CdnFox

It is politically weaponizing identifiable groups based on things like race, sex, gender identity, sometimes regional identity or other 'marginalized' groups and often involves pitting those groups against an 'opressive' force which needs to be beaten and crushed so they can get ahead, usually boiling down to white males This is what the 'intersectional' coalitions are about, the idea that there's a heirchy, if you're black then you're oppressed and deserve more than others, if you're a black female, you're REALLY oppressed and you deserve more than just regular blacks, and if you're a black female lesbian then you REAAAAALLY deserve to be heard more and get more than any of the others, etc etc. There's a whole hierarchy of oppression that says how deserving you are based on where you are on that list and how many 'boxes' you tick off. It's not organizing people with common beliefs. That's just regular politics. this is grouping people by type - you're a white male, you go stand over there, you're a black lesbian, you go with that group over there at the front of the line. THat kind of thing.

That is absolutely NOT what identity politics are in the slightest. FFS man - read a little before saying stuff like that.

I think it would be fair to say that identity politics might be considered it's own 'sect' of the religion And there are those on the right who practice it. But if we're being honest the right is not generally interested in that and it's defintely not emotionally invested the same way. Most of the 'right's' examples are reactions to the left, rather than stand alone beliefs or activities. It's not the same 'religious ferver' for the most part.

I think cerb was a dry run and i think that the vast majority would say it was not an experiment that went well for the UBI supporters. People are happy to give when their own needs are met. Right now - things aren't going so well in that department. And at some point things will tend to nosedive more. Justin is still dumping tonnes of unearned dollars into the economy and that's creating inflation pressures the bank has to fight with interest rates. I think if anything it'll go the other way and people will be less likely to want to give up their cash for someone else to "live free". I mean, we cam't even get people worked up over the fentanyl deaths any more. Too many people don't have enough for themselves to give freebies to others.

There is certainly a noticeable similarity. The part that is concerning is the blind adherence to the dogma without regard for fact or reason. The 'faith" is all, questioning the faith is punishable. While that might be one thing for an actual religion, it's very bad for a political movement. there's a reason histories don't smile on theocracies and why most civilized countries recognize the need to have seperations between church and state. I would tend to classify the left these days as more of a cult than a religion, but there can be no doubt that its nearly the same thing,

Sorry kiddo - if you're looking to "the Rolling Stone" for accurate reporting on woke issues, you're begging for disappointment https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/get-woke-go-broke-companies-are-laying-off-useless-dei-workers https://archive.ph/aCuG5 https://www.dailywire.com/news/get-woke-go-broke-old-navy-takes-massive-loss-angers-customers-after-going-all-in-on-inclusivity-sizing https://tomluongo.me/2021/04/12/woke-coke-goes-for-broke-destroying-its-brand/ https://nypost.com/2022/12/01/after-disneys-strange-world-bombs-film-critic-says-go-woke-go-broke/ Soooo yeah. Get woke go broke is definitely a thing OF course - most of the big companies don't actually go broke - they take a serious loss and then learn their lesson and turn things around Disney for example started taking serous losses and was in danger of its entire star wars empire collapsing - then they fired the woke and got back to storytelling and applogized to the fans and things went back to profit. But LOL - yeah kid, billions of dollars have been lost to 'wokeness', and companies are shedding the 'woke' pretty fast. Oh - and don't get your financial news from "rolling stones", ok? Just like you shouldn't get your entertainment news from the financial post?

Not to butt in on your discussion overly much - but i felt this particuar point should be addressed. Everything comes back to how many houses we build. That is the only thing that affects actual cost of home ownership or rent for most people. If there's enough homes, the cost is lower. if there is not the cost is higher. Most of what you mentioned is either wrong or is only right because of housing supply. Lets look: -Interest rates: Doesn't actually mean anything for the average buyer. If interest rates go up then purchase price goes down but payments remain the same. Ohter than those who have cash it doesn't change the actual realized cost, people will still pay the max per month they're allowed to. -Taxation policy: Not really. Again, in a market where there's not enough homes people will spend the max their disposable income allows after tax regardless. -Rental policies: Again, not really. IF there's not enough homes, then if policies restrict rentals then home prices go up as more try to buy and rental rates go up due to fewer rentals. If rental rules are relaxed and there's not enough homes then people hold on to investment properties but more people are trying to rent so - same thing. -Foreign investment rules: Makes no difference whatsoever. Foreign investors only care about buynig a lot of homes if the values are shooting up, which doesnt' happen if you're building enough homes. Canada doesn't so we're targeted, but if we did it would not be an issue. And as most investors rent the properties out it actually doesn't change our real housing situation at ll. In short - the only reason it's a problem is we're not building enough homes. -Immigration policy: You're closer to the mark here - but not really. Again - if we were building enough homes immigration would have zero impact. -Environmental and land use policy: Only in as much as it makes it hard to build enough homes. -Demographics: That doesn't mean anything. there are no demograhpic issues that aren't addressed by supply. -Market factors - supply and demand for housing: The ONLY thing that matters. If there were enough homes, they would be affordable and rents would be as well. ALLof our housing issues are due to not enough homes being built to satisfy the demands of our population. Solve that problem and the rest go away.

