CdnFox

The problem is there's something wrong with EVERY system. Elect judges - there's MAJOR problems. Appoint judges, the party in charge tends to appoint ones that suit it's needs. Harper came up with a very good non partisan system to address a lot of concerns - it was wiped out by trudeau the moment he got into office. Anything changed today can be unchanged by a corrupt gov't later. So what has to happen is they have to be willing to use the notwithstanding clause for things like this. Redo the law and say "charter don't give a sheet biatches" and pass it. That takes the judges out of the equasion and once you do it if another gov't doesn't up hold that in 5 years then they have to wear that to the public.

I shall have a commemorative plaque commissioned for both of us to note the date

well you're welcome to post as many as you like. This is an exercise in showing how the public sees the articles so you understand why the message may not hit home. So in that article they identify budget cuts, old gear and the fact that veteran affairs will screw you. So - budget cuts gets a lot of discussion. VA gets a lot and is a much more emotional thing. The only 'equipment mentioned is our fighters. Well we're already working on new fighters so problem solved there. You see how the state of the gear is seriously downplayed. The average person reading that says "the military wants more money, yawn, we need new planes, well we're doing that, and gosh - that really is crappy about veterants affaris that's what i should be annoyed about in this article. This one even YOU should be able to realize the problem with - it says we need a BIGGER military. And this is the french talking - well known for their decades of military prowess. When people sell a rifle that's in near perfect condition with only a few dings they call it in 'french' condition - never fired and only dropped once. That is the average opinion of the french military. Oh and we need subs. So we need a bigger military and subs. NO ONE walks away from this article thinking our soldiers need better gear. Nobody can find affordable housing. Next. This one doesn't mean anything to the average person. I 'm sure he's correct - but all they hear is "we need MOAR military because reasons". It doesn't tell them that the soldiers don't have enough ammo to practice with. Well this one shoots you guys in the foot right off the bat - it says our military despite cutbacks is really capable and functional. We just need moar! Total zone out from the average person. From the article: The poll found that awareness of, and familiarity with, the Canadian Armed Forces was generally very low, and virtually non-existent among younger Canadians. THIS IS WHAT I"VE BEEN TELLING YOU Another 'we should spend moar' article that doesn't highlight how bad the soldiers have it. Dude - the average person is not reading defense report. And all this says is we should have tanks. The average person won't know enough to agree or disagree but they'll assume the experts know better and probably DO read Defense Report and they'll figure it out. Yeah i'm not watching that. I'm pretty sure the other articles depressed me eough But i'm sure it's the same I know - and i actually am one of the few non military people who know with a reasonable degree of accuracy how bad the soldiers have it. My cousin is in the military and they're having a tough time getting enough ammo to practice with. And i have to be clear - I"M AGREEING WITH YOU 100 PERCENT with regards to the situation and the problem. What i'm trying to point out is that the public is NOT being educated on this. All those articles YOU think are very informative have NOTHING for the average person to make them actually concerned EXCEPT for the VA stuff. Which actually has been a political issue more than procurement. It mentions subs without explaining who we need to torpedo. (most people don't understand the surveillance aspect). It says we need tanks without explaining why in average-person language so they say 'well the experts will deal with that". And there's virtually nothing in there about the lack of basics for the soldiers - so people think the soldiers are fine they just dont' have subs or tanks, but when was the last time we fought on the ocean or invaded poland? What do we need that stuff for'? I'm not giving up free lesbian dance theory to pay for that. I do NOT doubt that The situation is abysmal. But for it to change the public has to care. And right now the public is being sheltered from the worst of it. THey're being told that aside from some older planes and no torpedo subs the military is capable and we're damn proud of them here at the gov't! So don't you worry. They're also being told that we dont' need a bigger military, we don't attack people. We're peacekeepers. So there's zero sense in the public that there IS a problem here. And it's tough because as long as the media and the politicians want to spread that thinking it's brutally hard to educate the people. Well yes and no. I mean it's not you. But it's not really the public either per se. They believe what they're told - sure maybe some gear is old but mostly it's all good. And the military is limited in how much they can say to the public to educate them. And the good our military does is severely downplayed in schools and education - sure we're proud of them but they're peacekeepers right? And the worlds best snipers! So there you go we're good. What probably has to happen for things to change is for a civilian org of ex military or well educated civvies to set up shop wiht the express intent of educating the public with a free voice and shaming the gov't like hell especially during election time and becoming a genunie advocacy group. But my feeling is that idea will rub military people the wrong way. It'll feel like begging or whining to the public. But that's how things get done.

