CdnFox

Hogwash. It's actually the same usage. The left used it to mean someone who has, or the act of having, become accepting of a wide variety of left wing ideology, and the right means it to mean the same thing. but the right (and now society in general) identifies those traits as being less positive and the word has become a pejorative. But it still means the same thing. 'This is left wing ideology, you accept this ideology as being legitimate, you are woke". The farther left, the more woke. Leftist mean it in a good way, everyone else means it in a less good way. That is just plain childish. First off - as i said and apparently as you agreed it's not an explination for everything, it's an explanation of a variety of left wing and intersectional ideology. it's like saying "Math could mean anything". No - math refers to numeric and alphanumeric calculations in general ecompassing trig, quadratics, etc etc. It means something very real and solid even tho it's a term that encompass a lot. I mean - the term 'universe' means everything that is within space-time, you don't get more 'everything' than that - but nobody would argue it means nothing. It's a nonsense phrase that one might hear in a childrens movie.

they aren't socalistic per se - it depends on the implementation. The left was unable to pursue them further and they're nerfed at acceptable levels for the public. RIght of center people don't really want to see NO social safety net. They recognize it's value. They just want to see it minimized and a focus on recovery back to a taxpaying citizen.

Woke isn't all that hard. It just refers to the body of topics theories and actions that fall under the perceived left wing socialist intersectional ideology prevalent today. It is the follow on from social justice warrior for which the precursor was socialist or communist. It's the left wing version of the 'far right' for many. Because it includes a body of ideology and practices it's not really appropriate to define it outside of that, as the specifics of those ideologies and practices may change from time to time. The left hates it because it's becoming a pejorative and being recognized more and more as a 'bad thing' in one way or another and so they'd rather disparage the term. But it works well.

This is pretty much what i said. Interest rates averaged about 13 during the 80's, higher early on and lower later but other than that how is this different than what i mentioned? I feel like you're just making my point stronger - the point being it wasn't radically easier to become a home buyer then than now. That wasn't common or normal across the country. But - there WERE a number of unusual schemes during those times that would pop up here and there. Lease to own was popular for a while. But lots of people bought homes the same way eveyrone does - get a mortgage, by the house. That was still the most common. Well not for that entire time, no. Inflation was bad for a while (that's what triggered higher interest same as now) but the 18 percent (peaking at 20 i believe) only happened for 2 or so years. We panicked then - who are you kidding And once again we see the weird little schemes to buy houses pop up, etc. But the problem this kid is talking about predate the current inflation and interest cycle.

Yes - chretien managed to reap the benefits of the unpopular gst and free trade deal mulroney put in place. Those two things did much to wipe out the deficit, along with falling interest rates (which got as high as 20 percent in the 80's Imagine putting the entire national debt on a credit card and keeping up with the payments ) Trade wiht the us increased 10 fold and the gst was designed specifically to be a deficit killer. But - such things take time. Chretien took over just as the payoff was happening, and combined with some transfers to the provinces he balanced the books. His "surpluses" basically were the money he stole from the EI fund, but he legit did balance the books. So it would be fair to say that even in Muroney's time deficits had come to be seen as unacceptable, and gov'ts were moving to eliminate it. But certanly by chretien's time they were eliminated and stayed that way till the great recession, and then we went back to balance.

There was a time of it then but that did end thanks to mulroney's gst and free trade act. For about 23 year other than the great recession we were all about balances and gov'ts knew it was important. So the next trudeau that came along changed that again.

Agreed - your response was retarded. Rome didn't have standing armies by and large, they formed legions when they needed them for war. It's not like today where the size of your army is the size of your army. And ENGLAND is barely a blip on the map ?!? HOooo kaaaaay big guy LOL - it changed nothing other than rome stopped expanding in that direction. And that was 500 years before the downfall of rome. Pretty delayed reaction if you're claiming that's a reason ':) And the only reason it stands out in history is BECAUSE it was so unheard of for the germanic tribes to cause much trouble. They raided etc but they never got organized like that again They certainly didn't threaten rome. Swing and a miss kiddo. The germanic tribes took an outpost. Sure - good sized one but again zero threat to rome. And that's 170 ish years later - so these tribes were SUCH a threat that they could only muster up a successful raid once every 170 years or so? LOL! Yeahhhh terrrifying. And it wasn't even the same groups as at tetoburger. You're trying to pass off a wide group that isn't even really 'german' as being this constant threat that destroyed the empire when they can only muster something significant every couple of centuries. This just proves how desperately dumb you are. LIke i said originally - the germanic tribes (and others) would raid now and then, but didn't play a role in the downfall directly, Sorry. They didn't sack rome, they didnt' defeat the roman armies and drive them away. They'd win the occasional fight every 150 ish years LOL What brought the empire down was worse and worse leadership and ever increasing beurocracy that severely weakened their economy and raised the cost of maintaining the empire. Everything else stems from that. The germans never came close to taknig ove rome. Hell - hannibal did more than the germans ever did and the empire STILL went on to grow stronger and thrive.

