blackbird

It is strange then that Herbie Michael, and Aristides have no idea what a solution would look like, but they are sure my suggestion is not feasible. They admit they have no idea but are sure I am wrong. No surprise there.

Israel does not agree to a two-state solution. Think you better look into that. Just because many countries think that is a good idea, doesn't mean it is practical or would work. The idea of carving up a country which is already very small, and giving a large chunk of it to their enemies would be suicide for Israel. They will never agree with that for obvious reasons. Do you seriously think the Palestinian terrorist would suddenly stop attacking Israel if Israel were carved up? Are you not aware Palestinians do not believe Israel has any right to exist? Can you give an honest answer?

Since you pour cold water on anybody else's ideas, what would you propose to end the conflict in the middle east? Or would you rather just sit back and be critical of anything anybody else says? So tell us how you would solve the wars against Israel??

Do you think Roman Catholics who faithfully believe all their church's teachings, and faithfully go to confession, and the mass, and receive the sacraments, will go to heaven? Or do people go to purgatory when they die?

If another country like Jordan or Egypt allows itself to be used as a base for a terrorist group, then that is on them and they must accept the consequences. The thing is the government of those countries can choose to ban any terrorist group from operating on their territory and they have the military to do it. The idea is to eliminate any terrorist groups from operating. As it is now, Hamas blends in with the population of Gaza and is made of Palestinians so it is impossible to get rid of them in the Gaza strip as Israel well knows. If they were relocated to another country, then it would then be that country's responsibility to deal with them.

If the whole population of 2 million were moved out of Gaza to some Arab country, then Hamas would not be there would they?

This would not have to be a forced removal of people from the Gaza. The west would in effect be purchasing the Gaza. This would go a long way to ending the conflict in that area. I don't see any other way to stop the fighting originating in the Gaza strip. 1. It could be done by offering financial incentives. Every Palestinian who moves could be paid a certain amount of money. The money could come from the U.S., Canada, other countries, and the U.N. 2. The money could also involve spending billions of dollars to build apartments, and create jobs in the countries they settle in. 3. It seems Hamas cannot be eliminated in the present situation. However, moving them by offering financial incentive may provide a solution. This would mean it would not be compulsory but would be in effect purchasing the Gaza strip. So far nobody in the news media has mentioned the idea of paying billions of dollars to the Palestinians to make it feasible. Part of the payments would have to be used to build apartments and create jobs. All of the money would not be given to the Palestinians directly. Some money could be paid directly to the ones who actually move. Part of the money would have to be retained and only used for the purpose of building new apartments, infrastructure, creating jobs, and communities in the destination countries. At present Jordan and Egypt oppose moving them to their countries. But the financial benefits have not been negotiated. That is the missing key to this. Perhaps if there was billions of dollars on the table, they would be willing to take in the Palestinians. But there would need to be a way to ensure the money was used only for the relocation and building of the homes, infrastructure, and jobs for the Palestinians. Also, the payments to the ones who relocated would have to be ensured somehow. The money could not be just handed over to the countries they moved into.

The reason is because provinces are governed by premiers and provincial governments and there are many influential constituencies in each province that will demand to be protected from other provinces as they do now. Overcoming this would be difficult. Each Premier is looking out for his own province. This is why we have barriers between provinces. I only see a lot of talk but no concrete actions to eliminate the barriers. Once the tariff threat is gone, the talk will cease and things will continue with the barriers as they are now. The only possible way to get rid of the barriers is if the federal government passed legislation to abolish them. Some provinces might even challenge that. But I don't see any other way to get rid of the barriers. I don't see the federal government in any hurry to get rid of the barriers either. This country is hamstrung by barriers, red tape, regulations, various self-interest groups, FNs demands, environmental groups, and court rulings that impede anything from being done.

Much easier said than done. It will never happen in any significant way. Talk is cheap but Canada and the U.S. are too deeply intertwined and it won't change much if at all.

You are clueless. There is no such thing as MAGA types in Canada. Practically nobody in Canada agrees with Trump and what he is doing. Canada is a sovereign nation and will never become the 51st state. Conservatives in Canada are pro Canada development and against the Liberal-NDP coalition that has been destroying Canada and preventing it's economic growth for years.