Also - a word about 'grooming'. Of COURSE it's grooming. Pretty much all efforts to influence and train children for later life is grooming. Until a short time ago the word wasn't even a perjorative - people talked about 'Grooming the next generation of leaders" and such all the time, it was a normal term expressing a normal thing. Grooming in and of itself isn't evil - it would be evil NOT to prepare kids for later life and their role in it. And things like 'drag story time' are undoubtedly an effort to "groom" or shape kids thinking to be more positive to the lGBT community. But to be clear there is NOTHING WRONG as a general concept with 'grooming' our kids for the future with the lessons we think are important. Now - we can have a long talk about whether that IS something we need to be teaching kids early, or if some of this goes too far, or encourages confusion or non positive behavior, or how much children should be exposed to sexual issues and at what ages. But to dismiss everything you don't like as 'grooming' is not appropriate. And to deny that shaping the opinions and instructing youth ISN'T grooming is also not appropriate. It's all grooming. What we should be discussing is what is appropriate to introduce kids to and at what age.

As reluctant as i am in general to agree with OW (snicker), i have to say i think he's got more of the right of it here. First off - yes, as a matter of fact pretty much all straight white males have a 'perverted' streak in them depending on how you define that. But - that's not what they're displaying most of the time. A drag queen might well be entertaining but they're always a statement in sexuality one way or another. A person who dresses up in an amusing fashion that's NOT got a sexual aspect to it is not called a drag queen - they're called clowns. So what is the purpose of making a big deal out of having drag queens performing in front of children? Why i sit specifically "Drag story time" instead of just story time? Or fun time story time. Why is it becoming so prevelant? The answer is pretty simple and not even all that sinister - they want kids to be comfortable with the idea that sometimes men look like women and women look like men and they shouldn't find that frightening or unusual. They want to acclimatize them to it and normalize it. Some people will say 'so what? it should be normal". Some will say "it should be normal, but i think it's wrong to expose children to complex sexual issues until they're older and this just causes confusion and harm later on. Some will say It IS wrong and this is encouraging behavior we should not be promoting. But - nobody should pretend it isn't what it is. It's an effort to get kids comfortable with gender issues outside the traditional.

I did see some resaerch that suggested that wearing 'regular' masks (ie not perfect fit) could increase the time it takes to get an infectious dose of covid in a very enclosed environment such as someone's personal office or similar enclosed non ventilated room by almost 100 percent. In other words - if it took 15 mins of exposure to be infected before you might stretch that to as much as 30 in those specific conditions. But - that was for original covid. I don't know if even that small amount of protection would still be true with the more contagious newer variants. For me masks fall under the heading of 'might as well' just in case they help a bit but they're certainly not the face-condoms some people seem to think. Useful in specific circumstances a little, and that's about it. Maybe on busses and such it would be a really good idea.

True although i hadn't heard that it 'went out of control', just that it went down in the sea. Which planes definitely do if their engine quits But i had heard that their might have been a collision, I guess we'll see.

Didn't even shoot it down apparently. Just fouled the engine by dumping gas on it.

