2024 Canadian Political Thread

[appleomac]

I dont think all conservatives are fascists,

That's not the point. The point is, you go there. When you are confronted with your untruths, your nonsensical drivel, etc. - you revert to pulling the fascist card. It's the strategy of fools - calling someone a fascist for no other reason than you have no valid points to make. It's weak, it's pathetic and it's obvious that only those with no ability to speak coherently about a topic/subject will revert to pulling the "well then you're a fascist" card.

You also have never addressed the NWC. Do you understand the gravity of fucking around with that and the signal it sends to the provinces? Therin lies ruin.

The NWC is in the bloody constitution. They (when the Constitution was redone/repatriated in 1981) put the provision in there. It is a provision that can be used. It has been used, at least by provincial governments on many an occasion. It can be used by the federal government. If you don't like the NWC, advocate for amending the constitution to remove it. This notion that a provision of the constitution being used is some how "unconstitutional" or otherwise immoral (by your subjective standards) is a silly one. Saying nothing for the fact that, in the instance of Polievre speaking on using it, related to stacking of criminal conviction sentences and probably wants mandatory minimums. Things Harper tried to do with various pieces of crime related legislation of which about 30 provisions in those various pieces of legislation have been rule unconstitutional by various courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Things like 5 year minimum sentences for crimes committed with a gun - unconstitutional according to the courts. Things like an individual being convicted of 2 or more sexual assaults/rape/crime being automatically put on the national sex offenders registry - unconstitutional according to the courts. You like to talk about "nuance" and you have absolutely zero ability to conceptualize why a provision like the NWC exists. Courts, rightly, do not have to care about public opinion or public sentiment. However, courts' actions will affect public opinion and sentiment. And when there is an imbalance between a court's decision and public sentiment - politicians have to reconcile that imbalance. That imbalance, that divide, between how the court views "things" and how the public views those "things" can be problematic if that imbalance becomes wider and wider and wider. If the public writ large, starts to believe the criminal justice system does not protect society writ large - that will lead to an erosion of public trust in that public instiution (i.e. the courts). And because you don't have half a brain to see why that is an issue. If no one trusts "the system" (i.e. the criminal justice system) people will avoid the criminal justice system. That means, in the extreme, unreported crimes will increase (meaning more victims because of more criminals). That means, in the extreme, people might decide to "dispense justice on my own". This thing, called civil society only works to the extent the people have faith in that system. Part of the system is the criminal justice system. And there is mounting anecdotal evidence that the public is starting to lose faith in that part of the system. Crime rates have been increasing since about 2014, when prior to that point crime was decreasing for about 4 or 5 decades. When crime is decreasing for that long of a period of time, yes, the progressives and their pet projects like "not prison, let's try diversion", etc. is tolerated by the public because at the end of the day, it seemed to be working. But, you give an inch and they want to take a mile - so now we get progressive ideas like "right to bail", we get a Liberal government (for reasons unknown) who steadfastly refuse to make judicial appointments, etc. And low and behold, crime rates have been increasing for about a decade now. Hate to break it to you, all the progressive ideas worked, to a point - and then they tried to double down on even more progressive methods for dealing with criminality. The public is not giving those progressive ideas the benefit of the doubt anymore. The courts, apparently, still want to go there. Therefore there is an imbalance, and again, politicians have to reconcile that. And if that means using the NWC to put a bank robber using a gun in jail for 5 years - so be it. Small price to pay for society writ large regaining some trust in the system.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Sad? Certainly seemed to have you shitting your pants.

I'm guessing PO is Polievre. Okay, what is Polievre's position on abortion? Because you stated (paraphrasing) "he's going to ban abortions." Now, the last time I recall Polievre speaking on abortion was when he was seeking the leadership of the CPC and debating Charest - and Polivere stated that he was pro-choice. Now, since that time, has Polivere come out and said that he now holds a different view on that issue?

And yes, again, you are chirping off standard Liberal wedge talking points - abortion being the "go-to" Liberal wedge issue. People like you stated Harper would ban abortion, he didn't, even when he had a majority. People like you said O'Toole would - even though he was on the record of being pro-choice. Every single time people like you chirp off about the Liberal wedge issue that is abortion and are reminded about Harper not banning it or others like O'Toole or Polievre stating, on the record, that they are pro-choice, you still parrot off that they will ban abortions. "They have a secret agenda", "but the evangelical christians vote conservative", etc. It's a sign of ignorance and desperation - truly. Again, your chirping off without evidence, would be humourous if it weren't so sad.

