What happened to Canada

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

No it's a very specific form of over-politeness obsessed with race and gender and trying to make sure everyone fits into some kind of identity quota.  It's not very polite to discriminate against someone based on their race or gender.  Maybe you're retired and don't lose out on jobs and promotions because you don't have the right shade of skin or genitals.

Oddly enough I'm identified as the master at work. It says Master on my certificate and its even capitalized for effect. Women and people of colour are all expected to follow my commands, it even says so on their certificates. That said they can be Masters too so...it's a funny quirky little world we live in isn't it?

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Stephen Rosner Bronfman (born 23 January 1964) is a Canadian businessperson, philanthropist, environmental activist and scion of the Bronfman family. He is the Chief Revenue Officer of the Liberal Party of Canada and a senior advisor to Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Bronfman

 

Yep, definitely a right winger from where I'm sitting. If you've seen one you've seen them all AFAIC.

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Except that there's hardly any impact at all, if any, of all this talk. Don't like the talk then ignore it.

You onl y think that because you're not paying attention.

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. Abraham Lincoln 

We can already see the attitudes of younger Canadians influenced by this kind of thing. They have less respect for freedom of speech, and half of them want Socialism as their preferred economic system.

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

We can already see the attitudes of younger Canadians influenced by this kind of thing. They have less respect for freedom of speech, and half of them want Socialism as their preferred economic system.

If they want socialism why are they attracted to Poilievre?

How Pierre Poilievre is winning new support among young, diverse voters

It was Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's YouTube videos that caught the eye of Joshua Deslandes, a University of Toronto student studying economics and political science.

"He really inspired me to become a Conservative. I just loved the message. I loved all the branding. I really just love the Conservative Party," the 19 year-old said during the Conservatives' convention in Ottawa last week.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pierre-poilievre-bipoc-youth-support-1.6586065

YouTube videos and branding is all it takes?

Meanwhile from your Fraser Institute article'

“A whole segment of the population—not just in Canada but across the developed world—self-describes as socialist, but many of them have never lived in a world with genuine socialism nor the misery it imposed,”

Do they mean genuine socialism the way so many older conservatives around here imagine we're experiencing - as bad as anything that existed under Mao, Stalin, or the Khmer Rouge? 

[eyeball]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Of course - the deals were already done under the liberals.

So how come Harper's T&A Act was as effective as wet tissue paper against Trudeau?  Because Conservatives are as useless at dealing with corruption as Liberals are good at it.

That's probably the main reason the 1% laugh so hard on the way to the bank right there.

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So how come Harper's T&A Act was as effective as wet tissue paper against Trudeau? 

It actually worked pretty well - SNC happened because of the changes to transparancy Harper brought in.  That would have been allowed prior to harper.

And transparancy means people KNOW about things - and the people do.  You know about snc, you know about aga khan, you know about WE, you know all this stuff - but you still keep voting for him or parties that support him blindly.

You've been told this many times, and it's so easy to understand an 8 year old would get it - transparency is meaningless if there's no consequence.

Say it with me now.....  transparancy.. is... MEANINGLESS... if ... there .. is ... no ... consequence.

And seeing as no gov't can pass a law another gov't can't undo the only people who can hold a gov't to account is the voters.

But you didn't.

So here we are. The problem isn't our system, or our transparency, or harper, or anything else.  IT's voters like you who will happily see the libs get in for another term despite their crimes and corruption.

You dont need transparency - you need a mirror.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

SNC happened because of the changes to transparancy Harper brought in.

LMAO!

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

You onl y think that because you're not paying attention.

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. Abraham Lincoln 

We can already see the attitudes of younger Canadians influenced by this kind of thing. They have less respect for freedom of speech, and half of them want Socialism as their preferred economic system.

You're talking about cultural impacts.  It's fine to complain about our culture, but it's a different kind of discussion than policy discussion.  There are policy implications, but as Moonlight said it's more a matter of politeness.

And most who think otherwise are, from my experience, prone to moral panics.

 

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

LMAO!

