Moonbox

What he was or was not a "fan" of is irrelevant given this has nothing to do with his job as BoE governor. Any policies related to these would have been the responsibility of the Conservative government Lizzy was part of. None of this has anything to do with her disastrously bad economic policies, and the fact that she made a laughingstock out of herself over it. I think it's safe to say that nobody is going to care much about what Justin has to say about the economy, and I'm not sure what Bill Clinton's penis has to do with anything. I have no idea what you're even trying to say in this quote.

Trying to frame this as a debate about hurt feelings is deliberately dishonest and disingenuous. Considering how much time you spend complaining about other people's dishonesty on this forum, you're just embarrassing yourself now. When you can explain how this incredibly narrow and limited-scope legislation is an unreasonable limit to free speech, and how would-be protestors are being harmed by having to protest 101m away from, instead of within 100m of, abortion clinics, let us know. Until then, you're just making a fool of yourself.

Because they spent most of his tenure as BoE governor complaining about how he was too political, and how he used to publicly criticize and advise against their policy. Trying to flip the script and blame him for all of the things he was trying to get them not to do is pretty goofy, don't you think? What are the opinions of disgraced and proven buffoons worth? It's painfully obvious from that comment that you don't even know what an economist is. 🙄

Why would we assume she relied on his advice? Carney's tenure as the governor of BoE was spent arguing against most of the UK government's economic policy, especially Brexit (which Truss supported). The reality is that Truss is a near-universal laughingstock with zero credibility, who resigned from the PM's office within 45 days after tabling one of the dumbest budgets the UK had ever seen. Any criticism she has to offer for anyone on economic policy is worth a cat's wet fart.

It only weakens your credibility, so if slippery slope is your game, go for it guess? 😆 It'll be easier to take you seriously when you stop pretending that "silently praying" isn't just a thin disguise for protesting. Hilarious. His going there to "siLeNtLy pRaY" is what's secondary. The only reason he was there was to protest in front of an abortion clinic, and knowingly flaunt the law that he knew prohibited it. Primary to the debate is the law itself, for which you still haven't offered any credible or serious criticism. When you're willing to even try explaining how it's unreasonable for protest activities to be kept outside 100m of abortion clinics, and weigh the imaginary harm that does to would-be protestor's rights against the benefits it offers to the community, let me know. Until then, you look pretty silly!

That's kind of my point. Nobody knows what Trump is going to do, so I don't think anyone has a concrete plan and therefore doesn't need to/shouldn't provide one. I suspect that Poilievre will probably take a more hawkish tone against Trump the closer to an election we get, but right now he can afford to wait and watch. I can't stand the guy, as you know, but my sincerest hope is that when he does become PM, he's a pragmatist like Harper turned out to be.

You're likening a 100m safe zone around abortion clinics that allows women too seek medical procedures privately and without fear of harassment or coercion, to protests only being permitted in remote forest locations? That's some utterly ridiculous, slippery-slop reasoning there bud. He was asked to stop/leave, in accordance with the law. That was it. There's nothing outrageous about that, is there? Belligerently refusing to comply and arguing with the officer for two hours is what got him arrested. You already know that though, so these sorts of reductive and disingenuous statements are puzzling. All of this could have been avoided by protesting 101m from the clinic, but NO. Being able to specifically do it within 100m is what's cardinally important here, and supersedes any concerns of public safety/order and privacy that the law seeks to address, for reasons nobody can explain other than "Muh free speech". 🙄

Nobody said anything of the sort, LOL. We're talking about reasonable limits, in that you weigh the obvious and explainable benefits and public good the law serves against the utter lack of any harm it causes. As we saw in the beginning, your argument is circular and utterly reliant on an absolute-interpretation of free speech that doesn't hold up anywhere. To get back on track with the topic of Ukraine, what's especially comical about JD Vance's buffoonish rant is that he while he was berating Europe on free speech, he and his boss were busy promoting the aims and propaganda talking points of the Russian police state. I've been saying it for awhile, but I'm really curious how you're going to contort yourself trying to rationalize and cope with Trump's pro-Russian agenda. We're seeing it start now.

