kraychik

Considering that you don't know what a "pro-growth" policy is, and probably assume that the former President was must've also implemented conservative economic policies because he was a Republican, I think we can pass on your economic analysis. Or you can try to tell us all about the fairy of "deregulation" (which never happened) and its contributions to the economic decline of 2008.

You are an economic illiterate. A "tax cut" is not the same thing as a redistributive program (combined with printing money). The former reduces the government's role in managing the economy, in other words, it reduces government's share of spending of GDP. The latter does the opposite, it increases centralisation of economic control and increases government spending's share of GDP.

Where do food stamps come from? Who pays for them?

A "no zeroes" policy does lead to higher averages, though. It therefore serves the interests of principals who are, at least partially, held to account for the averages of their students.

So you don't know what a race is, or by extension, racism. That much was clear from your initial post. I want to thank you for putting on display the left's desperation when it comes to their defence of cultural relativism by throwing around ridiculous accusations of racism from their detractors. The same arguments were advanced by the Nazis, stating that condemnations of Nazism were racist against the "Aryan race", and from the Soviets, who stated that condemnations of communism were racist against "the Russian speaking race". Intelligent people see right through this stupidity. You're equating "societies" with "races". Here's some help: so·ci·e·ty/səˈsīətē/ Noun: The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations. race/rās/ Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course. Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. Not quite the same thing, are they?

I guess you don't realise that Nazi ideology was racial. Nothing I said was racial. There's a huge difference here which you wish to ignore.

You'll love this, Barney Frank's economic wisdom: Here is the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack telling us that food stamps are a stimulus:

If you only want marks in school to be reflective of "academic ability" (as you see it), then schools should only base marks on a final exam. No consideration for anything else. Thankfully, schools don't operate in such a stupid manner as you would wish to see. No disagreement here. Except we don't know what this teacher did prior to his decision to break policy, and he was terminated as a result of his decision. More importantly, this is a public with a ridiculous "no zeroes" policy, which makes it public business. You're assuming he didn't do any of that. Anyways, he was fired. No. This is same stupidity we got from Michael Hardner. Supporting this teacher in this event doesn't mean we support him molesting young boys because he's a card-carrying member of NAMBLA. Get the hell out of here with that. See above.

It's entirely principled. I guess we need to go the dictionary again to help you: prin·ci·ple (prns-pl) n. 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy. 2. a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle. b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency. 3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action. 4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation. 5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion. 6. Chemistry One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some special quality or effect. The principle we're seeing here from those who support the teacher's actions is that they believe that zeroes should be given to students in some circumstances, and that they reject the "no zeroes" policy of the school from which the teacher was fired. This in no way means that these same people will support any teacher who does anything that breaches any school policy for any reason he or she feels like. This has everything to do with principle and being principled, two words you don't seem to understand.

We already have limitations on the who has the right to vote. Anyways, nice deflection from the core issues which you are unable or unwilling to address.

Except, that's not true.

Immigration's not a problem if it's done wisely, and combined with a successful assimilation. The problem is, that's not what's happening.

If it doesn't change, we'll just continue self-destruction through importation of people from inferior societies coupled with "multiculturalism". I agree. It's not far from Nazi-esque eugenics, in my view. It's a sick left-wing narrative.

And when you retire and you start pulling on CPP and OAS (which typically pay out more than was paid in)? What about the tax money that was poured into servicing you as a child, assuming you went to public schools? You're not on any moral pedestal with respect to economic productivity via your choice not to have kids. It's probably a good choice for you, by the way, but don't try to sell it to us as if you're doing Canadians an economic favour.

Great argument. Everyone should follow in BlackDog's footsteps and not have any kids.I mean, we'd all be more of an asset to society that way, right? Let's see how long that lasts.

Then do the world a favour and don't have any children if you haven't already become a parent.

What? Yeah, because it's oh-so-easy to pretend to know how to be a parent when you've actually never had a shred of similar responsibility. If a parent needs advice on parenting, he or she should consult with people who have experience. What a ridiculous statement.

Again, I am completely unsurprised that another leftist sees things the same way. At least age has given you a shred of insight and wisdom into the consequences of your choice, and what you missed out on if raising a family was actually something that would've been good for you.

No need to apologise. Parenthood isn't for everyone. It's completely unsurprising, by the way, that a leftist like you thinks that way. Totally expected.

Clearly you'd prefer quotes from Marx or Engels. I understand. The real nonsense is your use of the fake term "trickle down economics", coined by Bush Sr. as an attempt to attack Reagan. And it failed.

Except most of the Canadian media did NOT cover it. Except, you didn't read the article. By your logic, news of the upcoming Stanley Cup Finals constitutes coverage of the event if the actual game and its final score is ignored. Good for the National Post for speaking about the advance, but they buried the most important part: the actual event. And you're trying to spin this in a desperate attempt to shield most of the media with your fellow leftists as you circle the wagons and play the role of palace guards.

What this tells us is that you don't grasp the crux of the issue and what's at stake. You're concerned over legalities, with some of these Muslims wishing to see the filmmaker murdered or executed. Granted, these are somewhat serious threats, and the filmmaker himself has apparently gone into hiding. The primary concern from this story should be that these folks are expressing a desire to end freedom of speech and expression as we know it, and much of the left is in agreement with their agenda. This is part of a much broader series of events that we're seeing from those who wish to destroy our most crucial freedoms. We already have absurd "hate speech" laws on the books and kangaroo courts known as "Human Rights Tribunals" administered provincially. There doesn't seem to be a significant enough degree of support for broad protections of freedom of speech and expression in Canada. If this thread is any indication this lack of support around these basic values is evidenced in here, as well. I won't even address in detail the widespread campaign of intimidation that affects ordinary people when it comes to having honest discussions about related taboo subjects, for fear of being victimised by violence. This is serious.

You don't respect freedom of speech and expression. That much is obvious.

No, they didn't cover the protest. If you'd read past the headline and actually looked at the date of the article, you'd have realised that. See, this is why discussion on these forums is often so terrible. People like you are more concerned with acting out vendettas and being contentious for the sake of being contentious than with actual discussion.

The National Post story you linked was published on September 18, and the protests happened over the weekend. The National Post DID NOT cover the actual protests. As far as the CTV coverage, was that only for local Toronto viewers? It doesn't seem as if it was covered nationally. When I search the main CTV domain, I get no results. Seems to me like a semi-burial. Either way, most of the Canadian media buried the story, as per my original assertion. CTV seems to have treated it as local news.