The economy doesn't, no. Its' not really possible per se. The value of work doesn't really change. Techology can change and make life better - people have far better medical options to day than they would have 40 years ago. People have more access to entertainment and information due to tech increases. But that's not an 'economic' issue. Generally the standard of living improves with technological and other innovations but not really economic ones. The economy can't really improve the lives of people per se. If it does it can only do so by providing more money to people - which inflation will simply wipe out very quickly. About the only change the economy can make that makes life 'better' is stability. If the economy is more stable over time it makes people's lives better. They can plan for more, they don't have their savings wiped out by economic uncertainty just as they're retiring, they can build better lives. But that's about it.

They're nazi's, then they're fascists.... it must be hard to decide what bigotry and hatred to stick with for you. It's easier for us because we just stick with facts and truths, we don't have to try to remember what lies we told yesterday like you do. Ohhhh it's nazis' AND facists THis from the girl who hates jews and males and whites who disagree with her and stands firmly behind cancel culture and repressing those who's opinion is different! LOLOL - yeah kiddo Sure thing I sense you readying a picture....

Nope, didn't really have time when it was out and haven't bothered since. But i'm glad your mommie had time to take you to see it, was it your birthday or .....

The rest winds up being 'blah blah blah' when the pictures come out It's like your defense mechanism because you know you look stupid and WISHED you looked sexy It's pretty funny to watch actually - i'm getting to the point where i can almost always guess when the pictures are going to come out Here - i made this one for you - you "sexy" thing

So the best you can do is lie about what i said? So yiou're admitting i'm right and your only defense is to lie Well there you go. I was right. I acknowledge the Palistinians discriminate more - they literally have said as an official position that the jews should be wiped out. Something you didnt' mention for some strange reason. Wow - it's as if you were completely brainwashed and think that the palistinians do NOTHING wrong at all. Considering that they haven't actually cleansed anything and htey could if they wanted to - i'm gonna go with 'no'. Doesn't matter does it. If you try to kill me and fail, and i kill you instead before you can try again, i've done more killing but was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to do so. So here's my question - you've clearly lied and been dishonest in your above reply - we both know palestinias have used human shield tactics and have been the instigators much of the time, yet you claim otherwise and sealion about it and of course there's your many lies by omission as you suggest the Palestinians have done nothing in this conflict and are simply innocent victims which we also know is not true. That's common knowledge. So given that - if you really actually felt the Palestinians were in the right here.... why did you feel the need to lie? If it's clear cut as you suggest then why not tell the truth? Your own words prove you think they are guilty, you just prefer them to isrealies. I condemn the bad actions of BOTH sides - you've taken a side and will lie to protect it. Disgusting. You should be ashamed.

No, sorry. but if it helps what you're doing is called tribalism filtering. Why - doesn't sound like you're much interested in the truth. What will you do if i DO provide that evidence? Will you say i'm right or insist it's not 'real' evidence or just change the channel? Sure. No, isreal kills a lot of helpless civillians. The palistinians make sure of that. so don't fire rockets at isreal maybe. Of course they're used to it - their parents shoot rockets at isreal near their schools and isreal retaliates and blows the hell out of the school and everything near by. So maybe don't shoot rockets or send firebombs or anything like that into isreal. THey've got better gear and they will squash you.

