Michael Hardner

1. They support pipelines, increased military spending, and reject electoral reform. 2. How much of what the Liberals do is about culture wars really ? Or is it just something that others play up ?

Elitists, though, tend to support the centre, ie. status quo no ? Aren't the Liberals the ultimate centrists in the worst sense of the word ?

Is 'Centrism' particular to a nation ? Is it just the middle point between the leading parties ? How could Canada AND the US both need Centrism ? The Democrats are to the right of the Canadian Conservative party - no support for universal healthcare, no action on capital punishment (practiced (Executed?) in the US, not in Canada), election funding reform etc.

Jerry Brown? Was that his name? Took a 28-year break from being governor.

[Squawk] Why you wanna blackbird when polly wanna kwacker [Squawk] This is #1 error on here. We had a post recently that said liberalism equals communism, for example.

Can I buy you a parrot ?

My problem is that "Ignore" leaves few people to read on here. If it's a topic I am interested in, I read all of your posts, Moonbox, Contrarian... what have you. But others, I respond only when I'm bored ... then they're still ignored so I don't see responses...

1. I use the Jerusalem Bible, thanks.. Your religion is based on Henry VIII getting chicks pregnant who aren't his wife. 2. I just spit out my sacramental wine all over the laptop screen.... 3. And peace be with you too...

Well, I have never been a 'closet' anything. My take on you is that your version of Christianity is just incorrect. Neither of us can prove that the other isn't Christian, and that's more sad for you than for me. I knew a famous Christian who was accused by a powerful man of being a Marxist. "Have you read Marx sir ?" she asked. "Yes" he said. "Perhaps you're the Marxist then because I only read the gospels."

Hm ? Why me ? Anyway, yes, born Catholic and still consider myself Christian and Catholic although I only participate for celebratory reasons.

UP to 77 Million. more than 4X the highest rated show Sunday Night Football (I googled and it had 18M viewers) Wow. Tucker is getting everyone to watch him. Especially bots, I am guessing.

"Romanism (Popery) is one of the biggest threats to freedom of Canadians. " The founding religion of the Europeans in Canada, that predates everything except First Nations occupation of their homeland. They planted a cross when their feet touched the soil... And now it's one of the biggest threats. I am going to print this symbol out and put it on my wall under the crucifix: 🤔

1. Recent history, yes. But it's not "and yet". As I said, I am railing against the masses here... I guess you agree, ok. 2. If there was general support for it, though, would you be ok with it ? Do you trust companies (corporations really) to assess the risk to their brands on this account ? Because in some cases you *will lose the good fight, if the mob disagrees with you. 3. Fair take. 4. Yes but lots of brands continue to celebrate Pride, likely in a more geo-targetted manner.

I feel like I am the only one posting that I am disappointed with the idea of working through social issues via competing boycotts. That said, if you're happy that InBev's stock went down when the Bud Light boycott took off, or happy with this new Target boycott then you have put your chips all in with these Boycott Wars. So I don't see how you can complain when others do it. Myself, I don't care. I don't see the point in boycotting based on who they do and don't market to. And if your brand is also bought by lots of queers or none, why do you care anyway?

Very interesting. I will comment and/or follow up soon. In the meantime: Should ? They absolutely DO have the authority. Anyone can answer questions. The fact is, though, that already new forms of *responsible* media are rising, as well as independent journalists who are creating networks and publications to fill the gap that the media dinosaurs have left. Check out Canadaland, Jen Gerston, Blacklock https://www.blacklocks.ca/about-us/ as well as local internet and even Twitter sites are moving into the space that the others can't hold anymore. "independent organizations unaffiliated with politics" means those sites but also "the press" right ? Or does it ? Good questions.

Watch the dates in the top right corner as you watch this bumbling parrot squawk. And the excuse-monkey take also: "Nobody knew that Healthcare could be so complicated...'

Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Lecce

1. You are proving my point by saying that this word - yes, of course established in English and updated to refer to sexual predators - is being used in a valid context now. Generally, political language is tested very carefully to see what plays with the base, with swing voters etc. You may not be familiar with that. In any case, the term 'groomer' was picked up in its current use fairly recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory 2. Ok then - YES - the position I "like" is that people should be able to demand non-disparaging terms in civil debate. 3. So reducing the budget $1 is "defunding the police". Fair enough, and I would say, as a conservative, "defund all government" 4. If you acknowledge that that's a common-use term, then you understand why people don't want to be called that. 5. In other words, if I can justify an insult to myself - I am free with using that term against you. 6. So you're ok with me calling you a chucklef*ck then... ----- This board used to have strong rules for civil discourse and now you're saying that such things are not relevant. Fair enough but ... I can see you are intelligent enough for me to take off ignore but not polite enough yet.

1. I mean 'groomer'. That is developed in a strategy room, or at least discovered in one. 2. Well I confess it's actually a 'guess'. I doubt there's a clear lineage as to where it came up with. What "position" am I defending exactly when I call for people to use non-disparaging terms when referring to opposing opinions ? 3. There are so many details though. Does it mean defund them entirely ? Or audit their budgets ? I see both uses commonly referred to. 4. It's commonly used as such: https://www.rainn.org/news/grooming-know-warning-signs Epistemically, words with two meanings tend to lose one meaning if it's drastically different, especially if it's pejorative. Like the word "hussy" used to mean "housewife" at one time, but then was also used to mean promiscuous so the latter term won out. 5. There are lots of terms that people use. If you are using one towards me then I prefer to have a say in that. I offer the same courtesy....

