Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by CdnFox

  1. Not when the price is our sovereignty - which you don't seem to give much value to . I guess that whole rule of law thing is pretty cheap for you as well. How many died over that back in the day? I think we paid a high price for our freedoms. You seem to feel that they aren't worth anything more than the cost of a bullet. It's sad what our country has come to. No wonder Canadians were fine forcing people to get the jab - no one believes that the country or its rights are worth anything. Don't you live in Quebec?
  2. No it isn't - where in the constitution does it say that? It absolutely is not, It is generally recognized both in canada and internationally however that if a population wishes to seperate then (with caveates) they should be allowed to do so - but the very idea was a major constitutional crisis for canada when the first referendums came up in quebec.
  3. This actually has been argued quite a bit back and forth amongst political experts and i dont know if there's a consensus on that. Obviously this started with the dems going after trump and making impeachment a political tool rather than a serious 'last case' thing. But many have said it may help to keep presidents more honest if they faced the possibility of impeachment more often. Anyway - that and using investigations and court charges in a political manner are now the new norm and i doubt it'll go away so for better or worse, here we are
  4. https://archive.ph/ That site defeats many paywalls, just say you want to save it and plug in the link, and if the article has already been saved it pops right up. If not then it attempts to do so.
  5. It's the left that paints this as an 'anti sogi' march. It isn't. I think you know what triggered it. The schools and teachers (and you as i recall) demanding parents have NO right to be involved in their children's mental health or physical decisions. THey also want their children not to be reading gay porn complete with graphic pictures of guys sucking each other. So to answer your question - nothing. Was there some other lie you'd like to make up to pretend what this is about?
  6. He's not admitting his mistake, he's caving to public pressure. And as a result ontario probably isn't going to get the homes he promised, he'll find a way to distract people away from that promise. Ontario has a long standing tradition of shooting itself in the foot and honestly this can get added to the pile.
  7. Sigh - leties: We should respect and accept gays Also lefties: we should use homosexuality as a perjorative and suggest that anyone who might be gay is the result of abuse and sexual deviance thus casting gays in the worst light possible Bigotry hatred and hypocrisy, all at once - how very efficient of you
  8. I do, I ran all the numbers many years ago with a particularly bright fellow and no, they can't. Frankly - with the possible exception of ontario no one province in canada can. At least not if you define 'make it' as maintain the same quality of life trajectory that canada has which is also diminishing. Short version - not enough people and not diverse enough economy, and while that was some years ago it's not changed enough. And being landlocked hampers them BC Alberta and Sask could pull it off. Add in manitoba (which you might htink would actually make it weaker) and it's even stronger. But there's no doubt that the reason the western provinces are weaker than they should be today is very specific and deliberate federal policy
  9. That's because they don't listen to me: ) I swear, if people would just do what i say the world would be happier ROFLMAO Sure. And we do so turning a blind Eye to china. What we're doing for the most part is stupid. We could be achieving a hell of a lot more with less pain to the country. Turns out that satirically the climate fanatics can't see the forest for the trees (snicker)
  10. Where do you see that he's listed as the leader of the org with interpol at all? and i dont know about his rejection the first time, but the second time he married a canadian 11 days after the first rejection and they said "nice try'
  11. So I read their 'big announcement - https://www.centreicecanadians.ca/post/lets-get-to-work I had thought it would be announcing they were forming a new party but really it's an announcement that they'd kind of like to form a new party but they need 250 people to agree with them first because thats what elections canada requires for a new party. The fact that they have to advertise to try to get 250 people on board is a pretty bad sign off the bat i don't want to discourage people from forming a new party if they fell one is needed out there - but lets just say i don't think there's any danger of them getting into the debates in the next election
  12. Doesn't have to. But it does mean things like increasing our forest fire/forest management budgets. Using solar power hydro etc where it's practical to do so to offset carbon fuel use. That kind of thing. Possibly some other programs. Right now in bc they're giving low income older people free air conditioners to protect against heat bubbles. We don't get heat bubbles every year but now if there's an extreme heat event they're protected. That's adaption, doing things to say "for whatever reason the weather is different right now and lets adapt and move on".
  13. Possibly but all they would have to do in that case is say they'd lock him up for life or the like. Well then we should look at our policies. But they are OUR policies. And if others don't like it too damn bad, that does not give them the right to kill people inside our country
  14. Your pronoun is 'egg'? What are you, a poultrysexual? Scratch that - don't want to know... He's a bit of an eggsitentialist.
  15. True. Trudeau will not change the things that need to be changed, it would go against his branding.
  16. The same thing exactly was said of Argentina in the early 20th century. And it tanked. We are now heading in the same direction for many of the same reasons.