Awwww muffin. Are you projecting? So what you're saying is you feel you lost? I'm sorry that the facts make you feel bad. No. He proposed a non binding solution, Any future prime minister could choose not to pick from the selection of the province. It would be more of a 'recommendation'. The courts had issue with the selection process of the recommendation, saying that by holding an election even of RECOMMENDED candidates it was stepping outside of the charter. By even setting that process up EVEN THO THE PM WAS NOT BOUND TO IT - the court said you're still essentially changing how things are done and some provinces may not want to elect their own senators so you need constitutional buy in before you can make ANY changes at all to how the process is done. So you obviously don't even understand what was proposed. So you've just been talking out of your ass the whole time. Well - there you go. No wonder you feel like a loser. Next time do some research. LOL - well if that's the criteria for 'something' then you've said nothing It was actually a pretty clever idea and i think the court was wrong to strike it down. It would have solved a lot of problems without binding anyone to anything. Any province could have chosen not to elect it's 'recommended list' and those who wanted to could choose to do so. Term limits would have to have been by choice with the persons agreeing to it. But seeing as you obviously don't know anything about it theres no surprise you didn't get that So you lied. Or you just forgot about it. And now you've been shown to be wrong and you're trying to re-write what you said retroactively. While i appreicate your extensive efforts in retcon nobody buys it. So - we agree harper did do something, Something he thought would work, something many experts thought would work, and something that had it been allowed would actually have been pretty clever and made things better for most canadians. So your first claim that it is "Unforgiveable" that he did nothing is something we both agree now is false. Actually you're wrong again. He did indeed speak to the premiers, who have to agree to open the books to constitutional change. But they were quite clear there was no concensus on how it should be done. Some provinces wanted full on elections directly to the senate position, others wanted it to be a 'recommendation' like he'd proposed, quebec didn't want it at all but would consider it if they got a bunch of constitutional concessions..... No chance of proceeding. So having seen how this went with meech and charolettown he said he couldn't proceed. But - once again you pretend none of that happened. Sorry kiddo - your lack of historic knowledge and obvious liberal bias (your experts! Snicker!) has let you down. He didn't choose ANY senators for a very long time and many positions were still unfilled when Trudeau took over. So - again, you just don't get it. So again - your first 'unforgivable sin' is a complete fabrication. Harper did make a serious attempt, and it was exactly what he campaigned on. He specifically campaigned on attempting senate reform without constitutional changes. And he did try and got shot down. Boy - if you felt like a loser before, i can only imagine what you feel like now Did you want to discuss your second 'unforgivable sin' as well, Or are you done looking like an uneducated buffoon for now?

Ok - give an example of him lying. (I have a strange sense of deja vu... )

OTOH look at toronto. I have over 30 guns sitting not more than 60 ft from me . Who told you guns were hard to get in Canada? And thats LEGAL guns, the bad guys have zero problems. As to france - paris 2015 would like to talk to you The bad guys get whatever they feel like and whatever is at hand and kill people. If you're so deranged that you've decided to kill people in large numbers you're going to find whatever way works best for you. Hell - many of the biggest mass murderers used a knife and did it one or two at a time. Then there's the kid in Alberta who went to a party, took a kitchen knife from the kitchen and killed 5 people before anyone realized what was going on. And of course there's this guy: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/07/americas/saskatchewan-canada-stabbing-myles-sanderson/index.html Used a knife to kill 11 people. That's one of the highest mass murders in Canadian history. But that was a reserve - i GUARANTEE you there were hunting rifles and shotguns handy. So - doesn't really matter if they have access to guns or not, once a guy has decided to kill people they will find the tools

Buddy. Inconvenient truth came out almost a decade after the first HEV hit the market. A decade. And that doesn't account for the time they spent developing it. And you're going to claim that it was responsible for HEV's? Your credibility is nosediving radically here. Step it up and prove to me you're not just some mindless dolt not worth discussing things with. That whole paragraph was utter drivel. Do better. Sure kid. It must have been the inconvenient truth that pushed them over. Fun fact - conservatives were the first to propose a carbon tax. Originally the model looked promising. It turned out that energy expenditures were not as elastic as originally predicted and they dropped it believing it would not work (which has since proven right for that very reason). That was before 'inconvenient truth' came out too Conservatives have always been concerned about the climate, just not as much as the libs and they differ on what the best approach is. Marijuana yes. cigs no. No. And neither do you. It never happened, neither was a conservative position. Ever. About the closest you can come is that conservatives did take the position that it was a gateway drug but then so did a lot of liberals, and the police, and many others. Virtually none of that is true. Sorry. Conservatives correctly might say that they dropped the gay marriage thing 20 years ago and that was an internally driven decision. To be honest, it was only ever a small vocal minority that really cared about it. I was at that convention. My candidate that i volunteered for that election was gay btw. We lost but we did fairly well it was a liberal stronghold riding. But they woudn't claim they were never against gay marrange. Amusigly it's the libs who like to rewrite history there. They were VERY againt gay marriage and when the courts ruled it had to be allowed they went to the surpreme court and basically asked can we do something other than marriage, what's the least we can get away with here. Then when forced to it, they were all for it. But you won't hear liberals repeating that history today very much LOL - that's ALL americans. Whatever side loses - it was unfair. A CRAP tonne of democrats denied trump won the election, claiming the russians won it for him and it was rigged. Hell - clinton is STILL TO THIS DAY saying she didn't lose, that it was stolen from her. Then theres the democrat that STILL insists she's the real governor in the state she lost in thats not just trump. That coulnd't be more wrong. first the budget officer has announced that the vast majority don't give back what they're taxed, But more importantly each step of the consumer process carbon tax is added to the cost. Unlike gst and similar tax which are not charged to the businesses until the consumer buys - but carbon tax is build into the prices with no rebate to busnesses. So the consumer pays a lot of carbon tax even before they pay their carbon tax which they won't get back. It drives cost up substantially and the industry doesn't pay it, they just pass it on. Further they charge GST on the tax, and that doesn't get returned either.