No, you danced around it, like you do with anything you're pressed on. There are already subjective barriers on free speech, have been as long as you've been alive, and this was already addressed. It's exactly what we're talking about. "Reasonable limits" on free speech are a balance of costs and benefits. When the benefits of limiting an activity are obvious, and you can't explain any costs or harms in doing so, that's the end of the argument! 😆👌

You mean Vance went to a security summit, and spun a lot of MAGA culture-war balogna at European leaders. What you really did was sidestep and avoid addressing it, with your "argument" being nothing more than an appeal to an absolutist interpretation of free speech that you already know holds no water. Even in the US, the Supreme Court has upheld reasonable limits to free speech in regards to time, place and manner of expression. There are a myriad of easily-explained and reasonable justifications for keeping activists and protestors away from abortion clinics, while you cannot explain any purpose or rationale for "silent prayer" specifically with 100m of them, and what harm is caused by denying it. Until you can, nothing you're really saying here has much merit. Just one bad comment? The President of the United States publicly and explicitly validating the Russian dictator's propaganda talking points on the world stage is just "one bad comment?" Like...whoopsy!?

I'm talking about the orange blob. He is waiting to see where the chips fall before deciding how to approach him. He doesn't have to commit to being a Trump hawk or to fall in line with him at the moment, because he can rest assured that Trudeau will make a mess of it either way. Hope that's not too "left" of me to say. 🙄

Yes, and that's why protestors aren't allowed to do so within 100m of abortion clinics, because the whole purpose of their being there is to harass vulnerable women who are seeking medical services. There's no reasonable argument to make for why they need to be within 100m to "silently pray", which is why anyone exercising common sense recognizes it as a transparent facade for protest. That's why the communities around them are generally (heavily) in favor of the laws as well. No, that's just your goofy rationalization. You can pray anywhere you like in your house, including in front of an open window. What you can't do is make a show of it, which nobody would do anyway unless it was a deliberate protest. 😆

There's a lot of behavioral science and research that's been done for this, and from what I've learned the majority of the "sales" process is passing the client's natural fight or flight instinct (the snake-brain). "Will this guy hurt me or eat me? No? I can trust him? Okay." The next step is whether or not you can build some rapport, since nobody is going to work with you if they don't like you. After that, it's a matter of convincing them (not proving) your competence. The average person knows so little about the economy/markets/taxation etc that you risk making them feel stupid if you try to actually teach them everything you think they should know, so you work on that in little bites. I would say you're right though. I used to get really frustrated/discouraged that so few people wanted to actually review and coordinate the planning I'm doing for them. The questions most clients have at the end of the year is, "Did we make money, and/or how much?" Whether or not they kept up with the market (risk-adjusted or otherwise) or how we did compared to everyone else isn't something they're concerning themselves with, which is something I've just learned to live with.

That's the whole point. There is harm. Vulnerable women feeling harassed/judged/intimidated as they privately seek medical treatment is some (not all) of the harm the legislation is there to prevent, weighed against a protestor's right to "pray" specifically within 100m of the clinic. The "harm" to free speech is that these poor buffoons have to do their "praying" >101m outside the clinic. The horror. Yes, letters were sent out. The letters did not say what JD Vance said they did, which is that private prayer in their homes could be illegal. That's an explicit lie, just like the Haitians eating cats and dogs was, and you're left trying to rationalize it.

