CdnFox

First off - YOUR experts? So... you're a member of the liberal party or what? And sorry but if you have dedicated experts then YOU are being JUST as selective as he is. In any case many neutral experts did say it should be possible. But that's not really the issue. The point is YOU claimed he did NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!!!!!!!!! Which is in fact a lie. He did try and he tried hard. So.. of the two points you tried to make we can agree that one was completely fake news. If you have to lie to make a point - you don't have a very good point. Uhhh no, he just refused to name any. I thought you knew about this? You haven't come up with a single fact yet kiddo. In fact if anything you've been shown to be wrong So lets cut through the remaining drivel. You got caught lying and now you're just resorting to insults and stupidity. Both your stated 'reasons' were wrong. Harper did make a very serious attempt at change without opening the constitution, which is what he promised, and he absolutely did give more autonomy to the provinces and funded their activites so you were dishonest there again. Which suggests you're just a liberal shill who's furious that his attempt to smear harper went sideways on him. You should have asked "your" experts about it first

The suspension appears to be a direct result of his opinion. So if thats a code of conduct violation, it's still being arrested for his opinion. The story didn't start at fox news, it was widely reported and fox picked it up. So he didn't go running to fox news. With ANY newspaper story there is a LIKELYHOOD that there's parts of it that are wrong and parts that are missing. Always. But - so far these facts seem pretty substantiated. And the school isn't denying them. We'll see what a tribunal says.

No, he couldn't. THat's the point. If he'd said that then there was no suspension and he would have been welcome in class. So if he had said they were not different there'd be no trespass.

Well.... actually that's a step backwards. That's what we used to have. They're revamping it to make batteries easier to make without the more expensive newer tech. But sure, if it drives costs down and makes manufacture easier then more power to them. But they still need the same amount of lithium

Sorry but true was correct. I posted actual facts that address the point but all you've provided is an opinion piece that frankly is just stupid. It's not hypocrisy because this is a 'standard conservative tactic'. What the hell does that have to do with it? Or the claim he's not asking YOU to live a carbon reduced life, just gov'ts. Well how the hell is the gov't going to do anything without affecting me? So he IS asking people to live THEIR lives different. But here's my favorite, and it proves me 100 percent correct from your own article -he's not a hypocrite because LOTS OF LIBERALS DO IT!!!! It's so common they've got a term - learjet liberals So there's your proof that liberals just don't actually care that much about climate change. THey want OTHER people to change as long as it doesn't affect them and they're able to burn as much jet fuel as they want That IS hypocrisy kiddo. Sorry. Also true actually The only groups that do are ones that want to 'greenwash' their own activites and LOOK like they're environmentally friendly. They don't even look into the companies they deal with, MOST OF WHOM ARE FAKE. Here's one of the latest; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe Now - if you gave a crap about the environment and you were using offsets, wouldn't you take the time to see if they really WERE offsetting anything? THis problem has been around for ages and nobody serious uses offsets anymore. It's only remaining value is to convince the weak minded that the company cares somehow. Sorry, it's not a right wing cause in the slightest. The vast majority of conservatives believe the climate is changing. Most of them also believe mankind plays some role in that although they do acknowledge other sources (which is legit and often not researched well). They are MORE apt to say we should be learning to cope with it more than trying to stop it right now. ANd there's an argument for that. According to this research below only 12 percent of those who identify as republican think humans aren't contributing to climate change. That's only a few points higher than democrats. ANd in reality, if you look at the numbers by age it's probably more likely to be an age related issue than a republican/democrat issue. Young people are much more likely to think it's not only real but should be a top priority. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/23/on-climate-change-republicans-are-open-to-some-policy-approaches-even-as-they-assign-the-issue-low-priority/ So you were wrong there - there is no "conservative cause" to deny climate change. oooooo - sorry, you're wrong again. THat's why we have the carbon tax. If the carbon tax isn't about changing how people use carbon fuels and products - why the hell are they charging it to people. I don't know HOW you forgot about that. But 100 percent absolutely it's about changing people's behavior. No, sorry, carbon offsets are a scam to let people greenwash their activities. If you actually cared about the environment you would just invest in green companies. Sorry kiddo but the whole 'offset 'thing was just a scam. And if you think about it a little it kind of has to be. And even if it did work as intended it would still be exactly as i said. You're excusing your own bad behavior by coattailling on someone else's good behavior as if it magically makes your own behavior good. That's not the way the world works. Entirely the same thing. If you print off copies of those doctor seuss books and distribute them you're also liable for a lawsuit and jail time. As noted you get jailed either way. Soooo - yet another miss. So in other words, you feel that YOUR brand of hate and oppression is better than THEIR brand of it. Because you like your subject matter better. Kid - do you really need me to explain why that's a terrible argument? If you absolutely need me to i will but i'm really hoping you can work that one out on your own Sadly the most intelligent argument you've made so far Nice attempt to change the channel. The issue was are they history, not are statues a good thing. So at least you've given up trying to claim they aren't. To address your points i think you can put up a monument to the good things a person did without overriding the fact that they also may have done things that werne't good. Nobodys' perfect, and if you're looking for a 'perfect' hero it's not going to happen. So you just have to make sure that the discussion is inclusive of all the facts, and you can still admire them for the good things they did. Tearing it down is simply denying history. Uh oh - easy muffin, we can hear you drooling and foaming as you type It's not my fault your echo chamber ideas aren't standing up to scrutiny I get your frustration. The left LOVES to pretend it's about truth and facts. It's not. Its about hypocrisy and deception. So when you try to defend it, it falls apart. And that's got to hurt a little. But yes, the right is more inclinded to care about facts and truths and logic than the left these days. Sorry for the inconvenience.

