some days it's more 'antisocial media', but go on Well there's the problem. How far it could reach is a little unclear. The language certainly would allow for this board to be affected with the proper regulations passed. That was the big fight - putting in a clause that prevented controlling content created by private individuals not for profit. The board could well be forced to participate in that and censor us. Remember that a large part of this law was to stop the spread of 'misinformation'. And the biggest purveyors of misinformation in Canada right now is the liberal party. Remember when the convoy was funded mostly by americans and had been started by the Russians? There is very real chance that they may make certain subjects or viewpoints 'unlawful'. Remember during the us election when biden's notebook had been found and all the media platforms rallied and said "you're not allowed to talk about that or you'll be banned' trying to claim it was 'misinformation' which hadn't been 'verified'? (of course it had been). Imagine that on a larger scale. They could literally tell platforms that talk about 'chinese interference' is not allowed because it's racist disinformation. And anyone posting that must be banned immediately or they risk a fine. or to be shut down entirely. They keep saying they woudln't use it that way. But - they didn't take the clauses out that allow for it either.

And you've yet to explain how peace didn't stop a war that we now have. Let me guess - you were against fighting back over Crimea because if we just let the russians have it that'll be the end of it. Hope you can get enough soap to wash that blood off your hands.

Yes - but repeating a lie doesn't make it true no matter how many times you say it. Putin was the one pushing for war. You support putin. I'm pushing for this to be the last war. I didn't want it, i didn't start it, i don't support the people who did want it and did start it, and i want to make sure it doesn't happen again. There is no possible justification for your support of a person who started the war, killed innocent people. and attempted to overthrow a neighbor to expand his empire. And there is NO reconcilling that position with any kind of support for peace. It would seem that you prefer war - provided the russians start it and the allies let them win without much of a fight.

A very real possibility.

Well that's not really possible. The reason we have trust issues is because everyone promises but no one delivers. So what can you 'promise' that resolves that? "trust" could well be a platform plank in the election that follows his win, where he can say 'see what i said and that's what i did'. Harper earned a lot of trust that way - for better or worse. That's what people tended to say about him - "the man always does what he says he's going to, whether you want him to or not"

A local planning commission is not the same as working on an MP's campaign or serving on their policy boards or the like, or attending political conventions. And if you've been at it 40 years and aren't making any difference, youj're really not doing it right. It's not hard to make a difference even if it's not everything you want.

Well harper had it rough - not only a brand new leader but a brand new party and barely more than a year to get it all organized before he faced paul martin the first time. And he still held him to a minority So for sure PP's got it a little easier in that regard and he's picking up some steam. He has a solid chance of winning and a decent chance at a majority so fingers crossed.

In all sincerity, Voting is arguably the LEAST important step in the democratic process. And it's not where you want to be sending messages as a rule. Or at least not important ones. Voting is more like pressing the 'check out' button after you've filled your cart. If you want to make change, you can. It means meeting with and talking to your local rep, it means attending policy conventions. You can also work with like minded people to create a united front to lobby the party for whatever you feel is important. And this is true regardless of party. You pick the one that's closest to you and then tune it as best as possible. You should have the party you want with the priorities you want and that's how you get it. And i would support you doing that even if it's a party i disagree with. If you wait till voting time to make your voice heard you'll never get anything other than what other people picked for you. Like the saying goes - the world is run by those who show up, so show up.

Like what? I can think of policy you may or may not agree with but what 'bad things' did he do?

