CdnFox

You're not from Canada, and your outlets are left wing. And nobody does believe you so i dont know what you're complaining about, Yeash - you don't even know what country your'e in.

You are not and everyone on this entire board is aware of it. You're not even a blue liberal. You're pretty firmly on the left in your opinions, debate style, beliefs, and support. And i was responding to where you specifically said if I don't want to be called a chud don't be a chud (which you couldn't define earlier so... not sure how people are supposed to avoid it ) I dont' really care what you call me. To point out your dishonesty on the subject. You very clearly do use it to dehumanize people. When someone says a falsehood, sometimes its necessary to repeat the truth. Close enough. I'm not going to go back and count but i see you use it very frequently. And always in the context of dehumanizing someone rather than addressing a point. I feel that you are aware, and it happens often enough that it seems more of a tactic than a mistake. I'll point it out more often. Do you honestly think that makes you look better? If the term has no definition you're aware of (which must be the case if you're asking me for one) then clearly you're only using it as a pejorative to dehumanize people you don't like. Not to 'tag' people for any specific reason, not to accurately identify a group or the like, but just to dehumanize. You really just proved my point. And before you bother to scramble and say 'wait wait wait... er... there is one (i just made up)" it's kind of too late for that. If you have to ask what the definition is then you didn't know when you were calling people chuds. Yes, everyone. You're not a conservative, everyone knows you're not a conservative at least not by any commonly used version of the term that's relevant today. As noted virtually every element of your body of replies speaks to a strong left ideology and position and support. Don't take it personal - i'd be just as upset with someone running around calling black people ni**ers or calling chinese ch*nks or the like. It's inappropriate to dehumanize people in that fashion with strongly pejorative group slurs. I gave americana antifa a hard time for calling everyone nazis and making anti jew remarks constantly. I mean - i get it, people will call an individual a 'leftie' or a 'capitalist' or the like or say that "the democrats" are 1diots or the 'maga' supporters think trump is this or that or the like, but when you repetitively come up with an 'undefined' pejorative term and apply it specifically to dehumanize rather than identify a block of policy or a specific political slate or agenda or something then it's over the line,

It's literally over and behind us. The penalties have been assessed, the schools shut down, reparations paid - if you can find a priest sill alive that can be charged with a sex crime i'm all over that but the school thing is over and behind us. She would like to lock me up in jail for sharing that opinion. Ahh - so if i say " i don't think we should give them any more money for residential school issues than we already have" - i should go to jail. That seems pretty reasonable.

Never said that once. But of course you've got to lie to try to make your point, you can't defend your point other wise Dare i say we're only a few posts away from your regularly scheduled hissy fit when you realize you're completely wrong and can't defend it

Says the guy who calls people 'chuds' all the time. See - this is what i mean about you attempting to change the channel in a dishonest fashion. AT no time did anyone attempt to debate if transgenderism is real. And to the best of my knowledge nobody has EVER brought that up as the main topic at a school board meeting. At best they might claim that the school policy may be flawed because they're not convinced all kids who think they're transgendered are transgendered - and that's perfectly legit considering some of the school policies. But - no, you have to change it to something else. And the bottom line is this - if it is tied in any way to the schools, then you don't get to 'downplay' it and decide other people should be silenced and lose their rights to speak just because you disagree with them and therefore feel it's pointless. And you call yourself a conservative. Bah.

So - you just realized you're wrong and look like a complete tard, and that's your reply LOL - well there you go. Step it up next time kiddo, This ain't an echo chamber, people around here can think.

OH i think you've shit yourself enough today Go change your diaper and see someone about addressing your fecalphillia there Best... line.... ever....

1 - yes it did. It didn't claim she was right - but it did claim her concerns were legitimate and not banned by the human rights act and she should have been heard. 2 - It is absolutely a vengeful campaign - which is why it's a 'defamation' lawsuit. 3 - Yup. Go do some research THey were pretty brutal to her. 4 - That's nice 5 - Of course there could be - they're now defendants in a defamation lawsuit that the judge here has all but said they're likely to lose and that she's got a valid case. The school just had to shell out 30 grand already for her legal fees - the suit could cost hundreds of thousands. You think thats not going to have an impact on the reputation of the trustees who defamed her? 6 - You don't get to "Think" about it. Which is for the best. People are supposed to be free to raise any concerns they want that impact or involve the school system the board presides over. The fact YOU don't think it's relevent or that THEY don't think it's important is utterly meaningless. Which is what has lead to the lawsuit. She brought up valid concerns, and rather than be allowed to express them she was tossed out and then attacked personally and harassed till she had to quit. This is a victory - and now the defamation suit can continue and hopefully she'll win there as well.

But all say it's not legal and you can be charged with a number of other offenses and fined to oblivion. DUI is what you are bringing up to try to change the subject. What i said is it's not legal.

