*promote *quality

If you find yourself in strong opposition to George Carlin on most topics, you need to do some serious self reflection.

Way to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia despite all studies showing the opposite is true.

https://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_molestation.html
https://psmag.com/social-justice/do-gay-men-have-more-sexual-interest-in-children-than-straight-men-do-62127

Because I know you won't read either study, let me quote....
"Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1." If homosexuals were even equal in child molesting, that would be closer to 9:1.
I guess you now agree that heterosexual teachers shouldn't be in the classroom because they are more likely to be child molesters, because scientific fact overrides prejudicial opinion.

Mr engineer, when there are two parties, sentence structure demands you use plurals….both sides have THEIR share of undesirables. An engineer should see grammar as a clearly defined structure that follows simple rules and just get it. Spelling is different, but grammar should be a no brainer….why is it so hard for you? Have you never seen it that way, or was engineering incredibly difficult for you too?

The difference being one side is all undesirables, and the level of undesirability. One side openly calls for an end to American democracy, death for their political rivals, death for anyone who disagrees with today’s talking point. One side has no party platform, no stated goals, and exists solely to stop any legislation the other side puts forth, even when it was something they want or that would benefit them. They are the same side.

We found another point of agreement.

Term limits are a must, and will never happen because our system does put the regulatory onus on those who need regulating….absolute insanity. It also lets them set their own salaries, ethics, and benefits.

Divestment is another must. Perhaps a bigger must. Total divestment across the board. Not just blind trusts that aren’t really blind, and absolutely not what we have now…the “honor” system run by the honorless. Allowing legislatures to write horrific laws because they can personally financially benefit is a recipe for disaster. That should (but never will) change.

Campaign finance is a third must. Corporations should have the same donation limits individuals have, which should be more like $100 each so every person can afford to have a voice, and we should return to an equal time on broadcast tv for free situation and deny the media as a political platform to give candidates a boost….no more Fox News interviews indistinguishable from campaign commercials, no more media smear campaigns, with severe penalties for violations, like $10 mil the first time, $25 mil the second, loss of fcc license the third. Another non starter….but needed badly.

PACs should be outlawed, or regulated into obscurity.

Some reasons often brought up in opposition to term limits can be traced back to Maddison who wrote "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"

I think we have proven at this point the cons of self serving representatives legislating for personal gains outweigh the benefits of professional legislators, especially seeing as we have the internet and huge staffs to ostensibly level the playing field of knowledge.

One fix would be the creation of an ethics branch, completely non partisan, not self regulatory, with rules against former candidates (winners and losers) and lobbyists too from serving and strict rules about how they operate, and bans from running for office or being a lobbyist afterwards so it doesn’t become a campaign platform or tool for industry. Maybe even ban close family members from the same. Won’t happen, only the best people intentionally limit their powers, and they are few and far between in Congress….all but absent on your side.

That's hard to prove. And actually the end result would be the opposite. His recent tour's sold out. He's (rightfully) benefitting from the incident financially because he took the high road. Sue for the physical damage, sure, but whatever the amount a judge & jury would award him, it'd be just a drop in a bucket from Smith. Probably end up settled out of court. But I would most definitely take all the money from Smith. Then give it to charity to rub it in.

They are being indiscriminately bombed and shelled. This started before civilians took up arms en masse. I fail to see how fighting back makes their position worse…it seems to have done the opposite.
I believe NOT fighting back reduces the chances for survival for anyone who has supported democracy in Ukraine in the last decade. Putin will label them all terrorists and execute the lot of them if he’s not removed.

@newtboy,

A company cancelling a multi-billion dollar project means multi-billion dollars not spent on the work of the project, that many jobs out of the economy. Exactly the same as a car manufacturer shutting down for a week, by your logic nothing was lost, the company just stopped spending money for a couple days...

I only support the groups right to protest, and not to illegally block roads or borders. I stand by my wish is for their prompt arrest when illegal blocking roads, borders or places of business.

That said, I believe it also wrong of me to fail to point out that our federal government has continually refused to act as I would wish in promptly shutting down illegal blockades. This is the very first instance were they've shown any interest in a prompt police enforced end, and they've in fact jump much further to invoking a declaration of national emergency so they can also target protesters bank accounts directly and without court orders.

An analogy would be someone that supports arresting people for possession of marijuana. The government then proceeds to only selectively enforce that law, say only acting to make arrests when people are a particular creed or color. It's perfectly consistent to believe the government arrests are wrong and unfair, and to NOT support them, while at the same time still believing the idea of the rule applied fairly being a good idea.

One side is about what I think the line for protest should be:
-I believe the right to protest should be independent of creed or belief, and should only be restricted when actions taken are illegal.(Ideally illegal being defined as impeding on freedoms of others)

By that, the convoy blockade of border or streets should have led to immediate arrests.

In the eye of fairness though, the last two years have already seen at a minimum 3 major protests, that included illegal blockades of work sites and railways and those were ALL allowed to run for weeks and in 2 cases months. The government of the day even tripped over themselves to message their support for the overall causes of the protestors.