True. Also true. I can see why you feel that way - but to be honest this is not entirely uncommon and it puts the senate in a pickle for a few reasons, let me explain: Broadly speaking we have two things in law in Canada - Acts and Regulations. Acts are the actual laws. They are an Act of parliament Or an Act of the legislature or what have you but they are the law. They cannot be changed easily and require ANOTHER act of parliament to make changes. However - an Act can create 'Regulatons'. A Regulation must have an Act which authorizes it (called the enabling act) but once an Act enables the regulation, a regulation can be changed anytime without changing the ACT itself. Parliament will not vote on the regulation. This is because regulations frequently have to change. Fishing and hunting regulations - you wouldn't want an act of parliament every time you changed how many salmon someone could catch. It is very common for an Act to be approved without the regulations published or in place. So "how the act will be applied" comes later. This is an everyday thing, so how does the senate raise a fuss about that now'? They can't very well say "sure we passed the last 1000 bills like that but not this one". And the libs are exploiting that - putting some of the application into the regulations and saying 'well of course you don't get to see the regulation before you pass the act, we never do that". The senators are ONLY really allowed to look at what's in the ACT - not the regulations it will enable. Those can change at any time anyway in accordance with the act. I agree this is NOT transparent. I agree that this is a horrible bill and everyone should be against it. I agree that the liberal party has many terrible people in it that want to take your rights and this bill is an example. But that doesn't make it easy for the senators. They can't vote on what they can't see, and at the end of the day if there's an abuse of the bill it's up to the VOTERS to deal with it by crushing that party. This bill is so bad the senate may still shoot it down, but not for that specific reason.

You're not advocating for peace. That's been discussed a great deal and not just by me. You're advocating for further conflict. Those who are standing up to the violent bully putin are advocating for peace. Those who support putin are advocating for war - he started the war entirely. Not one person has advocated for nato entering the war here. Not one. Hell even outside of this discussion not even Zelanski has been suggesting nato should get involved. If you have to lie to make your point, then you probably don't have much of a point. That would be the guy who started the war. You praise him, call him a good leader for the russians, then claim to be anto-war. That's a direct contradiction. You don't fear nuclear war in the slightest. It's become obvious it's a cover for your pro-russian position. "OH We should support russia because then there will be no nuclear war". What a load of crap. Your problem is you speak the quiet part out loud too often without thinking. You praise putin, you suggest Canada should be their ally not the states. You suggest that Putin was justified in this war. You pretend he wasn't trying to capture all of ukraine etc. And THEN when you get called on that, you try to backtrack and cover it by claiming you JUST want PEACE!!! (For god's sake, think of the children!!!) THAT"S why you think all those things. Why it was ok for Putin to bomb and kill innocent kids and women and attack a neighbor who did nothing to them. Honestly. Those things are not reconcilable. It's clear you're not being honest. Peace is not your biggest concern. If it was you'd have an answer to the chamberlin effect issue.

I think we all would, and depending on the changes they may. However - as i noted it's always got to be in the back of their minds that while they DO have the authority to do what they believe is best for Canada, the liberals have an actual mandate from the people and they do not. And if the people don't like the bill they can always vote them out and vote in a gov't that will scrap it. SO i doubt they'll be adamant. However - they COULD send it back again with additional minor tweaks and stall it more. That does send a message to the libs and to the press, it's embarassing. At the end of the day, justin is considering proroguing parliament to get away from the questions about china so it's very possible the bill will die on the order table. Then the libs will be forced to reconsider it anyway. It boils down to how badly they want it.

Well of course it makes sense. But no matter WHAT model you choose, there are going to be serious pros and cons. It was done this way originally to remove the 'populism' from the upper house. If you elect senators then they have the requirement to 'look good' to the people to get reelected. As we've seen in the states that can lead to shenanigans. Being appointed for life with no term limit means you can freely stab whomever appointed you in the back if they do something bad. So that's good right? Unelected for life is best! Oh - but wait, that means they weren't chosen by the people and the lower house was. Soooo- we really need to defer to the lower house a bit as senators because only they can claim to have an actual mandate from the people. So we can't just block bills we don't like. We COULD do that if we were elected tho. So elected is better right? Or.... So that's pretty much how all of our politics goes. Every model is an exercise in compromise. If there was an obvious clear solution that was best everyone would be using it. Right now the senate we have is MODERATELY effective at doing something about really bad bills like this. They've held it up - Trudeau wants to prorogue the house and if he does that delay means the bill has to be introduced from scratch and may suffer the same fate if it's not altered. I think it would be better if senators were elected for longer terms rather than appointed for life but like i said that comes with issues too. Every system does lean on the people sooner or later to make good decisions.