People should know what they're voting for without the mealy mouthing:
"Pierre Poilievre says that under his leadership, Conservative MPs would be free to bring forward legislation on abortion and vote according to their conscience."

 

[appleomac]

Sad? Certainly seemed to have you shitting your pants.

If thei

People should know what they're voting for without the mealy mouthing:
"Pierre Poilievre says that under his leadership, Conservative MPs would be free to bring forward legislation on abortion and vote according to their conscience."

That's not him wanting to ban abortions, Einstein. You stated (again, paraphrasing) "he, Polievre is going to ban abortions". Contrary to your quote, allowing private members bills to be voted on freely, is not equivalent to "he wants to ban abortions." How many pieces of legislation has been passed in the last 20 or 30 years that have anything tangentially to do with abortion, banning it or limiting it? A majority of Canadians support the right to choose, and I would wager that in a free vote, that is what will be reflected. The reason you can't see that, is that you have this monolithic image of a CPC MP - you somehow think they are all like Brad Trost or all evangelical christians or whatever. That's your problem mate, and the problem with those that adhere to identity politics - you think CPC is an identity, you think everyone in a identified group all act, behave and believe in all the same things. You would be incorrect on that - and the fact that no piece of legislation has been passed in this country to ban or limit abortions demonstrates that. But again, you're arguement is - that a private member being able to table legislation and a free vote equates to a position/desire to ban abortion is asinine. LOL

 

[LLLurkJ2]

I'm guessing PO is Polievre. Okay, what is Polievre's position on abortion? Because you stated (paraphrasing) "he's going to ban abortions." Now, the last time I recall Polievre speaking on abortion was when he was seeking the leadership of the CPC and debating Charest - and Polivere stated that he was pro-choice. Now, since that time, has Polivere come out and said that he now holds a different view on that issue?

And yes, again, you are chirping off standard Liberal wedge talking points - abortion being the "go-to" Liberal wedge issue.

Interesting that you'd bring up an example where Charest was accusing PeePee of being anti-abortion and grilled him for not unequivocally stating he would not alllow a vote as Charest commited. And Mulrouney tried to pass a restrictive bill that died in the senate. So dont tell me 'don't worry, trust us, but we wont promise anything' and expect us to believe you when a large portion of your membership has the stated goal to do something. Funny how a free vote is fine here but all those other times they couldn't possibly be allowed to vote out of party lines.

And what you call a wedge issue is actually the concern of half the population. You yourself may not be anti-abortion, but you're having dinner and getting into bed with them to give them a blowjob at the end of the day.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

That's not the point. The point is, you go there. When you are confronted with your untruths, your nonsensical drivel, etc. - you revert to pulling the fascist card. It's the strategy of fools - calling someone a fascist for no other reason than you have no valid points to make. It's weak, it's pathetic and it's obvious that only those with no ability to speak coherently about a topic/subject will revert to pulling the "well then you're a fascist" card.

You seem to be really sensitive to being called a fascist, so much that your reading abilities turned off and you missed the point, again.

I didn't say you were an authoritatian fascist because you're conservative. Some of my best friends are conservatives.
I said you're an authoritarian facist because you run around telling people their ideas are worthless and only yours are worthwhile, constantly attemepting to supress discussion with insults and tired accusations. If you prefer i could call you Stalinist, or even Ceaușescu-ist if you want, but it all amounts to the same thing: assholes who think they get to control the conversation due to their entitlement sociopathy syndrome.

 

[appleomac]

Interesting that you'd bring up an example where Charest was accusing PeePee of being anti-abortion and grilled him for not unequivocally stating he would not alllow a vote as Charest commited. And Mulrouney tried to pass a restrictive bill that died in the senate. So dont tell me 'don't worry, trust us, but we wont promise anything' and expect us to believe you when a large portion of your membership has the stated goal to do something. Funny how a free vote is fine here but all those other times they couldn't possibly be allowed to vote out of party lines.

And what you call a wedge issue is actually the concern of half the population. You yourself may not be anti-abortion, but you're having dinner and getting into bed with them to give them a blowjob at the end of the day.

Keep on bringing up the wedge issue. As stated just yesterday by the CPC...