You don't appear to have much idea of what it is all about. " The Trans Mountain Expansion Project was controversial due to its potential environmental impact. It faced legal challenges, as well as challenges from environmentalists and First Nations groups on the grounds of inadequate consultation of the pipeline route passing through unceded indigenous land. A Supreme Court decision on July 2, 2020, that rejected the appeals made by First Nations and environmental groups, "[brought] an end to the years-long legal challenge".[8] On August 31, 2018, the Government of Canada purchased the pipeline for $4.7 billion[9] from Kinder Morgan through the creation of the Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC), in order to "keep the project alive".[10] TMC is a Crown corporation, a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDEV).[11] Until the purchase by CDEV, the Trans Mountain Pipeline was owned by the Houston–based pipeline operator's Canadian division." Trans Mountain pipeline - Wikipedia The original TMC pipeline went into operation in 1953. TMC was trying to increase it's capacity but was faced with many environmental and aboriginal groups opposing it as well as court challenges. Since it was the only pipeline from the oil producing province of Alberta, it had to be built. It was essential to protect the economy and jobs of Alberta. With all the opposition to building it, the federal government had no choice but to step in and get it completed. This had nothing to do with Harper. Harper left office in 2015 and the expansion was being held up by all the opposition including opposition by the anti-pipeline BC NDP government and municipalities of Burnaby and Vancouver. It was politics holding it up. It is very hard to get any pipelines built in Canada because of the countless opposition groups. But the TMC pipeline was essential to the economy of Alberta and Canada. So the federal government had to take over. The liberals killed the Northern Gateway pipeline shortly after they were elected in 2015 and also killed the Energy East pipeline. The did little or nothing to deal with all the opposition from FNs and environmentalists and anti-pipeline politicians in Canada.

Trudeau has very little support from Canadian voters. He has tentatively given his resignation when a new Liberal leader is elected in March. So this raises the question, how can Trudeau be Canada's representative to negotiate deals with Trump on behalf of Canadians? He apparently did something of this today on two telephone calls with Trump and Trump agreed to suspend the implementation of tariffs for 30 days. What exactly did they talk about and what did Trudeau offer to come to this deal? This seems like a strange way for Canada and the superpower of the U.S. to come to major agreements. One man who is tentatively gone in less than two months from his position as PM is negotiating over the phone with the President of the U.S., the most powerful country in the world. The PM refuses to recall Parliament to give our elected MPs any say in what is going on. We must trust Trudeau that a fair agreement is being negotiated on behalf of Canadians. Yet Trump knows he is a lame duck PM and also he has little use for the PM. So what is going on here?

The former Governor of Michigan and former Ambassador to Canada, Jim Blanchard, just spoke on Power and Politics on CTV and expressed serious remorse for what Trump has been saying and doing. He said it has been very wrong how Trump has been insulting Canada and believes this has seriously hurt the relationship. He spoke very truthfully and very kind words toward Canada.

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea must be all emboldened and rejoicing as they see the President of the most powerful nation in the world economically threatening and attacking America's closest allies, including NATO. " Radoslaw Sikorski wrote in the New York Times that Trump shouldn’t forget how much America owes NATO. And he warned the president that taking aim at his allies is emboldening his enemies. “The trans-Atlantic alliance has never been a one-way street,” he wrote. “The United States supported European defense for decades after World War II, but the only time NATO’s Article 5 has ever been invoked was in response to Sept. 11, when allies came to America’s aid. Poland sent brigades to Afghanistan and Iraq, and kept them there for almost two decades. “It never sent a bill.” Sikorski warned that many were delighted to see Trump take aim at NATO. “In 2025, those who do not wish us well are many,” he wrote. “The autocratic axis comprising Russia, Iran, North Korea and China represents a grave threat to much of the world. To face such an alliance, America and Europe need each other more, not less — our adversaries want nothing more than to see us fragmented, plagued by economic disputes and unable to lead. “Instead, let’s continue on the path of partnership, of peace through strength, as friends and allies.” 'Never sent a bill': European leader delivers scathing history lesson amid Trump threats

Trump is a bully. He is very hostile to Canada because he doesn't like Canada's leaders. He doesn't understand how the world works and thinks he alone can change the world so that every other country are slaves to his country. He was on the news again this morning insulting Canada. He treats America's closest ally like an enemy of some kind. He is doing great harm in the world. He is a psychopath and displays hate constantly. The next four years will be difficult. It is very unpleasant to listen to him.

