blackbird

There is a time for forgiveness. But that doesn't mean criminals should not receive justice for their crimes. I suppose the liberal ideology is forgive them and let them off. What a hopeless view of the world. No wonder it is in such a mess. Let the criminals do what they want eh? Maybe do some research as to what Genesis 9:6 KJV means and why God ordered capital punishment for murderers. Should not be too hard to figure out. Try Googling it and find some commentaries. The real answer is to read the Bible, particularly the New Testament and believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior and start studying his word, pray, and resist the Devil.

No. God ordained capital punishment for murderers back in Genesis when human government was ordained. See Genesis 9:6 KJV. I have yet to hear an explanation as to why that is no longer valid. The liberal idea of rehabilitating someone who murdered an innocent person is bizarre. Where is the justice in that? What is un-Christian is liberal theology that perverts justice and constantly lets dangerous criminals out on bail or parole or gives a very lenient sentence for serious crimes. Canadians are sick of it. Nobody feels safe in the cities.

I am too. But I doubt that special appointments to talk about islamophobia will stop insanity and criminals. Maybe they could appoint a commissioner to plead with drugs addicts and repeat offenders to stop their assaults and crimes. Armed guards and capital punishment would do more ... and locking up insane persons in institutions for life.

You are ignoring the reality that the superpowers each have thousands of nuclear missiles read to go. Any nuclear war would wipe out much of the world's population and destroy all major cities and leave the rest of the world in rubble.

Canadian doctors spend over 18 million hours a year on unnecessary administrative work (cfib-fcei.ca) This is just more evidence that bureaucracy in the public system is destroying health care for millions of people.

"Matthew 5:9 - Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.Romans 12:18 - If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Mutually assured destruction is nonsensical. Practically nobody thinks that way.

Nonsense. You haven't seen what sort of equipment was on the balloon and are just making up assumptions. China claims it was some sort of weather research civilian balloon. So perhaps it did have some sort of propulsion and solar system on it for that purpose. Lets wait until we see the facts, if they are even made public before jumping to conclusions. It is exactly your kind of false accusations that politicians and media in the west are making which make international relations more strained at a time when we should be reducing conflict. Let's wait until there are some facts.

these negatives are not "fantasy world" as you claim. These are facts that you choose to ignore. You need calm down and come back to reality. These are some of cons (negatives) of a PR system: "List of the Cons of Proportional Representation 1. It makes things easier for extreme parties to gain representation. Under the system of proportional representation, any party with a high enough percentage of the vote will receive a seat in the government. That structure makes it easier for extremist views to find official representation. The seldom receive access to the majority coalition and rarely earn an absolute majority, but there is always the possibility that their voiced opinions will gain traction with the general population. 2. It can create political gridlock, just like in any other system of government. Coalition governments are encouraged to compromise and pursue centrist views. The reality of this type of governing, however, is that each party wants to have its own way with things. That creates a system of government that tends to be indecisive and weak because everyone argues for their own best interests. More gridlock, instead of less, can be created, especially if more than two parties are involved in the coalition. 3. It does not provide direct representation to specific communities. Under the system of proportional representation, seats are not awarded based on community or district voting. That means those who serve in the government are less likely to focus on local issues as they have no local representation responsibilities. It creates a system of government where more voices can be heard, but fewer actually receive a listening ear. Many communities under this system can come away feeling like they don’t matter to the governing coalition. 4. It is not always wise to compromise. Even in countries that have encouraged proportional representation, some of the largest changes that have occurred in those societies happened when an absolute majority was present within the government. There are times when a strong majority in the government is required to push through needed reforms. 5. It can be an unstable form of government. Italy has proportional representation built into their government structures. Over the last 4 decades, the government has been forced to dissolve its parliament 8 times. In Belgium, the negotiations required after their 2010 election to form a governing coalition took 18 months to complete, leaving a crippled government in its place where nothing got done. Having more voices can be a good thing, but it can also create a discord that makes it impossible to government. These proportional representation pros and cons have certain benefits that allow for greater inclusion and variety. At the same time, greater inclusion can also lead toward higher levels of extremism within the government, while encouraging more gridlock if the political parties are unable to find a pathway toward compromise." 12 Proportional Representation Pros and Cons – Vittana.org There are several serious negatives from a PR system. A big one is it is more undemocratic than FPTP because it give the power to political parties to choose many of the MPs and removes the electoral choice from the ridings.

