CdnFox

OH you mean that one that Trudeau shot down claiming there was no business case The Germans have been begging for this for years, it's nice to see the liberals finally get out of the way and let it happen. We should be one of europes biggest energy partners. I wonder if we can go back to japan as well and work something out? He didn't actually fast track anything, that was in the works already. He sure does love to claim credit for others work doesn't he.

That we know of. They have been sued many times and the amount of the settlement has been undisclosed. They could be 900 million for all we know

We didn't win anything. It's just not going your way due to your own incompetence. And you're still the ones in charge so I'm afraid it's still you calling the shots Basically it's as if you stole a car, demanded the car was yours, crashed the car, and are now trying to demand that it's the passenger's job to call a tow truck and have it repaired Nope, this ongoing train wreck is all you i'm afraid. And still your responsibility to address. And we still have carbon taxes and yet they're doing nothing for the environment.

If that's true then you have to be accepting of others when they use common and in their opinion plate language and decorum how they see that. And if they have a belief that lying is inappropriate or that it's inappropriate to acknowledge somebody else's mental health issue in that fashion then you have to respect that And yet you don't. But you demanded for yourself and act surprised if someone should suggest otherwise You've got to get that hypocrisy under control Mike. It winds up flapping around like a loose sail

His research and his cites are Bupkis. Their entirely flawed and a joke. Something he shares in common with you

Nope, same party in power as always. This is still your disaster and clown show.

I'm sure the vast majority of economists are interested in keeping their credentials with the government. But the reality is what the reality is. The only people that say otherwise as I said our environmental groups the government or those supporting one of the two It failed. It failed in British Columbia to achieve its goals and they feel nationally although we didn't have any goals

It's clueless

And just to reiterate, the report referenced in Beaver's OP expressly states several times that the posts are not racist or intending to promote white supremacy, but that they could be coopted or twisted or misinterpreted by bad actors. I mean the proof is right there in the op, and this guy demands YOU provide it

That's easy. The source report in the original post expressly says they're not. You didn't read it did you Kid... honestly.

And you thought that slipping into the kind of English we see from the average teeny bopper combined with your admission that you consider five or six paragraphs to be "a really long read" is making you look better in this? LOL Sorry kid, I'll try and keep it to crayons and dr seuss rhymes for you next time LOLOL oh sorry, i meant "4 u next time". Didn't mean to confuse you

Delusion is not faith. But I can understand your confusion In other words you couldn't understand what I said so you're hoping i'll dumb it down for you? I really feel like you didn't think that all the way through before making that statement

Everybody does. Who has managed to get through their entire life without saying "he" did this or "she" did that. I think what you mean is do you use people's preferred pronoun. Generally speaking when I encounter a person who is biologically one sex but wishes to be referred to by a pronoun indicating a different sex I will almost certainly comply. Growing up in and living around Greater Vancouver this isn't a rare phenomenon and I do have friends from childhood that have transitioned. So yeah if my friend 'gill' wants to be called 'john' now and wants me to refer to them as "Mr" then i will and i won't think much of it. If they want to be called "ze or "zarina" or 'attack helecopter' then no. Hell no. Stick to english. I may as a concession try to make a point of referring to them by their name instead of a pronoun but if I slip up I'm not apologizing

We know that but what science suggests that he shouldn't have? Or do you agree that he should have and you're just pointing it out And? Ok, and where's the science that says he shoudn't have done that? And? And? And? Still not seeing any science here big guy..... AAAAANNNNNNDDDDDD? Science does indeed arrive at conclusions. Science is all about observation, experimentation, and evidence-based analysis. That's what it does, it produces theories and formulas that make accurate predictions. It's not "probes". It not just observation. And science absolutely 100 percent seeks to 'prove'. Not relevant. For it to be relevant you would have to provide evidence that we are facing a situation where it's critical that we continue to monitor. I asked you for the science that shows that he is wrong to take these steps, that there is a crisis that we need to spend money monitoring, and that this monitoring is somehow very important to that. And I'm not seeing you producing that. Or it's trump eliminating wasteful bureaucracy that costs money at a time of extremely high deficits. You haven't actually made an argument either way all you did was make a statement that you don't seem to be able to back up I wouldn't be that hard on yourself but still, obviously you can do better Yup But i have faith you can do better.

Except he did as I've already demonstrated. But maybe if you keep repeating the LIE often enough it'll somehow magically start to be true It is beyond weird that you quote yourself all the time. It's like you know nobody's going to talk with you and it upsets you so you talk to yourself or something.

Ahhh so it's your university of facebook degree that's leading you astray Carbon taxes failed in Canada. And more than once. And they had a long time to work. Sorry that reality doesn't agree with your echo chamber. If you actually look yourself and do the research you get to the truth, carbon pricing is a complete failure. The gov'ts that want to charge it to increase their revenues and those who support them tend to be the only groups who pretend otherwise.

