Goddess

You believe what you're told to believe. You're an NPC. Controlled by the algorithm.

I agree with astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon: "It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world—that CO₂, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison." "What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interest groups to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO₂ from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin."

They created the environment. Before Trump, the Libs were losing because they have a terrible track record. The main concern was the economy, jobs, housing, healthcare. But Carney told you to poop your pants over Trump tweets instead. And you did it! 🤣 Good boy! Good boy! **scratches you behind the ears ** Ya. Because now we have all those same problems and a government that doesn't give a crap about any of them. If you're going to obey every time you're told to poop your pants, I hope you at least wear a clean pair of Depends next election and vote with whatever brain cells you have left.

Well, our Liberal gov't and their bought-and-paid-for MSM has brainwashed Canadians with so much hate for the Us that this has happened: Shots fired at US consulate in Canada days after embassy attack Liberals hate whoever the CBC tells them to hate. You really need to watch Travis Dhanraj's testimony at committee today. CBC is Canada's Pravda.

I will back West up on this. You did it repeatedly. The cite was given to you every time you denied it. At least 4 or 5 times. You'd disappear for a few weeks and then come back again repeating that Justin never said that. I remember it because I had always thought of you as a fair person, but you were being willfully ignorant by denying something that had been repeatedly shown to you as true. I remember when you finally let it go, you didn't really "retract " it. You just said it didn't really matter to you and we were all making a big deal about nothing.

I don't know how anyone can watch Travis Dhanraj's testimony in committee today and come up with anything other than the CBC is total Liberal government propaganda. He was ran out of the CBC for wanting there to be more diversity of thought and opinion. He was expressly told he could not interview Poilievre. He was expressly told they did not want Conservatives on the show. There was a list of between 40-45 people he was told to NEVER have on the show. He had Mellissa Lantzman on and was threatened to be pulled off the air. Rosemary Barton & David Cochrane bully and intimidate their coworkers. He read a bunch of other testimonies from other whistleblowers who are afraid to step forward. It's no wonder so many here say the Conservatives have no plan, everyone hates Poilievre, etc. You were never allowed to hear the plan. The CBC gets paid $1.4 billion (with a $150 million additional funds given to them by Carney right before the election) to campaign for the Liberals.

There are two visions for Canada and they are both very different: Poilievre: Approve energy projects in 6 months Export energy globally Remove energy taxes Carney: More taxes, More sacrifice More immigration More Net Zero restrictions

They receive healthcare, life insurance, housing, transportation, child care costs and disability income Temporary foreign workers: Your rights are protected - Canada.ca Even the government has expressed concern about the misuse of the system, by both employers and the TFWs themselves. If you watched the committee meetings you would see that most of them don't go home, they claim asylum or refugee status and reap all the benefits. Canada's new rules on Temporary Foreign Worker Program explained; its impact on employers & jobseekers - The Economic Times The government has cited concerns over the misuse of the TFW Program to bypass hiring Canadian talent, especially in the low-wage stream.

And we know most of them don't go home. Why should they? We pay their rent, their food, their healthcare, X number of dollars for each kid they have......

Calling people CHUDS who don't agree with him, loudly announcing various posters as being "ignored" and demanding others leave the forum.......YUP. The covid years will go down in history as the widescale rejection of science in favour of industry bureaucrats, most of whom hadn't touched a patient or written a paper in decades.

I also will point out that you filter out a LOT of information that isn't entertainment or trolling. I recall you saying that you reject any science from anyone that is NOT a "climate scientist". To me, the study of climate dynamics involves a wide array of scientific fields - physics, earth science, meteorology, chemistry, mathematics, data science, geology and oceanography, just to name a few. Many "climate scientists" are failed physicists or other mathematicians who couldn't find work in their own field of study, so they applied for jobs in academia or federal employees with jobs that have broad prerequisites. And they know where the money is right now. I think "climate scientist" is a stupid term that no one should use without air quotes. It's the same with the issues with vaccines. There is a broad range of science to consider - vaccinology, immunology, biology, molecular biology, data scientists and also scientists who are experts in their individual anatomy fields - cardiology, neurology, hematology. When you outright reject a large body of related sciences - you will not be getting the full picture.