There are some big problems with suggesting Canadians boycott McDonalds, Walmart and Tim Hortons. For one thing Walmart is an important store to buy groceries at a lower price. Other grocery stores in town have outrageous prices for a lot of groceries. Fruit and vegetables for example are a fraction of the price in Walmart. Walmart also has clothing for a lower price than elsewhere in town. People on limited income depend on it. Walmart also is employing all Canadian people and they employ a lot of people. Same with McDonalds. Coffee in McDonalds is now $1.00 for a small cup and $1.25 for a medium size cup. Many seniors, including myself, rely on the very inexpensive coffee. Seniors and many other people have a limited income. Other coffee shops charge $4 or $5 for a coffee, which is way too expensive if one goes every day. If one is a senior there is nowhere else to go to have a little social contact with friends. Tim Hortons charges about $1.70 for a small coffee but still far cheaper than other coffee shops and cafes. Maybe it would not affect some people to boycott Walmart, McDs, and Hortons, if they have a lot of money to throw around. If one is working, they might have social contacts that way. But not seniors. It doesn't make much sense to boycott places that make life affordable and that employ all Canadians. We would be just shooting ourselves in the foot.

I don't think you understand what Trump and his circle are doing. They don't believe in free trade. Free trade has been established between Canada and the U.S. for decades and supported by Conservative governments in Canada all along. Trump wants to throw all that out. He is not operating in a democratic manner. He is operating like an authoritarian even with his own country. It is frightening what he doing. Check out what he is doing with all his executive orders and with the aid of Musk, an unelected believer in Trump. There is far more to this than you realize. Established institutions such as Obamacare are threatened which could deprive millions of people of any health care. Foreign aid is being arbitrarily cut off in many departments and organizations which could threaten the lives and health of millions of people.

Trump doesn't care about what we're doing with the border. He made that clear. His agenda is far different than that. He is acting like a bully and dictator. Canada must stand up to this kind of thing. Trump and his MAGA people are even attacking the whole U.S. federal government with the use of Musk and his DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) people. Read what is going on there with his moves to lay off a massive number of government employees. It is creating anarchy in the U.S. government and has all kinds of serious consequences. Unions say what is going on may be illegal. Career civil servants are being replaced with political appointees that are loyal to Trump. Where is congress in all this? This is a serious threat to democracy and order. I don't think you realize what we are dealing with. This is the most serious threat to Canada in ages. Canada cannot placate them. He has an agenda to destroy the established order and trade. We will see what happens but it doesn't look good. Canada has no choice but to stand up to this threat.

You are correct in saying it is theft. Taxation for basic services that individuals cannot provide is reasonable. Things like police, armed forces, fire departments, roads, water, and sewer. I would not call that Socialism. Just basic services. "But modern societies have made an exception to the 8th commandment—“You shall not steal, except by majority vote.” One person cannot take your stuff, but if enough people vote to take your stuff, then it is “legal.” And if it is legal, then it is morally acceptable."

