blackbird

Actually it is a very good deal. The 49,000 EVs are only less than 3% of the number of cars manufactured in Canada. So the deal will have negligible effect on the auto industry, but will save our canola industry.

Automakers in Canada manufacture from 1.4 million to 1.9 million vehicles in Canada. This deal with China to get them to take the massive tariffs off of canola and other things in exchange for allowing China to ship 49,000 EVs to Canada was a good deal for Canada. 49,000 is only about 3% or less of the number of cars manufactured in Canada. The canola industry is a major industry supporting tens of thousands of jobs. Every deal requires give and take. Canada got a good deal with this. Ford and the like should quit complaining about nothing.

We have traded with China for years. We sell them a lot of canola. With the Trump tariffs we must have trade agreements with China to increase trade to compensate for what the U.S. is harming.

I think we have to be realistic about the world we live in. We have to deal with countries that could cause us problems if we are not careful. China is a huge market and has been our number two trading partner in terms of volume of goods. So we must trade with them for the simple reason of economics. They provide vast amounts of goods that we use at lower cost. We also sell vast amounts of agricultural products such as canola and natural resources such as oil, coal, and minerals. This improves our cost of living and prosperity in Canada. The condition must be that we do not allow any foreign interference from China and do not allow them to take control of our industries. Canada must remain in control of everything in Canada and all citizens must be shielded from outside influence or manipulation.

It is hard to understand why Canada has so many problems with its health care system, homeless people, housing costs, and on and on. A Canadian who spent time working in China was asked what he likes about China. This is what he said on FB. quote people have been asking me what I like about China. In October, I wanted to visit a specialist doctor, I got an appointment for the next day, the recommended medication was provided to me on the spot, and a problem which had been bothering me for 8 months, was fixed within two weeks. I needed a criminal check upon departure in case I need to provide one from China in Canada, it was completed the next day. I needed to fix stuff at the bank; everything was finished in 2 hours without appointments. I called yesterday, and got a dentist appointment the next day, 40 dollars for a good cleaning. Tomorrow, I will take a train that will take me to Beijing, the train will go at 320 km/h and 25 minutes later, I will have covered a distance that would have taken 2 hours by car. In Beijing, at the metro gate, I will show my phone, and my fare will automatically be debited. Later today, I will go shopping, to help me carry my things back, I will take a taxi, I will use my phone, press some buttons and a car will show up and bring me home for 2 dollars, the fare will automatically be debited from my money app. My son wanted a very specific computer part, after ordering it on my phone, the wrong one was received. I contacted the seller, and 3 days later the good part showed up, and I got to keep the bad one. It is insane how this society is efficient. unquote Meanwhile, in Canada, I am not qualified for the Canadian Dental Care Plan because I have access to a very bad union plan for retirees, that covers up to about $435 a year after you subtract the $635 annual premiums to pay for the plan. Not worth the paper it is written on. I must pay $2,800 for a partial denture out of pocket. A dental cleaning, xrays, and check-up is around $500. A crown is about $1700. The private plan would only cover a fraction of these costs. The health care system is a disaster with thousands of people dying on waiting lists. It takes at least a month to get an appointment with my doctor. Millions do not even have a family doctor and must go to the ER or a walk-in clinic and wait hours to see a doctor. Many ERs close frequently. People have even died waiting in ER waiting rooms. Below is a Zian burger with a lamb broth. He says this would cost you about $2.00.