"These outlandish claims show the true desperation of Justin Trudeau and his flailing Liberals. A common sense Conservative government will not legislate on abortion and therefore would never use this section of the Constitution pertaining to this matter...A Conservative government will only use the notwithstanding clause on matters of criminal justice,”

https://globalnews.ca/news/10483072/pierre-poilievre-abortion-stance/

And FYI, Mulroney tried in response to the Morgentaler decision, twice in late 1980's. And maybe you're too young to know what was happening in the 1980's - it was a different time and the public had different views. Canadians' views on abortion in the 1980's are not what they are today. So, go ahead and re-frame policies/actions from over 3 decades ago - those times were different. Many things are different over time - Canadians' views on many things have evolved. Case in point, gay marriage, when the federal legislation was passed, it was about a 50-50 (support vs opposed) based on polling at the time (about 20 years ago). Today, it's in the 60% level of public support. Things/opinions/views change over time. If you want to live in the past, that's your problem. However, if you want to point to past actions of Conservatives, why go back 35 years to Mulroney? Why is the more recent past (i.e. the 9 years of Harper being PM from 2006-2015) not more relevant/indicative of a modern conservative position on abortion? I'm guessing because when you have to bring out the old wedge trope of "they're going to ban abortions", you have to cherry pick from 35 years ago, while you ignore the more recent examples of a conservative government.

You made a statement in one of your other replies that (to the effect) that I'm shitting my pants. No, you're shitting your pants. The Libs and ABC minded folks are shitting their pants. Because every time the federal left leaning parties start worrying about their poll numbers, they bring out the abortion card. So again, I think you're shitting your pants AND you want others to shit their pants by bringing up the tried and tested Liberal wedge issue that is abortion. I've said it before and I'll say it again, at this point, you are simply a meme of a desperate ABC voter.

 

[appleomac]

I didn't say you were an authoritatian fascist because you're conservative.

And that's not what I implied or stated. I stated, people that pull out the fascist card (i.e. you) when they are called out for the untruths, nonsensical drivel are weak minded, foolish, etc.

Some of my best friends are conservatives.

Your best friends being conservatives doesn't mean you're not the fool that pulls out the "you're a fascist" card! LOL

I said you're an authoritarian facist because you run around telling people their ideas are worthless and only yours are worthwhile, constantly attemepting to supress discussion with insults and tired accusations. If you prefer i could call you Stalinist, or even Ceaușescu-ist if you want, but it all amounts to the same thing: assholes who think they get to control the conversation due to their entitlement sociopathy syndrome.

I don't care why you think I'm a fascist. I call you out for regurgitating things/topics/subjects you don't understand (and you've demonstrated that you don't understand things, simple example not even understanding what nominal dollars are), repeating Lib wedge talking points (like abortion), ranting about nonsensical off-topic drivel (like bringing up eugenics when the topic was fiscal records of different governments), etc., etc., etc. - and you conflate that with "suppressing discussion." Hate to break it to you mate, state your opinion all you what - that said, you don't get a pass for speaking untruths or having your nonsensical drivel pointed out. If you can't handle being called out on nonsensical drivel - maybe stop with the nonsensical drivel. Me pointing it out, doesn't equate to me suppressing discussion.

 

[masterpoonhunter]

Rex Murphy died yesterday. Rhodes Scholar and a true wordsmith, called it like it is. Called the BS of woke-ism, called out the liberals constantly for whatever scandal they had running, called out the conservatives for hypocrisy, supported oil and gas because of the economic benefits and always provided examples of true wit. The list goes on and on. I really don't know a world of news and politics without Rex in it. RIP Mr. Murphy.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Keep on bringing up the wedge issue. As stated just yesterday by the CPC...


"These outlandish claims show the true desperation of Justin Trudeau and his flailing Liberals. A common sense Conservative government will not legislate on abortion and therefore would never use this section of the Constitution pertaining to this matter...A Conservative government will only use the notwithstanding clause on matters of criminal justice,”

https://globalnews.ca/news/10483072/pierre-poilievre-abortion-stance/

And FYI, Mulroney tried in response to the Morgentaler decision, twice in late 1980's. And maybe you're too young to know what was happening in the 1980's - it was a different time and the public had different views. Canadians' views on abortion in the 1980's are not what they are today. So, go ahead and re-frame policies/actions from over 3 decades ago - those times were different. Many things are different over time - Canadians' views on many things have evolved. Case in point, gay marriage, when the federal legislation was passed, it was about a 50-50 (support vs opposed) based on polling at the time (about 20 years ago). Today, it's in the 60% level of public support. Things/opinions/views change over time. If you want to live in the past, that's your problem. However, if you want to point to past actions of Conservatives, why go back 35 years to Mulroney? Why is the more recent past (i.e. the 9 years of Harper being PM from 2006-2015) not more relevant/indicative of a modern conservative position on abortion? I'm guessing because when you have to bring out the old wedge trope of "they're going to ban abortions", you have to cherry pick from 35 years ago, while you ignore the more recent examples of a conservative government.