In that light, it's wrong to simply ignore the fact that the first protest that is likely to vote conservative is the ONLY one where the government immediately condemns everything about them and feels compelled to intervene urgently.

Churches were literally burning last summer, and our PM's public statements spent most of their time sympathizing with the anger before pleading that burning churches isn't helpful. Where'd all that compassion for folks that you disagree with go when it meant a small number of downtown Ottawa business shutdown and horns honking go. Now our PM invokes terrorizing of the populace.

Trudeau's actions have been distressingly similar to Trump's as the division in our country grows, he's using his words to reach out to the extreme end of his side of the aisle, while tossing gasoline and vitriol onto his opposition. It's making things worse in the worst possible way when we need leaders uniting instead of stoking further division.

Economic disruption of the blockades was similar to the Mohawk blockade of railways about 2 years ago:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-rejects-police-intervention-to-put-an-end-to-blockades/

Similarly, mass lay offs and multi-billions of dollars of goods stuck sitting around waiting to get to the industries needing them.

Since at least 2012 the attempted expansion of an existing pipeline(Trans Mountain) was targeted continuously by blockades. Opposition and resulting delays leading to cost overruns so large that company ultimately halted the multi-billion dollar project.

In terms of dollars being lost, the convoy protest wasn't special. More over, the blockade of the border in Ontario that was causing the real economic damage was dismantled and removed before the 'emergency measures' were enacted. Which is to state, the emergency measures were primarily intended to clear out downtown Ottawa. In downtown Ottawa though, the damages were at minimum as localized as any of the lumber or pipeline blockades mentioned.


Prime Minister Trudeau couldn't be more unequivocal when he was expressing his support for the farmer protests in India and the Floyd protests in the US. Clip if you'd like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9EaSF6Y0eE

The protests in India absolutely did immensely more harm to India's economy than the convoy here did in Canada. The protests in support of Floyd were again unequivocally more violent than the convoy in Canada.

There really is no basis by which to point to the convoy's actions and find them in any way unique or distinct from multiple other protests within Canada, or ones abroad that have been either given more latitude, or outright embraced and supported.

The distinction as even you can't resist going after, is that their beliefs they are protesting for are stupid and wrong, so no right to protest for them. That isn't how the right to protest within a democracy should be allowed to work.

I also have to point out the 'ethical' argument isn't as cut and dry as you want to make it out either.
-Pipelines bad so blockading is good ignores the fact the same oil gets pumped regardless, it just gets loaded into trucks that burn even more oil to haul it and have a fair greater risk of accidents and spills.
-Defending the rights and lands of Aboriginal peoples(like at Coastal Gas Link site violently attacked with millions in damages while the convoy was being vilified for 'incitement') is anything but obvious. The Wet'suwet'en hereditary leaders made claim to parts of the pipeline route and demanded it be shut down. However, the same Wet'suwet'en people's multiple elected Band Councils signed on with their wishes to proceed with the project. In fact, ALL elected representatives of ALL the Bands with land along the route had ALL signed onto the project and wanting it to proceed. It is in no way obvious that ignoring the will of those other bands to favour the conflicting claims of the hereditary leaders is clearly the most respectful of the people's wishes.

The protests you mentioned didn’t halt commerce for huge swaths of your, and our country, did they? Severity and ubiquity of impacts matter.

Lemme ask you, did this protest ask for dialog, or outright refuse it?

None of the other protests intentionally caused as much collateral damage as possible. It’s not their cause, it’s their methodology and severity of the results.

It’s not about their cause du jure, it’s about their methods, causing economic damage as deep and widespread as possible. I’ll ask, did the other protests you mentioned try to shut the country down for their cause, or were they targeted against the industries/entities they were protesting?

I’m pretty certain that, had they not blocked freeways, border crossings, cities, and industries their protests wouldn’t be being broken up and protesters wouldn’t be arrested. Again, it’s not the why, it’s the how that’s an issue. Their methods aren’t the same as other tolerated protests in severity nor focus.

BUT…there is a significant difference, morally, ethically, and logically between protesting being murdered by police or protesting your last tiny bit of sovereign land or water sources being taken and permanently destroyed by oil companies, and protesting not getting a shot to have the privilege of traveling to another country. I’m far more prepared to be patient for life and death causes than ignorant inconvenience causes.

Edit: P.S. also, “fuck your feelings” goes both ways. These are the same people that took that stance for 4 years here (some still do). When you tell people “fuck your feelings” in response to any subject, any complaints, it’s pretty ridiculous to expect those same people to respect your feelings, especially while you honk a truck horn in their back yard all night for weeks. In my neighborhood, there would have been burning trucks night one, and peace night 2….but I’m a native Texan, kind of the opposite of a Canadian.

Dumb shit snowflakes have been whining for the last 2 years, ignoring orders to make minor changes for both public health and to be able to reopen quickly, but like spoiled two year olds on time out, you guys kept defying orders, making the pandemic and the shutdowns exponentially worse, and restarting the “time out” clock.
You also complained non stop about shutting down the economy, hurting small businesses and commerce, but when a tiny (100+-) group of mostly white, swastika/confederate flag waiving truckers decide to shut down international commerce, costing hundreds of millions of dollars weekly (more than all rioting damage done in 2020, because they are targeting businesses and commerce) just to throw a tantrum, not achieve a thing, you are not just accepting of it, you support it.
Clearly your complaints about shutting down and hurting the economy to fight Covid and save hundreds of thousands of lives were not genuine since you are happy to do the same and worse to save the feelings of 100 truckers.…fuck your feelings, remember?…...big surprise, bob is a hypocrite willing to say anything to support his position today, including the exact opposite of his position yesterday.

