blackbird

That's true. It would be difficult to end the existing system because so many FNs are totally dependent on government funding to exist. That's the problem. I don't know how it can be solved. Not overnight anyway. Would take decades, but I don't know if we are even moving in that direction. They need to become self-supporting somehow.

Sorry to have to tell you, but you are not in the category of "grown ups". You are incapable of a rational, respectful conversation. Your modus operandi is insults. Sometimes the truth must be told.

Just googled Starlink since you mentioned the name, and found out how much it costs for individual service. " Starlink is a division of SpaceX that offers satellite internet service to Canada and the rest of the world. The company recently expanded services throughout much of Canada, with only a few areas that are not yet part of its coverage map. Starlink’s $140/month Residential plan delivers unlimited data and download speeds up to 150Mbps, making it a great option for those in remote areas looking for faster internet service." Starlink Internet Canada Review 2023: Plans, prices, and speeds | WhistleOut When you consider the costs of living in some remote native village in the far north, it adds up to a lot of money. Housing, groceries, health care, education, etc. is prohibitively expensive. And FNs expect government to provide and pay for everything. So add another $140 a month to the bill and many Canadians in towns and cities across Canada begin to ask where are all these services for them? Why should natives or anyone living in some remote village receive everything for free while the other 40 million Canadians have to struggle to survive and now can't even afford the rent or to buy a home? The whole idea of providing free everything to some Canadians and not the other 40 million is a non-starter for many. It's just not a popular idea.

We know you are a woke liberal pretending to be a conservative. PP 's comments are not "harsh" as you claim. He speaks the truth in the language that draws support. That's how politicians have to speak to be successful. That's just how politics works. Trudeau is the biggest fake and divider that ever existed. So what are you talking about? If anyone talks "harshly", it is Trudeau. He has made endless divisive comments in the process of wrecking this country.

Actually that's not true. The government has been promising for years, decades that people in every remote Indian village will have high speed internet, but it has failed to deliver. Government pressure telephone companies and internet providers to build the infrastructure but are not so keen to pay for it. There is no money in it for companies to provide a multi-million dollar service to timbuktoo, but government keeps trying to figure ways to get companies to provide it. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It still is not done. The fact is people think government should provide them everything in remote communities like Timbuktoo, housing, food, high speed internet, smart phones, schools, hospitals, advanced medical care, etc. etc. You name, government is expected to provide it to a village of ten people in the Liberal/left world. There is not enough money to do all that.

You were not following the discussion. He claimed that the government provided the internet service. I was simply trying to point out that it is done by telecommunications companies. He either couldn't accept that, or was pretending he did not believe it so that he could carry on insulting and name calling. I kind of think that was his purpose. Total waste of time. I don't see much point in that kind of conversation.

Maybe PP can find a way to tone down the CBC's liberal / woke slant. A public broadcaster should be serving all Canadians, not just the liberal/woke/left. They are being funded by all Canadians. I don't know how it could be done, but it might require major changes. It would be difficult to change.

As you can see in my "discussion" with ExFlyer, he was adamant that telecommunications companies were not installing it. He insultingly claimed that the government was connecting people to the internet. So I simply pointed out government does not do that kind of work but it is done by companies. In the end he insults me some more, calls me names, and says it is immaterial who does the physical work. All through this useless discussion, I was simply pointing out that the companies do the work. He changed his tune (with more name calling) and finally admits government does not install anything. But the whole thing is he only uses these forums as an opportunity to insult and call people names. A total waste of time.

You completely missed my point. I said government governs; they do not themselves provide the hardware, software, transmissions lines, etc. You still insist government provides it all. Government can contract or hire private telecom companies to provide high speed internet service to wherever, but government does not install it themselves. I looked at your website and nowhere does it say that government has the technical equipment, hardware etc. and installs it themselves. All they can do is hire private companies to install it. So instead of calling people stupid for telling you how it actually works, find out the facts. When government says they are connecting 98% of Canadians to high speed internet by 2026, they don't mean the government is physically doing it themselves. They are just taking credit for arranging for private telecom companies to do the actual work and provide the equipment. Why is that so hard to understand?