LOL - well that doesn't really have the ring of truth to it Americans lock up people they find committing crimes. Can you point to a case where antifa has turned over one of it's own for violence? I can appreciate that YOU would refuse to attend an event where you believed there might be violence ,but that does not seem to be the norm considering how many violent events are attended. If you're a booker then you are the customer. that's not the same thing as a public venue where the speaker and audience is the customer, Futher - the venues are't saying this - they are attacked and pressured into it by activists. They book someone and then there's an uproar. So it would be more like you decide your customers would like to hear country music, and a bunch of punk rock people show up and threaten to trash the place if you do. And yes - i think those things would be bad. ROFLMAO - hardly. The face of the left is AOC. The face of the right currently is desantis. There is no middle, and nobody thinks biden is the face of anything. Trump is the face of people who for whatever reason are just sick of it all and want to see it burn. In any case you can't really say that they represent their respective people's at all. They may have during an election but for example look at biden's numbers now vs when he got elected. And when you give people two choices they go for the least wrong one which isn't to say they like them. And lets face it - a percent will vote based on tribal lines on both sides no matter who the candidate is. I don't know there is a 'good' way to judge large hunks of people other than very very general terms. Well it depends on what you mean by worse. The economy was good under trump and would almost certainly be better than sanders, economically he'd be a disaster. Sanders is less likely to be a source of social instability, (AOC sure as hell would be tho) Sanders is more likely to focus on social issues and social equity and environmental concerns, trump would more likely focus on things like strengthening nato. Biden died about 7 years ago and just hasn't stopped moving yet so we'll just think of him as a placeholder for now. So - what's your poison? If you care more about the economy then trump is a far better choice despite his clear mental issues and instability. If you're concerned about the environment and social issues, bernie would be your only candidate, you'd require a lobotomy to consider trump. Things are just like that, and what is important to you may change from time to time. You might care about the environment right now and then there's a recession and you can't find work, so you decide the economy is a big concern. In college you might be very concerned about social issues - you get out, do well and build a business and make good money and suddenly you Do car about taxes and 'tax the rich' isn't as good an idea. So - you just can't make blanket statements like that. Everyone has priorities

They can in canada, and this kid comes pretty damn close. And you could suffer a fate many consider worse - you could be forced from your job, have your career or family ruined, etc. Which is in many respects worse than jail. I don't know that we're far apart on this point. And i wouldn't expect you to know canadian law, just as i'm not as conversant in us laws. But the laws here are MUCH stricter. i think we both agree they probaby shouldnt be from the sounds of it. For moral AND practical reasons. Uhhh -this already was tested in an ontario human rights trial and he was right. ALSO - even before that institutions were using it to threaten students, saying they would have them charged under that provision. Read up on the Lindsey Shepard case. She was threatened with charges under that provision just for showing a debate peterson had on tv with another professor organized by the universities to her class. It is absolutely not a nazi theory the nazi's definitiely had strong opinions about the communists and it was communist violence that lead to the nazi's talking their way into power to 'fight it'. (read up on the red wedding incident. The real one, not game of thrones. wedding is a district in germany). This is the old logical fallacy of "hitler had a cat. You have a cat. You must be like hitler". Nope. People all over the world note the same issues with socialism and communism, and he notes issues with the current version that simply woudn't have existed back in the nazi days. Not agreeing with communists is not just a 'nazi' thing Honestly i dont' follow him much so i can't dispute that but you'll have to excuse me if i'm not going to accept that at face value from you. If he did say it he must have said it quietly, i can't find anything on google about it and i would think that would be pretty headline news. That doesn't mean he didn't, but i'm going to need more than that. As i've admitted i don't watch a lot of his stuff, i watched more of it when he was all about social models and the like because it was very well researched and interesting, but the bits i have seen where he mentions trans at all that are more recent seem to be about children more than adults. In any case - he can't be saying taht MUCH about trans people or it wouldn't be hard to find.