There are several problems with so-called proportional representation. 1. It is proportional in the sense the proportion of the vote that a party gets determines who the representatives are in the legislature. For example if a small fringe party gets 3% of the vote, then according to the PR system, they would be entitled to 3% of the number of MPs. That means more fringe parties get to have MPs and the larger parties would end up with fewer MPs. That's the reason one country has around 14 parties represented in the legislature and is unable to reach agreement on which parties form the government or pass a law. With that kind of system, rarely does one party get a majority of MPs. It is almost impossible to win a majority government because of the number of small parties. So in one sense, you can see how democracy is harmed. The will of the majority is taken away with the PR system in an attempt to give every fringe group or party a voice and vote. You end up with nobody having any real authority or power to govern. You need to seriously consider this. Countries often face serious crisis or urgent matters that require a majority to take action. If the legislature is always tied up by a pile of minorities trying to manipulate the system and blackmail the government to get their way, nothing can get done. The government is paralyzed. We are getting a little sample of this with the NDP-Liberal coalition. The NDP is holding the government hostage in a way in order to get their demands through. 2. In a PR system, the voters in an individual riding lost their democratic rights. In a PR system, it is not the majority of the voters in a riding that determine who the MP is. The votes are counted and each fringe party gets to take some of the votes and use those votes. Each fringe party's votes are added together from all ridings and those are what determines how many MPs the fringe party gets. This is done at the expense of the people in each riding who did not vote for those fringe parties. So its not really democratic any more. You end up with small parties having MPs even though they did not win any one riding. A small number of people in each riding gets to pick MPs from small parties. Those votes are used by the party and the party selects who the MP will be, not the voters. That's not democracy either. 3. The MPs selected by the PR system are chosen by the small parties. That means they are not accountable directly to any one riding. The MPs chosen that way were not chosen by the voters in one riding. They were chosen by the national party. So they are not accountable to the people. They are accountable only to the party. That's not democracy either.

As we speak there are countries that do not use the FPTP system but have a system that gives smaller parties who can't win any seats by the FPTP system seats in their legislature. One of the problems with this is there is at least one country who does this and is paralyzed and unable to govern because there are about 14 parties represented in the legislature. They are unable to reach agreement on essential matters. The country is in a crisis. This is what happens when you try to change the system to give every little party a representative in the government. You create a disaster and paralysis.

Tomorrow the PM and Premiers, after many months of bickering, will finally sit down to try to come to an agreement on federal health care money for the provinces. But the health care system has been failing Canadians for years and is in dire condition with over a million people on waiting lists, millions without a family doctor, and approximately ten thousand a year dying on the waiting lists. Is this what it took for these politicians to get together? I'm afraid I don't hold out much hope for this system or our politicians to rectify the problem. It is very serious and they do not seem to have the urgency to be able to fix it. Trudeau said there will be no agreement reached on Feb. 7th, when they meet tomorrow. What kind of an attitude is that to go into such an important meeting? No wonder two thirds of Canadians believe the system is broken. Canadians feel trapped in a broken system with no way to fix it. "The latest government data indicates that 3.2 million Canadians are waiting for surgery, a diagnostic scan, or specialist treatment, according to think tank SecondStreet.org. The latest data also suggests that 41,487 patients have died while on a waiting list since 2018–2019." Over 3.2 Million Canadians on Health-Care Waitlists: Government Data (theepochtimes.com Adding to the confusion are the NDP's Singh's comments: "Shawn Whatley: Jagmeet Singh uses confusion about private care to support the status quo" Shawn Whatley: Jagmeet Singh uses confusion about private care to support the status quo (msn.com) Yet he continues to prop up the government helping to keep Canadians in this disastrous situation of a failing health care system. His solution would seem to be to greatly increase taxes and spend billions more on more nurses and staff in the public system, which may be failing us because of serious flaws. He believe tax money alone will fix the system. He offers no solutions to the need for innovation and efficiency in the system.

