Nefarious Banana

It doesn't matter then that F350 and all the larger iron, is used to pull equipment trailers, haul diesel fuel, do all the dirty work that the citified folks take for granted. Building dams so you can get enough juice to plug in your 'green' car, etc., etc. You're the free-dumb fool!

What is it you are trying to say? I'm missing your point.

The rest of the province lives in the real world.

Have tried to read it at different times in my life, but like eyeball, the 'supernaturalism' is a stumbling point. I grew up on the prairies with my native beliefs of mother earth/father sky . . . will sustain you or kill you.

Many/most of your posts eventually veer-off to your religious beliefs. Question: Are you a preacher/minister/rabbi/etc.?

RB's message is relevant and applicable . . . . you're distracted by his delivery.

Canada does not work for the west. It's all about Quebec, and GTA. Afraid to wean yourself off the government teat paid for largely by Alberta, or is it your and Quebec's greed that keeps you hanging around like a bad smell?

Lose what? You have no point. Comprehend. 😏

"That wasn't in question" . . . is not . . . 'That was a question.' Comprehend ?

That wasn't in question. Popular vote is only an indication. Trudeau is detested, popular vote confirms that.

Natives put the brakes on the Twirling Dipsh!t and his firearm bill ??

Scheer won the popular vote . . .

Gerald Michael Butts is the defacto (puppet master/prime minister) PM. Justin Trudeau is the perfect puppet . . . . vain and stupid. Butts works him to advantage and is never answerable.

At this stage of the game, an election would be an enema . . . . sorely needed, and long overdue.

Shiny Pony and his cabinet of penguins fear Danielle Smith.

Singh thinks there'll be a spring election and he's diving for the spotlight. With a change in federal government, Singh's political career is over, NDP are done.

Not in my book. Trudeau . . . the steaming coil of Canada, and Singh a close second.

Would it be safe to say that Justin Trudeau is likely the most reviled person in Canada ?

A history lesson to be shared for educational purposes. Gun control advocates: What compromises and concessions are peaceful, responsible, and safety-conscious firearm owners willing to make with this latest legislation to keep Canadians safe from violent crime, especially involving firearms? Peaceful, responsible, and safety-conscious firearm owners: Let's put some context around our answers first . . . *In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm no matter where it was stored. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime *In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *!n 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms. We complied. there was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses. we complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 2001, licensing became mandatory. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts' analyses (Law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.) which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason other than politically pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime. We complied. There was no discernable reduction in violent crime. *In 2021, you reduced judicial consequences for those illegally using their illegally acquired and already prohibited firearms. It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate. *In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns. We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb. *Also in 2022, you proposed this absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in a violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal point. And yet, violent crime continues to escalate. So, what compromises and concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over 100 years of faulty logic, deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely ignoring the contributing factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioural trajectories AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes? Absolutely none. Copied from another website.

Grow a few vegetables, eat moose and elk.

How did you come to your conclusions regarding 'as yet un-tried' Pierre Poilievre? Some think you're the "mouthpiece and wind up toy."

Thinking you don't own a firearm.

Saskatchewan farm business owner talks about the federal governments fertilizer goals . . https://youtu.be/LMG4kuEN_kM

Disarmed and disillusioned . . . . yeah, we Canadians are a tough bunch. No one's going to push us around, except the armed criminals, and a narcissistic dolt and sidekick Jagmeet.