That nicely avoided my question entirely. and by the time he's out in the workplace i doubt it'll even come up on a google search except 28 pages back. Forced to because the school wouldn't discuss it with him. So it was not him who chose to escallate, it was them that chose that as his only other option. Bad call. Insanely public? He tried to address it with the school. They didn't listen. His next choice was to go public and organize what sounds like a pretty small counter protest to raise awareness. So - what do you call the BLM marches then? If a handful of people are insane - what level of madness do you attribute to that? It sounds a lot like what your'e saying over and over is that if he had a different opinon he should shut up and if the doesn't shut up he should be forced to shut up and punished until he does, and he'll have it coming I think that's a fast way to an authoritarian society and it's a guaranteed way to turn a lot of people against trans rights. There will be a lot of people, moderate people mind you, who will walk away from that situaiton thinking 'wow - it's really us vs them if i dare to disagree". And that's how bigotry and hatred gets started. I note that attacks on trans and gays has been going up in both canada and the us in the last few years. And that policies like this have been enforced for the last few years. Coincidence i'm sure.

Of course they don't. That's why he created the office of the parlimentary budget officer to overlook such things and produce reports and do cost estimating during elections. Opposition parties never have full access to the books. many of whom said it should be do-able. OF course they didnt' have access either Sure they are. They don't stand in isolation you know. He thought he could make it work. He opened up the books, saw where things really were, and they realized it wasn't going to work. Part of that was the 'creative' liberal accounting he'd based his numbers on that didn't quite line up when he could see the actual books. Which is why the libs shut up and voted for it to make sure it passed. And like i said - he stood up, owned it, and let the public know why he was wrong and put it to a vote in the house. No lie there. Your inability to make your case and attempt to blow it off as "Sure i'm right because unsubstantiated reason!" is the kind of weak minded childish low brow thinking that frequently leads to dismissing facts as 'limp partisan' crap. Virtually everything you offered was wrong. And that isn't much - considering you couldn't come up with a single example of harper lying to the public. Which was your whole thing, harper is this notorious liar. And you can't get an example. I can give many for trudeau. He hasn't even been in as long as harper. So there you go. Harper was far from perfect. But he didn't lie to or decieve the public the way that the liberals have. There was no money under the table at restaurants, there was no chinese breifings that he lied about not getting only for it to be revealed that he did. Swing and a miss.

Nope. most shootings have less than 2 actually. Hell dawson college only had one and he hit like 23 people. The attack on the legislature only resulted in 1 death and that guy had a rifle. It's actually easier to kill people suddenly with cars. Look at france.

So you know it's true and rather not have it demonstrated. undrestandable. That still has nothing to do with self defense. And if SOME people in antifa are violent and the OTHERS tolerate that , then they're all violent. Either directly or by association and cooperation. quite a few. In fact some have passed in Canada. So - you asked which ones are facist - what's your response to that. of course it's facism. It is insane to think that it's one thing if the gov't odes it but not if someone else does it. The act itself is what creates the facsim, not the actor. Musilini would still have been a facist before he got into power. So i have TONNES of examples of the left doing facism. What YOU are doing is what the left always does - when they commit a human rights violation they attempt to alter the normal definition of a word to try to pretend it doesn't apply to them. That's why it's not racist to be racist to white people Really - well give me a count then and show your sources. I'll wait. THat is literally one of their favorite things to do. It's literally where the whole SJW meme started. Puling fire alarms at speeches. Burning berkley till it banned people they don't like. the list is endless. I suspect i give both sides a good honest look more than you do. You throw around a LOOTTTA rhetoric for someone who's taking a dispassionate view at both. No, they're just as bad. Saying they're not is simply protecting your tribe. They are easily demonstrably every bit as bad, and when it comes to hypocracy they are demonstrably far worse. There simply are no white hats in american politics right now but of the two the left is slightly worse yet demands it's slightly better. But as an outside observer, it's pretty easy to see