For which you'd be evicted and if your child spoke up they'd be banned for a year. That's basically what's happened. That is absolutely not what happened here. So he will grow up claiming that if you make a reasoned argument about something you will be attacked. So how do you think this child is going to handle things as an adult? Do you think he's now going to respect the idea of reasoned discourse as you suggest? Or is he going to think that you have to attack first one way or another because the moment you raise a valid concern they'll be after you, so better to be UNreasonable right off the bat. If you don't reward the kids for talking in the first place (even if what they say is wrong), then you teach them to hold their wrong ideas in the shadows and deal with these 'threats' some other way.

He got arrested because he said men and women are different. this has already been discussed at great lengths in this thread. If he hadn't spoken out, then his presence there that day would NOT have been tresspass. This is part of his punishment for speaking out. It's not like he broke in or something. And it's ignorant to suggest that believing a man and woman are different is "far right conservative" views. It is a basic biological fact that men and women are different. You can have discussions about gender and whether there's more than 2 of those but it is absolutely true that men and women are different. This was a discussion which came up because WOMEN were uncomfortable with the biological male transgender students using the female washrooms. So it's not like he just started talking about this for no reason. And this wasn't his 'job". This is an educational facility. He's a customer, not a worker. The facility exists and gets public funding in order to make sure the children get an education and like it or not that DOES involve discussing sensitive issues. The fact that the administration handled this in a way that lead to his education being put at risk (the expulsion) and then locked him up rather than find a healthy way to deal with it is a complete failure on their part.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-on-sidelines-as-u-s-britain-australia-move-ahead-on-new-security-deal-1.6311220 OTTAWA - Canada's omission from a military pact involving three of its closest allies is symptomatic of a larger problem in how this country is perceived by its friends, experts are warning, as the U.S., Britain and Australia move ahead on their deal. So - Canada is being left out of important security discussions because the rest of the world thinks we're in china's pocket. Great.

Putin is at war against Ukraine because he wants them back in his empire and believes that war is a legitimate way to add land and resources to his control. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (many his own) is of no consequence as long as he gets control of the region. 99.9995325 percent of all people, normal or not, on this planet are aware of this.

