Michael Hardner

Latest Biden ad targets swing voters with Trump boasting about overturning Roe V Wade. This front has worked well for the Dems recently, let's see how it goes.

Huh ? Why ? Because it's a Russian name ? So if I listen to Lenny Kravitz I'm a commie then..

Like the social safety net ? Cool... You see a lot in there supporting liberalism IMO

1. Well, kind of. But the big gains in prosperity for the Europeans came when money-lending was allowed, to be used in funding exploration. And money lending is against the bibles, they had to work on that one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking So - yes Christianity was the foundation for prosperity but after protestantism initiated capitalism as the dominant social force. 2. I said as much above, yes. The populists seem to all be calling for 'reform'. First step might be to figure out what that means.

I'm going to speak over the religious zealots for a second, then come back to them: Secular humanists: although you disagree with "the bible" as a source, I have pointed out that a formalized and coded moral code was & is instrumental in establishing a basic roadmap for a cooperative society. I would assess that many of you believe that "the bible" is being contorted and used by manipulative agents right now, but that you agree that some form of common moral code is helpful, especially where influencers have sucked the air out and created a vacuum of trust. Bible likers: you DO realize that "the bible" was not readable until the dawn of the Renaissance, and spawned decades of strife and war once it was PRINTED in the local language for the few literates to read, yes? "The bible" was only instrumental as a social tool when used by community leaders who were clergy. They would provide a counter balance, sometimes fractious, to the governing powers of nations. There is no such arbiter of morality today. If you pine for the days of old, then you are pining for a time when there were non-political leaders who would provide moral leadership on issues of the day. As religion faded, the clergy gave way to academia and other disparate voices. Today we have performance artists - comedians, actors, musicians - who are providing something like this but with nothing close to the influence, nor the cohesion of a common moral stance that a religious sect would give. So I think we're agreeing more than we see. I would say cultural bubbles prevent us from merging our outlooks and making politics work in the way they did many decades ago.

1. I was also going to bring up Mulroney, but also Bill Clinton and christia freeland come to mind. 2. The people you're describing, all the ones I know, vote NDP. 3. You want me to prove you're wrong, but since it's an opinion I can't by definition.

You've never watched Stra Trek ? Seriously, I watch this exchange as I would watch an exchange between a 6-year old with a magnifying glass and some ants, although the ants looked slightly better than taxme afterwards. I had no idea that he was so submerged in conspiracy troother bs but so be it. I do remember 9/11 debates on here years after 9/11 happened, just the same as the Climategate conspiracy etc. etc. Somehow when Republicans and Conservatives get elected, though, they're unable to get the files released. I wonder why. Fund education, people... this is what happens when you don't. Evolution and social studies in schools replaced with Glue Eating workshops funded by Elmer's...

What became true ? They became liberated ? Well... first they became *advanced* and gained the technology to subjugate non-European peoples by means of war and slavery. Then they became 'liberated' which is to say they allowed various levels of white male Christianity to co-exist in governance by a business elite. Then they slowly allowed other white males until they allowed some black folks in a limited way, then women. But the weaponry came first. As to what Christianity had to do with it... nobody can agree. Some people say it depends on when you start the clock, ie. Babylonians were dominant for a period, Romans were dominant for a period, Muslims were dominant for a period, then various European countries and maybe then America. Maybe China will be next and we'll all be pondering why Confuciousism was so important in dominating the world. Others say that it was the prevailing religion in a large productive landmass that had to allow coexistence of a multiplicity of religious factions and nationalities. Or that Christianity protected private power and thus was more conducive to corporate investment and the Renaissance wealth boom vs. China's imperialism. I think that was Jared Diamond. Others say we whites are just more naturally brutal and we should be guilty (50%) or proud (50%) of that. If that was the key then what the hell happened ? The hell... happened. Oh wait, I'll bet it's feminism, socialism and flouride in the water...