Nobody needs to make a choice. Everyone is born straight. Some change probably because of social influences or some kind of influence.

Give any evidence or proof you can find that show the government installs the actual line, microwave sites, hardware for high-speed internet. If you are just guessing, give it up. It's false unless you can prove it. That is not government's job and they do not install the internet anywhere. If you can prove it, then maybe you might be believable. Otherwise , no.

Government or CBC do not provide infrastructure to remote communities for television or internet. That is done by private companies such as Telus, Bell, Rogers, etc. Government does try to find ways to encourage companies to provide high speed internet to northern communities, but as you say is not having much success. That is because it is done by private companies and is extremely costly to provide high speed internet or television to a small remote community. Why should private companies invest millions of dollars to provide high speed internet to some tiny community in the north and make no money in return? It's just not economic. It is costly. Government does all the talking about what they want, but they do not provide the service and they likely expect companies to pay for it.

This is nonsense. Only God could make a man and a woman. Man cannot play God. This kind of thing is completely wrong and evil. It is also very dangerous. You have a very imaginary belief of what the medical system can do. They cannot make a man into a woman or vice versa. That is complete fiction. They try, but it is not genuine and it is extremely risky and can have dire consequences. It is messing with God's creative work. " All medical interventions have risks. According to WPATH, feminizing hormones have an increased risk of a blood clot in a deep vein, usually in the leg, that is called venous thromboembolic disease (VTD) and can be fatal. Other risks include gallstones, elevated liver enzymes, weight gain, cardiovascular disease, and a high level of a certain type of fat (triglycerides) in the blood). [1] There is a possible increased risk of high blood pressure, higher levels of the hormone prolactin, and Type 2 diabetes. It has not been proven whether or not it increases the risk of breast cancer. [1] Estrogen taken in pill form has more VTD risks than estrogen administered with a transdermal patch on the skin) estrogen administration. Ethinyl estradiol is the type of oral estrogen with a well-documented higher risk for VTD. For that reason, this specific type of oral estrogen should be avoided for feminizing hormone therapy. [1] Using progestins in feminizing hormone therapy is controversial. Some experts believe it is necessary for full breast development, while others report that progestin hormones do not enhance breast growth. In addition, progestins may increase the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, and also have risks such as depression and weight gain.[1,5]" What to Know About Transgender Medical Transitioning: Male to Female | National Center for Health Research (center4research.org)

I doubt that is correct these days. People in every community demand to have high speed internet and high speed internet also makes it possible to watch television. I think broadband internet is being provided to small communities right across Canada, be it by cable or microwave links or through satellites. The CBC has nothing to do with providing these services. It is just another channel on television or radio. It doesn't actually provide internet service or cable or satellite TV. That is done by telephone companies and internet providers.

Not sure what your point or aim is on here. There are only two genders, male and female, in the Bible and they are not changeable. By opposing what is right and normal, you seem to be opposing God and the Bible in every way you can. You need to really start studying the King James Bible, and change your thinking. Have faith in Jesus Christ. That is the only way.

Man cannot change a male to a female with surgery or medical treatments. To claim that they can is pure fiction. All they can do is harm individuals physically, mutilate, and destroy their lives. Gender dysphoria can more likely be treated with the proper compassionate counselling with the right counsellors over a period of time. They must work with parents as well. We are talking about kids or young people who have become gender confused. What does your wife believe? Since she studied theology, it would be interesting to know what she thinks about all this. You need to understand that there is no salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ and acceptance of his written word, the King James Bible (in English).

Didn't make a choice. Was never confused or in doubt thankfully. Apparently some very small number of children become confused on this. But their parents need to explain biology to them as soon as possible and try to guide them the right way and accept who they are. Gender dysphoria should never be left untreated. Parents may need professional help. Would you agree?

I think that is false. If there is no biological proof, then people can stamp their feet and shout as much as they want that they are born that way. But it cannot be a fact if there is no proof.