So you're just back to ignoring the truth again?  That was a harper law he ran afoul of.

Oh - i forgot. You don't really believe anything you say, you just like to whine and pretend you don't support justin.  My bad - carry on with your lies.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So you're just back to ignoring the truth again? 

No, you.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, you.

Just about the most intelligent and meaningful post you've made sadly  

Edited January 24 by CdnFox

[Dougie93]

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You're not a Canadian, you're a Brit anglo loyalist. 

I take that as a compliment

cheers

[Moonlight Graham]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Oddly enough I'm identified as the master at work. It says Master on my certificate and its even capitalized for effect. Women and people of colour are all expected to follow my commands, it even says so on their certificates. That said they can be Masters too so...it's a funny quirky little world we live in isn't it?

I'm a master bator.

[Moonlight Graham]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe, but on a government policy level?  Is that a thing?

Post-national state.

 

[Nefarious Banana]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

Oddly enough I'm identified as the master at work. It says Master on my certificate and its even capitalized for effect. Women and people of colour are all expected to follow my commands, it even says so on their certificates. That said they can be Masters too so...it's a funny quirky little boat I live on isn't it?

"The cabin boy, the cabin boy! . . . that dirty little nipper . . . . . . . . . . "

 

Edited January 25 by Nefarious Banana

[Moonlight Graham]

13 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I take that as a compliment

cheers

So which part of Russia or China are you actually from?

Edited January 25 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Post-national state.

 

Well, Obama's vision isn't post National.  I've heard Trudeau's is, but the contradiction is he's selling it to CANADIANS, presumably for their well being... not because Canada is supposed to be diminishing itself to help the world.

I never heard that statement though.  Let me find it.

 

...

 

Ah, ok.  You're more on the mark than me.

It was a NY Times interview, and he was boasting about our national character.  In terms of policy, I think that it has to do almost exclusively with immigration.

 

And we can see where that has gone.

 

Tangentially, we're now seeing calls for immigration to be reduced, for rational and understandable reasons.  And we seem to be comfortable with that.

Edited January 25 by Michael Hardner

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, Obama's vision isn't post National.  I've heard Trudeau's is, but the contradiction is he's selling it to CANADIANS, presumably for their well being... not because Canada is supposed to be diminishing itself to help the world.

I never heard that statement though.  Let me find it.

 

...

 

Ah, ok.  You're more on the mark than me.

It was a NY Times interview, and he was boasting about our national character.  In terms of policy, I think that it has to do almost exclusively with immigration.

 

And we can see where that has gone.

 

Tangentially, we're now seeing calls for immigration to be reduced, for rational and understandable reasons.  And we seem to be comfortable with that.

I know,  the Obama speech is the exact opposite, a huge contrast.  Unity, what a concept!

Trudeau doesn't know what's best for the country because he's a fool and his post-national and woke ideologies are divisive.  And I disagree, he wants to virtue signal as well, show Canadians and the world how welcoming we are.  We can be welcoming but not have to give up our national identity and our history etc.   It's a lot easier to shape a country into a post-national state when you sweep its national history and culture under a rug and start with a blank slate.

Sure, don't want to offend the Quebecois or indigenous or an immigrant or anyone else with pesky national culture and national unity.  Hmm I can't believe that the military is having a recruiting problem...

I've been saying this for years about immigration, and it irked you and you argued that housing builds were keeping pace with immigration numbers, which was nonsense.  But now that the mainstream are finally starting to agree with me well now I guess i'm no longer just an anti-immigrant racist and you're allowed to agree with me since a more broadly accepted stance won't be as likely to offend someone.  You might consider at some point taking a stance that isn't based on sticking your moist finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing.  Some things are more important than being liked by everyone all of the time.  Galileo and Charles Darwin weren't liked by everyone in their day either, but they were right.

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Tangentially, we're now seeing calls for immigration to be reduced, for rational and understandable reasons.  And we seem to be comfortable with that.