Well nothing could be further from the truth. the recession forced a deficit but there was HUGE fights over returning back to balance as soon as possible. The conservatives wanted to do it faster and the libs and ndp almost forced an election over it. In the end Harper promised a five year plan to get back to balance and people voted him in a majority. NOBODY accepted the idea of deficits being 'normal'. There was nothing "normalized' about it - deficits got smaller and smaller every year till they were at zero in five years and that's what the public demanded. They didn't become 'normal' till Trudeau, who inherited a balanced budget. And they failed and he won. And he balanced the budget. so how can you even suggest it was 'normalized'. Those are factors - and we would have gone up a small amount with those alone for sure. But - a significant amount of the inflation especially in Canada and the US is due to bad money policy. We should have been about 2 points lower or more the whole way through. That makes a huge difference when you consider the effects of compounding. First off - i'm not sure you know what 'normalizing' means, maybe pick a different word. Second off if you're trying to say that grocery prices aren't going up, that does not appear to be accurate. Particular items you favor may experience periods of rise and plateau but overall grocery prices are going up much faster than the overall inflation rate. And we never really get that back as a rule. if chicken prices rise to 20 dollars a chicken from ten, they tend to stay around there even after inflation stops. So - this is going to be a problem for people until wages catch up which is going to take a while.

actually they did, Wages were going up faster than inflation for years before then. Deficits were well under control - for most of the late 90's and all the way up to 2015 with a blip of a few years during the great recession deficits were either tiny or non existant. And real estate values were climbing but they hadn't gone ballistic or become unaffordable in 2015. The problems were there but it hadn't crossed that affordability threshold. I guarantee you a lot of people today would love to be able to have 2015 pricing again. Now the genesis of some of the problems like housing go back farther and aren't entirely federal to begin with. But a lot of it - deficit spending, inflation, wage stagnation... yeah, that's kinda 'post '15'.

Well, something to research when you have a bit of spare time - it's actually quite interesting. Only a troglodyte would suggest that women's rights shouldn't have advanced like that or that it was wrong to give them equal standing financially. BUT - it does highlight how strong changes in society can have radical and unexpected impacts on the economic model too. And this has been the case in a LOT of countries. It's one of the reasons why birthrates in first world countries are suffering. We should have done the women's rights thing - but we need to be better moving forward at managing the changes that inevitably come with large social change.

That was due ot the inclusion of women in credit consideratons. Prior to the mid 60's women's income was not allowed to be considered for things like mortages even for married couples. It was assumed that they would get pregnant and leave the workforce. Understandably women's rights groups fought against that. In the late 60's that changed. Now - the income a woman earned at the time would be considered when the couple was looking to buy a house etc. Well, even tho that was the right thing to do it had the unintended consequence of suddenly meaning people could afford to pay more for a house. Guess what happened to house prices. Over time it's come to the point where a family NEEDS two incomes to get buy and the idea of a stay at home wife is fading. It's not so much the workers or the work or even the pay - it's that changes to our society have lead to inflation that we simply can't take back. If you double the income you double the price of things - which means women spend less time giving birth to try to keep up and familes are smaller and our population growth is threatened.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conservative-favourite-party-of-unionized-canadians Well this is a bit of a surprise. First the youth abandoned the ndp and libs for the cpc, now it's the unions? Too many different pollsters are coming up with the same sort of conclusions to be just methodology issues. And it's not a flash in the pan, this stuff seems to be 'slow and steady'.