Well they will eventually send back to the senate what they are willing to do. Some of the changes may be accepted some may not. If the senate wishes they COULD refuse to pass it without all of it's changes - but that pretty much never happens. The senate is seen as more of a 'recommendation' house than a 'second vote' house so to speak.' Although they were prepared to shoot the gov't down over the emergency act for example. IF the senate and house can't come to an agreement on a bill, then they COULD hold a conference on the matter but nobody really does that anymore. So usually what happens is the senate recommends changse, the gov't agrees to some of them. the senate says 'close enough' and lets it go through. They know they are not elected and the parliament is. They are the house of sober second thought, not a seperate governing body. They have the power to not let a bill through entirely unless they get the changes they want but that is almost unheard of. However - they can often delay things so that the bill dies on the order paper when parliament is shut down in between sessions. In that case the gov't has to decide if it wants to reintroduce it and fight the same fight or if it wants to look at amendments that might help it get through.

Sure you can. People often never meet their idols and yet still miss them. I miss Jim Henson, never knew him. Yet you advocate for putin religiously who is the definition of a bloated presumptious personality, and who is a purveyor of war. Which makes no common sense. I'm sorry but you can't erase the dozens of posts you have made in favor of russia like that. It is OBVIOUS that is NOT your position. Who cares? They insisted they weren't going to attack the ukraine until they actually did. The embassador for russia did an interview in Canada just a week or so before and absolutely insisted there was no invasion coming, that the troop movements were normal every day stuff, etc. So what we know is that if the russians are saying they won't invade, they probably intend to invade. There's no defense of your position. There really isn't. You're sticking up for a violent evil man and pretending his war is justified and that we would be better to side with him and be russias ally and the us's enemy instead of the way it is now. You justify the deaths of innocent children and women and CLAIM to be afraid of nuclear war while demanding a policy that would lead us much closer to that. That is what you have done. I know you get mad when that gets pointed out and start calling people names but it is the absolute truth. And you need to think about what kind of person that makes you.

What you said was childish. Trying to justify it or dress it up is no less so. There was no fear mongering about trans people during the convoy protests. Sorry. And the only one here spouting talking points is you. And even if we relegate your nonsense to the states it doesn't hold water. Like i said, it's just bigotry and hatred - as if the only reason to vote republican is because you hate trans people. You literally were the one who brought up slavery and that era as an example of the republicans current behavior. Well, i'm sure it's blown out of proportion just as the left blows it's talking points out of proportion but they're not entirely wrong. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/ there's no doubt that an increasing number of children are receiving hormone therapy and surgery. That should be a little concerning at least for people on all sides of the political spectrum and is worthy of conversation. Doing a few web searches and a little reading combined with my previous experiences suggests strongly that you're grossly overexaggerating. Sure - they do raise concerns that drag storytime is a grooming exercise. In fairness the way it ws portrayed gives that impression pretty clearly so it's not unreasonable even if the reality is not that way. And seriously - what' s the point of specifically having 'drag childrens story time' other than to expose children to that alternative lifestyle. so pretending it has nothing to do with that is silly. And of course they exaggerate and call it grooming and you exaggerate and pretend there's absolutely ZERO interest in getting kids comfortable with the idea of alternative lifestyles. Still not seeing a lot of daylight between the two sides. Hogwash. That's just plain nonsense. This is just tribalism. Anything you see as contrary to your echo chamber you're trying to dismiss entirely as invalid, which it is not. Meanwhile the tucker's of the world go the other way and try to dismiss any concerns you bring up. The majority of people aren't that childish or brainwashed. They can understand that trans people want to have a place in society AND understand there's concersn about youth getting life altering medical treatments that early. They can think drag is fine - while still questioning if its appropirate to expose children to complex sexual ideas at a young age. Maybe YOU choose to be a democrat out of hatred and anger (sure sounds like it) and maybe tucker calrson chooses to be a republican out of fear and anger (or so you say) but that's not the average person. Honestly - how are you ANY better than they are