Still confused i believe. I don't recall saying it was illegal to be transphobic. However - speaking in a fashion that is deemed to be transphobic could well land you criminal hate speech charges depending, and an even lower bar is a trip to the provincial human rights council. As for Peterson, he doesn't say anything negative about trans people, he mostly says nobody should be compelled in their speech by law. It's one thing to say you can't say a word, it's another to say you must. But of course the left MUST make him out to be a nazi and homophobe and transphobe and racist and .. sorry did i miss any of your favorite slanders? the left does love to pile them on

Those two things are not in conflict - if anything conservative support for ev's to the degree their tech has matured is in keeping with their vision of how best to deal with climate change. Well assuming that's true one can still believe climate change exists and also believe ev's aren't a good solution for that. The science is not THAT clear and there are issues. So there's room for debate. That doesn't make them deniers, it just means that they don't think EV's are part of the solution. And i did note in that thread that even those who don't think they're much of a good idea overall did feel that in specific cases they probably would be and they support that. I think i posted earlier an article showing that the republicans are open to climate change policy - they just put a different priority on it and think different solutions are in order. But sure - the republicans ratchet up the rhetoric, and the dems are every bit as bad or worse on the other side, making equally rediculous claims and we wind up seeing this stupid tribal culture emerge where having an intelligent conversation about it (or anything else) becomes near impossible. it's how politics is done these days. Ahhh no. Cimate change wasn't even on the public radar when the first HEV's came on the market. They were sold more as a way to save at the pump and reduce the costs of gas. You may not have been around in the 90's but i remember the marketing well. And 'less pollution in the cities' was a thing, not global warming. So no. And the NEXT big jump to full electric was driven by ELON MUSK. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting he's a liberal? Or some how caved to left wing pressure to start up an electric car company? The reason those things exist is because capitalist entrepreneurs saw a market, and moved to fill it. And that's just how the next round will come. WtF?!?! What country do you live in boy? You can't be canadian and say that with a straight face. You very clearly do not know anything about carbon taxes. Tell me you're not canadian without telling me. You are 100 billion percent wrong in this country. Imagine saying carbon tax only applies to business. I don't know why they would, it's well established that the truth is horrific enough. His footprint is insane. well what IS he doing to minimize those activites? I mean - we're all going to die if we don't, and i thought you said carbon emissions were SUPPOSED to apply to businesses not people. From the PEW research paper i posed. Please pay attention. And even you can't argue that PEW is bias. Uhhhhh - you realize that's an article on the effect of climate policy, which is not what we're discussing. And the rest shows how many believe who the biggest influence is when considering mankind's influence over natrure's in whats causing climate change - Not who does or doesnt' believe in climate change. And there is no column for 'no influence'. And when you look at the republicans its way more than 50 percent who think it's substantial, either moderate or higher. You misread it. In fact it shows that the strong majority of republicans think man causes climate change significantly and for the remainder a good hunk think it does somewhat. Which jives with the previous pew research i posted showing only 18 percent don't thnk climate change is a thing. Thanks for proving MY point - odd thing to do really. Maybe you should have read that more. All that paper shows you is it was correct and you don't know how to read papers And i care why? Sorry but that's not even relevant. As i recall it was AOC or the like who said the trend will be irreversible and we would all die if we didn't get it under control within 4 years. THat was about 4 years ago. Everyone laughed and eventually she had to change her tune. Politicians can say stupid things if they think someone's going to like it,that only shows politicians can be stupid. I knew that already.