Carney's trade deal with China allows 49,000 EVs to come into Canada at a 6.1% tariff in exchange for China reducing tariffs on Canadian canola and some other things. Premier Ford doesn't accept it and seems to think the only thing Canada should look out for is the auto industry at the expense of the agricultural industry and other industries in Canada. The truth is no deal can be reached unless there is some compromise from both sides. That is a simple fact of life. Compromise is necessary in many spheres of life in order to resolve issues. Without compromise, the results would often be disaster for one party or another. Ford doesn't seem to understand this. The Canadians auto industry produces over a million vehicles. So allowing China to sell 49,000 EVs in Canada is not a large number. It is less than 5% of the number of vehicles the Canadian auto industry manufacturers. So what is the problem? Hard to understand Ford. He is being very narrow-minded and not thinking about the rest of Canada and the hundreds of thousands of jos across Canada that are affected by having no deal with China. The canola industry apparently affects around 200,000 jobs according to one article. There are also jobs in seafood that are affected by the tariffs. So I think Ford should be a little more reasonable and consider the rest of Canada, not just his little voter base in the auto industry. Again 49,000 EVs is not that many and it will enable some Canadians to buy vehicles more in line with what they can afford. Ontario premier slams Canada’s 'lopsided' new EV deal with China

I've already addressed the question. I am not going to go back and repeat things endlessly. The Bible makes it clear our bodies belong to the God and should be treated respectfully, not marked up unnecessarily. You don't accept that because you seem to have a totally different way of looking at the Bible. You insist it must state exact, specific words condemning tattoos, which is ridiculous. That is not how anyone who knows anything about the Bible understands it. Except possibly the RCC, which entirely puts its own interpretation on the Bible, which in many subjects is totally contrary to what the Bible teaches.

What you say is false. The fact is you claim I don't have the support of the Bible to oppose tattooing. We disagree about that. But I simply pointed out the fact you don't really accept the Bible anyway. The fact is I pointed out things in the RC teachings which contradict the Bible and you accepted none of it. Your view of the Bible is locked into what Rome teaches you about it and you are not to deviate or accept any other interpretation of the Bible. This is not personal hostility as you claim, but is just a completely opposite view of what the Bible is saying. Go back and read what the Reformation was all about. Why do you think Martin Luther was condemned as a heretic or apostate? He simply rejected Rome's teachings and believed in the Bible. He found the Bible to be much different that what Rome was teaching. The fact is you only believe what the RCC tells you to believe about the Bible. Everything else you dismiss.

Why would anybody believe you understand the Bible? You follow an anti-Christian religious-political system that rejects the Bible as the final authority. 1. Your system makes a man or church councils the infallible arbiters of what the truth or Bible says. 2. Your system makes the RCC the intermediary between an individual and God with all its sacraments and earthly priests. 3. Your system worships Mary and saints, not to mention the people worship the host on the basis of the claim it is changed into the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ. 3. You follow this false system which is not supported by the Bible; yet claim to understand the Bible. That is a contradiction.

Is tattooing wrong? Well, consider this man. You be the judge. From a post on FB. "Brazilian Leandro de Souza, once the “most tattooed man in Brazil” with 95% of his body covered in ink, now endures painful laser removal to erase it all. He found evangelical Christian faith and wants his outward appearance to match his inner renewal. “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” 2 Corinthians 5:17. Jesus rewrites lives completely, no matter how deep the past runs. Pray Leandro finishes strong in full obedience."

These kind of replies are exactly what I expected from the barbarians. There was no justification for what happened to this guy, but you guys are fine with it.

Not doing anything wrong. As I explained, I am retired from a union job and the union has a dental care plan. The CDCP rule is if a person has access to private dental care plan such as a union plan, he is not eligible for the CDCP. It doesn't matter if you don't take the union plan; the CDCP rule is if there a private plan available, you're not eligible for the government CDCP plan. That means I am not eligible. The union plan as I said is very poor and pays very little.