No - the price i pay for gas remains the same It's measured in dollars per liter - says so right on the sign The cost of fuel depends on how much i buy. Those are not the same thing. The price right now might be 1.74 per litre - the cost to fill my tank might be 75 dollars - the amount i spend per month is actually independant of those two variables. ROFLMAO - what is it with you? You're not the dumbest person here, why is it when you say something so obviously wrong you just feel the need to double down like that! No, you're still paying the 1.74 per litre. What you MEAN to say is you can go farther for teh same amount of 1.74 worth of fuel. But - that's only relevant if you have control over how far you have to drive. AND - one would have to factor in the cost of a newer vehicle into that as well. Lets say you've got a 10 year old vehcile that gets 90 mpg that's worth 10 grand - and you'll have to pay 24 to get a vehicle that gets 100 k. Well - 14 thousand dollars buys a lot of gas - how long till your 'control' results in you actually saving anything? Sorry kid - you're wrong on several levels here. Which is precisely what was discovered with carbon tax. Remember when i said fuel consumption isn't 'elastic' enough to make it work? That right there is why. Nope. They drive just as much and buy less of other things. Less food for their families, less going out for fun etc. It hurts the economy where it has any effect at all. And that's it. Studies in bc showed that at BEST it resulted in about a 5 percent SLOWER INCREASE in carbon production. It didn't reduce it at all. And that's across the board, not just fuel. THis isn't theory - this is the results. This is also why we won't be hitting our federal targets for climate change. Again. Nope. Turns out that's not possible. You have to go to work every day. The kids need to be picked up. If you manage to reduce anything you'll probably only manage to cut down your shopping a tiny amount and it makes virtually no difference for the vast majority of people. This is already proven fact. People cut back elsewhere. And when they can't cut elsewhere anymore then they really start to suffer because they can't cut their energy consumption. SO what the carbon tax does is punish the hell out of the poorest people. And the only people it benefits are the liberals due to the extra tax revenues. And they already have lots of cash. Rob the poor to feed the rich. I'm sure history will look on that as a pretty noble idea, right?

You know that every time you post a picture like that we know you feel you lost the debate right? It's like it's your 'tell' Very amusing

Well with regards to provocation i'm not versed enough in the facts to out and out contest that right now. That isn't my understanding but you may have looked at it more. Overall sure, it's way too late to go back to the start and would be unproductive to do so. But - we can say for any particular round of violence who broke the peace. And that does have to be a factor in my opinion. Well again you have me at a slight (and rare) disadvantage where i haven't studied this enough to say what percent of the conflicts are this way. I remember paying close attention to one years ago and it was certainly happening then, and i've heard it's happend since, but can't say how often. It SEEMS to me like it's more than you're suggesting and it doesn't necessarily speak 'the best' of the isrealis per se. But i would argue that whoever DOES instigate violence or make use of civilians as shields should be most strongly condemned and siupport for them should be cut off as punishment. It's inhuman tactics in this day and age. I wouldn't think so. Fights over resources are common enough and unless people have NO water or the like and are dying it's not the same thing. And if it happens then take THAT to the world community and have isreal condemned for it's actions. Don't shoot rockets at kids then hide behind a hospital. If they instigated the violence then that should be condemned. For sure - but i generally only hear about those stories from the left and i don't hear about any of the things the palestinians do to instigate violence. And in fairness - they literally have 'wipe out isreal' as their gov'ts campaign slogan (well - half of them anyway i guess) So it's not hard to beileve they're doing a fair bit of the instigating. I don't know that this is true. (Mind you again - don't know enough to say it's false). It seems to me that i've heard from the other side explanations that suggest it's NOT illegal and that the problem is the palestinians want to restore THEIR 'historical lands'. So my feeling without having read the relevant law or studied the legal aspects is that there's probably no white hats there. Both sides have issues. But as long as one side will only settle for the destruction of the other i don't see a path to peace. And the palistinains are doing their share too. Sending firebombs into isreal, doing their fair share of attacking jews and so on. I've seen those stories too. And every few years they get it into their heads to launch rockets at them - and then there's retaliation. My gut feeling is that if the palestinians stop with the violence, the violence would stop. The isrealies appear to be more interested in actual peace if they can get it. Ok so that is the article you were describing earlier with the guy who just got back being killed. Here's my problem: "wary that Israeli settlers living in the area were seeking revenge for the murder of two brothers shot dead by a Palestinian gunman in nearby Huwara, " Now, i'm the first to say i don't approve of civilians taking military matters into their own hands and think the people involved should face charges. But again - DON"T SHOOT ISREALIES!!! It gets them ALL WORKED UP. And it's LUCKY it wasn't an armed military group or tanks or fighter/bombers retaliating! Don't start violence and as a rule there probably won't be any but if you kill isrealies you KNOW they're going to lose their minds and their response is always disproportional in order to discourage. So why weren't you condeming the shooting of these two brothers along with the isreali response? Do you not consider that to be a bad thing too?

