CdnFox

But that is not your agenda. Do we have a national straight month where we celebrate the glory of being hetero? You're part of the problem.

Sure - but we don't put it in our parades. Well i'm not religious but i'm going to go with yes anyway I feel the need to lock him up and throw away the key. If we stand idly by and watch them happen we're complicit. Including those marching in the parade? I beg to differ and good luck with defending your position there

They have won however by pointing out that what is being called a 'crime' is in fact common practice. And that is a perfectly good defense. The fact that slavery was common, legal and part of normal accepted behavior strongly argues that they did nothing wrong. In other words it's the 'if every body did it then we can't consider it 'bad' given the times" defense and it works. Sorry - you really kind of suck at these 'legal defense' examples.

you misspelled 'longingly'

Nobody with half a brain gives away any of their policy other than the very big picture 10,000 ft view before the election. Look at even what he has released. The other day in parliament justin says a whole bunch of things they need to do to improve housing - pressure municipalities to improve density, etc and then says too bad Pollievre doesn't have any ideas - and PP points out the fact he's said those things WORD FOR WORD over the last 18 months numerous times. Turns out trudeau's people screwed up and thought this was a new policy idea instead of an old one and Justin was trying to steal it to rob PP of a talking point. And that's what the liberals do and have done forever. If they think a policy is popular they steal it, if they don't they spend the next 10 months smearing it. BTW - if you had bought bit coin when PP was talking about it - you'd have made good money. it went back up. That's why the libs don't like talking about it anymore

Oh for sure - back then i could have split your head open with an axe (or in your case a butter knife), crapped in your skull and used your skin to make a blanket for my dog and sold your family into slavery and nobody would have said a thing. Nowadays if i did that i'd have to sit through the judges lecture... "Look, i totally get where you were coming from and considering his stupidity i think everyone agrees with it in concept but.. "

You don't get it. It doesn't matter where you did. You will. And you will again and again and again without trying to without solicitation etc etc. Simple fact. And it's a simple fact many people are sick of it. You personally may not be but a lot of people are. And seeing this came up with dylan - i'll offer bud lite as my proof. You can argue till you're blue in the face but there's two things that are absolute fact - whether you want to or not you're being exposed to the issue all the time and so is the public, and a lot of people are demonstrably fed up with it.

Walt Disney would like to have a word with you.

We did stop. We're a constitutional democracy. The king has no power or authority here in reality. Well fair enough but there are some serious problems in practical terms these days I'm pretty sure justin THINKS he's king if that helps.

You couldn't even get away for the weekend And at the end of the day you hear about it. Maybe for you it's on the social media you prefer, maybe for someone else its a combination of social media and newspapers or schools or whatever. But at the end of the day, one way or another it happens. So 'where' it happens is irrelevant. And people are getting fed up.

I'm totally going to be bugging you about this, but dylan is a trans person and is a big trans controversy with bud right now. Do you remember how i mentioned that we are CONSTANTLY being bombarded with trans issues? Even when you never mentioned trans people, just gays? You can't get away from it. Didn't mean to re open that debate but you see what I mean now?

Are you saying Dylan is gay? Not trans? Are you denying Dylan is a woman? You sexist ignorant transphobic twat. (Gotcha! now go cancel yourself)

Arguably historically it's the popular ones you have to watch out for.

It doesn't matter in who's name it's done - it matters who does it. And it's not the head of state. I doubt the king could even name a minister in Canada. And if you're seriously proposing we go back to being a monarchy, i think that's been tried before and abandoned. I think you forgot it also passes laws. It also determines the functioning of the gov't that will require taxes. If that's what the people want then that's who'll claw their way to the top. remember - the people vote on the leaders of the party AND THEN vote on which party has power and even how much power. But i do want the strongest candidates to put themselves forward. Yes - it is insane. But it's better than all the others. I think you've been watching a little too much "yes minister" Sounds like you're one lab accident away from being a super villain LOLOL Joking aside it's a simple fact that only the people who want it badly will succeed and that's true no matter what system you use. Coincidentally number 17 on my list of 'sentences i never thought i'd hear" But what your'e saying is that you are unsuitable to that particular job and the system weeded you out. See? It works!

Good lord Now i'm picturing a gay jabba the hutt... They finally came and rounded you up did they? What was it, the police? Mental health services? The zoo? Probably neither of those things is going to happen

There hasn't been a genocide. So yes. Of course there were plenty of genocides committed BY the first nations against other first nations but that predates contact so not really relevant. I think trying to judge people in hindsight is a fools game. I think people on both sides had decisions to make and did what they felt was best, and i think most of the people involved genuinely thought they were doing the right thing. The first nations DEMANDED education, it was part of their treaty stuff. The gov't wanted assimilation because they felt it would lead to a better life. And remember the schools weren't made mandatory til 1920 and even then there were loopholes. I think your hypebole doesn't really help the discussion move forward.