"A young protester in Santa Ana is permanently blind in one eye after being hit in the face at close range by a “nonlethal” round fired by a Department of Homeland Security agent last week amid nationwide protests against an immigration agent’s killing of US citizen Renee Good in Minneapolis." "While such projectiles are often described as “nonlethal,” Ed Obayashi, the Modoc County sheriff’s deputy and legal adviser to police agencies, told the paper that firing one just feet away from a person’s face “constitutes as deadly force as far as the law is concerned” because “these projectiles can cause serious injury [or] death.” Protester permanently blinded after DHS agent fires nonlethal round at close range

The CDCP plan doesn't cover anything for me. I need a partial denture which is $2,820 and must pay it all myself. The CDCP plan doesn't cover anyone who has access to a private plan such as a union plan even if the private plan is very bad and even if you're not signed up for the private plan. People on the CDCP plan get 100% dental coverage if their joint income is less than seventy thousand, while I get nothing. Sound fair? I think that is 100% of the maximum they pay for certain kinds of procedures. There is a deductible patient must pay I believe. However, there is no limit on the amount of dental work they cover per year.

I did but that means I have no plan. The CDCP says anyone who has access to a private plan is not eligible for the CDCP plan even if one doesn't like the private plan and is not signed up for it. It doesn't matter how bad the private plan is; I am still not eligible for the CDCP because the private plan is available. That is what it says on the CDCP website.

Retired long ago so there is no union dues. Cancelled the dental / health plan because it was costing more than it was worth. Now I have a tiny chip near the edge of a tooth. It would cost $61 for an exam and $170 to $400 to fill it. Ridiculous. I think I'll forget it. It's not big enough to worry about and not worth spending hundreds to fix.

The CDCP is not available to anyone who has access to a union or employee dental plan no matter how poor that private plan is. I have access to a union plan but the plan is very poor. The premiums are about $560 per year and the plan pays a maximum of $1000 a year for dental work. That means a member actually only receives about $440 a year in benefits. If you don't need dental work one year or just a check up, you might be ok. Beyond that you are in trouble. Fillings, pullings, crowns can run into the high hundreds and thousands of dollars in one year. Any dental visit requires a mandatory exam for $61 just to even get in the door. As a result of the federal Liberals/NDP bringing in the CDCP, the dental industry raised their fees. Now a crown is about $1,700. Any filling requires an examination first for $61 plus possible X-rays for another fee. An actual filling could cost anywhere from $170 up to around $400. So the total for one filling could conceivably be around $500. This is outrageous. This high cost was partly due to the government bringing in the CDCP coverage. Those who are not eligible for the CDCP, such as myself, are the ones who really get shafted because the union plan is next to worthless. We are not eligible for the government CDCP plan and so lose there even though we paid taxes all of our lives the same as everyone else. People that never belonged to a union or never had a job with a dental plan are now far better off than people like myself. They can claim the CDCP benefits while the rest of us are left out. People with a family net income of less than $70,000 per year receive 100% dental care coverage. I should be receiving that coverage, but instead I get nothing because I have access to a useless private plan that might cover one filling a year. The dental industry is milking the government's CDCP because they can. The dental industry could care less about people who have no CDCP. Why should they? They have a guaranteed massive income from government now. That leaves people like me hung out to dry. Public dental care at its worst.

What a fairy tale that is. Maybe there was a rogue wave 35 meters high five thousand years ago when the great flood occurred and Noah and his family were in the ark. Countless ships travel through the north Pacific ocean now. How do you think oil, LNG, agricultural products, and minerals are shipped from Alaska, Prince Rupert, BC, or Vancouver BC to Japan, China, and Asia now?

Unless you are born again, you will be the one standing before God one day after supporting the killing of pre-born babies. Afraid that likely won't turn out good for you. You need to repent and be born again. Read the Gospel of John, King James Bible. "27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: " Hebrews 9:27 KJV

So what? The point remains that you are still so adamant on supporting open borders madness, you would see actual convicted criminals let go back on the streets where they continue to harm Americans, rape, and murder. False again. I wasn't even referring to convicted criminals or real criminals. The great majority of undocumented migrants and migrants that had papers, and now being arrested by ICE are not convicted criminals. I posted the article showing how a large percentage of migrants are not criminals and the statistics show just as many U.S. citizens commit crimes as migrants. But the migrants are being blamed and this has always been a political tool in the U.S. It is a popular thing to blame migrants for all the problems and always has been. Politicians do this because it is an easy thing to sell.