No, i don't. But i can certainly understand why you'd relate to it. Every other word out of your mouth is a demonstrable lie. Nobody trusts you or your ilk.

Well that's not saying much - to listen to you just being a white male conservative puts you into THAT category.

But not to instigate it. Generally violent conflict is instigated by the muslims. And usually in a fashion where retaliation will result in civillian casualties on purpose. For example they'll put a rocket launcher on a hospital roof and then shoot into isreal. The isrealis fire back and destroy the launcher and hospital. The muslims then say "how terrible they're destroying civilian hospitals! (My mom was in there ! Snif!). I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who commits random violence knowing what the result will be in order to gain favor in the international community, and the evidence seems pretty overwhelming that is what's happening.

That's true if we're attempting to assess 'responsibility'. As in 'which party is in the historical wrong here". However there are real inciting events. If there is no violence at the moment and someone fires a rocket and violence breaks out - that event did incite the current violence. And if you were the one who incited the violence then it's hard for you to claim a moral high position in what follows during that round of violence. Anyone who wants peace has to agree to stop inciting violence. No rockets, no fire balloons no nothing. I think if there's one thing we can do as outsiders that might help a little is condemn whoever incites a round of violence directly. I think that would make both sides think twice - right now it's too common for one side to put a rocket launcher on a hospital, shoot and then when they fire back and destroy the launcher AND the hospital go crying to the international community about how mean the other guy is, It almost encourages violence.

Even tho you quoted me, i assume you're not referring to me with that

We had a dog when i was younger that just couldn't stay away from skunks. It was a working dog on the prairies, you couldn't just keep him locked up all day. In the end he got rabies. We loved the dog. It wasn't the dog's fault it got rabies. It's an illness. The dog was a treasured member of the family. We killed the dog after it got rabies. Having compassion does not mean you don't have to do the right thing. "Compassion" doesn't mean it's somehow ok to do something wrong. Dealing with complex issues involving sex is too advanced for young kids to deal with safely. But - the left wing wants to teach about sex and sex acts and gender in elementary school. That's been a problem. Then when called on it they cry "no no no - we didn't MEAN that, we just want to show gender is ok". Sorry - nobody believes you. We've had this problem in canada recently, elementary school kids being exposed to very advanced sexual issues. It should stay out of school entirely till highschool at least, and parents should be able to decide if the school's 'version' of education is appropriate.

Sadly, two things can be true at once

Awww muffin Sounds like we're projecting just a little aren't we Rome didn't hav standing armies at the time you were referencing. Your own quotes proved that No it's demonstrably correct. As your own source said - it wasn't until the time of agustus, some 100 plus years after maruus, that rome even began to have standing armies and even THEN they still relied very heavily on creating legions and disbanding them as needed. ROFLMAO - Now you're arguing with YOUR OWN SOURCE!! See what happens when you try to google-educate yourself on the fly? In fact i mentioned there were a very small number of legions that weren't disbanded regularly, including the pretorians. But they weren't the 'standing army'. They were just to have a small force avaialbe without having to actually raise one if needed. Closer to a national guard than an army. If they actually had to go fight someone, they would use conscription and raise the legions they need Much later as the empire expanded they would raise permanent legions to go occupy those areas, and then when there was actual war they would raise additional legions as necessary. But - when the empire came to an end it was NOT the "germans" or germanic tribes that lead to the downfall as you and antifa clamied nor was it the celts as was also claimed. That was not the problem. Border wars and skermishes happened for the entire time of the empire. It didn't stop the rise of the empire, it didn't cause the downfall. It was like crime in modern cities - it's a pain and it sucks resources but it's not going to bring a country down. At all. You pee and moan about how the germans cost rome 3 legions - but tha'ts NOTHING. Look at what hannibal did, he cost them dozens - and they still managed to survive and thrive after that. The 'germans' were at best a petty annoyance and a money suck. What brought rome down was increasingly poor leadership based on 'strength' rather than skill combined with ever increasing bureaucracy which sucked resources till the empire bsically collapsed under it's own weight. You're wrong, historians know you're wrong, history shows you're wrong, the ONLY reason you took that point of view is you hoped that I'd be wrong because you're sick of being wrong around me. But - unfortunately - you were wrong Sorry.

According to you a nazi is someone who disagrees with you, or someone who's jewish. I suppose if we found a jewish person who disagreed with you they'd be some sort of uber-nazi, like a nazi 'final form' or something.