Michael Hardner
-
Posts
45,836 -
Joined
-
Days Won
101
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Michael Hardner
-
-
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:
ummm.... doesn't look like he's reneging at all....
What DOES it mean though? What's he trying to signal here? What do you think?
Honest question.
-
2 minutes ago, Aristides said:
They will probably cheer as it happens because he (whoever it is) is their guy.
This applies to pretty much 90% of all people at this point.
Unity is gone, tribalism rules, and objective knowledge is dead.
-
1
-
-
I'm guessing that they're not spies anymore? 😂
I kid, but reporting on this story now requires that you subscribe to Trade Podcasts, think tanks etc.
The misinformation is pervasive on both sides.
-
Canada is also "native" foundationally.
But... WHO is surprised by American patriotism?
It's not really something that happens to a significant degree IMO ie. People being surprised by an aspect of culture that's pervasive
The cultural lens always blots out blind spots though, and generally I agree that THAT is a thing
-
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement.[1][2][3] It is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3] Opposed to communism, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, and socialism,[4][5] fascism is at the far right of the traditional left–right spectrum.[6][5][7]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Wikipedia is a more centrist and more widely accepted source for general knowledge.
-
You can stretch definitions enough to try anyone for anything.
Biden created a national emergency intentionally as many will tell you. So why not imprison or even execute him ?
Based purely on the rhetoric I see here, I don't understand why more people aren't calling for the Democrats to be banned.Then again, it would be impossible to blame them for the worsening state of things so maybe better to keep them.
-
5 minutes ago, Aristides said:
Be thankful you live in a country that hasn’t put troops in the streets for over 50 years.
I'm thankful for a status quo that resists manufactured emergencies.
-
8 hours ago, August1991 said:
She was a woman in a man's world.
He was tall, had blue eyes.
They did have different bodies.
-
8 hours ago, August1991 said:
If you have tattoos, it is your choice.
If you have dark skin, it is by birth.
Indeed, this is the logic of the xenophobe.
I don't like how you look, dress, speak: it's an affront to my rights.
-
1
-
-
WestCanMan laughing at murder.. 😔
-
The coverage of this act of terrorism was fairly muted in Canada, as reported by Canadaland.
The Bostom Marathon bombing received more newspaper coverage, in comparison, according to Jesse Brown. This is in spite of the fact that the latter bombing happened in another country and had a smaller impact upon reporting time (fewer killed at the scene)
When horrible acts occur, people more and more go to defense of those they agree with politically, and excuse based on factors such as mental health, duress etc. -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_mosque_shooting
"The Quebec City mosque shooting (French: Attentat de la grande mosquée de Québec) was an attack by a single gunman on the evening of January 29, 2017, at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, a mosque in the Sainte-Foy neighbourhood of Quebec City, Canada. Six worshippers were killed and five others seriously injured after evening prayers when the gunman entered the prayer hall shortly before 8:00 pm and opened fire for about two minutes with a 9mm Glock 17 Gen 4 semi-automatic pistol.[2] Approximately 40 people were reported present at the time of the shooting.
The perpetrator, 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder.[3] On February 8, 2019, Bissonnette was sentenced to life in prison, with no possibility of parole for 40 years.[4][5] Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal of Quebec found 40 years without parole to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment, adjusting the sentence to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years.[6] "
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, CDN1 said:
Won't be long before we see one of these attacks in Canada, which will be justified/supported by Trudeau's imported third world revenge cult and their loyal band of White-guilted suicidal cucks protesting in our city streets and University campuses across the country.
The blood is on Carney and the Liberals' hands.
A lot more Muslims were killed by white people in recent years than the other way around
-
David Brooks is a rando 🤔
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(commentator)
Unbelievably arrogant people who think that achievement has no value...
-
18 minutes ago, eyeball said:
That's wrong. I'm taking about when millions of labourers have been laid off by AI and automation in the near future, near enough we should be planning for it now.
And all conservatives want to talk about is their past grievances with the left while insisting AI and automation is no excuse for welfare.
Oh well, I guess there'll be lots of opportunities related to protecting the owners of AI and shaking down unemployed people.
