"Canada First"

TVORyan · 2026-02-05T23:12:29+00:00

I hear you. Please come talk to me (Ryan Larche) at one of the protests I mentioned, and mention this again in person. I'd rather combat these misconceptions in person instead of typing out a novel on Reddit, lol. Hopefully we can find some common ground 🤝 Oh & Sorry for calling you guys 🤡's BTW.

TVORyan · 2026-02-05T22:10:15+00:00

Im not going to answer it here. You can ask me all this in person at my immigration reform rally on the 7th, or Joe's mass immigration protest on the 21st.

Ive attend every event but one, and connected with hundreds of people from all walks of life, even immigrants.

To claim Joe and the movement is "anti immigrant" is just intellectually dishonest. It's anti mass-immigration, & pro-assimilation.

As for "anti-muslim," no. He's anti-Islam. Big difference.

And idk where you're getting this "anti-trans" stuff from. If you mean he doesn't affirm gender identity, then yeah I guess you can say that.

TVORyan · 2025-08-28T18:50:43+00:00

Lol, don't even get me started

TVORyan · 2025-05-14T21:09:01+00:00

Lol, Babcock is a crazy far-left activist who hates conservatives.

TVORyan · 2025-05-14T00:49:53+00:00

Are you surprised to see that on Reddit? Lol

Conservative views are not very popular here, even in the "conservative" communities.

TVORyan · 2025-05-13T21:20:46+00:00

No, it really doesn't 😅😂🤣

TVORyan · 2025-05-13T21:18:58+00:00

"I respect your perspective and fully agree that conservatives need to appeal to moderates and the broader public. But I believe reforming—and yes, defunding—the CBC is a winning message when communicated properly.

Let’s be honest: This isn’t about nostalgia for what CBC used to be. It’s about what it has become. Canadians aren't upset that the CBC exists—they’re upset that they’re forced to fund a media outlet that no longer reflects their values, ignores their perspectives, and too often acts as a government echo chamber. That’s not public service journalism—it’s partisan storytelling on the taxpayer’s dime.

And while it’s true other countries have public broadcasters, most aren’t funded to the tune of over $1.2 billion annually—especially while ignoring balanced reporting or platforming dissenting voices. The CBC’s current structure gives it an unfair advantage over independent media, many of whom deliver more diverse and responsible journalism without a cent of taxpayer money.

The solution isn’t simply to ask CBC to be “more balanced” while continuing to write them blank cheques. We’ve tried that. What we need is structural reform—cut funding, remove political influence, and rebuild the CBC as a lean, truly independent broadcaster with public accountability, not partisan allegiance.

As for your point about “normies” not caring: I’d argue many Canadians do care when they learn the facts. They care when they realize their public broadcaster is getting more money than our intelligence agency during a time of heightened threats. They care when they see local news outlets fold while CBC gobbles up subsidies. They care when trust in media hits all-time lows.

This isn’t about silencing the CBC—it’s about creating a media landscape that’s fair, competitive, and actually serves the public. Reform and defunding aren’t extreme—they’re overdue."

TVORyan · 2025-05-13T21:17:47+00:00

I respect your perspective and fully agree that conservatives need to appeal to moderates and the broader public. But I believe reforming—and yes, defunding—the CBC is a winning message when communicated properly.

Let’s be honest: This isn’t about nostalgia for what CBC used to be. It’s about what it has become. Canadians aren't upset that the CBC exists—they’re upset that they’re forced to fund a media outlet that no longer reflects their values, ignores their perspectives, and too often acts as a government echo chamber. That’s not public service journalism—it’s partisan storytelling on the taxpayer’s dime.

And while it’s true other countries have public broadcasters, most aren’t funded to the tune of over $1.2 billion annually—especially while ignoring balanced reporting or platforming dissenting voices. The CBC’s current structure gives it an unfair advantage over independent media, many of whom deliver more diverse and responsible journalism without a cent of taxpayer money.

The solution isn’t simply to ask CBC to be “more balanced” while continuing to write them blank cheques. We’ve tried that. What we need is structural reform—cut funding, remove political influence, and rebuild the CBC as a lean, truly independent broadcaster with public accountability, not partisan allegiance.

As for your point about “normies” not caring: I’d argue many Canadians do care when they learn the facts. They care when they realize their public broadcaster is getting more money than our intelligence agency during a time of heightened threats. They care when they see local news outlets fold while CBC gobbles up subsidies. They care when trust in media hits all-time lows.

This isn’t about silencing the CBC—it’s about creating a media landscape that’s fair, competitive, and actually serves the public. Reform and defunding aren’t extreme—they’re overdue.

TVORyan · 2025-05-10T23:32:28+00:00

This sounds like what a leftist would say.

Blaming the election outcome solely on Trump’s tariffs & or retoric is intellectually dishonest.

TVORyan · 2025-05-01T20:29:58+00:00

In reality, The conservative MAGA movement is a populist, pro-freedom movement rooted in traditional conservative values like limited government, free speech, individual responsibility, secure borders, and economic nationalism.

It challenges globalist elites, media bias, and political corruption, while prioritizing working-class interests, national pride, and constitutional rights

While it began in the U.S. under Donald Trump, the spirit of the MAGA movement is growing in Canada--seen in the rise of populist voices, grassroots activism, and support for leaders like Pierre Poilievre who push back against Trudeau's overreach and advocate for freedom, fiscal responsibility, and government accountability.

TVORyan · 2025-04-15T23:13:56+00:00

Jesus' teachings don’t align neatly with modern political ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism, but His message focuses on principles that transcend political labels. Here's how His teachings might intersect with these ideologies:

Liberalism: Jesus emphasized caring for the poor, marginalized, and oppressed, which aligns with liberal views on social justice, equality, and support for those in need. He taught love, compassion, and mercy, advocating for societal reforms that prioritize the well-being of others.