1. Ok. 2. Ok. 3. Says you. Do you realize that they use advertising and PR terms to come up with terms that will resonate, thoughtlessly, on the mass audience ? If you want me to help you out with that .... yell "Defund the Police" and get cheers from a lefty crowd. Now sit down in a quiet room and try to figure out exactly what that means. The two teams aren't liberal/conservative - they are "thinker"/"reactor"

You can ask your follow-ups anytime. Here are mine: I'm most intrigued in the experience of people who have lived in/spent a lot of time in other countries. For me I have spent time in the USA (a lot) as well as France (lived there). So I am always contrasting those experiences to Canada, and that's the theme of my questions. These are really not as 'political' as cultural questions. 1. Is there a Canadian 'character' ? Is there anything like a 'Canadian' - independent of heritage - that you can sense ? In France, they used to openly talk about the Frenchness of things and even of people as though it was preferable to other things. Do you get a sense of "Canadianism", culturally, and if so what is it ? 2. How do you perceive "our" culture in the face of American culture ? "We" have a culture, but we are next door to a global cultural behemoth. What do you see Canadian culture to be and how does it look in the shadow of our neighbour's ? 3. How is our "information" landscape ? I lived in Paris in the 1980s and it was odd to me how information was passed around. There was ONE paper booklet - Paris Spectacles - that had all of the information around cultural events. The news didn't cover anything that was at a local level, from what I could see. People really had to get information from each other a lot more. Then they invited Minitel which was like the internet 20 years before the internet. It was needed. What is your perception of how general information is passed about in Canada ? 4. What is your experience with Government services ? I had a friend from Venezuela and she thought Canada was fantastic but that our government services were run like the third world. Given where she was from, I found that surprising and funny. What is your experience with that compared to where you come from ? 5. How do Canadians view 'work' compared to others ? We had an acquaintance from Russia who visited early on, in the very early 1990s. His comment about Canada was "Why does everyone talk about work so much ?". What do you think of how we view work here ? 6. How is our "hard" infrastructure, in your view ? Telephone, air, rail, and roads - what do you think ? 7. Confederation of regions - does it work ? Have you been to the WHOLE country ? Have you been to BC, the Prairies, the North, the cities, Quebec, the Maritimes and NFLD ? Do you think that there is anything as 'diverse' (irony intended) as the way our natural provinces differ from each other and ... does Canadian patriotism or national 'love' exist in your expeirence. Are we really a postnational country and can it work ? 8. How religious are we vs how accepting are we of religion vs how accepting are we of religions ? My boss is a devout Muslim, and puts his pronouns explicitly in his email signature, and demands that we complete a diversity profile to record cultural issues that may happen. On my old team, a devout Muslim (different guy) gave the boss (a Jew) a very ornate Christmas present and everybody thought it was delightful. Now - as per some of your criticisms about comfortable people having an easy view of things - all of this was in a cozy corporate IT environment. But.... does it work in Canada, this jigsaw puzzle of faiths vs non-faith ultraliberalism ? I'm not talking big picture here, but on a small level. My boss sure seems to embody the idea of someone who knows that pluralism is the currency of this nation - what is your experience ? 9. What is our national attitude towards health and safety vs others ? We have made smoking almost illegal through harsh government control, and we regularly tell people what to do with their bodies. We have safety regulations that sometimes seem imposing and other times not enough. How do we compare in this area ? 10. How has the public sphere changed in the last 20 years ? McLuhan used to say "one thing a fish knows nothing about is water". What about our political ecosystem, vis a vis new media, broadcasting etc. ? What do you think the effect of these has been in specific examples ?

1. I don't know. I do think that moralistic shamans like Peterson should be questioned on their personal actions more than an actor or businessman. But I think that the ideas need to be questioned, in the general case. It makes no sense to attack the person only. 2. What "news" interviews people in that way? 3. A two expert show is much better IMO. Have another expert give a different point of view. 4. Rogan did challenge Peterson very slightly once and Peterson was not able to answer adequately, IMO. Presenting complex ideas without tough bulletproofing is no better than a holy man giving a sermon from a pulpit. I don't accept that you can call the listener stupid, because I myself don't understand what is being said sometimes and can be convinced unless I seek out alternate points of view. Also, Rogan gives his own opinions on things sometimes which are not challenged by anybody. So it's not just an interview. I think he called Trudeau a communist so..

You have good points here, but I think that hearing all sides IN the same session is a good way to examine ideas. Letting someone speak unchallenged isn't a good way to filter bad ideas, and although having the government or large powerful agencies regulate speech ... that method is so common as to be the standard, even in the freest public spheres. I think that your points about listening to ideas need to be widely understood, and people demand forums where new ideas are challenged by experts on the spot. A big problem today is that the average person thinks that they're expert enough to assess disinformation. They're not. Nobody can be well versed on every subject, especially economics.

No you're supposed to say "and you know it" 😂

How about some cites?