You made a statement in one of your other replies that (to the effect) that I'm shitting my pants. No, you're shitting your pants. The Libs and ABC minded folks are shitting their pants. Because every time the federal left leaning parties start worrying about their poll numbers, they bring out the abortion card. So again, I think you're shitting your pants AND you want others to shit their pants by bringing up the tried and tested Liberal wedge issue that is abortion. I've said it before and I'll say it again, at this point, you are simply a meme of a desperate ABC voter.

Sounds like a shit show.

You never adressed why it needs to be an open vote for this one particular case. Slimey.

 

[appleomac]

Sounds like a shit show.

You never adressed why ir needs to be an open vote for this one particular case. Slimey.

What's inherently wrong with a free vote? Free votes happen (albeit rare). The fact that you might not like the subject matter of what is being voted on, on a non-whipped basis does NOT mean a free vote is somehow wrong. I don't care, generally, if a vote in the HoC is whipped or not, both are allowed. You are saying non-whipped (i.e. free) votes are wrong solely based on the subject matter of what is being voting on. And that is an intellectually dishonest opinion. Moreover, you are basing your opinion on a free vote solely on what you expect the outcome will be is saying you don't care about how the vote is conducted so long as you get your preferred outcome. Again, that is an intellectually dishonest opinion. Case in point, the gay marriage vote back in the early/mid 2000's. That was a free vote. It passed. So, I'm guessing you're okay with that vote (even though it was a free vote). I suspect, you would've been whining about it being a free vote if it had failed. So again, your supposed opposition to a free vote is solely based on outcome or (in the case of abortion) a perceived outcome that you anticipate will come to fruition that you don't like. But again, people like you, fear mongering on perceived outcomes that you don't like are simply living in the past. You ignore the general public sentiment about issues (like abortion), point to things that happened over 3 decades ago (while ignoring more recent history) for the sole purpose of painting a group as being anti this or that. Going back to the gay marriage vote. It was a free vote. Even a few conservatives voted in favour of it. And, more than a handful of Liberals voted against it. But it passed. Moreover, about a year later there was another vote on gay marriage. Again a free vote. Again it passed. The public has put that issue to bed, because the public sentiment has changed. The same can be said for abortion. But you don't care and/or purposefully ignore the public opinion/sentiment. I suspect a free vote in abortion would go the same way as a free vote on gay marriage did. I don't think there will every be a free vote on abortion (just like there was never one under Harper). But you still need anything, even if it defies the logic of the times, even if it ignore public opinion/sentiment, even if other recent federal conservative governments demonstrate that they won't - to convince (either yourself) or others that "they're going to ban abortions." Look at what the Libs (and you chirped off exactly their talking points), when Polievre talked about using the NWC to allow for stacked sentences for criminals - all of a sudden it was NWC means abortion ban. Libs (and you) tried to connect dots that weren't there (i.e. Polievre talked about NWC and criminal sentencing and you connected non-existent dots to abortion). And since the CPC has come out saying that is not true. You move the goal post to, "free votes." Again, trying to connect dots that aren't there. At this point, about the only people that want an abortion ban are the small minority of evangelicals and YOU (and people like you). That's right, people like you actually want to see the CPC ban abortion - just so you can feel justified in your fear-mongering.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