Neither of those points prove it is a normal or proper way of human life. Being married to a theologian proves nothing about the trans issue. Actually there are many women ministers in some churches but they completely disregard the Bible's teaching that woman are not to teach or be authorities over men in the church. Do you know there was even a lesbian on the NIV bible translation committee? Today you don't have to look hard to find apostasy and false teaching in churches. It is rampant. According to the Bible women ministers is not biblical. I think it is in 1st or 2nd Timothy. You can look it up. I gave you a detailed biblical perspective. I don't know if you even bothered to read it. Of course having a close friendship proves nothing either. Except it is wise and proper to be understanding and compassionate with these people. Christians are called to love thy neighbour. I would question whether a person is born that way. There are likely other social factors that came into play that turned the person in that direction. But to allow schools to foster the idea that a kid can choose to change their gender is extremely harmful.

Since you oppose the resolutions on the transgender issue, I assume you believe transgenderism to be a normal or legitimate human thing. The ideas being taught to young people in schools that it is normal and that a kid can choose to change his gender is pure madness. It is very harmful to people. I don't understand why anyone would support that kind of thing. The bottom line on the Christian view is " We do not have an inalienable right to do whatever we want with our physical selves. We belong to God and should glorify him with our bodies (1 Cor. 6:19-20)." Freedom of choice is not applicable in such matters. From a biblical point of view, there is not such thing as a right to do anything one imagines or wishes in the world. That might be liberalism, but it is not in accordance with God's design of mankind and the world. If liberalism is your god, then I can see why you would support it. The Progressive Conservative Party which united with the Canadian Alliance Party around 2003 leaned more to being a liberal party. That party would not give much of an alternative for Canadian voters. Anyway, the majority of conservatives decided twenty years ago, that having two conservative parties in Parliament would make it next to impossible to ever form government. So it was a wise decision to form a new conservative party out of the two. The Biblical view of transgenderism is as follows: " In short, the Bible teaches that God made us male or female, and no matter our own feelings or confusion, we should act in accordance with the biological reality of God’s good design. Transgenderism falls short of the glory of God and is not the way to walk in obedience to Christ. There are three big Scriptural building blocks that lead one inexorably to this conclusion. 1. Gender Binary The Bible knows no other gender categories besides male and female. While men and women in Scripture may express their masculinity and femininity in a wonderful diversity of ways, Scripture still operates with the binary categories of men and women. You are one or the other. The anomaly of intersex individuals does not undermine the creational design, but rather gives another example of creational “groaning” and the “not the way they are supposed to be” realities of a fallen world. Likewise, the eunuchs in Matthew 19 do not refer to sexless persons, but to men who were born without the ability to procreate or who were castrated, likely for a royal court (for more on the challenge of intersex, and the question of eunuchs, see Denny Burk, What Is the Meaning of Sex?, 169-183). The biblical understanding of male and female is more than just an assumption writ large on the pages of Scripture. We know from Genesis 1 and 2 that the categories of male and female are a part of God’s design for humanity. Indeed, when God created the first human pair in his image, he created them male and female (Gen. 1:27). He made the woman to be a complement and help to the man (Gen. 2:18-22). Far from being a mere cultural construct, God depicts the existence of a man and a woman as essential to his creational plan. The two are neither identical nor interchangeable. But when the woman, who was taken out of man, joins again with the man in sexual union, the two become one flesh (Gen. 1:23-24). Dividing the human race into two genders, male and female—one or the other, not both, and not one then the other—is not the invention of Victorian prudes or patriarchal oafs. It was God’s idea. 2. Gender Identity Someone with respect for Scripture may say at this point, “I agree that God makes as either male or female. But you are confusing biological sex with gender. I know transgender Christians who desire to embrace God’s design for men and women, but they also believe that who God created them to be does not correspond with the sex assigned to them at birth.” I don’t doubt that there are persons like this out there (and in our churches). While some people embracing a transgender identity may do so on a lark, many strongly feel that only by living as the opposite sex can they full embrace their true self. The question is not whether such persons and feelings exist. The question is whether the is of our emotional or mental state equals the ought of God’s design. Most Christians reject this thinking in a host of other areas, from eating disorders to unbiblical divorces. We understand that following Christ means dying to ourselves (Matt. 16:24), being renewed in our minds (Rom. 12:2), and no longer walking as we once did (Eph. 4:17-18). Being “true to ourselves” is always a false choice when it means going against God’s Word. As much as contemporary academia says otherwise, the Bible believes in the organic unity of biological sex and gender identity. This is why male and female are (uniquely) the type of pair that can reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 2:20). It’s why homosexuality—a man lying with a man as with a woman (Lev. 18:22)—is wrong. It’s why the apostle Paul can speak of homosexual partnerships as deviating from the natural relations or natural function of male-female sexual intercourse (Rom. 1:26-27). In each instance, the argument only works if there is an assumed equivalence between the biology of sexual difference and the corresponding identities of male and female. 3. Gender Confusion The third building block follows naturally from the other two. If the binary of male and female is God’s idea, and if we are meant to embrace, by divine design, our biological and creational difference as men and women, then it stands to reason that the confusion of these realities would be displeasing to God. And so we see clearly in the Bible that men should not act sexually as women (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10), that men should not dress like women (Deut. 22:5), and that when men and women embrace obviously other-gendered expressions of identity it is a disgrace (1 Cor. 11:14-15). We do not have an inalienable right to do whatever we want with our physical selves. We belong to God and should glorify him with our bodies (1 Cor. 6:19-20). I have not begun to answer all the important questions about pastoral care, counsel, and compassion for the hurting and confused. But with the cultural winds gusting as they are, we cannot assume that Christians—even those in good churches—know what to think about gender or why to think it. Hopefully this brief post, and these three building blocks, can help us ensure the right foundation is in place. After all, the goal is not to build a wall to keep people out, but that God might build up his church in truth and grace that we can welcome people in, calling his image bearers to embrace the life that is truly life (1 Tim. 6:19)." What Does the Bible Say About Transgenderism? (thegospelcoalition.org)