Right now? Probably Trump. In a couple months, who knows? Either way, I don't think PP is going to commit to much, just like he already hasn't. You don't interrupt while your opponent is scoring on his own net, or imploding. I don't find that fascinating, or even curious, because the average person really doesn't care about the details. In my early years in financial planning, I was very task and detail-oriented. I'd have spreadsheets, drill-downs, risk comparisons, projections, simulations and scenario planning - all that jazz prepared before every meeting and ready to go. Over time, I realized that most clients only had about 5 minutes worth of attention for that sort of stuff. Anything more, and I'd start to lose them. I still do that stuff on my own for them, in the background, but they don't give a shit to hear about it. Their decision-making process in terms of finance was to determine if they liked me, if they trusted me, and if I seemed competent. Once that hurdle was covered, most of them are ready to just let me do my thing and don't really want to hear about it or my decision making process.

Poilievre will try to sell Canada whatever he thinks is going to be popular at the time. If everyone is pissed at Trump, he'll talk tough about how he can contend with it. If the utter failure of Trudeau Liberalism is still what's on the average Canadian's minds, that's what he's going to focus on.

🤡🤡🤡

It does, because freedom of speech isn't limitless, even in the United States. That's why you can get arrested for harassing or threatening people, among an exhaustive list of other limitations. It's not like we saw you supporting the Gaza protestor's freedom of speech either, is it? Because it's absolute nonsense. Ignoring that JD Vance outright lied (just like he did with the Haitians eating cats and dogs) and no letters were sent out saying you can't pray in your home, the whole idea of people not being allowed to pray in their own home is ludicrous to start. What is the Scottish government going to do? Install cameras in everyone's house, and peer through windows to make sure nobody's praying inside? That's the sort of silliness you're reduced to when you're defending these goofs.

Like I said, we know you can't actually explain or rationalize why, specifically, these donkeys need to pray within earshot of abortion clinics, and why that crucial right is somehow more important than that of vulnerable women being able to seek medical treatment with some privacy and without having to fear harassment or intimidation from protestors, which is really what these silent prayers really are. You're going to do your regular mental gymnastics, just as you did with Vance's cat-and-dog eating, and talk about anything but what you're being pressed on. It's boring, and even better, completely irrelevant to the topic of Ukraine, just like Vance's speech was in Munich. 🤣

Oh no, he was told he had to move 100m away to "silently pray"?1?!? Better send the Vice President of the United States to harangue (supposed) allies at a security conference over it. 🤣 I think you'd have trouble trying to rationalize and explain why the rights of belligerent fundamentalists to "silently pray" specifically within 100m of abortion clinics somehow supersedes the rights of vulnerable women to seek medical help with a measure of privacy and dignity, without shame, judgement, harassment and/or intimidation. Pray 101m outside. Problem solved. 🙃👍

It's really awkward that you write that bolded part as you spiral out into another juvenile tirade. You lasted more than 2 posts though, so that's probably a record for you. Good job little buddy! 😉

In reality, Adam Smith-Connor sought out an abortion clinic to "silently pray" near, knew there was a law against it (implemented for various good reasons we could discuss in another thread), and spent almost two hours arguing with the officer who asked him to leave before he was finally removed. In reality, Vance's speech was a ranting balogna-fest from the culture-warrior grievance catalogue, underlined by the absurdity that it was delivered at a freaking European security summit, from the genius who broke the story about Haitians eating cats and dogs. 🤣

Naw dog. He straight-up clowned himself, and nobody who listened to it who wasn't already drinking the Kool-Aid did anything but laugh or cringe. Folks living near abortion clinics aren't allowed to pray in their own homes, yup yup. 🤣

Vance made a clown out of himself in that speech, like he usually does. Just because he's not 100% wrong about everything doesn't change that.

No, he didn't say that. That's how the National Post and the rest of Pierre Poilevre's fluffers frame what he said, panicking as they are after Trudeau's resignation. Their frenzied attempts to demonize Carney make them look silly and immature when they have a 10-year record of abject failure to campaign against. Honesty? According to who? I have trouble seeing how it does. It seems like the least reasonable and least justifiable interpretation - the one that would serve no purpose and for which you probably can't explain any motivation.