It's always about narratives, which means stories. There's a story that if you work hard you'll do well.
Ok.
Looking at impacts of the industrial revolution and the mechanization of agriculture, you can find out about HISTory
AI may well bring a wave of labour change bigger than Globalization ever did.
So, what needs to happen in response?
The same thing that follows any technology change: social change.
We're going through one of those now, with global communication, networks, technology enriching the investment class to the point that they have to scapegoat immigrants and transgender people to keep their hands on power.
I liked the previous setup better:: where they pretended to love browns and LGBTQ to keep power.
It's just nasty out there now.
When the AI hits, or some other downturn happens, as they do, it's going to get even meaner.
-
Lower Court ruled that it would disrupt education. Supreme Court, Trump's supreme Court, lets the ruling stand.
Makes sense I suppose.
-
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2025/05/22/utah-lawmakers-own-study-found/
"Utah‘s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth was meant to be a moratorium, giving lawmakers the chance to reevaluate the policy once experts reviewed research on the impacts of treatment.
This week, nearly 2½ years after the law took effect, lawmakers received the findings of that study.
Utah health care experts concluded, in a more than 1,000-page report, “Overall, there were positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes” as a result of gender-affirming care. But some Republican legislators are already dismissing those findings."
Why call for a study if you are going to dismiss the findings?
It seems to be because a lot of people don't want to listen and don't want to care.
-
12 minutes ago, User said:
1. Did you have a question for me or are you satisfied answering your own question with a rhetorical question?
2. Why do you keep using the term trans if trans women are women?
3. It is not my definition. It is the definition. And so far, you can't even offer one of your own.
4. No conspiracy. You guys actually exist, you are here now pushing the trans madness.
5. You are the one pushing this garbage. When you are ready to stop, go for it.
1. What would be the actual policy implementation of your "it's on them" approach?
2. I think that I answered that. They're women but they're different.
3. The definition of trans women is "dudes" who think they're women. No, that's something you wrote.
4. Conspiracies exist. And you think I'm part of one. Ok then.
5. Ok. Let's stop.
-
4 minutes ago, User said:
1. ...if the are pretending to be something they are not, then they are responsible for any ruckus they cause for looking like someone who should not be in certain places.
2. ... now you claim trans women are not exactly the same as women?
3. Again, if you would define the term woman and stop using it to refer to dudes who think they are women, we wouldn't have this problem.
4. You are the one engaged in this word play, all so you can push your support of trans madness.
1. 😂 Meaning what? You can legally beat them up? Come on....
2. Yes. Trans women are women but not the same as women who were born as such. That's why there are exceptions in law and elsewhere.. policy. I guess you call it.
3. I did to find it but you want me to use your definition. Not going to do that.
4. No, the word play is all yours. I'm answering your questions with politeness, and you seem to think I'm part of some conspiracy.
Can we stop now? There is really nothing else to talk about. I don't enjoy answering your questions to have you come at with me with your peashooter...
-
14 minutes ago, User said:
1. .. you gave a wishy washy non-commital answer that, when I asked for specifics, devolved into you saying if you labeled the locker room for being trans friendly... to which I pointed out it is no longer a women's locker room. Then you started this whole game of trying muddy the waters with the definition of woman.
2. So, if you think a woman is just a woman, then how can you claim you are opposed to a "woman" (really a dude) undressing in front of women (actual women)?
1. I answered the question. I do NOT believe a trans woman has some right to be nude in front of biological women. That's the question, not whatever wordplay you wish to attempt. We agree and the answer is solid, a lot better than saying trans folks can't use a washroom (ANY washroom?) because "it's on them"...
2. Because trans women aren't exactly the same as women ? Maybe that will shut you up or maybe it will launch you into a tizzy of word carving again, I hope it's the former. Trans women are women though, just not exactly the same as every other woman which is why there are rules on this... everywhere. -
3 hours ago, User said:
1. ... refuse to define what a woman is.
2. You are not coming here with any more of an open mind than I am.
3. ... refuse to define the terms you are using... well... it isn't.
4. ... not have them challenged or criticized.
Even now... you sit here trying to say this is an issue over a personal definition of a word when this discussion is about how ALL women are impacted in ALL of society.