Annual finance for climate action surpasses USD 1 trillion, but far from levels needed to avoid devastating future losses - CPI Climate change: What we will need to spend, and what we will need to change, to reach net zero | McKinsey Climate proposal would see rich countries pay $250B a year - POLITICO Climate Finance and the USD 100 billion goal | OECD Climate change: Reaching net zero will require real costs and real changes | Fortune Apparently we are going to solve the "crisis" by throwing massive amounts of money at it and turning the whole world into the 3rd world.

I filter out information based on who is paying for the study, for one. Do you disagree that "climate crisis" information has a monetary backing? Or that just doesn't bother you? It seems like you're okay with these types of scams, as long as they make you feel morally superior.

The "99% of scientists consensus" study by Lynas et al. that has been loudly touted, is based on a flawed study. Here is a critique of the paper: (Not the article I was looking for but still good.) Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change Basically, the majority of papers looked at in the Lynas study were actually NEUTRAL in regard to the effect of man-made climate change, but were included in the PRO group. It also highlights the existence of "mellow abstract bias." And the fact that scientists who disagree with the "It's all caused by man" narrative often are censored, don't receive grants and blacklisted. So they either are directly censored or self-censor themselves. There is less of a consensus than you think.

It's an interview. Yes, it's an opinion, but you seem to reject outright, with no thought or investigation, any opinion that differs from your own. It seems very difficult for you to consider that others may have some good points, even when their overall opinion differs from yours.

If you read any of posts, you would know that is not my stand. I have issues with most of the policies the Liberals have brought in. This topic happens to be "immigration", so don't make out like I'm saying immigrations is the only problem I have. You frequently accuse people of the opposite extreme. In this case, I'm unhappy with the levels of immigration (and don't act like I'm the only one). I have never once taken the position you suggest - that immigration in itself is a bad idea. It irritates me that you leftists do this all the time.

They have a whole platform on this. The Liberals have brought in mass amounts of immigrants without increasing housing, schools, hospitals, jobs. They let 700 IRGC members into the country. Some of them "willfully" collaborate with China and India against the interests of Canadians. They brought in Bill C-75 that lets rapists and pedos out on the streets as soon as possible. They've strangled our resources and industry. The deficits and wasteful spending is skyrocketing. You seriously think any of this been "good for the country"?

It's so ignorant. How can you logically deny the fact that if you bring in millions of people in a short amount of time, but make no changes to hospital capacity, school capacity, housing, jobs, etc. - things are not going to go well, resources are going to run out? If a house has a max capacity of 10 people and you force 60 people to live in it.....what do you think is going to happen? And what if of those 60 people you bring in - 20 of them think women are garbage and that shi!ting on the sidewalk is perfectly acceptable. What do you think life is going to be like for the owners of that house that have poured their life savings into it? How pleased are they going to be to also have to financially support say, half of these people? It's astonishing to me that the Liberal Party and their supporters just cannot grasp this intellectually. And they all want it to continue. Just this one issue illustrates the level of "don't care" the Liberal party has for Canadians.

Immigration levels affect standard of living. And standard of living affects the overall health and happiness of a country. And Canada's standard of living has been dropping like a stone thrown in water.

I just posted a link that they want the spending to go up by 5X. I saw that figure in a lot of articles, but I just posted the one. In Canada, our Net Zero initiatives are consuming vast sums of money. And it's devastated parts of Europe. I watch this podcast a fair bit. This interview from a month ago, with an unfortunate title that includes the name Trump, but barely mentions him, it explains how Net Zero and anti-industry mania has tanked the UK economy and Germany, as well. I don't think you have made yourself aware of the what the actual results are of your climate fanaticism. You should not ignore that. I kind of think you will, though.

It should have changed years ago, but it didn't. I have no confidence that the Liberals will pivot on this. The Century Initiative guy who promotes the idea that Canada needs 100 million population before 2050 and that vetting is a waste of time and re-wrote our Immigration Policy to reflect those goals - was just hired by Carney. He also was advising Trudeau on immigration. Mass immigration will not slow down as long as the Libs are in power. They're not going to change anything.

Thank you for doing that. Not sure about that. I checked a lot of different sources and they all say the same thing. Climate spending will increase exponentially. And orgs like UN and WHO will require it. I'm also going by how much has been wasted and "disappeared" in the past, not so much future "investments". It seems the Net Zero crowd is losing support and I hope that continues before we're all broke. And dead.