BZZZT - sorry, the correct answer was 'True". First off - said by whom? You didn't even post a source. that suggests you know the source is not reputable. So obviously you don't trust it yourself. Second - carbon offsets are a joke for several reasons, which is why people don't bother anymore. Producing tonnes of carbon and then paying someone else who doesn't and claiming to be carbon neutral is like sleeping with a hooker and giving a nun 50 bucks and telling your wife you're adultry neutral. The idea was discredited ages ago, Swing and a miss kiddo And the reality is if gore really believed in climate change he'd have reduced his carbon footprint (before being shamed about it) AND donated to orgs who did good climate work. Nope - true again. Sorry. Passing a law is not the only way to get a book banned. Left wing and democratic orgs pressured the company and threatened shaming if they didn't do it. And many libraries were ordered to remove them and had to get very creative to keep them from being destroyed. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/03/us/offensive-childrens-books-librarians-wellness-trnd/index.html Whereas..... But they didn't. Did they. They simply said they couldn't be in SCHOOL libraries. The books are still sold, available at public libraries, completely available. So - there's no "ban" at all. The books are widely available, and if any parent thinks their kid should read them they can get a copy and let them. The dr seuss books are gone. Aside from ones that people may keep safe or libraries who find ways to keep them, nobody will be able to buy them any more. THe dems and their supporters have managed to actually deny anyone from buying one again. That's FAR worse. Soooo strike two for you. So basically all you're doing is pretending that any bad idea you don't like is "republican" with zero evidence or reasoning. He was a democrat and democratic supporter. Sorry - you're claim that all crazy people are republicans went out the window. A decent number of the mass murderers in the last several months have been democrat supporters and left wingers. Left wing groups did 5 billion dollars of damage to cities a few years ago in riots. They took over a large hunk of an entire city to run it as a left wing paradise - it was an unmitigated disaster and people suffered under them horribly. I could go on for quite a bit. The fact is the left wing is every bit as crazy and violent and even more so nowadays. True on both counts. They've been WIDELY discredited. Sure it is. It's a historic symbol of that person. Tearing it down is an effort to erase history. Which is why they do it. Obviously. Those who tear them down claim they FALSELY represent history but - that still makes them a representation of history. And truthfully they don't make their case for it being false well. Kinda like you Yet another miss on your part. LOLOL - my me my don't we know a lot of buzz words Sorry - YEP - all true and no 'conspiracy theories' there. And how do you 'cherry pick' examples like that? Sorry - another miss by you. Uhhhh - he's actually a social scientist and has done tonnes of research and quotes other research. This isn't "opinion", this is fact based and research based analysis by a professional. You see - the left HATES science the moment it doesn't say what they want it to. The moment science gets in the way of "muh feels!" then suddenly it's not science, it's "opinion". well - you must be a stormtrooper. Nobody else misses THAT badly so often Your problem is that you're starting with Left wing talking points as being true and then attempting to defend them. But most of them are indefensible. These days the Right is where people care about science and facts and reason, the left is all about feelings, misinformation, impressions and repressing the hell out of anyone who disagrees. Sad but true. The people who fought so hard for free speech and open dialogues now fight to shut down ANYONE who dares have a contrary position to their own.