What's inherently wrong with a free vote? Free votes happen (albeit rare). The fact that you might not like the subject matter of what is being voted on, on a non-whipped basis does NOT mean a free vote is somehow wrong. I don't care, generally, if a vote in the HoC is whipped or not, both are allowed. You are saying non-whipped (i.e. free) votes are wrong solely based on the subject matter of what is being voting on. And that is an intellectually dishonest opinion. Moreover, you are basing your opinion on a free vote solely on what you expect the outcome will be is saying you don't care about how the vote is conducted so long as you get your preferred outcome. Again, that is an intellectually dishonest opinion. Case in point, the gay marriage vote back in the early/mid 2000's. That was a free vote. It passed. So, I'm guessing you're okay with that vote (even though it was a free vote). I suspect, you would've been whining about it being a free vote if it had failed. So again, your supposed opposition to a free vote is solely based on outcome or (in the case of abortion) a perceived outcome that you anticipate will come to fruition that you don't like. But again, people like you, fear mongering on perceived outcomes that you don't like are simply living in the past. You ignore the general public sentiment about issues (like abortion), point to things that happened over 3 decades ago (while ignoring more recent history) for the sole purpose of painting a group as being anti this or that. Going back to the gay marriage vote. It was a free vote. Even a few conservatives voted in favour of it. And, more than a handful of Liberals voted against it. But it passed. Moreover, about a year later there was another vote on gay marriage. Again a free vote. Again it passed. The public has put that issue to bed, because the public sentiment has changed. The same can be said for abortion. But you don't care and/or purposefully ignore the public opinion/sentiment. I suspect a free vote in abortion would go the same way as a free vote on gay marriage did. I don't think there will every be a free vote on abortion (just like there was never one under Harper). But you still need anything, even if it defies the logic of the times, even if it ignore public opinion/sentiment, even if other recent federal conservative governments demonstrate that they won't - to convince (either yourself) or others that "they're going to ban abortions." Look at what the Libs (and you chirped off exactly their talking points), when Polievre talked about using the NWC to allow for stacked sentences for criminals - all of a sudden it was NWC means abortion ban. Libs (and you) tried to connect dots that weren't there (i.e. Polievre talked about NWC and criminal sentencing and you connected non-existent dots to abortion). And since the CPC has come out saying that is not true. You move the goal post to, "free votes." Again, trying to connect dots that aren't there. At this point, about the only people that want an abortion ban are the small minority of evangelicals and YOU (and people like you). That's right, people like you actually want to see the CPC ban abortion - just so you can feel justified in your fear-mongering.

No, im saying that if this vote is not whipped then its a slimey way for him to say 'I have no choice, will of the members and therefore the people. I'm pro-choice but my party made me do it.'. His so called pro-choice stance is a recent one btw, kinda like the loosing the glasses and the new 'doo.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

And that's not what I implied or stated. I stated, people that pull out the fascist card (i.e. you) when they are called out for the untruths, nonsensical drivel are weak minded, foolish, etc.



Your best friends being conservatives doesn't mean you're not the fool that pulls out the "you're a fascist" card! LOL



I don't care why you think I'm a fascist. I call you out for regurgitating things/topics/subjects you don't understand (and you've demonstrated that you don't understand things, simple example not even understanding what nominal dollars are), repeating Lib wedge talking points (like abortion), ranting about nonsensical off-topic drivel (like bringing up eugenics when the topic was fiscal records of different governments), etc., etc., etc. - and you conflate that with "suppressing discussion." Hate to break it to you mate, state your opinion all you what - that said, you don't get a pass for speaking untruths or having your nonsensical drivel pointed out. If you can't handle being called out on nonsensical drivel - maybe stop with the nonsensical drivel. Me pointing it out, doesn't equate to me suppressing discussion.

As long as you tell me to shut up,then ill continue to call you a fascist-like authoritarian with an outsized sense of entitlement stemming from apparent inadequecy insecurities.Im glad we've found common ground finally

You think you own these things because youve reguritated some right wing pov and that can be the only one, and insist that current financial structures are the only way. Bullshit, if you do that you're a liar i say.

Economics and politics are games set up by wealthy sycophants with proscribed sets of winners and loosers and not based on natural law or science. I say change the rules so its not so imbalanced is all, but apparently these days thats 'uber/left hopium'.