More specifically... How did people hoard things before money existed? They mostly didn't. The rise of these systems meant that people were better off, on the whole, even though individuals who weren't able to specialize and work within the new system did worse. And those who knew how to play the markets.. my God they could accumulate twice what another person could. Imagine having a society where someone could have twice the assets of another person! I feel a lot of our technological progress has been a long road to reclaiming those expensive but beneficial aspects of tribal living. They could park satellites and drones above us, and end premeditated public violence by monitoring cameras and our phones. But since tribal society died, we have this strange idea of privacy. Anyway, before people jump down my throat... I'm not advocating for that, but I am advocating for a little more imagination in assessing our situation.

1. Opinions are always 'ok' 2. The fantasy aspect of the holy books was, and has always been, inconsequential to the social value of religions. 3. You misunderstand me. I'm simply saying that the Bible, and more importantly its antecedent books and practices, were instrumental and necessary elements in the foundation of a civilized society and we should consider that. I'm not saying that in the social roadmap of today there's value to deferring to "the" bible or any holy book. 4. If you want to build a new society, it's a good idea to know our roots.

I would argue that it very much does, however said foundations were laid in Mesopotamia with the simultaneous development of writing, accounting, a legal system, and the establishment of the elite class. Modifications happened over time, and maybe if people are calling for fundamental changes then we could take the opportunity to ask some key questions: -What is working? -What isn't? -What elements of our system should we keep and what should we discard? -Who should lead the discussion, who should participate, where should it happen, how should we discuss and move to action? I'll bet a lot of people *think* that something is wrong, but to me it's because the lens we look through to see our "societies" is different than it was, and you can see flaws and cracks - superficial or not - more easily. WAKE (wild-assed key examples): @eyeball had this idea once to monitor politicians more closely. I thought his idea of mounting a camera on the skull of each MP was a little much, but maybe just publishing their bank transactions could do the trick...

1. Ok - there's a lot I agree with in this paragraph, and maybe it constitutes our resting point: socially and culturally, there's a leftist veneer to the Liberals' politics; the NDP has successfully lobbied for two big social benefits, and the Liberals work for wealthy stakeholders. 2. You should. How could Canada's most successful PM, by many measures, the late Mulroney not be seen as elite ? How could Harper, Poilievre... people who spent virtually their whole careers in the politics not be seen as elite ? 3. Carefully laid out opinions are different than carefully laid out facts. How can I possibly challenge your opinion that Liberals are yuppies ? I can't. ---- Like I say, with the modified terms and my understanding of your feelings - and this is mostly about feelings - here, we are likely at a resting point if not agreement on many points. What does it mean to the big picture ? Practically nothing. But if we don't do our parts as nobodies, as members of "the" public, to understand issues in real terms (rather than parroting the slogans and snipes of political masters and their public channels) then we sure as hell can't accuse the politicians of being lazy or hypocritical. We have a job to do too, and this is it.

I can the criticism of them not planning to increase the electricity infrastructure, but it's not like they can't do it...

1. Yes, that seems more realistic than the "Canada gets a pause for being "small"" one.

Imagine the world announcing a global climate treaty that allows Canada to wait and see how it's going...

1. Yes and we will pay for that also.

I don't know if you are referring to me or Grahan but I don't think it applies to either. I will say that personality and appearance are far too important in selecting a leader. We get our leaders because everybody thinks that is a legitimate criterion.

So we go from "Trudeau doesn't acknowledge a Christian holiday" to "The networks don't rebroadcast it"... but I thought the networks exist to make Trudeau look good ? So confusing...

1. Yes, and we will pay for that also. 2. Why do we need to ? Because every country has to reduce according to their output. Our share is small because we are small. 3. Why is it a poor comment ? You were the one decrying the impact to your lifestyle - so how much is it ? What is the impact on you ? 4. I don't know - look it up. I'm not defending the current program as it is, beyond what I have said. 5. Every country who signed onto the Paris Accord is doing *something* as far as I know. And once again: What do you want to be done? Anything being done is going to cost something. People are talking past my points with hyperbole that could be applied to any solution.