They present as one. Sorry - but that's what's being promoted right now. Like it or not they're going to sink or swim together. As i very clearly pointed out this goes way beyond celebrating their identity. They use that celebration as a political tool AND i have to help pay for it And trying to suggest that somehow i'm not allowed to have an opinion becuase i'm 'CIS' (a derrogatory term now) only convinces me more that things have gone too far and MY rights to even have an opinion are in jeopardy with these people. Your own comment demonstrates that it is now seen as an us vs them confrontation, not acceptance. I can shut up because i'm Cis? Well then they can get the hell off my streets. Well that would depend on how you define perverse i guess. Looking at the dictionary i see this definition which seems to be the most neutral: Willfully opposing or resisting what is right, expected, or reasonable. Is it "right, expected or reasonable" to expose children to sexual acts or imagery? Or guys with their dick out bunny hopping down the street? Probably not. Do we see any gays speaking out against that? Nope. I think you may have a tough fight trying to argue they're not a little perverse.

A number of schools in ontario are promoting the event and suggsting kids should go. You should be able to find that info with a few quick searches. As to kids being exposed to explicit sexuality at pride events: https://thepostmillennial.com/adults-expose-themselves-to-children-at-toronto-pride-parade Adults expose themselves to children at Toronto Pride Parade There are a LOT of examples. And there are pride organizers who say children SHOULD be exposed to it, they like it. I'll be blunt - hetero OR homo i don't think children should be exposed to overt sexual issues at a young age in the first place. They're too young to safely deal with the concepts in a responsible way. Hell they're too young to decide what to have for breakfast without supervision. I'm sorry but you can't blow it off as 'not an issue'.

The Democrat whining on this issue is seriously disingenuous. It is the job of the republicans to keep spending in check rather than in cheque. So - the dems should be negotiating an agreement over what the money will be used for. If you don't control the house - that is what the public has voted for. If they wanted no checks and balances on the dems they'd have given them a majority. Republicans on the other hand will have to justify why they feel refusing to agree to a propsoed increase is legit. Or the public will blame them. But rhetoric like "They're holding the poor hostage" is ignorant, and it's the kind of bull crap that leads to more instability and the kind of social unrest we've seen. It's low brow politics.

https://archive.ph/oxF8i Another clue that claims of a widespread labour shortages aren’t quite what they seem came in a Statistics Canada report last week that looked at job vacancies, which were 2½ times greater in 2022 than in 2016. There were stark differences in the rates, depending on a job’s education requirement. For positions requiring at least a bachelor’s degree, there was no general labour shortage. But there were a large number of vacancies for jobs that only required a high-school diploma, or less. For those lower-skilled jobs, there were many more vacancies than unemployed workers. Even if all those workers were instantly hired, there still would have been 131,000 vacancies in the fourth quarter of last year, for instance. It doesn’t cost much to post a job electronically, and automatic sorting reduces the administrative burden dramatically. Some of those vacancies may be placeholders. TL/DR - there does not seem to be a labour shortage when you get to jobs that require some certification or university skills. Unskilled labour jobs however are hugely unfilled. BUT - is that real? Employers are using temp workers instead and may be putting out 'fake' ads to either keep a supply of potential workers coming through the door or to swap out their weakest with better ones if one happens to apply. It's an interesting take on it - maybe the so called 'labour shortage' isn't quite as short as we thought

Still, i think you have to admit that after 302 years we may be past the 'trial' stage And lets recall that democracy as we know it is still comparatively new. So of course things like having a president or a prime minister (instead of a dictator such as rome or monarch) is going to be newer as well - but we still like democracy. Any political system is going to be terrible. THe old joke is that democracy is a horrible way to govern people with it's only redeeming quality being that it's better than all the other ways So the goal is to have something that is the least imperfect. In short - we want a system that makes everybody equally unhappy. There are definitely tweaks we can do to our system to make it better. But having a confrontational party based system has been doing fairly well and that kind of model requires a leader to be in charge of the party. Whether that leader is elected seperately (like the us) or by the party itself (canada party leadership races). And we WANT people clawing for that top position. That's how you weed out the weaker candidates.

@impartialobserver , here's yet another example of what i was talking about. You can't go for any time without it.

Appointed by whom? You see where you're going to run into a problem. So again what happens is instead of getting 3 or 4 people running to lead the country, you get 338 people trying to form power cliques and grandstanding to pressure whomever doles out the goodies to give the most to them. There needs to be a head of the party if you're going to have a party system and without a party system you have utter chaos.

You realize you kind of just proved him right @Mako is right. You rarely debate, and lets face it, you are an authoritarian. Most of the left wing ideology you espouse wouldn't work without authoritarianism.

And they don't have to have pride parades. They can be gay or queer without them. So it works both ways doesn't it. They want to have them others don't want to have to see that and don't appreciate that children are exposed to it and that a big hunk of the city is shut down to accommodate it. And while the parade pays for some of the costs, the taxpayer still pays a hunk. So you're also footing the bill for it with your own money if you're against it. And then there's the politics. The gay pride parade people decide no police are allowed to participate and make a big stink about it. And the papers drop everything and talk about how terrible police are. Then it's the gov't - if a mayor or prime minister or political figure doesn't attend then the parade is turned into a political tool to bludgeon them and turn people against them. Oh no - whether you go or not the parade is affecting your life and your finances. But if you dare speak out, you're an evil homophobic bigoted mysoginistic alt right transphobe fascist nazi deplorable who should be left homeless on the streets. And people wonder why there's a backlash. I"m pretty pro gay - hell i grew up in Vancouver, you kind of have to be but even I'm getting fed up.