Economics is still the only reason for calling for reduced immigration that is acceptable to the mainstream media. Note, not even sound economic reasons broadly supported across Canada are enough to persuade even a single politician in English Canada to suggest reducing immigration. Not one. That's how tightly policed opinion is among the elites.

To suggest there might be cultural reasons, concern for the kind of people we are, our values and beliefs, that we might want to protect that and only bring in as many immigrants as we can integrate - that's still completely forbidden in the mainstream.

Although that would be absolutely mainstream in almost every other country in the world. But here, the elites have made any belief in the worth of Canada's values, culture and historical institutions akin to worship of Adolph Hitler, a clear sign of white nationalism and white supremacy.

Edited January 25 by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. I know,  the Obama speech is the exact opposite, a huge contrast.  Unity, what a concept!

2. Trudeau doesn't know what's best for the country because he's a fool and his post-national and woke ideologies are divisive... 

3. And I disagree, he wants to virtue signal as well, show Canadians and the world how welcoming we are.  We can be welcoming but not have to give up our national identity and our history etc.   It's a lot easier to shape a country into a post-national state when you sweep its national history and culture under a rug and start with a blank slate.

4. I've been saying this for years about immigration, and it irked you and you argued that housing builds were keeping pace with immigration numbers, which was nonsense. 

5. But now that the mainstream are finally starting to agree with me well now I guess i'm no longer just an anti-immigrant racist and you're allowed to agree with me since a more broadly accepted stance won't be as likely to offend someone.  You might consider at some point taking a stance that isn't based on sticking your moist finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing.  Some things are more important than being liked by everyone all of the time. 

6. Galileo and Charles Darwin weren't liked by everyone in their day either, but they were right.

1. ok
2. Post-national and woke are related but different concepts.    And again... for the amount of attention wokeness gets... and its subsequent bleeding into the culture wars and griping for griping sakes... I find it counterproductive and a barrier to talking about important things like.... immigration.  So I'm stepping back from my previous questioning to you that implies it's weakly attached to policy.  It is attached to the leader's vision which is pertinent - BUT it applies mostly to immigration and I think that's a topic we can actually (maybe finally) debate on its own merits right now.  If it was truly divisive, then he wouldn't use it but clearly the message appeals to Canadians broadly.
3. Go ahead and guess as to his motives.  There is of course evidence for other motives and we can never answer the question.  You don't like him personally but I feel like likeability is maybe the worst measure of the quality of a leader. 
4. Well, a few things: I changed my mind based on the facts but people were making this argument before Trudeau boostered the numbers sky high.

Your implication that I thought you were racist is more motivation-guessing, and is incorrect and beneath you.  Try to find a single post where I called you a racist. 

5. Stop trying to psychoanalze me, you are terrible at it.  You accuse me of basing my opinions based on being PC, then when I change my mind based on facts you accuse me of following the fashion.  If you don't respect me to make up my mind fairly then stop posting to me, it's simple.  Put me on ignore.

6. Yes, I often think you are most like Galileo and Darwin... I think your ego mirror is broken.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I know,  the Obama speech is the exact opposite, a huge contrast.  Unity, what a concept!

Trudeau doesn't know what's best for the country because he's a fool and his post-national and woke ideologies are divisive.  And I disagree, he wants to virtue signal as well, show Canadians and the world how welcoming we are.  We can be welcoming but not have to give up our national identity and our history etc.   It's a lot easier to shape a country into a post-national state when you sweep its national history and culture under a rug and start with a blank slate.

Sure, don't want to offend the Quebecois or indigenous or an immigrant or anyone else with pesky national culture and national unity.  Hmm I can't believe that the military is having a recruiting problem...

I've been saying this for years about immigration, and it irked you and you argued that housing builds were keeping pace with immigration numbers, which was nonsense.  But now that the mainstream are finally starting to agree with me well now I guess i'm no longer just an anti-immigrant racist and you're allowed to agree with me since a more broadly accepted stance won't be as likely to offend someone.  You might consider at some point taking a stance that isn't based on sticking your moist finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing.  Some things are more important than being liked by everyone all of the time.  Galileo and Charles Darwin weren't liked by everyone in their day either, but they were right.