  17. Sure it is. Do you need me to get a set of crayons out and explain it in terms you can understand? What specifically is still confusing you? I didn’t challenge the laws. I said he clearly violated the rules but the intent was innocent. In this case the “vacation” was a visit to a family friend’s house that he has visited many times as a family friend. Ummm.... you realize this is canada right? We're talking about canada? I don't have any republican judges.... Riiiiight - and his staff has NOTHING TO DO with him right? I mean it's not like they take direction from him or anything. Could you please be less of a m0r0n? It's exhausting trying to explain things to you as if you were a gradeschooler. . Absolute truth. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change it. illegal and she told him so, and definitely interference. the only reason charges weren't laid was that they coudln't compel testimony due to privilege. Pot - meet kettle. Kettle - pot. Sorry kid - your entire echo chamber nonsense is based on "Muh Feels" and not on facts. And you can't possibly expect to say that there was no problem with SNC and at the same time claim that ford is doing something terrible LOL
  18. Well he did deny it - but of course that doesn't prove he wasn't either. And the indians never claimed he was THE leader - they know he wasn't - but that he was "a" leader, meaning he was high up in the org but not leading it. And they didn't provide much proof of that as far as i can see. Here's the thing - i see references that say india discussed extradition with Canada and we do have a treaty for that with india. They just have to provide reasonable evidence that a criminal charge is reasonably justified. BUt he was never extradited. Which tells me that they didn't have that evidence. Or couldn't provide it for some reason which isn't our fault.
  19. No, we were talking about carbon. And honestly i can't tell you why. Too much carbon dioxide will kill you as well. but your point seemed to be that carbon itself never hurt anyone. It does. You're the one who brought it up. You tell me what the point is. Absolutely untrue. And given the number of extinction level events the earth has gone through i'd think you'd realize the balance is pretty easy to upset. I'd be a little concerned about both. Global climate chane is a real thing. Al gore is a psychotic sociopath who will repeat any lie if it gets him what he wants, which is usually money and power. In a free country like canada, you're entitled to be wrong as much as you like . Nobody buys a newspaper or votes for someone because everything's going swell. It's a sad fact. The world is not going to end in death and fire by 2030 like some suggest (looking at you AOC. Staaaaaaaarrre) At the same time we're having an effect and we should do what we can to mitigate that effect, and adopt to the changes that will likley come, and eventually move to cleaner energy as the tech allows us to.
  20. Nope - woke is a reference to far left policies that are based on irrational and often racist concepts which have no basis in reason. the idea of welfare for those who are unable to work is left wing. The idea of reparations to people who have never been slaves, and whos grandparents weren't even slaves, based on the idea that all white people are guilty of it even if they never owned slaves or even if their families didn't live in america at the time is woke. Dismissing it because you can't address the actual issue is kind of childish. It's generally an indication that you're behaving like a child. I tend to speak to the intellectual level of the intended recipient Given your comment it was entirely appropriate.
  21. Sure. if you're going to cross a chasm it's wise to wait till the bridge is finished When and as the tech allows, we'll transition. Putting energy into developing that tech is probably wise. In the meantime, focus on what we can do which is mostly adaption and mitigation.
  22. It's based on your logic so.... Didn't learn what? that they're not supposed to have a say in their children's up bringing? I thought teachers were given a curriculum - i had heard PARENTS actually RAISE children. You were the one who said no teacher would try to hide anything from the parent. Sorry kiddo - you're wrong. But at least you outed yourself as a liar in the end. So... teachers DO know better than parents and they WOULD hide facts from the parents as well. So we do need the law. And in fact parents DO have rights in that regard - ask any family court. And while you're at it ask the first nations if they believe parents have a right to raise children based on their own culture and religious beliefs. Sorry kiddo. Your dishonesty proves the point. Parents do have the right to know what's happening with their kids and they DO have the right to raise their children as they see fit as long as the necessaries of life are met. And clearly we need more laws to hammer that home to these teachers.
  23. I believe that there is an inherent need for humans to classify themselves and people who feel that they don't fit in precisely to whatever the overton window of the day is tend to wish to classify themselves as a seperate group, and there's a desire to use something as a symbol or term that they see as distinctive rather than just using an existing term or symbol. Hair has historically been an example - the bowl cuts of the puritans, the squareheads, the long haired freaky people of the 60's Once people have separated themselves into a group there's a tendency to go further and create an ethos and culture around that group and consider it to be wholly distinct from the group it broke from. Thought honestly it probably wasn't. And this is what we're seeing today. And of course any group wants to be recognized as special and the like. I think rather than try to teach that any one group is more special than another we should be focused on teaching that all groups are special
  24. Kills thousands every year. Carbon monoxide poisoning can cause serious problems even decades later. I am alive because of water. But too much of that can kill someone too These are just not good arguments. Nobody is saying that carbon is in and of itself a bad thing. But excess amounts can lead to issues. Too much oxygen is the same btw. Life exists because of balance. We are a 'goldilocks' phenomenon - things have to be 'just right' for life to exist and thrive. Not too much, not too little. And no - more carbon doesn't mean more trees. Don't know where you got that. the rest of your stuff is mostly mindless rambling for some reason, But i'll address this: no, what i'm trying to say is that carbon fuels are not ideal at all. They have many problems, they create pollution of all sorts, they're a finite resource, all the other things i mentioned. Therefore they are not a great solution to our energy needs. They are the best we have at the moment, but we'll come up with something better and when we do we'll transition. That's pretty simple.
  • Create New...