 

[appleomac]

As long as you tell me to shut up,

You are conflating me saying "you are wrong" with "shut up". It's a free country, you have ever right to be wrong, say your nonsensical drivel, etc. You conflating me calling you out on it with "shut up" is you simply wanting to valorize your own perceived victim status - unsurprisingly, something the uber progressives love to do. LOL "This fascist is telling me to shut-up" is demonizing the "other" so that you can be the perceived victim. You represent the modern left very well, in the absence of any coherent/rational position - you parrot off wedge talking point tropes. When called out on it, you claim victimhood. They have trained you well young padawan! LOL

 

[LLLurkJ2]

You are conflating me saying "you are wrong" with "shut up". It's a free country, you have ever right to be wrong, say your nonsensical drivel, etc. You conflating me calling you out on it with "shut up" is you simply wanting to valorize your own perceived victim status - unsurprisingly, something the uber progressives love to do. LOL "This fascist is telling me to shut-up" is demonizing the "other" so that you can be the perceived victim. You represent the modern left very well, in the absence of any coherent/rational position - you parrot off wedge talking point tropes. When called out on it, you claim victimhood. They have trained you well young padawan! LOL

You really like the word wedge. As if almost everything you output isnt coming out of conservative think tank to sell the ugly.

 

[appleomac]

You really like the word wedge. As if almost everything you output isnt coming out of conservative think tank to sell the ugly.

It is an apropos word to describe it. You (and the ABC folk) like wedge issues, whether it be guns, abortions, whatever. We see it every single time the left leaning federal parties start to worry about their polling numbers. Liberals always do it. Martin did it when he ran against Harper both times. This current government did it against Scheer and O'Toole - and of course, they are going back to the well and doing it again against the current CPC leader. Even left leaning journalists/pundits/former politicians will all admit that it is the go to strategy when Libs are concerned about their faltering polling numbers. If the shoe fits, as the old saying goes. What you can't accept (for whatever reason) is that it is a wedge issue that is employed by the Libs. But more importantly, it's a sign of desperation. Interestingly enough, JT didn't use that wedge in 2015. I'm mean, that would've been silly right, because after 9 years of Harper - there was no ban on abortion was there? The inconvenient truths that you like to forget! LOL

 

[LLLurkJ2]

It is an apropos word to describe it. You (and the ABC folk) like wedge issues, whether it be guns, abortions, whatever. We see it every single time the left leaning federal parties start to worry about their polling numbers. Liberals always do it. Martin did it when he ran against Harper both times. This current government did it against Scheer and O'Toole - and of course, they are going back to the well and doing it again against the current CPC leader. Even left leaning journalists/pundits/former politicians will all admit that it is the go to strategy when Libs are concerned about their faltering polling numbers. If the shoe fits, as the old saying goes. What you can't accept (for whatever reason) is that it is a wedge issue that is employed by the Libs. But more importantly, it's a sign of desperation. Interestingly enough, JT didn't use that wedge in 2015. I'm mean, that would've been silly right, because after 9 years of Harper - there was no ban on abortion was there? The inconvenient truths that you like to forget! LOL

So you're crying that the conservatives are victims of the left now? I cant keep up with your projecting all the time like this. Isnt calling the media left leaning a consercative talking point too? Majority of the mefia in Canads is owned by right leaning conglomorates ladt i checked.

Explain why Pee Pee would allow an open vote on this topic and leave an opening for legislation changes when he was speciffically asked to commit to no changes, which he refused .Tell us what his voting record was on this topic right up until he had to appear likable for leadership. And let people decide.

Honestly i dont doubt that the Libs will be voted out as a protest vote, but never because what the conservative platforms are. They're no angels when it comes to fiscal prudency, the economy hasnt always been better under conservative rule.All they end up doing is shovelling money to their buddies (as do the Liberals!) until people get fed up because they lied just lie the Liberals apparatus.
So the only thing left is the social platforms, and the conservative POV on this has been repeatedly rejected by voters. Theres plenty of waste in gov spending, but for sone reason conservatives want to cut the benefits of the poorest segments first, and leave the items in tge trough for thenselves

 

[LLLurkJ2]

You are conflating me saying "you are wrong" with "shut up". It's a free country, you have ever right to be wrong, say your nonsensical drivel, etc. You conflating me calling you out on it with "shut up" is you simply wanting to valorize your own perceived victim status - unsurprisingly, something the uber progressives love to do. LOL "This fascist is telling me to shut-up" is demonizing the "other" so that you can be the perceived victim. You represent the modern left very well, in the absence of any coherent/rational position - you parrot off wedge talking point tropes. When called out on it, you claim victimhood. They have trained you well young padawan! LOL

You said 'you dont know anything' not 'you are wrong' since you're into speech policing.

 

[Drjohn]

You said 'you dont know anything' not 'you are wrong' since you're into speech policing.