Dead? What is dead about it? Seems quite alive. It also has a huge membership base and receives a lot of money. It is leading in the polls. They have a good chance of forming government in the next election. Until then, they don't have any power. Perhaps that is what you mean.

CTV is almost an exact replica of the CBC, which the taxpayer pays billions of dollars for. So why waste the taxpayer money? We get all the same programming and politics on CTV which is supposedly a private network.

" This new power for professional regulatory bodies is the power to silence public speech, and then to require mandatory political re-education training. If you’re thinking shades of Mao’s re-education camps, you are right. The main premise is that the offending individual is misinformed. The underlying theory is that, if he or she could just be educated better, that person would see things “our” way (or the “acceptable” way.) At a minimum, it whittles away at individual thought and free expression, the kind of debate that moves society forward and on which western democracy, from the time of Socrates to today, is based. The College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) did not find Peterson’s conduct to be worthy of disciplinary action, but rather was “concerned” with the “manner” and “tone” of his comments. It called for Peterson — and, by extension, everyone else in his profession — to accept that the ideal clinical psychologist thinks in a defined, narrow way. Ideological hegemony is the goal. Groupthink, the outcome. Cancel culture, the symptom." Joseph Chiummiento: Selection of judges in Jordan Peterson case raises troubling issues (msn.com)

I think the idea of treaties was to avoid some kind of war. Canada was a benevolent country. Much different than the U.S. that had the Indian wars. Yet listening to all the radical activists and liberal apologists today, you would think Canada was a monster. It was the opposite.

So the Liberals/NDP/Greens are destroying our economy, taxing millions of people with carbon taxes for nothing and harming our standard of living, and trying to destroy the energy industry, eliminate fossil fuels, and squandering tens of billions to subsidize big corporations to build EV batteries based on an unproven and uncertain claim that man is causing global warming? Not to mention the fact that Canada's fossil CO2 emissions are insignificant compared with the rest of the world which is doing little to nothing.