Which evolution? Oh hell yes. "Look we just can't" has been a reality for many peoples over many years. That's why they get so excited when politicians say 'yes we can" to something they were told they can't have, but it always turns out to be followed by "well actually we couldn't". Thus politicians have learned instead of saying 'we just can't" they tend to say one of the following: "Sure we can!!! Later!!" " Well the challenge with that ... HEY LOOK AT THE SQUIRREL!! Awwww he's so cute, look at this little guy/...." "that's a great question. Just before i answer that though, I should mention i've decided to invade southeast Asia."

If you put a period in the middle of that senence, then both of the new ones would be correct (ziinnnggg!) It's the whole ukraine. Lets not lie. Russia didn't drive on the 'thin sliver' of ukraine, they drove for Kyiv. They wanted the whole country. People didn't think crimea was worth a war. So they gave it up to prevent war. Now we have a war. If we give up more to prevent war guess what happens next. And that one could easily be worse. Appeasement has NEVER stopped more wars. Ever. In the history of man. You're saying "it has always been this way for 3000 years but this time i'm sure it'll be different. " In order to see the future, you have to be willing to learn from the past. And you miss him? You want to bring him back and you feel putin is close enough? Is that why you're so pro-russian? Come to think of it they don't like gays or jews either. You may have a point there.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-prime-minister-could-clear-up-the-most-important-questions-about/ The Prime Minister could clear up the most important questions about China’s interference in our elections – simply by answering them The elaborate, multilayered process Justin Trudeau has put in place is meant to suggest the whole thing is some sort of bottomless well, shrouded in mystery – something that will take, oh, at least until after the next election to piece together. But the Prime Minister could clear up the most important questions raised by this affair – what did he know, what did his aides know, and what did Liberal Party officials know about China’s efforts to throw the last two elections their way; when did they know it; and what did they do about it – in a single day. All he has to do is start answering them.

Well probably - but it's early and my blood sugar is low I didn't really care who i quoted, it was that line that i wanted to point out was inaccurate. Well great minds etc etc Quite likely. It's not an accident that the misquote sped around so fast. I quoted the text. I didn't say you did it. Easy tiger ok - ok - we get it, nobody is blaming you. I happened to quote it from your post without thinking it would say it was from your post. No ill intent. Mea Culpa already I went back and put a disclaimer.

Well this has been debated many times of course. And there have been two attempts to open the constitution to address that. Meech lake and Charlottetown both tried to open the constitution for senate reform and both crashed badly, seriously damaging the gov'ts that proposed them. Remember the 'Triple E senate"? Elected, effective and equal? The senate does play SOME role. The senate was prepared to shoot down trudeau's emergency powers declaration.That's why he cancelled it. THe senate can slow down the legislative agenda by sending bills back to the house - there's only so many days to get legislation done in the house and if it gets wasted that means the gov't has to do fewer things than it wanted to. They can also criticize much like an opposition. In short - it's better to have them than not but not by all that much. The senate could be much much more effective.

So you would have given in to hitler in ww2 for example? You realize the 'new leadership' you're talking about them considering is putin right? Boy - you sure want to see ukraine fall to the russians. I don't think you get how much closer to ww3 that will bring us.

That is not what he said. His quote is taken brutally out of context. Essentially what he said is if ukraine falls then the us will wind up fighting a war in europe because russia won't stop there. So if you don't want your sons and daughters to fight a war, you better make sure we win. He didn't say that american should send soldiers to help ukraine right now.