ROFLMAO - so by "unpack" you mean just make sarcastic statements using reductio ad absurdum as your only argument Well that's one way to admit i was right i guess Similar? Pretty simple: similar Having a resemblance in appearance or nature; alike though not identical. I know - english is hard for you. So - for example Trudeau said he had not been briefed on chinese interference and it turns out he has several times. That is an out and out blatant lie. Not someone else in his gov't lied, he lied. Did harper do anything like that? No? Hmmmmm Trudeau made specific claims during the SNC lavalin case and later a recording showed he had out and out lied. Did harper do anything like that? No? Hmmmmm Down play what - you haven't given a SINGLE example. The guy was in power for 9 years and YOU CAN"T FIND A SINGLE EXAMPLE You can't accuse me of downplaying anything till you put an example on the table. So it would seem that what tires you out is trying to defend an argument that you know is wrong Keep in mind you haven't made a single argument to back up your assertion. And again you simply must try to change the channel. Nobody has claimed harper is "spotless". What we're discussing is did he out and out lie as we're seeing justin do right now. And you can't come up with a single example of when he did. Awwww muffin - you try so hard but always fail SO bad I know you don't WANT it to be true but unfortunately facts don't care about your feeewings Better luck next time

That's not very nice of them. Those votes should have been counted - i mean they were bought and paid for and everything

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/conservatives-unusual-drop-in-votes-where-interference-suspected In multiple ridings, a pattern emerged: Conservatives saw significantly fewer supporters coming to the polls, but the Liberals did not see large gains So - pretty easy to supress someone's vote like that if they've got relatives in your neck of the woods. This is just getting stinkier and stinkier.

Nope. A lot of experts agreed with Harper. It seemed an excellent compromise solution given the previous failures. It made a lot of sense - allow the provinces to present a short list and the pm is still choosing. THe consensus at the time was that should be acceptable, it's still the PM making the choice and a future pm could always undo it so they weren't bound to it But lets take a step back. YOU claimed he didn't do a single thing to even try. Now suddenly you've magically become an expert on the fact he did try and tried very hard. Sooooo - you either lied then or you're just making shit up now. Ether way, your credibility is taking a serious beating here. Which is why i mentioned it was on top of his other efforts, and it IS a necessary part of decentralization. So nobody suggested that transfer increases were the same thing. So now you can't even be honest about what I said. Well well. Here's a hint in life kid - if you have to lie to make your point, it's probably not a very good point. It was actually. Maybe you meant to say something different. Well as we've seen your 'bad' harper things didn't exist. So it's not even an issue. But at the end of the day gov'ts will screw up one way or another. Scope and scale DOES matter. ANd clearly there's a long history that says if conservative voters don't think the gov't is being above board or is corrupt they destroy them. Liberal voters don't have that track record.

Apparently

The feds put antifa on a terrorist watch list They are the biggest threat. sorry if the truth is inconvenient. They 've hurt a lot of people, they've damaged a LOT of property and whether you are one of the 'violent' ones or not if you stand with an organization that allows that from it's members you're an accomplice and no different. I seriously question your ability to ask a serious question - but i'll answer as honestly as i can. In self defense i do as a general concept, with lots of caveats. I think what SOME people consider to be 'self defense' might stretch the term. I'm not a million percent sure what you mean by 'sit in'. I think if you're deliberately impeding someone else's lawful protest, you're on the wrong side of history and morality. I don't really like protests. I think they're kind of a waste and i think that they should be curtailed legally to prevent them interfering with people's rights. But i do recognzie that lawful protest is a thing and must be tolerated. In that respect i see no difference beteween a gov't stealing that right from someone or a bigoted and frequently violent group doing it. IT's wrong Awww that's sweet of you They seem to think of it more and more as excessive awareness if you will. And i think we'll see tolerance for it slide further. In america the left are the facists. And what you failed to note from that poll si that only 32 percent of people in the US think being called woke is a compliment. Most consider it an insult. Even with the more positive definition So it would appear you're not correct there. Although i'm fairly confidient without evidence at hand that you're right that the term 'woke' gets applied to anything the right leaning people don't like about leftist policy or actions without really thinking about the term.