Not your usual word salad.

Disappointing.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Not your usual word salad.

Disappointing.

Try reading a book then. They're chock full of the ol'vernacular if you choose right.

 

[appleomac]

So you're crying that the conservatives are victims of the left now? I cant keep up with your projecting all the time like this. Isnt calling the media left leaning a consercative talking point too? Majority of the mefia in Canads is owned by right leaning conglomorates ladt i checked.

That's not what I said. I said Libs and ABC minded folk (i.e. you) bring out wedge issues when they are desperate. You being desperate, or someone pointing that out, doesn't make that someone pointing it out a victim. In other words, me claiming that you are desperate as evidenced by you regurgitating Lib wedge talking points is NOT me claiming victim status - it's simply me pointing out your propensity to parrot off Liberal wedge talking points. Mate, you are really contorting your mind with all sorts of mental gymnastics to connect dots that aren't there. I never called media, writ large left leaning, I said " Even left leaning journalists/pundits/former politicians will all admit that it is the go to strategy when Libs are concerned about their faltering polling numbers." What I said is that "left leaning journalists..." which is NOT the same thing as you're accusing me of - because I never called the media (writ large) left leaning. Some journalists are left leaning, some are right leaning and what I said was even the left leaning journalists admit that the Libs have a wedge strategy when the Libs are desperate - be it guns or abortion or Trump comparisons, etc.

Explain why Pee Pee would allow an open vote on this topic and leave an opening for legislation changes when he was speciffically asked to commit to no changes, which he refused .Tell us what his voting record was on this topic right up until he had to appear likable for leadership. And let people decide.

Because non-whipped (free) votes are allowed. And just because there is a non-whipped vote doesn't mean anything changes. Do you really not understand the basic mechanics of how parliament works? Members vote on all sorts of things (whipped or not). Not all votes in the HoC actually creates laws. Bills create laws. And bills are voted on to create laws. HOWEVER, not all votes pertain to bills and therefore not all votes create laws. Example, a motion or proclamation by parliament can be voted on - that is not a bill and that does not create laws. The HoC passed a motion to designate some Iranian group a terrorist organization recently (it passed unanimously). HOWEVER, that motion does NOT compel the gov't to actually put that Iranian group on the official Canadian terrorist entity list - which this gov't has refused (I don't know why) to do for years. Prior to the foreign interference public inquiry, the HoC voted in favour of having a public inquiry on foreign interference. The gov't, simply ignored the vote and instead went the special rapporteur route. You (and the fear-mongering ABC crowd) get your panties in bunch everytime there is some non-binding petition/motion presented in the HoC that have to do with things like "a motion to study when life begins" or a motion to recongize the rights of the unborn or a motion to recognize some petition from some pro-life group as a ban on abortion. None of those types of things are abortion bans. Saying nothing for the fact that such motions ARE NOT PIECES OF LEGISLATION. Every single time some member raises to present a motion to vote on something to do with a fetus, you all lose your minds. They are NOT bills to create laws, they almost always don't pass and even if a motion were to pass, that DOES NOT compel a government to do anything. You are focusing in on the wrong thing because you don't know enough about the mechanics of how parliament works. BILLS, if passed create laws and NOT stupid/silly little motions/petitions/proclamations that are voted on in the HoC. Motions, petitions and the like are generally NON-BINDING on the government. And if you're so concerned about private members' bills - you can look at up the public record on every sesssion of parliament. Private members' bills are rarely passed. Heck, I'm no parliamentary procedure expert - but even I know that it is pretty easy to kill a private member's bill before it can ever reach a final vote. It can be killed on first reading, at committee, at the committee report stage by amending it to death, etc. For any bill private members' or not has to go through three readings and committee before it is every passed. And, as history has shown, almost ALL private member's bills never get passed. They generally never make it to final reading for a final vote - that's how easy it is to kill it off. Governments (whether they be Liberal or Conservative) kill their own backbench private members bills all the time. But of course, you didn't know any of this and you simply chirp off because Libs/ABC folk want the uneducated minds (like yours) to believe a free vote equates to an abortion ban.

You have way too many opinions (many of which are erroneous) on subjects you know too little about. You simple read headlines that comport to your views and somehow think they are correct or factual. I've said it before, they have you trained like a little lap dog. They believe you are stupid to not know how things work/operate in parliament - and you continually prove them right by parroting off their talking points.