5. It is not your personal definition of woman. You know this.6. You know the discussion is about more than that. You know we have been talking about bathroom policy for women in general, for how women in general are impacted in their spaces, sports, locker rooms... so why? Why do you do this?
7. So, you don't think you are right? Then why are you pushing your position here then and disagreeing with me?
1. Incorrect.
2. I didn't say I was more open minded. It seems we're the same on that front. Although it's pretty clear, you think you're better than me.
3. Incorrect.
4. You have me jumping through hoops, and when I satisfy your request, you simply reject my answer. Meanwhile, the answers you give are impractical and I think sometimes avoidant.
5. Yes I do. That is why I keep asking you to skip past our different definitions and get to the root of it. We actually agreed on something with regards to change rooms, and you seem to be unable to accept that.
I have said, a few times. I think, frontal nudity only with consent. You never responded even though it's a point of agreement. I think it's because you you are hell bent on defeating me. Not very engaging.
6. Now this is obfuscation. We have come to an agreement, or close to it several times... Then you come back and insist on switching from the general to the specific or vice versa and then using language to say that I'm saying things that I'm not.
It's not very engaging.
I'm not going to give you the example, just look further up in the thread for it.
But I said I was okay with men in women's spaces, as a general comment. You interpreted differently from how I intended and then started shrieking at me.
It's not very engaging.
7. Aren't you pushing your position ? How is what I'm doing different? Oh right, it's because I'm wrong and you're better than me. Did I get it?
......
I'm just trying to find out how you arrive at your conclusions. We're not going to agree, you know that right?
-
1 hour ago, User said:
1. Do you even realize you are doing what you are doing?
2. You just went from respecting your position to respecting you.
3. Edit: I would also add, what do you mean by respect your position? It seems like you are conflating agree with respect, and you have no more "respect" for what I am saying here than you are sitting here demanding from me.
1. 2. Yes, I'm even confusing myself at this point. Let me try again:
It feels like you think I am ridiculous, crazy, and that your roll here is to talk sense into me rather than listening and engage with my ideas. Are you open to the idea that you could be wrong about things? I sure am. I've learned lots here from other people.
Again, the point of discussion is that you arrive at the scene with the idea that it's a productive engagement, not a competition.
Otherwise why am I here? You're only going to keep trying to beat me and I don't enjoy going back and forth over what words mean to us personally.
3. No we don't have to agree, but we have to understand the differences and where they come from I think. At least to a point. If you value personal freedom more than safety, or more than I do, for example... Example... You may not agree with police being able to detain without warrant, wiretap etc.
It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of a human being making a human assessment and coming up with a personal choice.
This is the only interesting thing about this board, because I can learn the perspective of someone else and maybe change my mind. And that does happen.
Otherwise it's just an insult board, or a shouting board.
-
1 hour ago, User said:
Um, duh. Of course I have zero respect for your position. You want to assert men can be women and change the definition of woman to something meaningless to do so, impose men into women’s spaces, impose men into their sports taking away their place.
Yes, I’m obviously opposed to all of this and I’m here to disagree and call your positions out for the madness they are.
Ok, well why would I want to discuss with someone who doesn't respect me?
This speaks to a fundamental problem with this board. That is... It's a political discussion board but many people don't respect those they engage with.
-
6 hours ago, User said:
Well, it makes sense that if you are unable to define the term woman, you would think my criticism of your arguments here is insulting you….
Saying that I promote madness is clearly an insult. You have no respect for my position at all, so you shouldn't be discussing with me.
TACO Trump Reneges on Mass Deportation Plan: Finally Understands Farms and Hotels Need Immigrant Labor
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
My question was for CF but your reply is interesting to me.
Amnesty ? It's hard to see how he could navigate that politically. I also don't see how it could be made to work. I think there was some discussion about so-called 'dreamers' who were brought to America as children but Republicans were cool to the idea of naturalizing them.
If the goal is to get rid of 'gangs' then it's definitely clearer, you would have to just be clear on the message and have control over execution. But I agree, it would be a bad idea just based on the political and practical challenges there.
I'm asking honestly because it's a pretty unexpected statement, is all.