No, there is no tos for that. It was an arbitrary decision. We've tried to explain Canadian 'private' schools to you previously in the thread i believe. But he didn't break in as you suggested. Ok - enough. Show me this 'TOS" he broke. Show me which section he violated. Just more of your lies. This was an arbitrary decision. And if he did nothing wrong then this STILL is 100 percent on them. So now we'll find out well i doubt they'll get shut down for their discrimination. I think again you don't really grasp how 'private' schools work here. Of course denying a platform is every bit as facist as arresting them for it. They both have exactly the same intent - to repress the person's right to speech and to prevent that speech from being heard. Unless you have lawful excuse (such as they are being found to be doing actual criminal hate speech by a lawful authority),then it's the same thing The REASON that people on the left try to make a distinction is because they want to do the former to others, but don't want the latter done to them. But yes, if you just attempt to deplatform someone because you don't like what they say - that is absolutely facist. If you do it using force or the threat of it it's even more so, What they really mean is that leftists are using facist methods to attack and repress those they don't agree with . Which is true. Oh you mean like throwing a kid in jail because he didn't say the right thing in school? Gotcha And you were sooooo happy they did that. They do . Soooo most americans have it right And got burned hard for it and saw profits crash. Now they've fired the woke and are rebranding to try to save it. You'd think - they have more of a budget. But nope. 2018 and 19's they took it 2020's was sony pictures 2021 was sony 2022 was paramount So - less than half. Did you want to send me your address and we'll meet there or just mail me the keys? Disney's profits have been sliding and as we know their movies are only a fraction of what they make these days. Their profits have been stagnant or dropping for a while. middle of last year they got rid of the woke. profts are now rising again like fire Did anyone anywhere suggest that? Guys love women super heros. More tights and action poses please It was the horrible diversity hires, the treatment of staff who dared say anything non woke, the treatment of the fans who complained about it. etc. Sorry kiddo - get woke go broke is becoming a weil known fact. Because at the end of the day it's just not good for business and in disney's case, it was no replacement for good story telling. You lose.

Turned out the left was even worse OVER stating the problem than the right was understating it. ANd more on the left SAY they do but their actions say otherwise. I mean seriously - do you have any idea how big al gore's carbon foot print is? Do you think it would be if he really believed what was in his movie? Still the democrats i'm afraid. And really bad books too - Can't have dr seuss on the shelves now can we No, that's just an image teh left likes to portray. I love how you think there's no religious democrats The nutball who just went after pelosi's husband is a left winger for example. Compared to the liars ad the 1619 project who are desperately trying to rewrite history despite massive evidence they're wrong? Or the groups that say every american icon statue INCLUDING LINCON should be torn down? Yeah - no problems on the left Much of which turned out to be true. Remember when it was ultra racists to suggest Covid came from wuhan labs?Only now that's where they think it came from? remember Hunter's notebook and the media? Remember when conservatives said that social media companies were targeting them and were told that's a conspiracy - till suddenly they had to admit it? Remember when cnn edited the trayvon martin tapes to make it sound like the guy made racist comments when he didn't and they got in crap for it? And then there's the left wing comments about right wing media. Remember when the convoy was all funded by republicans from the us? LOL That would still be the left. Jordan peterson can't be allowed on campus he's a nazi!!! (He coudn't be further from being a nazi). Etc etc. No, the left is worse at most of those things. But - they play a better game of it in the media. The left these days is all about 'muh feels' and facts and science can be damned unless they happen to support the feels Conservatives question, they allow questions, they look at data, they follow the science for the most part. Not always and not all conservatives. But it certainly leans that way.

Well as we will see that isn't true. So - harper actually went to court to win the right to do that - the supreme court shot him down and he got into a huge pissing match with them saying it should absolutely be lawful but they ruled it wasn't and he couldn't, so he didn't fill seats for ages even tho he could have loaded up the senate with conservatives. You don't know your history very well do you. He made a major effort spanning years. once again the opposite is true. You REALLY don't know your history. Not only that he increased provincial transfer funds (despite a recession) to help provinces do what they already were responsible for. No, they had to add back a lot of that infrastructure first. Trudeau has been on a massive federal employee hiring spree for ages and has radically expanded the size of gov't. That is why. Buddy - you came here with outright fabrications that 2 seconds of googling could have told you were BRUTALLY wrong and you think WE should have more humility? Not only did harper deliver on those promises or make every effort to do so, he did it in a minority with no ndp backing him up. Further, if it was true in some alternate universe are you SERIOUSLY proposing that not changing the senate is on par with what trudeau has done and somehow is so bad justin is BETTER? Tamporing with the justice system? The new censorship law? The attack on gun owners rights? LETTING CHINA BUY AN ELECTION??? Those things aren't as bad as harper not delivering reform in the senate? Are you OUT of your MIND? Nice attempt at trolling i guess but jeez - at least make an effort next time