Yes because you know you were wrong and i was right, so you're trying to change the discussion. Tell me you're a loser without telling me, AND NO - THEY DON"T NEED TO COMMIT ANY TRAFFIC INFRACTION. if they see you're driving the bike irradically and they test you and find out you're drunk - that is grounds for the charge of being intoxicated in public which means you are so drunk that your activities represent a danger. THey can then throw you in jail for the night and fine the bejeezuz out of you in the morning. ' ON TOP of that you may be subject to other charges and fines under various highway or roadway laws. You can't operate a bike impaired lawfully in any province i've ever heard of in canada .

You're a bit of a slow learner aren't you. You could easily have looked this up and found out he was completely correct. Here - dui specialists in ontario Other Legal Repercussions of Biking Under the Influence in Ontario Even though you may be shielded from a potential biking DUI in Canada, you can still be charged for other offences on your bike. In fact, if Ontario police spot you riding a bicycle erratically, in an unsafe manner, or in any other ways that suggests impairment, they will likely pull you over to test or otherwise evaluate your sobriety. If their evaluation proves impairment, you can be charged under the Ontario Liquor License Act with public intoxication. Depending on the circumstances, police can also charge you with careless driving under the province's Highway Traffic Act. While neither of these charges are criminal, they can lead nonetheless to a $50 fine for public intoxication, as well as fines between $400 and $2,000 for careless driving. https://torontodui.com/knowledge-centre/charged-dui-bike-heres-what-you-should-do/ There's a few dozen others. So first you try to change the channel by going from 'illega' to "dui", then you insist that a sask law firm is somehow wrong without providing a single link or bit of evidence. And you could easily have looked it up on your own but didn't. BTW - if you ARE found to be 'drunk in public' because you're on a bike impaired then they can throw you in jail for the night and lock up your bike as well. Fun fact It is not lawful to operate a bike while you're impaired in every province i'm aware of. Yeash,

Ummm - nobody said 'DUI". i said it would be illegal. Not a big fan of paying attention are you. If you're going to chew someone else out for something, maybe make sure you can read first.

Sure - same reason they understand why israel is bombing the crap out of gaza to resist their terrorist subjugation attacks on their civilians. Kinda sounds like you've got some moving goalposts there big guy. One set of rules for ukraine and one set for hamas.

Of course it's why you do it. And i hardly care what a left wing lunatic like yourself chooses to call me - people like you can't be taken seriously at the best of times . It woudl be like getting upset if a 3 year old called you a poopy-head. But it is very obviously your effort to dehumanize people so that you can justify not addressing their legitimate points. You literally just called people chuds and do so daily, and your discussion is very frequently unprincipled. I've noticed many have pointed this out to you. You engage in a lot of dodging of questions, comments that contribute nothing but are simply spiteful, dismissing people by dehumanizing them first, attempting to minimize and downplay issues rather than actually address them, and the list goes on. So. Seeing as you fit the definition nicely, it would seem you're a bit of a Chud yourself Everyone knows that's a lie, everyone points out it's a lie whenever you say it, and if your mental abilities are so weak that you cannot possibly fathom another way to refer to a group other than an insult even you struggled to define then frankly we should find you a forum for "special needs' people so you can be with your own kind

It's definitely not good when you've got a growing population and negative growth in the economy. That is presumably a temporary thing though. And realistically some would argue that the downturn would be worse without the immigrants thus the pie would be even smaller. I havent run the numbers for recent periods so i don't really know - i kind of doubt it but maybe At the end of the day tho, you're thinking about the pie but you're forgetting about how much pie it takes to live now. Inflation 'shrinks' the pie all on it's own and there's zero doubt that inflation in excess of our ability to provide new homes and services leads to severe inflation. And that's what we're seeing now. Immigration tends to cause the pie to grow, but if it's in excess of what we can cope with and absorb then it shrinks the pie through inflation. The pie itself may be bigger but you need more just to get by so effectively you have less

Funny enough i know of something similar, tho not so severe. When i was growing up there was a first nations kid in my class who was a math genius. We all agreed, the kid was beyond gifted, had real potential to be something special. He got pulled from the school by his parents because of prejudices about 'whitey' education. Which was very weird to me because the local band had up to that point been actually pretty involved and supportive of the school and the chief had come and done lectures on first nations history and culture and even held a mock potlatch. I think a new chief got in after he retired and was just racist towards whites and schools and the community changed and they pulled this kid who could have had a very promising future.

