It is in point of fact accurate to say the Liberal party is more fiscally Progressive Conservative than say the party of Joe Clark.

among vulnerable groups — defined as “individuals with severe mental health issues, the homeless, drug users, retired elderly, and Indigenous communities”

Who missed that ‘Indigenous Communities’ thing?

This is right out of the ‘White Supremacist’ agenda, and tops even Hitler’s Germany.

Such silliness. Who would pay for the ramp-up in mortuary facilities?

Considering that there have only been 13,287,523 total deaths in Canada since 1950, that is a huge step-up in demand.

Methinks they left out that bit about mass graves.

Or run the crematorium 24/7 until it melts or clogs.

Seven billion bullets are not cheap.

The ‘worst kind’ of flu is the kind I catch. Always.

I agree.We also need to be very careful of some European investments in Canada. Europe has a strong presence in Canadian beer, oil, automotive, and steel, for instance.

Let’s set the record straight about Carney.

Carney is FISICALLY conservative, he is not SOCIALLY Conservative.

There is a very big difference.

He is NOT a ‘Conservative in Liberal clothing’, he is a fiscally conservative Liberal.

Wait - that is what the most successful Progressive Conservative leaders were. Haven’t seen one of them since the Reform party shenanigans.

National Observer has a left-center bias, so this is more ‘hope’ than ‘prediction’.

We also need a federal inquiry into the U.S. influence on Canada, which is unquestionably more detrimental to Canada than the Chinese influence.

Let’s set the record straight.

China is not the only country that persecuted Islamic Uyghur Terrorists.

The United States dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb on harmless Uyghur villages, yet not a word is leveled against them.

America has caused greater human rights violations against the Uyghurs than has China. Except the American human rights violations all occurred in Afghanistan.

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2025/5/26/afghan-villagers-struggle-years-after-us-dropped-mother-of-all

Spavor and Kovrig were American operatives at opposite side of the political spectrum. Spavor was highly connected to the Republicans and was their contact with North Korea’s Kim, (recall he was the one that arranged the Rodman - a ranking Republican insider - visit to North Korea) and Kovrig was connected to the Democratic party through the International Crisis Group and George Soros. The ICG was arguably a tool for Soros to achieve his socialist agenda. Shades of MAD Magazine’s ‘Spy vs spy’.

The Irony is that the National Post is strongly connected to the Republican party, but Kovirg is intimately connected to the Democratic party through his vice-presidency with the International Crisis Group, a George Soros (Democratic) funded organization. Soros loudly proclaims that America should be a socialist country, just not a Chinese socialist country. America, not China, in his eyes, should be the strongest Socialist country in the world.

He knew well in advance what the dangers were, immediately after Meng was arrested, but he chose to stay in China. He was well coached by the American State Department through his connections with the International Crisis Group, a George Soros funded organization. There is nothing ‘innocent’ about the entire affair. He knew the risks of what he was doing. The perfect ‘Canadian’ target with high-ranking American connections, fit in perfectly with Meng being held in Canada under the direction of the American government.

Sorry you have Trump confused with the Chinese.

Kovrig was an AMERICAN agent. Close and comfortable with the Democratic party through the International Crisis Group and George Soros. Spavor was cute and cuddly with the Republican party, their contact with North Korean Kim. Spavor arranged many meetings between high ranking Republicans and the Kim regime. Basketball diplomacy indeed. Rodman was a die-hard Republican agent. Both Michaels were under the guidance of the American State Department. The Chinese picked these two men very, very carefully because although they were Canadian, they both had deep connections with the American government and under the protection of the American State Department. Perfect tie-in with Meng Wanzhou who was held by the Canadian government at the request of the American government - pure karma.

Yet the ‘left’ socialists combined hold just under 2/3 the support of Canadians. I guess Canadians have it right, PP has it completely wrong.

Frankly, I am now of the opinion that you are an AI chatbot. stringing randomly associated thoughts together to simulate some sense of intelligence.

Frankly, at the fundamental root of the problem, is the fact that it is far too easy to ‘speed’ in a car. The basic design of the control system and the speedometer is to completely give the driver a completely erroneous feedback of the estimate of the speed of the car, and completely inadequate information on when and by how much the peed limit is being exceeded by. Not to mention the design of the road. Some roads are designed to give completely faulty feedback on the actual speed you are going. A driver should not have to completely keep watch on a sometimes inconspicuous speed indicator to know how fast they are going. That is why my suggestion for far more automatic radar signage that gives direct feedback on the speed the car is going at, compared to the established speed limit. especially in high-risk zones.

It’s all honky-dorey, perfectly legitimate, completely okay until you get your first speed camera ticket in the mail.

Makes a lot more sense if, by law, these speed cameras have to be paired with an instant feedback sign that shows your speed, just before the photo is taken, so you are not caught unawares several weeks later.

Never create a budget line to establish a project to solve a problem. Once a budget line is established, the problem will never go away because then the budget, and the department behind it, will have to be disbanded… But those dependent on the department budget will scream bloody hell, and so the budget line will continue past its best before date.

The problem with the ‘Gender Equality’ budget line, is that when the problem is resolved and things are getting better, the ‘budget line’ will become more and more entrenched in finding needless solutions that are designed only to ‘deplete the budget’.

Really, when exactly did they have in mind for the federal funds for gender equality to disappear? I mean, the entire purpose of the funding was to eliminate gender inequality so money will no longer have to be spent trying to eliminate it.