All Trudeau needs to do is confiscate the trucks at gunpoint. Any trucker joining loses his truck. If it’s not their truck, they’ll have a huge bill from the owner.
Also, maybe remove their licenses for 2 years (or until restitution is paid in full). (Edit: nice, seems they actually thought of all that and have made it the law, and added up to a year in prison for those blocking commerce.)

Dumb shit, the restrictions
1)were also USA restrictions, like everyone else, Canadian truckers can’t cross the border without vaccinations. How does Trudeau stop that?…serious question I know you will ignore.
2) were being lifted in short order once the current variant slows its roll or border crossers get vaccinated
3) you really think a few hundred truckers (and a few hundred more rabble rousing morons with them) should have veto power over an entire federal government, and a federal government in another country, don’t you? But only when they look like you and waive confederate and nazi flags.
No, that’s not right? It has nothing to do with race? Why didn’t you support Trump defunding the police and/or removing immunity then?

So incredibly short sighted, myopic, hypocritical, self centered, likely racist, and just plain dumb Bob. You never disappoint.

Lemme guess, you support My Crackhead’s plan to illegally fly a helicopter over the protest and dump thousands of his pillows with bible verses covering them on Canada in a massive foreign littering/proselytizing scheme against a country that’s already banned him from entry. Right?

If you watch this and feel anything but complete terror, you're missing the point. An AI controlled drone swarm is a military nightmare: you can blind radar; shut down comms; interrupt C3 at a crucial moment.

The things that can be done with a thousand cheap drones and some basic AI can render billion-dollar military systems moot in the event of real combat. The US Navy is already shitting themselves over this (there's already been a few incidents, most recently off the coast of San Diego), and the USAF isn't far behind. Serious drones incidents -- from unknown attackers -- have happened in the US. This including an attempted attack on a power station and a bizarre cat-and-mouse game between USBP/HLS and an unidentified "super drone" over Arizona on more than one occasion.

Did you notice what they were displaying? This wasn't meant to be oo-aah cute, this was China telling the US military they fuck around at their own risk. The last time someone sent a message this clearly, Billy Mitchell was flying a biplane over a captured German destroyer.

"Far less chance for severe mishaps, too" -- I know you meant something totally different, but in the case of what I'm talking about, the exact opposite holds true.

LMFAHS!!
That wall that cost billions, stole private property, broke dozens of environmental laws, fell in many many places, can be thwarted easily with a ladder, rope, angle grinder, truck, or climbing skills and hasn’t slowed illegal entries one whit? That wall? Ha! You’re funny.
Remaining in Mexico (as major targets for organized crime) during the lengthy asylum application (sometimes for years)….maybe you’re too ignorant to know that never stopped.
Regaining an energy independence that never existed? Um….yeah. We had a minor surplus last year, not because of more production but because the Trump recession and the Trump pandemic lowered demand to the point where oil producers were giving oil away for free. Yes, in summer we exported some oil, but never as much as we import in winter. This is another Trump lie you repeat without a thought and certainly without verification…because you still believe what he tells you despite everything he’s ever said being a blatant lie for his entire lifetime, multiple fraud convictions, being banned from charities because he stole from veterans and children,….the list of his crimes of moral turpitude is never ending.

Goo start….nice unintentional pun. (Sad you can’t help but fail at English even as you correct your original hilarious mistake).

Increasing our oil output is a goo start, but a god awful plan. It’s actually a non starter, Biden pushed oil companies to increase production for months, but they preferred high prices and high profits. They have millions of acres with drilling rights they don’t want to use because the profit margin is 5% lower and blame the fed for not giving them access to the last pristine national forests and reserves….so again I’ll ask you, nationalize oil? If you want to blame the government, they should have control, otherwise you’re just a whining baby crying over spilled milk and blaming the wrong people.

Requiring better fuel economy from vehicles and industry, phasing in electric vehicles and more green electricity production are actually GOOD starts, and what Biden is moving towards despite total opposition from Republicans on ANYTHING. That’s how you get actual energy independence….the only way in the long term.

I didn’t ask what you would do, I asked what the party leaders say. What the Republican plan is. The party platform, if you will. I guess you need simpler questions, but I don’t think that’s possible.

1) that question still wasn’t answered, liar. Typical, you can’t answer, so you just change the question.
2) yes, that’s a simple, but totally incorrect and idiotic answer. His policies haven’t been changed for the most part, despite what OAN claims….and it’s not what Republican leadership says is their plan.
3) the answer is they have no plan, they don’t say they intend to reimplement Trump’s disasters…they say they don’t intend to state a plan, no platform at all, just oppose the liberals. That’s not a plan, it’s the opposition to any plan.