This is not strictly about arresting suspected criminals. "The scapegoating of ethnic and religious minorities is well-tread historical ground in the United States, and immigrants have always made for an easy target. Chinese,1 Irish,2 Italian,3 Muslim,4 Mexican5 — all these people and more have been falsely accused of bringing crime into the United States, particularly during times of economic or political unease." I doubt it. Most are likely not criminals. It has been the history of the U.S. to blame immigrants for all the crime. That's just the way American politics works.

"The scapegoating of ethnic and religious minorities is well-tread historical ground in the United States, and immigrants have always made for an easy target. Chinese,1 Irish,2 Italian,3 Muslim,4 Mexican5 — all these people and more have been falsely accused of bringing crime into the United States, particularly during times of economic or political unease. Today, some politicians are peddling the same, tired myth, this time of a “migrant crime surge” among immigrants who recently arrived in the country. However, a robust body of research shows that welcoming immigrants into American communities not only does not increase crime, but can actually strengthen public safety. In fact, immigrants — including undocumented immigrants — are less likely to commit crimes than the U.S.-born. This is true at the national, state, county, and neighborhood levels, and for both violent and non-violent crime." "In 1980, immigrants made up 6.2% of the U.S. population, and the total crime rate was 5,900 crimes per 100,000 people. By 2022, the share of immigrants had more than doubled, to 13.9%, while the total crime rate had dropped by 60.4%" "Immigrants Are Arrested and Jailed Less Often than the U.S.-Born Further supporting the research that immigrants do not raise crime rates is the data showing that immigrants have lower felony arrest rates27 and lower incarceration rates than the U.S.-born.28 Immigrants have had lower incarceration rates than the U.S.-born for each of the last 150 years. And today, immigrants are 60 percent less likely to be incarcerated than those who were born in the United States.29 False claims may succeed in stoking fear of undocumented immigrants, but research has consistently shown that undocumented immigrants are far less likely to be arrested for felony and violent offenses, including homicide, than are U.S.-born residents. A CATO Institute analysis of crime rates in Texas between 2013 and 2022, for example, found that undocumented immigrants were 26 percent less likely than the U.S.-born to be convicted of homicide.30 According to a multi-year study of crime statistics published by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, undocumented immigrants are roughly half as likely to be arrested for violent crimes as the U.S.-born.31 Things like employment and social support are typically correlated with lower crime rates, and immigrants in the United States may benefit from these factors. For instance, among those Americans with lower levels of education, immigrants are more likely to be employed than the U.S.-born. Immigrants are also more likely to be married and have children.32 These factors could help explain why immigrants are less likely to commit crimes." "The research is clear: immigrants — including undocumented immigrants — do not bring crime. Yet the myth continues to be leveraged to justify harsh enforcement policies that offer no discernible reduction in crime. This does real harm to immigrants and to the communities they live in, and it detracts attention from actual sources of crime. These enforcement practices, and the rhetoric that surround them, effectively dehumanize and criminalize immigrants, leading to social isolation,41 mental and physical stress,42 distrust of law enforcement, and a compromised sense of safety,43 all of which threaten to undermine the kind of healthy social support that has been found to reduce crime. Repeating the myth only allows policymakers to ignore the larger structural factors that actually have shown to affect crime, such as unemployment, housing insecurity, economic instability, and a lack of community-based organizations and public services.44 Strong social ties, robust community programs, and healthy economies have long been known to help keep crime rates down. By welcoming immigrants, rather than fearing them, communities have already shown that they can further lower their crime rates." debunking_the_myth_of_immigrants_and_crime.pdf

Again you are lying.

You are like a stubborn kid. You don't pay attention. Your post is just a tiny number of the undocumented migrants. Most are not criminals.

Did you read what I said. Most of the people they are arresting and deporting are not rapists, murderers and pedophiles. Sure, a small percentage might be and they should be deported. But the vast majority are not criminals. You and the gang you support are lying.