CdnFox

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.

Actually, worth noting - he did that once, and he won his first majority gov't after that. It's certainly not why he lost the next election. Also - virtually all prime ministers prorogue parliament regularly. The thing that pisses me off is that when harper did it the media made it sound like it was the biggest deal in the world, and if justin does it i bet we hear about how common it is.

Jesse Kline: Justin Trudeau rejects Canadian patriotism There is only proper — indeed, only one patriotic — response to reliable reports of foreign election interference, but Trudeau did the opposite https://nationalpost.com/opinion/justin-trudeau-rejects-canadian-patriotism

It's possible in theory but not in practice. Opening up the charter could solve the problem and that's the old 7 /50 requirement, but in the real world opening up the constitution is almost impossible to pull off. So the only change we're able to make is to elect better gov'ts and have them stay out of provincial business, and accept the fact every now and again you'll get a dicator like trudeau

And you're offering that as a genuine distinction? Especially when you're saying it explains why they are conservative? So they find other people scary and vote conservative'. That's what you're saying. That's pretty much the same thing. And what conservative propaganda are you referring to? This is canada - give examples of propaganda the conservative party has put out suggesting we should be afraid of 'different' people. As an outsider looking in let me assure you there's no apparent difference between either party in the states in that respect. They both talk culture war stuff non stop. I'm sure dems think the republicans are worse and the republicans think the dems are worse but they're both pretty darn bad. It was the left and the democrats who were against freeing the slaves, if we feel like going back that far. Lincoln was a republican. The KKK was the militant arm of the dems back in those days. As to these days i don't think it's 'fear of the other' that the republicans go on about when looking at gender affirming care such as surgeries. As near as can be told looking at american media they seem mostly honked about the use of language and or having to actually pay for such medical processes through orgs like the army and such. I'm sorry but your point of view was largely driven by your clear preference for the left wing of the us parties. It was a very biased and inaccurate statement, at the very least for Canada. The people in most of the rural areas in Canada are pretty good people and they don't vote conservative out of fear of anyone. They tend to vote that way because they believe in minimal gov't, lower taxes and don't care about social programs they're never going to see or benefit from anywhere in their communities. And even then there's parts that don't - look at rural newfoundland (which is all of it). or sometimes rural manitoba, etc. Rural bc often goes NDP. But if there's a tendency to go cpc then they do so for reasons OTHER than fears about other people.

This specifically mentions excluding covid related spending. This is the largest in history and our economy got so 'stimulated' that we now have runaway inflation. It is climbing out of control and if you're comparing us to countries like greece that's not the bar you want set. Our debt to gdp USED to be low. Not anymore. That's true, it has to be done wisely. But they're not cutting - they're INCREASING spending. Guess what's going to happen when someone DOES finally start to cut? It's going to need to be more drastic. Unfortunately trudeau doesn't think about monetary policy.

Sure. But these are the same people who think if you spend less than an hour in your doctor's waiting room they're being too kind.

LOL - well i was too nice to say it but true.

There are many things associated with religious belief that may affect your stay. Are you kosher? Halal? is there any religious practices you may be participating in that will require them to be prepared for it such as mass? Do you believe in bood transfusions? These days i think they find more diplomatic ways to get to the same answers, but they are kind of relevant. GIving blood to someone who believes that's a sin would be a big deal.

He ran and hid like a biatch in his bunker. More like shut-in NEET.

do you think that is what this is? Exploiting your position over children and exposing them to sexual degradation of women is 'mocking' to you?

that would have involved coming out of hiding Probably too much to wish for.

Ahh. Well - i was actually just agreeing with those parts i mentioned. I didn't really read what you said. His commentary on the person's actions caught my eye and that's what i was supporting.

No, that's just a very bigoted and prejudiced reply. It really is just a variant on 'rural people are backwards'. There's several problems with it - lets go through them. 1 - rural people hate/fear those who are different. In fact rural people are far more welcoming of strangers than the urban folk these days, at least in Canada. THere's a long long tradition that supports this acceptance. There's also a real attitude of 'if it's not affecting me, i don't really care'. Your premise also supposes that there's no chance to meet "different" people. I really hate to break it to you but there's a solid representation of different religions and sexualities in the prairies. Your idea that there isn't is just weird. They may not hold as many big parades but then neither do the "normal" people. 2 - and this is the biggie - Conservatives are all about hating other people. THat's why they vote for them. This is just you being a bigot straight out. The Conservative party didn't attack gays or muslims or anyone else while they were in power and no proposals to do so are on the table. THey may not support laws that are all about virtue signalling to various groups but they're pretty much against virtue signalling as a waste of time in general. So you imagine all these people sitting in their rural homes petrified and furious at muslims or something and so they'll vot cpc because the cpc will.... do what? They're not going to do anything against the muslims. If anything they're more likely than the libs to stand up for religious freedoms. So the premise is flawed in the first place - even if rural folk all lived in fear and anger over different people as you surmise (which is REALLY weird) then voting cpc wouldn't help them. Sorry - but could we get you to reign that bigotry in a little bit?

That would change nothing. It would be MORE of a kindergarten style pathetic specticle . we've had enough minority gov'ts so far to see that. And it would do nothing to stop gov't overreach. In fact it would make it harder to at least hold your local guy to account. PR diffuses responsibility, it doesn't consolidate it. Short version - if voters won't make good decisions under the current system, they won't under PR and the problems persist. Sure, but there are other reasons. The goal of a politician is to be in power. Nobody who doesn't hunger for that gets very far. You might make it to mp but you'll never get past that unless you really really want the power. So the libs don't want proportional becuase they'll have to suckhole to the ndp constantly to stay in power. The cpc doesn't want it because they'll rarely get in power. All the fringe parties and the ndp do want it because they know theyll never get in power but if the house sees more minorities then they can own the balance of power which is just as good (right jagmeet?) But that just makes for a disaster. PR solves nothing and brings on a number of new problems. All while pretending to be 'true democracy', which it isn't. And if it was we wouldn't want it - true democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

I prefer to think that moses played charleton heston in the exodus. (i'm funning ya a bit if you didn't get that )

He claimed the person's behavior was immoral, showed no respect for others and no honour. I'll set aside the 'honour' part, that's really a very personal thing and not really entirely relevant enough to deserve detailed discussion. BUt - immoral is a very relevant and demonstrable case. Assuming we're using what are fairly well established moral values for our society, it is a generally accepted norm it is immoral to expose underage children (not yet old enough to have sex) to sexualized conduct or activity especially without permission of their parents. It is further considered immoral to mock and degrade women, which this clearly does. Its regarded as immoral to put your own interests ahead of those you have responsibility and are in a position of power over such as students. Obviously that's happening. So - immoral? Check respect? Zero respect shown for women. the students, the parents, the job. Can you point to any action that's respectful of others? Nope? Me either So, in this case it's hard not to agree with him that this person has behaved in a very immoral fashion and shown no respect for the people around him that he owes a duty of care to.

He would think: "Great, now i have to wipe the heel of my boot off again".

You can pry my han solo figurine from my cold dead hands baal-boy.

something even we can agree on.