Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Moonbox last won the day on June 22 2020

Moonbox had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Go Leafs Go!

Recent Profile Visitors

14,002 profile views

Moonbox's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges



  1. No they're absolutely not. It's just a question of the optics heading into the election. If it looks like Trudeau forced the issue and they can frame it as an attempt to hide corruption, the narrative isn't good for the Liberals. Trudeau and co. now have an identity of poor judgment and ethical gaffes. If it looks like the conservatives pushed the issue too hard, it will look like playing politics during a health crisis.
  2. I think you're grasping at straws here. I don't really think "woman" is much of a qualifier. My reservation lies in her background. You usually want your finance ministers to have backgrounds in finance/business/economics, just like you want your justice ministers to have backgrounds in law (whether practicing or theoretical). I've reservations with Freeland in this position for the same reason I have reservations towards Ontario's education minister.
  3. Yeah...so this is pretty despicable timing. If there was ever a time for Jagmeet to stand up and grow a spine, it's now.
  4. This definitely worries me. I think Freeland is a smart woman and could do a decent job as PM even, but I don't see how she's appropriate for the Finance Minister's position. Trudeau seems to use her as his omni-tool. He knows she's popular and puts her in visible places to put out his fires. Unfortunately, Trudeau seems to have a very poor grasp of economics (like his father) and from what I've read he and Morneau (someone who does know finance/economics) were really clashing on a number of plans moving forward. With a historical deficit, Trudeau apparently was intent on going full-steam ahead on environmental spending whereas Morneau felt finances were in crisis and we weren't in a position to do much for the time being. I've never felt that Trudeau was particularly intelligent or that he has good judgment, but my hope was that he'd surround himself with smart people and listen to them. Until now, that seems to have been the case, but as he continues to turf ministers and get caught in petty ethics scandals, it's getting harder and harder to trust him.
  5. This thread made me laugh out loud. Doctors and health professionals are trying to kill themselves! This is against the Geneva Convention (or something)! Alien sex! Hydrochloroquine is the only cure against the socialist vampire cult trying to dethrone our lord and Savior Donald!
  6. Pretty good article. I just wish folk could put aside their outrage and judgment and actually consider what people are saying before writing each other off as the anti-Christ.
  7. The severity is a new thing. Sure, but that's the same sort of argument as "that's just your opinion". Of course it is. The whole topic is subjective. We're really just arguing in circles here. I'm glad the letter was published and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
  8. It's obvious what "can" happen, and what employers are "allowed" to do in the current environment. I think it's dangerous, however, when employees' livelihoods and ability to freely discuss their views are subject to the whim of their employers' "value judgments". Let's not fool ourselves here either. It's often not even a value judgment that causes an employer to cut ties. It's the result of a campaign of complaints, boycotts and shaming by what likely amounts to a very vocal minority. Sort of a petty distinction. When your ability to earn a livelihood is dependent on keeping your mouth shut about unpopular opinions, you are being censored. Please note I said unpopular - not hateful. Folks are losing their jobs because of unpopular opinions or for questioning prevailing agendas. We're not having a legal argument. The fact that McCarthyism was legal doesn't make it any less abominable. It was a perversion of the legal system and championed by some of the most corrupt and frankly amoral people in the history of the United States. What we're seeing today is far less nefarious, but still troubling nonetheless. The fundamental idea behind affirmative action and anti-discrimination aren't in question. It's the misguided, overzealous and draconian way the rules are being applied.
  9. Well it's certainly not enough for an employer to just be embarrassed. You can't fire someone simply for their political affiliation, though vocal Trump supporters might be embarrassing for some companies in the US (or vice versa?). It works both ways of course. You'd probably be embarrassed if your CEO was on Twitter talking about his cross-dressing nudist vacation, but would he be summarily fired for it? What you're speaking of here is perception. You're saying that perception and public opinion are the arbiters of this sort of "justice" and censorship. I know all about McCarthyism, and I think it was an abomination. What we're seeing today is rings similarly, though certainly nowhere near as bad.
  10. What's "objectionable" is the question. Is it because most folks disagree? Is it because the majority of folk were offended and found the comments distasteful? Was it because a lot of people found it offensive and/or threatening? Or did someone just go out of their way to make a stink about an opinion they disagreed with? We never really know. I would have thought the difference is obvious. On the one hand you have someone saying they're "anti-someone" (which is pretty much dictionary definition hate), and on the other hand you have someone disagreeing with an updated definition for a word that had been used for hundreds of years to describe her sex. That's not a trivial distinction. Fair enough.
  11. Which is the problem. She had an outspoken outlook and was punished/censored for it. It absolutely does. This, I'd argue, is the central point of the article. The institutional side of the phenomenon is described as "panicked damage control". I disagree. I think it was pretty clear it was talking about the overall environment of intolerance, and that institutions have fallen victim.
  12. Pretty sure they do that. I don't think that's right either, but that hardly proves there's no such thing as systemic racism. Not sure about Larry. He's hardly thoughtful. "What we should do is pay reparations to black Americans who actually grew up under Jim Crow and were directly harmed by second-class citizenship—people like my Grandparents." From your own link. He's opposed to reparations for slavery specifically. It's so far back historically that any reparation would be arbitrary, wouldn't much purpose and would actually just make tensions and the divide worse.
  13. What are they supposed to do about it? As we speak the Chief of Waterloo Region Police is leading a group advocating the decriminalization of possession. Why? Because it's not effective. You can look to places like Portugal who decriminalized possession and minor selling to see how HIV and disease transmission is down, overdoses are less common and there are HALF the number of minor drug offenders in Portuguese prisons now than before 2001. In 1999, 44% of people in Portuguese jails were drug offenders - just so you have some perspective. The best part? The drug use in Portugal didn't go up. The country is saving money, saving lives and allowing the police to stop wasting their time chasing down addicts. Also if you ignore all of the highly educated, well-respected academics saying the opposite. You a black republican lawyer, a Columbia University Professor and a 24-year old opinion columnist. If black poverty rates are disproportionately higher, the distinction is kind of moot. Nobody is saying we try to help out ONLY black poor people and not Hispanics (who also have high poverty rates) in the USA. Nobody is saying we should be throwing money at rich black folk. Larry Elder is hardly the authority you make him out to be. He's only noteworthy in that he's black and wealthy, while at the same time outspoken and Republican. This is a guy who tries to say that low black unemployment (prior to the COVID crisis) proves that Trump isn't racist. Unemployment rates were historically low across the country, so that was a foregone conclusion. With Black people disproportionately affected by the economic shutdown, has Larry changed his tune? Nah. Another brilliant example of his "intellectualism" is how he uses the Music Modernization Act as evidence of Trump's progressive attitude towards people of colour...total nonsense. He's a Republican squawk box. Coleman Hughes, at least, is thoughtful and even worthy voice in the discussion and he does have good points to make. Are you aware that he supports reparation payments to folks who grew up under Jim Crow laws? Maybe you should read a bit more about what he says.
  14. Because they are all racist cops, or because they have problems with the way policing is done? Oh please. If you go looking for it you can find someone saying anything. Low education standards, lousy schools and high single-parenthood are all hallmarks of poverty. These are true no matter what race you're looking at. The bolded part...I hope you're quoting someone else or something because that just made me cringe.
  • Create New...