You use the term "democracy" very loosely. You imply because we have a parliamentary democracy that it must be completely moral and above board. Considering all the moral failures and unethical behavior of the government, I think that is a pretty big stretch to believe or claim everything is just democratic and right. A poll found two thirds (67%) of Canadians believe the country is broken or the system is broken. That doesn't say much for so-called democracy in Canada. It is a clear condemnation of the government and what they have been doing. They should all resign.

Are you ok with people dying while waiting in line ups at the emergency departments? Are you ok with the thousands of people who have died waiting on waiting lists for medical care in Canada? "The latest government data indicates that 3.2 million Canadians are waiting for surgery, a diagnostic scan, or specialist treatment, according to think tank SecondStreet.org. The latest data also suggests that 41,487 patients have died while on a waiting list since 2018–2019." Over 3.2 Million Canadians on Health-Care Waitlists: Government Data (theepochtimes.com) That's approximately ten thousand people a year dying while on waiting lists. But that's just a "little irritant" according to you.

The time a wayward Canadian balloon caused an international stir — and thwarted 3 air forces | CBC News

Wayward weather balloon have caused panic in the world before these ones. "The Sask. weather balloon survived more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition back in 1998" The time a wayward Canadian balloon caused an international stir — and thwarted 3 air forces | CBC News

Why would China want to use a balloon to spy on Columbia? Again it doesn't add up.

Good question. I don't have the answer to be honest. "Some CBC News stories are combined from a variety of sources, including one or more news agencies and CBC News staff. They are written and edited by CBC News but carry a generic CBC News byline. CBC News also publishes stories from different news agencies, including The Canadian Press, The Associated Press and Reuters." -CBC.ca

" When this bill mentions how we have evolved, it is simply a suggestion to comply. Some of those who have so evolved into the new Canada have torn away books and slashed many writers whom I have admired — an evolution of sanctimony and an advancement in quelling the voices we might disagree with. By this bill, we have entered the very realms we have fought to depose over the last 70 years. Bill C-11 might be more subtle than the German Stasi or the cultural section of the Central Committee of the former Soviet Union, but never think it is not intertwined." Sen. David Richards: Liberals' Bill C-11 is 'censorship passing as national inclusion' (msn.com)

Its too bad Canada didn't shoot it down when they had the chance to do it. Now Canada will never know what kind of balloon it really was. The U.S. government, military, Canadian politicians, and mainstream media throughout north America have already decided it was definitely a spy balloon and told the public. Guess Canada didn't want to offend China by shooting it down. Leave it to the Americans.

The media says the U.S. has a recovery operation under way which could take a few days. They say it is in about 47 feet of water. I am not sure why they did not have a ship right there when they shot it down to catch it right when it hit the water. Doesn't make much sense. Now they must look for it. Whether they will tell the public what it is if it turns out not to be spy equipment is hard to say since their highest officials in the U.S. and media have been calling it a spy balloon all along. It would mean a big climb down and admission of error. Meanwhile, when a Canadian minister was asked why it was not told to the public for a week after it was over Canada, all he would keep saying is certain things are under national security precaution. They treat the public like a bunch of toddlers or school children. Very condescending. Also, why didn't Canada shoot it down since there are few populated areas? Could have recovered it and determined what it is.

OK you go with that. I will still say there is no proof until I see some real evidence. We know China is a big adversary in the world between the U.S. and China, but that is not proof everything that happens is some sort of hostile act such as spying.

I was unable to zoom in on your photo. Not zoomable. So I can't propellers. I am not saying there are none but I can't see them. However, again that would not prove anything.

No. I said there is no proof it was a spy balloon. That was my point. While I don't know for sure what it is, I don't claim it was a spy balloon just because the mainstream media says it is.

You believe it was a spy balloon because why?? The CBC or mainstream media said it must be.

Where did you get the idea it has propellers? The photo you showed could be the one from China but there is nothing there to indicate it was a spy balloon. It could still be a weather balloon. I think making assumptions without knowing what it actually was is not too bright.