dialamah

Well, yeah.

Let's work harder at reducing climate change, how about that? Increase carbon taxes, invest heavily in green energy services, stop subsidizing the oil/gas industry, put limits on things like 'fast fashion' and stop growing foods that require tons of water in deserts.

Betcha they'll still get forest fires. You guys clinging on to "forest fires" to deny climate change is sad, just like the people dying of covid and insisting it must be something else, because covid isn't real.

Did she vote repubican or democrat for those 20 years?

Certainly different factors affect whether or not towns burn down, but climate change is a major factor. Lytton, in case you missed, had the hottest days in Canada, ever, and was the hottest place anywhere in North America on Monday. Hot places more easily burn down; climate change creates hot places. Open your eyes, the climate is changing.

*eyeroll* I guess what constitutes "their fault" and "being dealt a shitty hand in life" is really the question, eh? Let's look at the indigenous people of Canada. Your opinion, as I understand it, is that they don't want to work - they just want government handouts. They should just move to cities and get jobs. They are lucky Canada rescued them from their savage ways, and should show their appreciation by becoming your version of a productive citizen. What happened to them happened so long ago; they should be over it by now and are only using it to make us feel guilty. It's their fault so many remain at poverty levels. My opinion is that the trauma suffered by our ancestor's attempts to 'civilize' them for their own good is trauma passed down through generations. The fact that until the 50's they had to ask permission attend university, and could only do so if they agreed to essentially renounce their family, roots and culture or that until 2014, they had to get a special permit in order to sell anything off-reserve matters. And, how many years has Canada ignored the fact that many reserves don't have clean drinking water? Children raised in institutions had no way of learning proper parenting skills, and so they abused their own children, who grew up to abuse their kids. Alcohol/drugs to kill the pain of losing their culture, rejected by both their society and the white society, stuck in no-man's land. My opinion is that in order to help Indigenous people leave poverty behind, we have to acknowledge what happened, stop telling them what they need to do to 'heal' and listen to what they tell us they need. The indigenous have been dealt a shitty hand - by Canadian institutions - for over a hundred years. That is why so many remain in poverty. It's not a "choice" they made; it's a choice we - white society - made for them. That our ancestors may have been well-intentioned doesn't mean we get to just slough off what happened, blame them for their pain that continues and expect them to thank us for saving them from "savagery". Well, we've been importing people India for over 100 years; India has a very different culture and religious belief, but somehow we've survived. Over 2 million East Indians in Canada, and yet - we still have Christmas and Easter, rape is still against the law and we can still kill cattle. We've been importing Muslims for about a 100 years, too; did you even know that? The first Muslim immigrants were apparently from Scotland, so right in your preferred demographic - except they were Muslim. In any case, we now have a little over a million Muslims in Canada and we still are strongly progressive, with laws against murder/rape/FGM/wife beating. And, the last survey you posted regarding Muslims in Canada showed quite clearly that the younger the Muslim person was when arriving in Canada, or if they were born in Canada, the more progressive their views were. So you know, your claim that it 'remains to be seen' has already been disproven. Repeatedly. Thanks for the clarification; I'll take a look at it. Edited to add: I've taken a look at it. They're talking about a faction within mainstream democrats. It doesn't claim that all liberals/democrats/progressives are more loyal to the 'out-group' then their 'in-group'. The entire article displays just how wide-ranging views are within democrats/liberals and it's all relative, anyway. Not to mention, I could take what this article says and accuse conservatives of lacking compassion, empathy, and prefer being unfair to being fair. How would that work, hmm? Would it be true? Do conservatives lack compassion and empathy? Are they unfair - and how can they be both unfair and believe that people should succeed on merit? You need to do better, Argus.