Ok - pick five and i'll show you how the rest of the country sees it. The liberals said it was. The military didn't say much when they added seven plus years to the procurement process. So - why would the public believe different? Surely the gov't knows. Well that's a question i can answer. I have a car and have owned cars. But i have no idea how long they keep planes. They don't drive the planes to work every day right? They spend lots and lots of money fixing them so maybe they last longer? i don't know - i'm just a lowly civillian. So when the gov't tells me things are fine who am i to say otherwise? If it was REALLY urgent someone would be making a fuss about it. They really don't. And pretending they do is just as bad as pretending that our military is in good shape. The public thinks some of our gear is old but no big deal. Honestly. Sometimes you hear the military would like new gear but everyone everywhere likes new gear. How bad can it be? So on one side we've got you and your type in the military thinking everyone knows. On the other side we've got the people oblivious thinking everythings more or less fine. And in between, the politicians who get to pretty much get away with whatever they like. You see the problem. Now i get the military has to be careful speaking out officially but some way or another there has to be a serious effort to educate the public. If a politician like PP does it they'll call him a warmonger. He can push a little but it ain't gonna cut it on it's own.

nope -it's done by the left. The left just excuses it or says it's not a result of the person's left leaning beliefs. Pretty much as you tried to do with the pelosi attack. Virtually none of that makes sense or represents a reasoned argument. the fact that i agree with people's right to self defense within parameters does not in any way shape or form speak to my "problems" with antifa. Nor does it limit what issues i may have with antifa. Nor does it suggest i've been 'brainwashed'. Sooooo - you just making crap up at random now or... whatcha doing? The repression of people's right to speak if it's not positively viewed by the left and the willingness to use physical force to enforce that. Sure it is. That's like saying "name one lie donald trump told, but remember that deliberately telling a falsehood isn't lying." Yeah - it is, and you can't make that go away just by declaring it. YOu're not Michael Scott from the Office tv show Nope. they don't. Polls sugggest that they might not see the term as being exclusively bad but they do not want to be considered woke themselves, they think of it negatively when it's applied to them. And it gets even worse when they get polled on antifa. Sorry but the excessive nature of the so called "woke" or politically correct or social justice warrior or what have you is starting to turn people off. That's one of the reasons trump won, and lets face it if he hadn't been so freaking crazy on his twitter and in the media scrums he probably would have gotten elected again. Even you here - i'm usualy the kind to look at both sides of things and consider opinions pros and cons but you come across as SO hate filled and over the top that it's hard to think of your position with anything other than amusement or distain. And that's pretty much how north america is coming to see the left these days. And biden isn't wowing anyone, that's for sure.

Whooopps - i think you got confused again. Although i can certainly understand that you'd want to limit the possible rebuttals to your position.

It's not harrassment in the slightest if you're approaching the principle. And he was ignored and turned away. If he's pinning the trans kids to the wall and demanding they stay out of the bathroom - that's harassment and bullying. But i don't see that in that article. But it would be reversed in this case. And this isn't a 'store'. That is LITERALLY voicing his opinion (i know you meant that instead of rights) which should be his right to do. Protests and counter protests happen all the time. Now - you might think that's a bad idea. I actually tend to as well. But he does have the right to protest and he does have the right to his opinion. ANd there's nothing radical about "boys should not be in the girls bathroom", it's a complex issue Ok - ten internets for 'implied joke' But at the end of the day it's not about our sympathy or lack of it for the kids' cause or beliefs. It's how his rights to those beliefs and to express them were handled. And can we agree that having an opinion shouldn't? (to be honest no employer is going to look this far back and his 'criminal' history won't appear in a search so it probably won't.) I don't recall saying he attempted to dial down the temperature. I think he did it AFTER he tried the more reasonable method of approaching the school and got rebuffed. But it's also worth noting that if the counter protest is why they banned him - that is an event off of school as i understand it. So - now this isn't about any on school policy, this is just they don't like him. Well he's a little bit the victim. They did choose to ban him. That was a choice they made, and it's very heavy handed. They might very well find that's not ok and they overstepped. I'm not saying the kid didn't play a part in all of this but they chose not to discuss the matter with him and then when he took other action they banned him, and when he challegned that they arrested him. He's a child - this is not the way you handle children

Yeah - actually i read your comment wrong originally and mistook it for he could have not said what he said and been arrested. But at the end of the day he still would have been punished by having his education taken away. So it's not like he woudln't have suffered serious punishment. Lets face it - while the arrest is 'shocking' for headlines the suspension is likely the more serious of the two punishments.