Well of course it's being warped. It's been deliberately misused and has been for 7 years now. Dems and their supporters twist the law out of shape to weaponize it to go after trump. That's beyond obvious - and the reports into the fbi activities show that clearly, and the current charges make that pretty clear as well. A small handful are legit, the vast majority are simply attempts to attack trump and keep him away from the presidency. Anybody with half a brain and a little neutrality can see that. And I would be surprised if trump DIDN'T look for payback if he gets in. Probably spend 4 years appointing people to investigate specific individuals for the slightest hint of wrongdoing and then prosecuting them. Which of course is what theyv'e done to him. I can see why the dems are petrified.

LOL - dude you are one hell of a hypocrite

Don't care - you've shown that you have no intent to be trruthful or honest. What value is the disagreement of the dishonest? You mean like the war of 1812 where they invaded us and we fought back in a series of bloody battles? Or perhaps you mean the plains of abraham? Could you be talking about the riel revolution and the metis war? Yeah - it's a lie you keep repeating - and once again you can't offer a single example as to why you believe that's true NOR can you address the dozens of points i've raised proving otherwise. Which means you're basically a serial liar and a bad person. That's too bad. But then - you are from quebec. China has over 300. What's your point?

Yes. Umm yes - was your account hacked by a parrot? Well you don't seem like the kind of person who believes much in free speech so that's understandable. We're on the same page there but this really wasn't about the gender wars the trans and gays have started recently. This was about a teacher who's served for decades who had legitimate concerns about kids in grade one being exposed to graphic accounts of sex and glorification of being transgender without context of the problems associated, and when she attended a school board meeting to discuss it (and was quite respectful, i've seen the vid of it) she was nastily dismissed and then the school hounded the hell out of her and mistreated her so badly that she retired. They claimed she'd violated the civil rights act and that they would seek to charge her if she didn't go away. Destroying someone's life just because they question whether a book involving sex and sexuality is appropriate for grade 1 is beyond inappropriate. She should have been allowed to raise her concerns for discussion and been treated fairly after. That's why this is a victory. It's sending a clear message - if you try to cancel someone and destroy their life for just discussing a subject you don't want discussed or questioning if something is appropriate - there could be serious ramifications. People should be free to discuss anything.

Nope - just split. Go away. We sure as hell didn't get to write the 'english' version. Just have a simple vote - go or stay - and get out. Quebec is the most ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic non productive province in the federation. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Just be thankful there's no legal basis for having a referendum to kick you out. (yes - we checked.)

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/court-victory-for-teacher-silenced-for-transgender-book-criticism An Ontario judge has declared that human rights legislation “does not prohibit public discussion of anything,” in a free-speech victory for a teacher who was shut down when she raised concerns at a school board meeting about transgender-themed books in elementary school libraries. “What happened here should not happen in a democratic society,” Ontario Superior Court Justice James Ramsay said in the case of now-retired teacher Carolyn Burjoski. “The Human Rights Code does not prohibit public discussion of issues related to transgenderism or minors and transgenderism. It does not prohibit public discussion of anything.” The judge was ruling on an attempt by the Waterloo Region District School Board to have Burjoski’s defamation lawsuit against the board and its former chair, Scott Piatkowski, thrown out. Burjoski’s ouster from a board meeting on Jan. 17, 2022 drew international attention. She was ejected after discussing publications she said are available in the libraries of kindergarten to Grade 6 schools. She had begun to argue the books made it seem too simple and “cool” to medically transition to another gender when Piatkowski cut short her presentation. She launched a defamation lawsuit, which the board sought to have thrown out. In a Nov. 23 ruling, Ramsay dismissed the bid and ordered the board to pay Burjoski $30,000 in costs. He said her claims have merit and should be allowed to proceed, adding the comments made against her were “defamatory.” This is a fantastic win. If you have seen what she said and the books she referred to and the passages in it she definitely had a point, and they threw her out and hounded her into the hospital for daring to stand up for children. This is a major victory against the woke hard left trans/gay community and their brown shirts who seek to silence anyone who DARES to even consider questioning their logic. 30 grand just for legal fees and the defamation suit is still to come.

Nobody really doubed he was correct - it was the going early part. And if anything this shows he was wrong not to wait - a few months and he'd have had all the evidnece he needed to back his claims. NOW - he picked that fight, hurt the economy and was forced to back down and look like an 1diot entirely. I mean seriously even on this board nobody argued he was not correct. So i doubt anyone's letting him off the hook. The stupidity was going early and now losing our abiltiy to do anything about it because we were already forced to back down.

Do it. You'd be one step closer to separating which most of the west would love to see, AND when your currency crashes we can buy up your stuff for pennies and own you. You realize that it's only oil and lumber and wheat etc that keeps the canadian buck so high right? Go on your own without that, you can call it the quebec peso

Well that's the biggest problem. So if anyone suggests any part of it including the 'permanent harm to future generations' part which they mention specificaly is not as severe an impact as they suggest then you're spreading hatred and should go to jail.