So a year or three ago, Argus posted an article about the fact that both liberals/progressives and conservatives have a valuable role to play in society, in it's shaping. I agree with that, to be honest. To me, the argument isn't (or shouldn't be) that the "other side" is evil and "hates" or "dislikes" our country and have their head up their ass, the argument should be how can accurately assess who has the best ideas and how can bring those ideas to fruition. We can look at immigration, Argus's particular pet peeve. He (and others) feel that immigration levels are too high, unnecessarily high - that they reduce income for everyone, and bring in unwanted social attitudes. I think that immigration brings value to the country, both in terms of economic growth and enriching our culture. I think that immigrants from oppressive or "backwards" countries serve to bring their own countries into a more modern mindset, as they export at least some of their ideas back home. Not to mention, many people want to come to come to this country because they have both freedom to worship as they wish, and freedom to be something other than what their country demands of them - like being a gay Muslim is possible in Canada, but not, for instance, in Egypt. I want to offer every gay Muslim a place to practice their faith, and their sexuality, safely. I want to offer a place of safety and freedom to everyone who would value that. Still, I could be persuaded that too many immigrants is not good for Canada, and that the economic positives they bring do not offset their economic costs. But that persuasion would have to come from someone who doesn't make their disdain for progressives and certain immigrants so obvious. I think the problem here is that you are so busy dismissing progressives that you aren't actually hearing what they say. Certainly some progressives aren't deep thinkers; that's true of some conservatives. On the other hand, many people do think pretty deeply about various issues and do have valuable things to say, even if it doesn't reflect one's own opinion. Do you really think conservatives are any less in their "bubble"? I mean, really? We're all human, we all do the same sorts of things and we all prefer our bubble to someone else's. It takes a conscious effort and thought to pierce through that bubble, and you have to do it many, many times. I spent some time assuming that all or most Conservatives were the same as certain posters here, and I was definitely getting a hate-on for conservatives. I had to remind myself that this was a very small forum and to judge all conservatives by their words was just stupid. I had to find a different forum to get a more balanced view of Canadians, whether they are conservative or not. I understand that it's not easy to remain objective, but we have to try. And we have to work at not assuming the worst of the other side - that they 'don't care' or are actively trying to sabotage Canada. We don't have to assume evil intent just because someone has a different ideology; that is what divides us. We, as individuals, have to do better at hearing people who think differently than we do. Even Argus has said so. Even though it's hard, and even though we're gonna fail as much as we succeed. I don't want to go down the path of the States, where some portion of one side decides they have to invade our Parliament buildings with the intent of physically and violently removing the government that's currently in power.

You are right, and that's kinda the point - if I (or someone Argus considers "progressive") levels criticism against Canada that Argus disagrees with, he says it's because 'progressives hate Canada". Perhaps you could notice when he does that, and also remind him that criticism of Canada isn't the same as hating Canada.

I'm a boomer, and it took me more than 25 years to buy a house. This is partly a result of my own choices, but also a result of societal attitudes that I was imbued with as a young girl growing up in Canada. And, I ask you - why should a woman not work, but instead be supported by a man? It's not easy being the sole breadwinner, and it's not easy being the one who stays at home to cook/clean/raise kids; I know, because I've done both. Why should we have those roles imposed on us? Also, and surprising to many people, is that almost half of people aged 25 to 45 have purchased their own home; its not like it's impossible to do. Not denying that the purchasers may be more heavily weighted towards the 40+ year mark, but nonetheless this data point certainly contradicts your claim that even after 40 years and two incomes, its impossible to buy a home. Takes me 40 minutes by bus, 20 minutes by car. Even with traffic jams. I live in the largest metro area in BC, but I selected my home and my job with an eye to reducing commute times. People do make choices, and while I grant that such choices can be challenging, not everything is out of an individual's control. I grew up with really limited fruit/vegetable choices, so my selection now as an adult is much better. I will grant you that I tend to avoid certain factory-farm grown as much as possible because it does not taste as rich as food grown more naturally. Still, I'm not poorer for this; there are plenty of other foods that I never had access to even 30 years ago that I now am able to enjoy. I've never been much of a fisherman, so this is not a 'loss' to me, though I certainly get how this is a loss for others. And, as I have already said, environmental losses are also a concern of mine - but currently they do not prove that Canada is 'poorer' than previously. In a few years, that case could probably be made, but it's not yet true as far as I can tell. Same answer as above. Certainly, this is a concern for the future, I am sure we will be paying and we will be poorer - but it's not yet true. That's the rub, though, isn't it? Life is good for us and so the steps we need to take now to reduce our discomfort later are already too uncomfortable. So, we don't do it. We squabble about whether climate change is man-made/natural, about carbon taxes, about China and India vs. Western world. So, yeah, we're all going to pay for this, eventually, and we'll all be poorer.