Exactly right.  He who stands for nothing falls for everything.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Economics is still the only reason for calling for reduced immigration that is acceptable to the mainstream media. Note, not even sound economic reasons broadly supported across Canada are enough to persuade even a single politician in English Canada to suggest reducing immigration. Not one. That's how tightly policed opinion is among the elites.

To suggest there might be cultural reasons, concern for the kind of people we are, our values and beliefs, that we might want to protect that and only bring in as many immigrants as we can integrate - that's still completely forbidden in the mainstream.

Although that would be absolutely mainstream in almost every other country in the world. But here, the elites have made any belief in the worth of Canada's values, culture and historical institutions akin to worship of Adolph Hitler, a clear sign of white nationalism and white supremacy.

Yes and of course it’s dishonest, because some (many?) of the liberals, including (especially?) whites and females wouldn’t want to live closely among or pal around with the identity groups they claim to champion.  I’d go as far as saying that they make up for their secret disgust through flowery inclusive rhetoric.

Instead, why can’t people be honest about disliking the fact that their local culture and social values have shifted beyond recognition too fast and without their consent?

Again I ask the question, Who do these policies serve? It’s not serving Canadians to sit in traffic an extra hour, pay more for houses and transportation, and not be able to get service from someone who doesn’t speak an official language properly.  

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist

[herbie]

How does one conclude that Trudeau's the "post-national" if he's the one that understands the country's 90% empty and we can't solidify an economy with a minimal internal market?
Unless you define post-national as someone who thinks the country was perfect in 1953 and doesn't agree.

[Black Dog]

On 1/21/2024 at 12:40 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

Encouraging everyone to retreat into separate identity tribes while demonizing the one tribe we all belong to and suppressing our collective pride for it is a really bad idea.

This has been the ideology of the woke left, including our current government of the past 8 years.  Yes we're all different and always have been, but we need to reject divisive identity politics and vote the current government out of office because they're destroying the country.

Weird how decades of de jure and de facto racial discrimination in this country never get mentioned when you talk about the good old days; why is that?

As for "rejecting divisive identity politics": what does that look like, exactly?

[Black Dog]

On 1/21/2024 at 6:35 PM, CdnFox said:

Reading these comments it really feels like the left is furious that canada under woke leftism has utterly crashed and burned and is toast, and that it's very likely that PP and the conservatives will make things better and prove that their model is the superior one.

There's a lot of sour grapes and salty tears.   Much crying that the right are such terrible people and can the words 'deplorable' and 'Chud' be far behind?

Sorry to those on the left - your ideology leads to ruin and suffering for the masses, especially the poor. Always does, always will. Other than very specific very small and homogenous groups, it just is a failure. 

Fortunately in about a year and 3/4 or less we'll have some new governance and we can fix this.

 

That's capitalism, you're just talking about capitalism, which, by definition, entails the exploitation and suffering for the many for the enrichment of the few unless restrained by the heavy hand of the state.

On 1/23/2024 at 11:05 AM, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO - ahhh yet another thing on the ever growing pile of things you've been saying for decades now

Tribalism begain in the US and it was the left who begain it, it got serious around 2011.  We have imported it to canada since

Absolutely ahistorical nonsense. If one was to pick a tipping point, it was 2008 with the election of a Black President which drove the right completely insane.

And it's funny as hell to see a guy who unironically uses the term "commies" whine about "tribalism".

[Zeitgeist]

I wish we could stop distinguishing people by colour except as an objective physical description.  It’s good to talk about people’s individual experiences, and sure colour may come into that, but every individual is different.  Both victimhood and privilege come in many forms.  Yes historically some groups have had it harder, but if our policies are fair and people’s attitudes are getting better as they work together and intermarry, the ingredients for positive change are there and much progress has been made. Yes racism persists and so we enshrine equality legislatively and emphasize it in our education, media, pulpits, etc   

I hope colour doesn’t come into the immigration debate.   

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist