CouchPotato

Well since they are trying to steal all Poilievre's ideas anyway, maybe now the Liberals will be on board with defunding the CBC.

I feel like if I try to define it I will be leaving something out. But I think you did a very good job. To the leftist, I suppose, woke originally meant "aware" kinda like "hip" or "hep". Though I think it was more of a countercultural term originally than political. In the political sense though that would be less about being cool and fashionable and more like "aware" and "enlightened" about social justice issues, etc. Basically to those on the left who haven't disowned the term, it means all those wonderful things robosmith outlines in his OP. They see themselves as the nice guys and they view their own ideas about how to deal with social issues as enlightened. Woke was coopted by conservatives as a term of derision to describe a lack of awareness and common sense by these people who see themselves and their ideas as enlightened. The woke people are not woke to how extreme their ideas are.

That's a pretty good definition. I have often thought of making a post where I present several pairs of statements or actions and ask which one from each pair do you think most closely represents woke ideology. Sort of a multiple choice woke test for the leftists who claim there is no definition. I have no doubt that if I did this everyone would be able to answer it. Even if they only do so in their own heads. Even Michael Hardner who claims to be mystified by the concept would get 100% easily. But then that is exactly why I don't do it. It's pointless. They know. We know they know. They know they know. They know we know they know.

robo, if Helen Mirren offered me money to put you on ignore, I wouldn't do it. We may not agree on everything, but I get a lot of enjoyment out of your posts.

Maybe something fresh and witty like FOS Lies or New Smacks.

Never said you did, but I think that is what August1991 is referring to. I think a lot of people feel this way now.

What? Did you say something? I can't hear you because I am too busy ignoring you and playing Scrabble with Sally Field.

Yelling with caps and calling people dumb. You are getting awfully close to being put on ignore, robo. Cissy Spacek would have probably done it already.

If only I had known about this before, though, I might have put people on ignore. I mean, I'd feel better about it if I knew Judi Dench or Meryl Streep agreed.

Well, if Helen Mirren says so...

I think there is a point where it starts to feel like it's more message and less art. The art becomes secondary, and the viewers know it. I would say the same thing happens with the films that right wingers try to make to counter this. Sometimes these things just feel so contrived. Even if you happen to agree with the message, the art sometimes really sucks.

I don't think it's too political. But it definitely has political references. Nothing that I would censor. It's a country song, and there have been tons of country songs written with similar themes. My guess is the bridge too far was the "fight, fight, fight".

Well, yeah, I could see that. But I don't see him ever thinking about good European cheese.

I don't really picture Trump being all that concerned with no. 5.

Do you wake up in the morning feeling this way? I am curious. Does your mind start producing this apocalyptic poetry as soon as you wake up?

I really like that, myata. The quest for the dumb grail of stupidity. The dumb and stupidity are redundant, but I think it adds something to it.

You have the most eclectic musical tastes ever, Dougie.

He needs a nap. And a cookie.

I can't help but think that after winning a major comeback, in the face of all the lawfare, that now he might think he is invincible. I mean even before all that he was the best at everything. He is the only one that can do it, and when he does it it's the best it's ever been done in history.

Yeah, that would be all kinds of sexy.

Once again, though, those premiers are in an entirely different position. They can have meaningful discussion because they are elected to an office where they can make concessions to demands or implement repercussions. It would be spun that way. He is not elected to any higher office than MP of Carleton. So if he does this, the immediate response is, "Who authorized you to interfere in trade talks?" Potential leader would be more meaningful if we were talking about a politician on the other side of the border.

Sure he can meet with people. But he can't really do anything meaningful with regard to the trade war. Who would you suggest he meet with? It would just be optics, and quite likely bad ones. The media would play it up as Pierre acting above his position, butting in where he has no business because he is only elected to represent Carelton, and you would quite likely be parroting that talking point. No doubt. But that is not the same thing.

He doesn't hold any political office which allows him to make decisions representing all of Canada. The Premiers are in position to implement counter measures. Pierre currently represents maybe one hundred or two hundred thousand people. Any discussions on his part would be meaningless, and just for optics --- to look Prime Ministerial, as you say. And if he did that he would be getting skewered for acting above his position.

Well you realize that Pierre is not Prime Minister, right. Sure he is leader of his party, but he is an MP. He is not a premier. He represents his riding. He isn't really in much of a position to hold discussions.

He is loco.