How do I want to change it, exactly? By wanting the same opportunities for everyone, regardless of race, color or creed? By believing that nobody should have to live in poverty, through no fault of their own? By believing that justice, political, economic and social systems can always be improved on? You talk about shithole countries, and backwards societies with disdain, and at the same time dismiss those people (like me) who are the ones who've insisted on pursuing change to make our society more equal, less misogynistic, less violent, more tolerant. I'm exactly the kind of person needed to bring these countries into the 22nd century, just as it was people like me who brought Canada into the 20th and 21st centuries. You can only believe such a thing would happen if you refused to accept that immigrants both create and accept our Canadian culture. My 'traditions' include those passed down from both my English/Scottish heritage and my adopted Ukrainian heritage, 4 generations on one side and 3 on the other - these traditions are validated by millions of other Canadians as part of Canadian culture, even as we acknowledge their ethnic origins. As has been demonstrated repeatedly on this board, immigrants to Canada (and to any Western country) take on the culture of their host country even as they include elements of their own culture. That's a fact, buddy, even if you refuse to accept it because it doesn't support your narrative that immigrants from 'certain countries' shouldn't be permitted in Canada. I both praise and criticize other cultures, as well as Canada, exactly the same as you do. So, you don't love present Canada. Too bad, because that's the country you live in - and since you've now admitted that you hate the current Canada, I guess we'll all just realize that your "progressives hate Canada" is just you projecting your own feelings. Oh, bullshit. Canada continues to get better in terms of human rights, freedoms - and even economically. 40 years ago gays were being beaten and killed; who cared? Gay people had to have 'beards' to protect their jobs and sometimes lives; if they wanted to live together, they had to pretend to be roommates. 40 years ago, acknowledgement of spousal abuse was just beginning; a man could not legally rape his wife until the 1980s. There's plenty more examples of how progressives have shaped Canada into a better country, even in the last 40 years. That you hate these changes says a lot about who you are and what you support. You've posted some interesting articles, but I only vaguely recall this one - somehow I don't think it says exactly what you are suggesting here - that in-group loyalty is somehow morally superior to out-group loyalty. In-group loyalty is basically why there's the cliche'd 'old boys club', which means anyone who doesn't fit some preferred stereotype isn't welcome. In-group loyalty is practiced by the people you love to hate - Muslims who are intolerant of gays, women, non-believers; immigrants who refuse to associate with Canadians. People showing preference to their "in-group" is perfectly normal human behavior and we all do that to some degree. But it's the people who also give those of the 'out-group' respect and consideration who are definitely more helpful to a cohesive and peaceful society, whether within a family group, a workplace or a country. Too much loyalty to an in-group results in exclusion and polarization, not cohesiveness. Other than ostracization by one's personal 'in-group', I do not know what the downside of 'out-group' loyalty would be. Still, it's probably true that there must be both at play, not just one or the other, in both individuals and the larger society.

My source isn't the "evening news", yours is. So who's got the problem, exactly?

Here's hoping they're successful in keeping Mexicans in their own country! Americans don't need no damn illegal aliens; who cares that the agriculture and construction sectors will find their workforce significantly impacted when illegal aliens are no longer able to come to work! Although, I have to ask why South Dakota, Florida and Arizona are sending troops to address a problem that mainly affects Texas and California. Could it be ... VIRTUE SIGNALLING????!!!!

You hate Canada; I can tell because you constantly post long screeds about how awful Canada is. Virtually every post you make is a description of how Canada (and Canadians) are such losers, stupid, lazy, lax, far behind other countries, failing economically, failing socially, failing at immigration, failing at integration - yada yada. So you only love the Canada of the past, is that it? If other people love the current Canada, they actually hate Canada? Only people who loved Canada of the past truly love Canada? This makes no f'ing sense. (I don't really think you hate Canada; just hoping to make the point that your sweeping statement that "progressives hate Canada" is stupid, but I doubt you'll get it.)

Maybe find the info yourself, instead of expecting others do it.

You posted COL info from your and your friend's *personal* experience. Your COL increases will be different than those who live elsewhere in Canada. You need a much larger data pool to draw any conclusions. That's why it's anecdotal and not factual. If you have proof that Canadians are less wealthy now than they were 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago, then post data - not your personal budget items. If you have proof that it's more difficult for young people to get jobs, get raises, save money, buy a house - than post data, not your personal budget items. Your failure to move beyond your personal experience of COL increases simply demonstrates your inability to prove your point.