While I can get behind the general description of left-wing politics it remains to be seen how 'wokism' moves to a classless society. It's more of a liberal take on how to treat people... nobody is proposing affirmative action programs for trans people or black people for that matter, anymore. Most of the squawking about wokism is how it asks people to normalize treatment of certain groups and to frame our thinking of social relations. "Equality of outcome" refers to material well-being, not social acceptance. Marxism doesn't have anything to say about DEI hiring, because that was a thing that couldn't have been conceived of at that time. It's more of a liberal social program to spread public spending around between ethnic groups more 2. The data in both of those examples is "anonymized" meaning that individuals are not monitored, only the overall trends and aggregate qualities of the data. Compare that to Harper's Terrorism Bill (once again which I SUPPORT) that allows arrest of individuals if the government *thinks* they are going to commit a crime, and allows more surveillance and actions to share data with the police, non-anonymized. https://canadians.org/analysis/whats-harpers-proposed-bill-c-51-security-canada-legislation/ 3. "Many" ? Cite please. 4. Why are you speculating about my personal character ? How is that relevant to our discussion of policy ? You are trying to disqualify me from the conversation based on my characteristics. And of course I have cared when I was treated unfairly. Your line of inquiry here is ridiculous. It's like the woke people calling you racist for questioning things. Make the discussion about the points, not about my personal life. 5. Yes, because I'm not 10 years old. Do you understand that sometimes we have to live in the real world, and risk having rights compromised in order to provide for greater security ? Do you understand that the government can make a decision to arrest you based on travel plans, or some conclusion they would draw as to your intentions ? Do you understand that that means they could have power to thwart security threats with said powers ? 6. At least I am making my mind up on the issues and not following some paranoid and brainless slogan equating the Liberal Party with Marxists. And when I defend things, I tend to do so on conservative principles or, otherwise, pragmatic ones such as the Harper surveillance bill. 7. I like that you are at least redefining terms when challenged. Yes, authoritarian governments that restrict your right to travel and ultimately to leave are seen as more unethical than countries with freedom of movement. This is because it's thought to be ethical to allow the maximum personal freedom of an individual. Marxism and Communism aren't the same thing and you start to get into the weeds the more you try to put everything in the same box - let alone Liberal Party policy. 8. Are you, then, acknowledging that there isn't a drift to the left ? That we're not "going" Marxist and that we're actually moving to the right ? Because with that statement it sure seems like it. 9. Realpolitik. Who started Trade with Red China ? Trudeau or Nixon ? But I won't deny that the Trudeaus were as partial to authoritarians as Nixon or Reagan were. 10. I suspect you are falling into that familiar trap where people think that because I don't tolerate soft-brained criticisms and moronic statements like "Canada is going Marxist" ... that I actually LIKE Trudeau. Why are you asking me to defend him ? I won't. Some of your criticisms reveal your lack of understanding of your own dilemma though. If you think that Liberals and Conservatives aren't both elitists then you shouldn't vote. If you think wealthy people don't support Conservative tax cutting, trust loopholes, and such then you're brainwashed. For that matter, I will bet I have probably voted Liberal less often than you have based on your comments. ----- Think with your brain, not your heart. Trudeau, Poilievre and the rest are the personification of a large body of national political intent - for the purposes of our consideration of them. There's really no point in hating on any of them. They're not here to make big changes to anything

1. Once again - what do you want to be done ? If nobody is to pay anything to convert away from fossil fuels and reduce use, how is that going to work ? 2. How much do you get back in your tax credit ? 3. So we will pay in the end, exactly what I am saying also. 1. Nobody asked me about electricity. 2. The approach makes sense to me, not to say whether it will work or when. And I repeat: What do you want to be done? People are talking past my points with hyperbole that could be applied to any solution.

1. Discuss what? Any parliamentary bill goes through the usual discussion process. 2. I agree with the need for reasoned debate and I say that needs to be recognized by all sides. 3. I'm talking about parents' rights in education, access to gender care, freedom to attend school or events without harrassment.

Googling, I see multiple YouTube videos with Trudeau's Easter message, so this is likely more hysterical meowing. .

The intent isn't to punish, but to incentivize reduced gas use. What do you want to be done? People are talking past my points with hyperbole that could be applied to any solution.

1. Slowing of the acceleration of warming. 2. Not surprising, that. 3. Industry is working on solutions. Do you think nothing should be done? If not then?