Well i'll admit this isn't a field of study for me so i'm not that well versed, and i may be missing some of the picture but a few things do occur to me. 1 - The Palestinians have sworn to destroy isreal and elected gov'ts with that in their 'to do' list. I don't care how they got there. I don't care who did what. There's No WAY a two state system works when one side is dedicated to the destruction of the other. 2 - it doesn't make a damn bit of difference who's great great great grandfather lived where. Today this is where people are living and they need to continue living and countries and borders shift and change over time, get over it. I don't see any realistic path to peaceful coexistance for them. It is clear as a bell palestine doesn't want peace. And its pretty obvious isreal isn't going to sacrifice it's safety and wants a buffer, reasonable or not. So the only thing i can see being even remotely stable is to leave it basically the way it is and also to support isreal's position. Isreal obviously doesn't want to wipe them out, or they'd be dead. Palestine definitely DOES want to wipe isreal out, so they can't be allowed to have the kind of freedom and power that could make that happen. Maybe someday both sides will get sick of this and come to the table ready to do a deal, but until that happens i don't think you can force a solution. Keep palestine weak, keep isreal from going too far with retaliation, and wait and see if it simmers down in the next 100 years or so.

Amusingly the two aren't incompatible and are easily interchangeable, so they feel no need to choose

She's not speaking for the gov't. But she is speaking for the people of the country. She's an elected official and that's her job. Trudeau is leader of the gov't. Not the country. As i noted he is NOT the head of state. So no, that's not obvious. He didn't get more votes than other people, he didn't win more ridings than other people, he isn't the head of state... i don't think you've really thought this through. What does it matter if you're just going to claim that they don't represent the people. Sorry man - you just don't understand how any of this works. I mean, if i have to explain that the prime minister isn't the head of state then there's a serious shortfall in your education and you'll just have to educate yourself on your own time.

Your points about sacrifice were spot on but i did want to address this. Many things have gone up recently like food ,but lets take a look at housing for a second It's true sale prices have gone up. I think in the mid 80's it was 110 k for the average home and these days it's 600 or so. But - back then inflation was 13 percent. So - homes were cheaper if you could pay cash, but for 90 percent of people out there, you had to get a mortgage. Your monthly payment would have been about. $1,212.65 per month the 600k was largely at about 1.5 percent interest in recent years. That's $2,398.30. Adjust for inflation between 1985 and 2019 and it's actually pretty darn close - the actual cost of a home after financing for most people have gone up but not by much at all. But of course - in the 80's there wasn't cell phone bills for every member of the house, lots of people still only had 12 channels on their tv, you didn't buy late's and starbucks, "essential oil" meant checking your dipstick now and then to ake sure the engine had enough lube Oh - and no carbon taxes etc etc. And yeah - people sacrificed. And they also didn't buy a brand new home in the middle of the city as there first house. So i question a little bit if it's REALLY that much harder today if you really want to to get ahead.

Nobody cares why you're angry - just calm down a ilttle. I can hear you foaming at the mouth from here. Yeash - i get that you've "lost" a few discussions where i demonstrated you're not all that bright but just do better, don't have a hissy fit. Did you have a point? I noted they had very few civil wars. Do you think they DID have lots of civil wars? Or are you just saying that romans weren't very nice people? Because if you think THAT'S bad you should read about some of the ones who came before and after But thanks - it's always nice to have a free laugh at something first thing in the morning We're talking about attacks on 'rome'. She literally said that they attacked Rome regularly. Did you think rome was in brittian? And sure - they had to have troops to KEEP them in line, but ONLY 3 legions kept the entire region under control. The celts didn't drive rome out of england did they the romans just couldn't afford to be there anymore Not really kiddo rome never lost a conflict with the germanic tribes and while they'd raid and such here and there they never threatened rome. At least until there wasn't a rome any more. Swing and a miss. About the best you could say is that poor management at home lead to shortages of money which made it harder to keep up the armies that stopped raids and the like. LOL - read a book before looking THAT stupid kiddo

Oh my god - you're just dumb enough to dig yourself deeper I told you were public funds came from. They don't come from "taxes" "Strategic" taxes is taxing other countries. Holy shit kid - why don't you just drool on the keyboard if you're going to be that stupid Here ya go - it's just painful to watch you making such a joke of yourself That's your "Public Funds" and Strategic taxes Raiding other countries and "Taxing" them by stealing their stuff Even later when there was "tax reform" they taxed the provincial prefects - not the people. If you had a territory under your control that had 100 people and 100 acres of land then you paid x dollars per acre and y dollars per person - but the PEOPLE didn't pay that. That was basically rent or tribute and the provincial leader was supposed to earn enough money from working the land to pay it, the people didn't get taxed and nor did the income. So - ya done being a loser yet? I hope not - it's fun to watch Oh - final bonus slap in your face: Taxes in the Roman Empire, in comparison with modern times, were certainly no more excessive. In many cases they were far less per capita than anything we can compare to today. However, the strain of tax revenues was heavily placed on those who could most influence the economy, and it would ultimately have dire consequences. The economic struggles that plagued the late Imperial system, coupled with the tax laws, certainly played a part in the demise of the world's greatest empire. So they "overtaxed" the wealthy landowners and politically influential and not the people in general - and it was a disaster I guess your idea of 'eat the rich' really doesn't work, does it! This has been utterly hilarious to watch, You're learning so much!