Maybe it's you who've got it all wrong as you base your conclusions on personal and subjective experience instead of objective data. Cost of living has certainly increased, but so has income - a fact which you consistently fail to acknowledge in your posts. So lets look at some data. By objective measurement - aka GDP - Canada is wealthier than it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Here's a graph showing that our GDP has steadily increased since the 1960s. There's a slight dip between 2015 and 2016, but even those years are significantly higher than previous decades and from 2017 on trend to exceed previous highs. Average hourly wages for Canadians have increased from 2000 to 2020. Here's a graph showing the fluctuation of the Canadian Consumer Price Index from 2000 to 2020; interestingly, the highest CPI was in 2002, at over 4.5%. The inflation rate in Canada is shown in this graph - note that the highest rate of inflation was achieved in 1994. If you insist on relying on subjective data for your "proof", here's a survey from Pew in which people around the world were asked if they thought life was better now or 50 years ago. In Canada, 24% of people agree with you, while 55% do not. Many news stories make the claim that Canadians are not as well off now as they were in previous decades, once their wages and cost of living are compared; perhaps that's true. If that's your claim, you should be able to find data to back it up rather than insisting that your anecdotal evidence trumps aggregate data tracked over decades.

You might have a case if this was a rental building, but my understanding is that the units were owned by the people who lived in them. In Canada, such buildings are called stratas and a group of owners called councils oversee the operations, including making decisions on repairs. Major repairs require majority of owner approval and, if approved, are paid either through special levy or, if there are enough funds, out of the contingency fund. Owners have been known to vote down needed repairs for years, creating dangerous conditions for residents and court cases forcing stratas to make repairs. A few years ago, in BC, all stratas were required to have a depreciation report created and updated every two (?) years and are required, by law, to carry out needed repairs. In the States, condos are run by homeowners associations, comprised of resident owners and have similarities to the way stratas are operated in Canada. It could be that the resident owners themselves were the ones delaying the repairs, simply because enough of them didn't believe they were necessary and voted down any motion for a special assessment or any other financial option they have down there. Or other HOA rules specific to Florida may have delayed the repairs too long. It's tragic, and likely the result of many small failures over time, rather than a single event or some kind of plot.

So, more than half a million people died in the States from Covid (37,000+ in Florida alone) while Canada had only 26,000 total deaths, and DeSantis is proud of that? That's pretty impressive stupidity; I sure wouldn't trust anything he claims about economic recovery. Seems Canada is doing just fine, certainly better than DeSantis would like to believe. I'm happy Canada chose lives over a barely perceptible difference in economic recovery post-pandemic.

Overall standard of living has increased in Western countries. We have the majority of world's wealth, which includes things like energy, abundant and fresh food and luxuries. This doesn't include natural resources, as MH has already acknowledged. We may have started, or be about to start, on a downhill from here, I dunno. But complaining about how "poor" Canada is because bus fare has increased and property taxes have gone up seems a pretty "first world" problem to me. Aggregate data, tracked over years, gives a much clearer picture of Canada's wealth now vs. 1970 or 1990, or vs. other countries. Same for natural resources, to which more attention ought to be paid. That is what will cost us the most, ultimately, in health and money.

Hmmm. I think you're wrong. Progressives create positive change in society. Conservatives maintain tradition, ensuring change isn't too fast or severe. A successful society needs both. Demonizing progressives by claiming they hate/are destroying Canada is as bad as demonizing conservatives by claiming they want to regress Canada to a time of overt patriarchy and racism. Demonizing the other side is not good for society or our poltical process and is more likely to wreck Canada than either progressive or conservative ideology.

Progressives don't hate Canada; wanting one's country to be better isn't hatred, even if their idea of better isn't yours. You should know better, given the posts you've made and articles you've cited about the damage this kind of dumbassery does to political discourse and adds to polarization.

Progress is progress. Faster would be better, of course, not denying that.

Countries with the most educated people are generally the most progressive. Countries with the least educated people usually have the most religiousity and are less progressive. Education makes a difference. The rate of FGM has declined by about 30% in Egypt, thanks to education. People who work in these places consider education key in changing minds. Why you'd deny the role of education in changing what people believe and behavior is a mystery.

I think education goes a long way towards towards eradicting both bad ideas and actions. Caveat is that it needs to be quality education and focus on teaching critical thinking. Religion works against thar, so I suppose its kind of a catch-22.

You're forever reinterpreting what I say.