Fine, you're projecting if you prefer to call it that It's not lying at all. Sorry. You would be the one lying. As has already been noted it's not only tehcnically true, but it's also practically accurate. Lets get real, the problem here isn't that its' false, its that you don't like that it's not false. In a headline? They didn't purposefully leave out anything - it's a headline with limited space. Hell they even had to cut the 'and' between man and woman. And while he wasn't charged with 'having an opinion' he was arrested directly as a result of his opinion. If you take the opinion away, he would never have been arrested. This has all been explained to you and is absolutely the truth. And it's not stupid to point out that men and women are different. Sorry. Do you have ANY stats to back that up? No? Thought not. What a childish thing to suggest. They did it because they WANT people to read the article. That's how they make money - there will be ADVERTISING around the article. Duh. So the point of it is to catch the readers interest and get them wondering HOW this could be. So they open up the story and read. And the second sentance explains the circumstances of his arrest. It's not like they bury it. Your hatred colours how you look at everything.

see? Confused again. Didn't break in. He showed up to attend class and they were waiting for him. And if it weren't for his opinion doing that would have been perfectly fine. School was open, classes were starting, that's where he's supposed to be. But - he voiced his opinion. And they took action against him as a result. Agreed, this is not in america. Oh wait - did you think canada was in america? Actually the facists are all on the left now. "antifa" is just a cover name to hide the facism of that group I guess that's why only 18 percent americans support antifa. So maybe you're right, they just don't like facists https://www.newswars.com/rasmussen-poll-just-18-of-americans-support-antifa/ But - the fact is the evidence suggests woke was MORE acceptable as a term in the states not long ago. So... still seems like it's starting to slip. People are getting sick of the 'woke' agenda. Look at what happened at disney with star wars. You keep that hatred and bigotry going now, y'hear?

Of course it's true. Sadly these days more than ever. you could make an argument that there are some sciences which align left more but not many. Sadly the left loves to preach the idea of 'evidence based' thinking but doesn't actually practice it,

No, it doesn't. Nato can't decide to order canadian forces to attack bulgaria. Or do anything else for that matter. If there is a nato specific mission then a chain of command is agreed upon for that purpose, but we can decide we don't agree to that or to being a part of nato if we wish. At the end of the day agreeing to work together is not the same as "they have full control of our forces". Wagner would have been a better example of a non state military.

It doesn't say. Only a stupid person would make the assumption all the facts were in the headline. It implies that his opinion later resulted in his arrest and that's actually accurate, there is a connection there. Correct. They never say he was arrested or charged for having that opinion. it doesn't say 'Charged with opinon". LOL - this from a guy who couldn't get past the headline without making incorrect assumptions Which would make the news story incorrect... how? It was the second sentence in the whole article. It probably just felt like 5 pages for you because you have to sound each word out.

LOL - you're so transparent when you realize you're losing a debate that it's a wonder we can still see you Lets unpack a little here... Harper spun the truth and put a good face on things like every politician but real lies and deceit? Not really. I notice you didn' provide any examples of these terrible 'lies and decept" you obviously think he did But hey - you explain to me when he lied in a similar way as trudeau has about not being briefed on china. Or when he deceived the voters about something the way trudeau has been. And don't just waste our time posting some news article about things he did you didn't like.