They can pray quietly to themselves wherever they are then. School is no place for religion and if you disagree there ARE religious schools which you can attend. I'm sure god will forgive them if they wait to pray at home.

It is pushing religion, not appropriate for a public school. Not hypocritical either, Sorry . But - it is an inconstancy, they should take down the crosses too. There is value in a consistent message

You think land is harder to cross than an OCEAN!?!? Do you know where the celts lived? You figure they were just really good swimmers or something? The celts never bothered the romans AT ALL on the continent since the very begining of the founding of rome! Certainly not 700 years later. No, they were not. That's dumb. The celts were no where near rome. Hadrian's wall was in ENGLAND!!!! It had NOTHING TO DO with bararians attacking rome!!! Oh my god... He didn't have people as clueless as those on the left today are. Imagine not even knowing what CONTINENT he built the wall on.

Ummm - it literally says what i said. Pretty much word for word. No taxes - public funds which don't come from workers and private funds from rich people. ROFLMAO - you didn't read it did you!!!! You read the headline and THOUGHT it proved your point and didn't read it!!!! HAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHA - Holy shite kid Du bist sehr dumm. Bist du nicht! LOL

Well you're certainly proof that you can lie if you want. Lets look at your 'sources'. first - they don't want to ban it at all, they want to make it require a parents ok. BZZZT - you lied. Second - a SMALL group of republicans suggested banning sex ed in schools and NO ELECTED REPUBLICANS were interested or bound to it. - BZZZZT! Third - about a GOP nominee who FAILED TO GET NOMINATED!! - so the gop didn't agree with him. BZZZT Forth is a repeat of an earier one. i guess you realiy do believe if you repeat a lie it'll become true - BZZZT So - compelete bullshit across the board, and pretty much referring to only one small area of the country and not the national campaign. If that's what you've got - you've proven it's not a popular opinion amongst the GOP. Sure they do. Well - i suppose they might wait till they're more like 8 But yes. They do. And that's a problem. No there isn't. Show me the stats that prove home schooled kids are abused more. Yep = teachers and coaches add a new layer of risk. Any home abuse will happen anyway but now teachers and coaches also get a crack at it. Well not true of course. And they called regan a radical. Or were you suggesting we go back to lincon? The guy they're trying to cancel. They haven't. THey picked trump over hillary - and now that htey've got biden they're showing a hell of a lot of buyer's remorse. Well that's a lie of course. They wanted their neighbourhoods fixed up they wanted high paying jobs, and all that was being offered. They also wanted the tax revenues. But - Cortez told them that they would be giving BILLIONS IN SUBSIDIES that could be BETTER SPENT ELSEHWERE to amazon. Except - it was tax credits. So they'd pay less tax but employ 25,000 people. Now that they're not going to be there, there is NO tax. Cortez THOUGHT that the money was being paid TO them and screwed up big time. So - now new york is broke. Less services, they can't keep it clean, they can't keep it safe, and people are fleeing it. Awww muffin - do you get confused if two people talk at once???? I guess it must get hard to keep your lies straight when there's more than one person

Is that you talking into the mirror AGAIN! wow - well, i suppose most parrots love a good mirror

There really wasn't. It boils down to a deterioration in leadership due to a selection process and public that favored strength over intelligence or skill. Ascension by murder was common. Initially when the first emperors rules they were wise and generally benificent. Julius looked at several slave and social reforms. Augustus was VERY intelligent and ended civil war. The next 5 were also good. Then it took a turn and by the end the roman leaders had completely run the place into the ground and left it fertile for the hoardes. They absolutely did not. I wouldn't call a large ocean a 'border'. And the celts were entirely pacified. And the germans weren't the issue, the migration period wouldn't happen till right at the end of the empire. There was constant fighting. Not a fan of history are you.