"All Forms of Socialism Are Theft Central to the moral argument against socialism and quasi-socialism is the 8th commandment: You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19). This command teaches the concept of private property and forbids the taking of property from an innocent person. God added to this condemnation of socialism by prohibiting envy in the 10th commandment: You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21). God is a capitalist, which we know because God endorses private property. This is inferred from the 8th commandment. The prohibition of theft assumes that people own things. Of course, everything in this world belongs to God. Yet He has delegated control and responsibility of things to individuals. We call this private property rights. Everyone understands this concept. No one likes others stealing their belongings, and they therefore do things to prevent theft, such as lock their door at night. It is also the case that every civilized society prohibits theft. People have property rights, and the government should protect such rights. Yet this all breaks down for many people when the government gets involved. It is wrong for Bob to take a quarter of your income. But if Bob and his friends lobby the government, politicians pass legislation, and the government gives one quarter of your money to Bob, then all is right. This is exactly how the typical Western welfare state works. The government enacts a variety of taxes (sales tax, income tax, FICA, tariffs, etc.) and then redistributes the money to a variety of classes (the poor, students, elderly, disabled, politically well-connected, etc.). But this is not called “theft” because, well, the government says so. This situation exposes one of the chief flaws of democracy, a system where two wolves and a lamb vote on what to eat for dinner. Thus, modern societies have made an exception to the 8th commandment—“You shall not steal, except by majority vote.” One person cannot take your stuff, but if enough people vote to take your stuff, then it is “legal.” And if it is legal, then it is morally acceptable. Christians are enabling this problem by limiting the 8th commandment to individuals instead of societies. However, the 8th commandment provides no such limitation. Groups are made up of individuals, and stealing is still stealing when done by a group. Is Taxation Ever Allowed? Some will respond, “Following this logic, are not all taxes and government programs theft?” One possible response is yes, which has some appeal due to its consistency (the view of anarcho-capitalism). However, a more biblical response is that some taxes are legitimate because some government functions are legitimate. Thus, we need to understand the proper role of civil government. It is important to understand that God designed government to enforce what are known as “negative rights.” You have a right to not be killed or stolen from. Hence the “negative.” But you do not have a right to food or shelter or anything else that belongs to someone else. You have to work for these things and buy these things through voluntary exchange. Thus, it is warped when it is said that humans have a “right” to things like healthcare or education. The only “positive rights” are those which are owed you out of a contract (such as the benefits of an insurance policy if certain conditions are met). And government does have an obligation to enforce such contracts. This is the only role of government in regard to positive rights. The government does not owe you any good or service, contrary to what socialists like to claim. God’s institution of civil government has a purpose, and that purpose is to protect property rights. In other words, God has designed the state to enforce the 8th commandment (as well as the 6th, 7th, and other commandments). It is all great when nobody steals. But people are sinful and steal/murder/destroy, and that is where government comes in. Of course, we have a problem when government is the one doing the stealing. If government is to protect property rights, then government is going to need enforcers of the law. Thus, it is perfectly legitimate for government to have police, judges, a court system, governors, and a military. Taxes that fund such things are taxes that uphold property rights. These taxes go to benefit all of society and in no way “redistribute wealth.” These are legitimate taxes and are not prohibited by Scripture. These are the sort of taxes Paul has in mind in Romans 13:1-7 when he speaks of the governing authorities that God instituted to “punish evil” and “reward the good.” Paul ties taxes here to a civil government that punishes crime. He says nothing about the morality of taxes at a high rate as part of a governmental redistributory scheme. Some cite Jesus’ words to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” as an all-out endorsement of government taxation (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). However, that is not what these words teach. The Jewish leaders were seeking to trap Jesus among the Romans (who required the tax) and the Jews (who opposed Romans taxation). Jesus outsmarted His opponents by making reference to Caesar’s picture on the coins—“Whose likeness and inscription is this?” (Matthew 22:20). The answer was “Caesar’s.” So Jesus responded, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). This was not a wholesale endorsement of Roman government, nor was this a discourse on the morality of taxation. Rather, Jesus actually endorsed property rights by distinguishing between that which belongs to Caesar and that which does not. Contrary to popular claims, Jesus was not a socialist. " The Bible Prohibits Socialism — Knowing Scripture Socialists claim the public health care system is good because it ensues health care to everyone. However, as it turns out, it leaves thousands per year dying on waiting lists for care. Socialists strangely ignore this and blindly press on with their ideology of not allowing any private care as well as the public health care system. Allowing some private care would take the heavy burden off the public system by allowing people that can afford it to purchase private health care insurance. There are lots of people with the money who would be willing to pay for private health insurance. But the radical leltists and unionists refuse any compromise.

