CdnFox

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.

Awww muffin Tell me you know you're losing a discussion without telling me LOL Of course the statement implies that the reason he wound up getting arrested is because of his correct statement that men and women are different. And that is demonstrably true, that is how he wound up being arrested, there is a direct connection there. But it does NOT say he was arrested FOR that or charged FOR that. It implies a connection, and there is one. I'm sure even you wouldn't be stupid enough to claim the events aren't connected at all. So it's entirely true. Sorry sparkie - there's dozens of medical texts that refer to men and sex. In fact men's sexual issues are a pretty common topic. In fact - dictionary definition time: MAN plural men ˈmen in compounds ˌmen, or mən : an individual human especially : an adult male human OHHHH NOOOOOOEESS - The DICTIONARY is transphobic and thinks that men are male!!!!!!!! Men and women refer to adult male and female people. It's still about sex kiddo Let me know when you get tired of being wrong.

Sure. Ultimately that is the case. Although part of the problem is that education facilities and most gov'ts tend to promote and foster the idea. It's really not how it works. It's more about perceived value and priority. Beer is considered to be valuable. But there is no sense of getting something important back from spending on the military. If the gov't is going to cut money the public will notice it less if they cut from the military. Not really. If you read most of the stories in the last decade, if they discuss our guys in the field it's all about the 'training' we're doing for other countries, not about our actual fighting. And there's not much in there about gear. We get some stuff like the new fighters but that's always downplayed as "oh the current ones are fine, we should take our time and really ake sure we've got the right choices", which we saw for the replacement of the sea kings and the f-18's. Then we hear about the gear just as new gear is being purchased. The northern rangers get new rifles and we hear all about how their old ones barely fired any more - but so what, they're getting new ones so problem solved. It was the same with the pistols. Every now and then someone notes that some of teh gear is 'older than the young men using it'. but they never say there's a real problem or anything. So everyone kinda knows in a general sense that our gear isn't top of the line, but they don't really think there's a problem. Seems like everything's ok regardless. It's not so much an 'active choice' as just not realizing how serious the problem is. BUt - pretty much yeah.

But they don't. In fact they've been known on more than one occasion to completely destroy their party rather than continue to vote for corrupt versions of it. Federally there's the old PC party - When they became corrupt the voters reduced them to 4 seats and started a new party that eventualy absorbed them. It's the same provincially too - the socreds were wiped out when it was percieved they were corrupt in bc for example. And least we forget - provincially the ndp voters have been willing to do the same to their party when corruption shows it's head. No - it's just the liberal party in Canada that keeps voting again and again for corruption in gov't. They are unique in that respect.

the current version of the left has amazing powers of self deception and is focused on 'muh feels' rather than facts. So for them there is no corruption. The china thing is sticking a bit but honestly - they can simply say 'it's just a right wing talking point" and then say "look! PP will sell us to the russians FOR SURE and also ban all human rights so no matter what we can't vote for him". It is very unfortunate. Their leader can do no wrong essentially because it can be dismissed if you don't care about facts.

It might be where the story stopped but not where the sentiment and public perception did. You get kids today yelling how we're peacekeepers who weren't even out of diapers when the last mission happened, and ignoring that we've had a number of combat missions since, I can see how it would look that way but no, it really is patriotism the way many on the left see it. The politicians just pander to what the public buys into. Understanding that is an important step to helping combat it, but it is fairly well ingrained. We have this weird dichotomy tho - when soldiers do die OR if they can't do a mission due to lack of gear then there's much hubbub about how we should be equipping them right - and suddenly that's a part of our identity, but it fades quickly and we're back to being peacekeepers. Most canadians have no idea that there is. Or that there's a problem with the gear. Other than a general sense of "oh i think i heard some of our gear is old'. the army can't talk about it, the media won't report on it, the politicans don't worry about it and the public is oblivious to it. Until things change with how the public sees the military it's going to be a problem.

Yes, one leads to the other. If he had not voiced his opinion then there was no trespass violation, his presence on that day would have been perfectly acceptable. It is quite reasonable and accurate to say that his stating his opinion lead to his arrest. Just not that he was arrested for his opinion.

Sadly in our media driven world that leads to the media giving the public the impression that they're all just racists - which is basically what happened to scheer. Remember they'd been asking that question for days, it wasn't going away. It died after that answer tho It's the game. And it's critical to be able to play it well especially during elections. Scheer got hammered when he didnt' have an answer ready for the abortion question which everyone knew would be coming. o'toole got murdered looking wishy washy over the gun question. They're already trying to paint PP as a convoy enthusiast and racist, you have to have an answer for that or you get creamed. So fortunately he had a pretty good response.

every good writer knows you have to write to the level of your audience The post was for you after all Whenever i use reason and common sense you seem to get confused. I 'm just trying to make it digestible for you The counter point is that the school has much of its TOS set by the mandate it operates under. It's not a private independent facility with no ties to the gov't. It has certain duties it takes on board. If the school overstepped then it's the school that must be changed. Actually it does funny enough. People are getting sick of the 'woke' and it's starting to have an impact But that's not relevant. What we do in this case as i noted is change the school.

Well they do influence people. So it is kind of important to call them on their bullcrap. But it looks bad to the public to just do that, so he does it in a round about way like this and its considered funny and clever instead of just hostile. It's effective.