L. Wayne Matheson: The Bureaucratic Deep Freeze: Are We Talking Ourselves to Death? Running a modern government sometimes feels like watching five people hold a meeting about a shovel while the snow keeps piling up outside. Everyone agrees the driveway needs clearing. Nobody actually picks up the shovel. Look at the gridlock creeping through modern Canadian institutions. Our institutions no longer reward solving problems. They reward managing the process around the problem. The old approach to a problem was blunt and direct. See a fire, grab a hose. The newer institutional approach looks very different. See a fire, schedule a meeting. Draft a report on the social drivers of combustion. Commission a consultant to examine the emotional effects of flames on the community. Release a statement acknowledging people’s concerns about heat. For a process-driven institution, the discussion itself becomes the accomplishment. The meeting counts as the work. Look around Canada and ask yourself if that description feels uncomfortably familiar. This used to be a country that built things. Railways. Dams. Energy projects. Entire cities carved out of forest and prairie. Today we hold consultations about the possibility of maybe building something later, provided the environmental assessment, regulatory review, indigenous consultation, climate alignment report, and equity audit all land perfectly on the same square inch of bureaucratic paper. The ArriveCan app is the perfect little parable of this mindset. In a sane world it should have been a simple coding job. A small team builds it in a weekend. Done. Instead it turned into a $60-million bureaucratic circus. A tiny firm received the contract, subcontracted it to others, who subcontracted it again, until the whole thing looked like a bureaucratic version of Russian nesting dolls. No one owned the result. Everyone owned a piece of the process. Money disappeared. Responsibility disappeared. The paperwork thrived. Helen Andrews argues that when institutions drift toward heavy process culture, empathy and safety become the dominant currencies. Risk becomes taboo. Decision becomes dangerous. So the system replaces action with consultation and courage with compliance. You could see this clearly during the pandemic. The task should have been straightforward: protect the vulnerable, keep the country functioning, and manage risk like adults. Instead we pursued the fantasy of zero risk. Whole sectors of society were frozen while officials held press conferences filled with soothing language and carefully calibrated concern. Safety theatre replaced problem solving. Watch a federal press conference today and you can almost feel the language doing gymnastics to avoid decisive statements. Everything becomes a study, a framework, a consultation, a dialogue. Meanwhile real problems sit outside the meeting room waiting for someone to act. Homeless encampments grow. Infrastructure projects stall. Housing shortages intensify. Yet the policy response often looks like another working group, another task force, another carefully moderated conversation about “lived experience.” Talking expands. Solutions shrink. It feels a bit like sitting at a red light in Winnipeg in February. Engine running. Gas burning. Wheels not moving. The radio cheerfully announces that officials are launching a new study into traffic congestion. The uncomfortable question here is not whether Adam Carolla’s terminology offends polite society. The real question is whether the diagnosis contains a grain of truth. Have our institutions drifted so far into consensus-seeking, risk-avoiding process that we have forgotten how to simply do the job?

If everyone thinks like you "No one else is voting for Conservatives so I won't either" then yes, the Conservatives will never get in. Which is my prediction. Canada will continue to circle the toilet bowl until we're all broke. The you Libs will blame it all on Harper. And Trump.

Heed Britain's stern warnings about Mark Carney | National Post The wide range of criticism included Carney’s left-wing politics, such as his championing of radical environmentalist policies like net-zero emissions, along with his opposition to Brexit, his political inexperience, dull personality, volatile temper, lousy track record at the Bank of England and more. Indeed, the dislike of Carney on both sides of the British political spectrum was rather remarkable to see. Now that the dust has settled and Carney is prime minister, what’s our country potentially in for? Two post-leadership analyses from our British cousins — one from the left, the other from the right — paint an equally gloomy picture of the future. As Lynn noted, “Over eight years at the Bank of England, Carney was at best an indifferent governor, and, at worse, a disappointing failure.“ Despite his huge salary of more than £600,000 a year, more than any of his predecessors had been paid, he seemed to have little feel for the role. The City quickly nick-named him ‘the unreliable boyfriend’ for his constant changes of direction on interest rates.” By the time Carney left the central bank, he had “created a mess which his successors have struggled to clear up. Inflation spiked up to a peak of 11.1 per cent in the U.K., compared to 5.2 per cent in France or eight per cent in Italy, hardly a country known for controlling prices effectively, largely because the bank had printed too much money.”