I don't think Canada joining the European union would be good for Canada. The UK left the union with Brexit because it created serious problems especially with immigration into the UK. The same thing could happen to Canada. If a country joins the EU, they lose their sovereignty and are forced to take massive immigration from the third world. Canada could not afford that and it would destroy what little we have left of our culture. It would seriously threaten health care and other social services. The EU would also be dictating our use and extraction of fossil fuels which would be a disaster.

Trump is simply signing a pile of "executive orders" which do things that have massive implications for nations and for the U.S. but were not put through any kind of democratic process. He has the power to declare "national emergencies" on certain subjects which apparently gives him further power to issue "executive orders". Congress and Senate, who are the elected representatives apparently have little or no say and no control over these orders. I don't see this as democratic or in the interest of the U.S. or any other country. Executive orders can be interpreted as extreme and possibly fascist. He appears to be a kind of psychopath and a dangerous ruler. Yes, countries affected by his "executive orders" should come together to see if there are some ways they can mitigate the effects of some of his actions.

Here are a couple examples of false claims coming from Trump lately. It is impossible to know if he actually believes these things himself or knows they are false. One would think with all the advisors around him, he would be told the truth. But who knows. quote Canadians’ views on becoming the 51st state Trump said Thursday of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “I called him Governor Trudeau because they should be the 51st state, really. It would make a great state. And the people of Canada like it.” Facts First: Trump’s categorical claim that “the people of Canada like it” is false. Though it’s certainly possible to find Canadians who support the idea of Canada becoming the 51st state, the idea is overwhelmingly unpopular with the Canadian public as a whole. A December poll by the firm Leger found that 82% of Canadians said they didn’t like the idea and just 13% said they liked it. The idea has been denounced by federal and provincial Canadian leaders from left to right. The US trade deficit with Canada Trump said Tuesday that the US has a “$200 billion” trade deficit with Canada. Facts First: False. The US goods and services trade deficit with Canada was about $40.6 billion in 2023, according to the US government’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, nowhere close to “$200 billion.” Even if you only consider trade in goods and ignore the services trade at which the US excels, the US deficit with Canada was about $72.3 billion in 2023, the bureau reported, still far shy of Trump’s figure. And it’s worth noting that the deficit is overwhelmingly caused by the US importing a large quantity of inexpensive Canadian oil, which helps keep Americans’ gas prices down. unquote Fact check: Debunking Trump’s false claims about Canada | CNN Politics Why is evangelical Christians would vote for someone like this is the question. I think the reason is because the system is only a two party system and politics is not a Christian enterprise. Both sides appear to be acting or believing in un-Christian ways and policies in many ways. If Christian do not vote, then they leave the choice for government entirely to the non-believers who do not uphold biblical principles of right and wrong generally speaking. The system only allows one candidate to be chosen for each party and in the case of the Republicans, the candidate with the most popularity was someone who has questionable ideas. There simply is no choice. Each side has serious issues.

This issue has nothing to do with the left. Nice try though. It is about the actions of a mad man. He has even alluded to the possibility of Canada becoming part of the U.S. What exactly he has in mind is not clear yet. Trump hints at bold U.S. expansion Trump hints at bold U.S. expansion plans at Nevada rally The truth is Canada has been left in an extremely weak position because of pacifist ideology of Liberals and NDP over the history of Canada. Leftist, Socialist ideology in Canada would be seen in a bad light by Trump and his circle also. Conservatives have not done much better. We do not have much of a military and the U.S. sees us as under their protection and care. The Liberal-NDP ideology of globalism and giving billions away to the rest of world and strong backing of the U.N. has not helped either. Not to mention cozying up to China.

No, I never said Canada needs to show weakness to a bully. But we need to remember we're dealing with someone who is the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Canada is insignificant by comparison and has no power to speak of. We need to remember that and need to deal very carefully and wisely. Canadians are the ones who will pay the price for bad judgment and foolish responses. Putting counter tariffs on everything we export to the U.S. may be an unwise move that could hurt Canadians far more than Americans. We have to find a way to weather this storm without damaging Canada more than helping it. That's all I'm saying. We could start by taking significant measures to address the U.S.'s concerns about the border. Secondly, we need to increase military spending to 2% immediately and go beyond that to show we are serious about doing our share. We could also abolish trade barriers between provinces immediately.