It is clear - i think i posted it as well when we discussed it but here's the link to the whole article so that you can see it. I had assumed when you said you couldn't read the 'article' that you could see the headline tho, and that the article was blocked due to adblocker software or the like. Next time you can just ask https://www.foxnews.com/media/canadian-catholic-student-arrested-charged-saying-men-women-different-embarrassing Canadian Catholic student arrested, charged after saying men, women are different: 'Embarrassing' So leaving out the 'embarrassing' part which is subjective, it is true that the student was in fact arrested and charged after expressing that men and women are different. He made those statements and at a later time after he was arrested. Now - as i'm sure you'll recall i said that headline was a little misleading even tho it is true. A person might read it as he was arrested immediately after saying that for saying that. Like, he said it and they slapped on cuffs. Which isn't accurate. But headlines are meant to convey the story in a very very compressed space and there is no doubt that his statements and the schools response lead directly to his arrest later. So the headline is not a lie. It's just not the whole story, But as you can see they certainly tell the whole story. So even if someone was confused by the headline the story itself contains all the facts. So there's no lie. Emotionally charged language in the article to create a sense of outrage? Sure -that's media today. But i think you'll have a tough time pointing to anything that's factually untrue.

The headline from fox was not actually a lie. which makes your statement a lie. Why do you feel the need to lie to justify your position? If your position can't stand on it's own without lies then maybe you need to reconsider your position.

It's a publicly funded school performing a publicly mandated service. It's not just someone's restaurant. They do have duties beyond that. School is a place for such discussions, and for daring to have one the kid's educational future was put in jeopardy. That is utterly unacceptable. It is the job of the teachers and the school to guide them through a learning process, not to ban-hammer them because they don't like what they say.

I don't think pp gives a damn about the blacface. And most conservatives didn't - even during the election scheer basically said several times he didn't think it was a big deal but what pissed him off is that trudeau lied about it and then lied about how many times and his apology is pretty hollow. However - the thing is that the liberals and their supports do think blackface is a big deal and have MANY times demanded that conservatives step down for doing what THEY consider to be LESS of an offense. So what he is saying is if the media is going to give the conservatives a tough time on racism just for meeting with someone the left doesn't like, how do they justify giving Justin a free ride on what he did?

IS it a 'racial slur' now to say that a man is a man? If you said at a restaurant that black people are black i don' t know you'd get kicked out. In fact, if you got strange looks it would be because people would be thinking "yeahhhhh,... that's obvious, what's your point?". And a school in Canada has a duty to provide for discussion on a variety of sensitive issues. So - if this is a problem, then we don't need to change the student, we need to change the school.

You misunderstand. I allowed you your sillyness and simply used your word but i was referring to the same thing you were. I meant the article never said he was arrested for his views on men and women. The lie would be yours. Fox never pretended that in the slightest. They were very clear about that. Where does fox say that the kid was arrested on any charges other than tresspass? So,.. why did YOU feel the need to lie about what fox said? to the point of claiming you had to look it up elsewhere to discover the truth? If you have to lie to make a point, you probably don't have a very good point As to 'stupid', i'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but saying that a biological woman or man is a biological woman or man is not actually stupid, it's a factual statement even if it doesn't fit with whatever agenda you've got going on. We can agree the issue is more complicated than that and we can agree that the discussion doesn't stop there but pretending that an aboslutely true biological fact is "stupid" is... well.. stupid.

This is pretty simple. Canada didn't want to participate in the war. The war went on without us. After the war canada took on many roles to help the country recover. That is different. You're trying to conflate the two and it's just not the same thing at all.

Really doesn't seem like there's much there. Those 'cracks' have pretty much been there since day one. The us is happy as long as russians and their gear are being destroyed at a much higher rate than the value of the american gear being sent, because it'll weaken russia for decades. THe 'end goal' will depend on how successful some of the ukrainian offensives are. And at the day, Zelenski won't have much say in when the war stops. The war stops when putin wins or decides to give up, Or when the us stops sending weapons. So putin or biden will be making that decision for him,

THe article never said he was arrested FOR being 'stupid' as you put it. Soooo - who lied exactly? But it did note that was the inciting event, without the 'stupid' you have no arrest period. So saying that the arrest was a result of his opinion is not wrong.

I've noticed, but didn't want to bring it up. Sounded like it. You obviously didn't read the op's article because it said straght in it that the kid was arrested for trespassing so you wouldn't have had to 'look it up if you had access to the article. i mean the article doesn't say what the forum post title said, it's very clear that the charge he was arrested for was tresspass, but that the charge is a direct result of his voicing his opinion. And considering i posted a rather large number of posts demonstrating that even tho you can't say he was CHARGED with "opinion" it's entirely realistic to say he was charged because of it it seemed more likely you were referring to me. If they hadn't objected to his opinion his being there would not have been trespass. Remove the opinon and if everything else was the same there's no charges. So are you suggesting that you meant the article? Would you explain your comments then - the article and the article's headline never say he was directly charged for his opinion at all, and they identify the charge as trespass so what exactly did you have to go and 'look up'? The article never said he was charged for his opinion.

Man, that's REALLY bigoted. Why can't he be more like Putin, who wants to kill all Ukrainians equally?