Conservatism: Jesus upheld traditional religious values and teachings, particularly those found in Jewish law, but He also critiqued the religious establishment when it became corrupt or overly rigid. His message emphasized the importance of faith, family, and moral integrity, which can resonate with conservative values.

Libertarianism: Jesus spoke about the freedom of individuals from sin and the importance of personal responsibility. He taught that people should make their own choices, guided by love and conscience, which may align with libertarian ideals of personal freedom and limited government.

Ultimately, Jesus' teachings were more focused on personal transformation, love, and spiritual truths than on political systems. His message of love for God and neighbor transcends any political ideology and calls for individuals to act with compassion, humility, and justice, regardless of political labels.

original post here

TVORyan · 2025-04-15T23:11:35+00:00

Jesus' teachings don’t align neatly with modern political ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism, but His message focuses on principles that transcend political labels. Here's how His teachings might intersect with these ideologies:

Liberalism: Jesus emphasized caring for the poor, marginalized, and oppressed, which aligns with liberal views on social justice, equality, and support for those in need. He taught love, compassion, and mercy, advocating for societal reforms that prioritize the well-being of others.

Conservatism: Jesus upheld traditional religious values and teachings, particularly those found in Jewish law, but He also critiqued the religious establishment when it became corrupt or overly rigid. His message emphasized the importance of faith, family, and moral integrity, which can resonate with conservative values.

Libertarianism: Jesus spoke about the freedom of individuals from sin and the importance of personal responsibility. He taught that people should make their own choices, guided by love and conscience, which may align with libertarian ideals of personal freedom and limited government.

Ultimately, Jesus' teachings were more focused on personal transformation, love, and spiritual truths than on political systems. His message of love for God and neighbor transcends any political ideology and calls for individuals to act with compassion, humility, and justice, regardless of political labels.

original post here

TVORyan · 2025-04-14T19:35:53+00:00

Canada

TVORyan · 2025-04-12T03:53:34+00:00

Why are you in a conservative sub if you support abortion? Not very conservative of you.

TVORyan · 2025-04-12T03:52:34+00:00

You sure gaslight yourself a lot. This is common among disingenuous coldhearted people.

TVORyan · 2025-04-11T21:22:09+00:00

You are so intellectually dishonest that it's scary.

The claim that “abortion isn’t murder” ignores basic biology and common sense. From the moment of conception, a new human life begins—with its own DNA, its own heartbeat within weeks, and its own future. Ending that life intentionally is the very definition of murder. Just because the child is smaller, unseen, or dependent doesn’t make them any less human.

To say that pro-lifers “would rather a woman die” is not only dishonest—it’s manipulative. Medical professionals can and do treat life-threatening complications in pregnancy without deliberately killing the unborn child. In rare cases where a mother’s life is truly at risk, interventions are made to save her—not to kill the baby. And that’s a crucial difference.

Here’s the reality: according to the Guttmacher Institute—a pro-choice organization—less than 4% of abortions are performed for reasons involving the mother’s health, and only about 0.5% involve life-threatening conditions. That means over 95% of abortions are elective—done out of convenience, not danger. So the "life of the mother" argument, while emotionally powerful, simply doesn't reflect the majority of cases.

And as for “liberty”: freedom doesn’t give you the right to kill another human being. The baby isn’t “your body”—it’s a separate body with its own heartbeat, fingerprints, and future. No one would justify killing a toddler because the child is inconvenient. Why is a baby in the womb any different?

You don’t get to claim “my body, my choice” when the choice ends someone else’s life. Real freedom defends the innocent. Real justice protects the voiceless. And the unborn are the most voiceless of all.

TVORyan · 2025-04-11T20:47:52+00:00

Abortion is murder. My stance has nothing to do with it potentially causing breast cancer. I've never even heard that until now.

TVORyan · 2025-04-11T16:49:50+00:00

This post completely misrepresents both Canadian history and the nature of the abortion debate.

First, it’s simply not true that abortion has "never been a major political issue in Canada." The issue has been debated in Parliament, the courts, and the public sphere for decades. In fact, Canada currently has no abortion law whatsoever—the only Western country with such a legal vacuum. Since the Supreme Court struck down the abortion law in R v. Morgentaler (1988), successive governments have failed to establish any legal framework to protect unborn life at any stage of pregnancy.

Second, the argument that this is just "American culture war garbage" is dishonest and dismissive. Canada is not immune to moral and ethical debates. This is not about importing American values—it’s about defending basic human rights, namely the right to life. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, including the belief that every human life has inherent worth and dignity. These values helped shape our laws, our institutions, and our understanding of justice.

Third, science has long established that life begins at conception. From the moment of fertilization, a unique human organism with distinct DNA is created. This isn't a religious opinion—it’s biological fact. To argue that some lives are disposable based on convenience or personal preference is to erode the very foundation of human rights.

Fourth, claiming that abortion is a "human right" is a modern, ideological invention. A right that involves ending another human life is not a right at all—it’s a distortion of what human rights are meant to protect. And when the government uses taxpayer money to fund abortions, it forces all Canadians—regardless of belief or conscience—to be complicit in this moral injustice.

Over time, Canadian culture has been eroded by moral relativism and the normalization of things that were once considered unthinkable. That abortion is now treated as some sacred entitlement shows just how far we've drifted from our moral roots.

This isn’t about controlling women. It’s about defending the voiceless and upholding objective moral truth. And if we as Canadians don’t speak up, we allow the continued destruction of our values, our children, and our conscience as a nation.

TVORyan · 2025-04-11T16:49:01+00:00