Michael Hardner

That's great. Next step is to ascribe any problems he does cause to other sources. For example, Nancy Pelosi.

I should have included overall strategy, not just negotiations.

Who wouldn't have believed this? This is how most Canadian governments end... Trudeau's whole approach was never designed for bumpy times.

I don't know about interesting. It seems pretty clear what's going to happen. The thing I'm worried about most, with the new government, is unity. That's going to be critical when we start giving things up in the new trade discussions and we will be giving things up.

1. Makes sense. We're now switching the frame of reference to the world, and so I'll have new points to add. 2. Did not know this. I would like to see a cite, as I suspect "Christian" is a loose definition here. 3. Yes, but not mentioned in that is that all nations will see fertility reductions and global population should start to decline between 2065 and 2100. 4. All of this would need deeper investigation, likely outside the scope of this thread. 5. The fact is that economic concerns drive immigration policy, with the possible exception of refugee policy. 6. Sounds oddly specific. 7. Absolutely. Let's not call the planners and bureaucrats "elitists" "WEF Goons" "Globalists" and so on. In fact, let's assume any position is valid and ask for hard evidence, understanding that you actually won't get any for most economic questions. And let's stop assuming people are stupid and that if you tell someone that an illegal immigrant murdered someone, they will likely ignore that data point when considering questions of immigration overall. In other words, let's pay attention to the big numbers and assume that the morality will come with a good decision. I am pretty tired of people leading with moral accusations on here and fanning themselves in outrage when people call THEM racist. I'm not afraid of discussion, but I don't want to waste my time with people who want to have it both ways.

That's my question. If it's a good thing, why are the police involved? Because the implicit directive here is that vigilante justice is the only Justice. We don't need police. Ask Elon to defund, dismiss, deny. If some CEO denies Healthcare, it's open season Ergo facto.

Very true, UNLESS you count Gaza

Worry not. Pew research shows that all religions decline at similar rates, and the numbers of Muslims, as you seem to allude to, remain low as a percentage.

Fake fundamentalists also pick which parts of the Bible they will follow or not. Are they wearing poly fibers? Are they lending money or borrowing money?

Also, you have tacitly accepted the assertion that the biggest media corporations are leftist here. Not including NPR which is puny, the news corps listed are owned by multinationals Disney, Comcast, Warner and Paramount with about a quarter trillion in revenue per year. Not bad for leftists. How? 🤔

Actually I think this is a new tune.

The social contract of basic kindness and acceptance itself cannot be legislated. There are types of social contract that have legislation

And this doesn't take into account the fact that the murder rate there is two to three times ours. And they have capital punishment. So the op is dead on arrival.

Wow, a nod to CTV! MSM for the win. Yes, it seems we will have an election this winter.

I agree. And this is what he was saying at the beginning.

I agree. I think there was a lot of confusion about that. On one side, people thought compelled speech meant the government wasn't allowed to declare hate speech. That was wrong. The other side, people thought Peterson refused to use pronouns. That was also wrong. One of my themes, which I haven't used very much of late, is that people actually have an amazing agreement under the covers as to what constitutes acceptable behavior. It follows liberal conservative values, is brought forward from religion, brought forward from the earliest days of civilization in Mesopotamia and Gobekli Tepe

I'm not sure what happened in his interactions with his students. But implicitly, you seem to acknowledge that he was willing to accommodate. This is why I had hope for him. He could be personally accommodating, while objecting to a national law that demanded you utter a certain word. It would not allow you to avoid saying things, but would compel you to make a sound. I supported his thinking here.

1. Not shared by people I follow. But if it's just him talking why would it matter? 2. As I said I did used to care. As for the rest of your post, it's been a lovely evening. Let's not spoil it.

1. That source would be YouTube 2. You're stretching stuff all over the map here. I don't care if he's professional or not. I had hoped he could be an intellectual leader to bring some sense to this culture war. That's all. I don't care about his professional body sanctioning him. I am part of a professional body. Also. If I posted slander and abuse on here I would be disciplined and I couldn't cry that the woke police were after me. I'm not sure if he believes what he says. The guy who I followed back when he came into the public view was very much able to differentiate public from private, and that's what I liked about him. He had great words to say about the dangers of mind control and group think. I was sad when he was denied funding, which I did not think was fair. Not enough was made of that. But his response was to go join the blogosphere circus, and that made me sad. Like I said I had hope. 3. Maybe you're right. But I don't see any other reason he would have thrown away his role, such as it was. ... I feel like we've had a pretty good exchange here about my thoughts on him. Maybe I can't blame him, he got a lot of Fame and money the way he went. It still makes me sad. And it makes me laugh when I see some of the clips about him talking about things he knows nothing about. But that's the big problem today. Lots of talk. None of it is quality.

Ok, well at least acknowledge that I actually used to listen to him I listen to clips. He's no longer an intellectual leader, an intellectual or even an academic. He talks about anything and everything, because he's a media figure, ie. Needs clicks. Do you want an example of him speaking beyond his expertise? How about him debating a Marxist about the problem of Marxist academia and not being able to name any? How about talking about Climate Change? He's a media figure.

Not a serious thread.

Owning the libs, and hating the Chuds is stopping politics today. It's a big problem.

Replying to me? Oh right, you're just 'calling out lies'... If you followed my posts about Peterson, you'll learn that I used to support him and held out hope that he could be the one to bring peace to the culture wars.

They never wanted an intellectual, they wanted someone to wag their finger at pink haired people and tell them to go back to the oldy days. They had these guys in the past, Paul Harvey, Andy Rooney, but they were on TV. And if you haven't heard of them, you're likely under 60. So subtract your age from 60 and that's probably how long until Jordan's a hazbean.

Scroll up