But harper didn't do it. You dealt with a Chinese but everything was above board no secret arrangements no deals between police agencies with hidden factors So harper never did it. And if he had it wouldn't be okay. And it's not okay when Carney does it now So you admit that I'm writing you can't actually address the point I made and have to have a hysterical moment to try and cover that fact? Well fair enough, as long as we both agree the point is valid and obviously you do or you'd have made an argument against it He never did.If you want to compare anything he actually did sign with what was signed now he would have to be able to read the document which you can't. Also this wasn't a memorandum of understanding this was an agreement The RCMP has not entered into an mou or released a statement stating that they would like to work more closely with china to resolve international crime. They signed an actual agreement that will have terms and conditions and responsibilities and requirements and we have no idea what it says. Harper never did anything like that and neither has any other prime minister in our history But they are bound to this one. It's not an mou it's an agreement. So under harper they agreed to something that they weren't bound to, under carney the RCMP has signed an actual agreement that they cannot back out of in the same way that they must honor and we don't know what it says It is absolutely new, it has never been done in our history, nothing like this has ever happened Where our police force signed an agreement with another nation's police force and all of the details are kept secret. That is especially true considering that the nation in question is hostile and not an ally. This is not an MOU, this is not a deal signed in broad daylight with the public's full understanding, this is nothing like what we've done before. This is new. And it's with China. And that's a problem

I guess you feel if you repeat a lie often enough it'll start to be true We already know it doesn't work. Didn't work in British Columbia and it didn't work federally. Nor did the government expect it to work. They did in British Columbia where they set goals and measurements to record over time whether it was having the desired effect. It didn't but at least they thought that it might and we're checking on it. But the federal government admitted that they had no goal, did not have any idea or plan as to how well it would work, had no way to monitor it and didn't bother trying. So they obviously never thought it was going to work from the first place and didn't care In the real world it failed and that's now recorded history. And that would be your fault and the fault of your Like-minded fools

Ahhh we're at the point where you realize you're losing the argument so you decide to lie. Disappointing. In fact, what I said quite clearly was that the politicians and the media refused to state the risks in any meaningful way. Not that they never mentioned risk at all anywhere. As i have pointed out the webpage you provided claims the danger is no different than any other vaccine. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Period. Full stop. And you've completely failed to address that simple fact It's not hindsight, they knew that they did not fully understand the risks. The risks were MUCH different. The unknowns were MUCH higher. MNRA vaccines are a brand new tech that has NOT undergone the same kind of rigouros testing and does NOT have the history of regular vaccines. The chances for unknown effects was MUCH higher than regular vaccines. But that's not what they said. They said it was the same as any regular vaccine AND in PUBLIC, they downplayed it even more. It was FREQUENTLY said by our politicians that the vaccine was insanely safe and anyone who said otherwise was a terrible person of one type or another. "Deniers" were the scum of the earth for suggesting there was any concern, In YOUR neck of the woods, politicians were even worse, with Biden saying outright that if you get the vaccine, you'll never have to worry about catching COVID, etc., etc. Or trump saying 'covid is just like the flu' the other way. There's no arguing the fact that The government severely underplayed the risks and did not in any meaningful way express the nature of the risk or the unknown quantities to people. That is a fact proven by your own post Which brings us to the second part, which we've already discussed, is also true So you're 100% wrong. You were kind enough to provide the proof where the government was trying to pretend there was no more risk than a regular vaccine when that turned out to be a complete fabrication They reported falsely on it. Although, to be fair, they were reporting what they were told by the government There is no hindsight involved. The government knew at the time that this was new technology and that it was impossible to know all of the risks or how many complications or problems there would be with something this new. But that's not what they said. They said it's the same as any other vaccine. They knew damn well it was not the same as every other vaccine. They knew the risks were higher than what they were suggesting and so did most people with half a brain who could actually looked into it. What they should have been saying is there are unknown risks and there may very well be complications that we can't anticipate. But for people who are in the at risk groups for covid such as the elderly etc based on what we know today we believe the risks of covid are much much higher. That would have at least been honest. But the problem was that they wanted 100 percent of the population to have the vaccine because they believed that it would 'wipe out' covid and they didn't want ANYONE to have ANY reason to say no. No, it's not hindsight; they knew at the time that they did not fully understand the risks. That was information that they had at that time, that they knew there might be risks above and beyond what they were aware of and that that probably would turn out to be true. They may not have known exactly how much risk but they would have known there was risk But that's not what they said. As per your own quote they blew it off as being no different than any other vaccine and that was not true. Just in case you're unaware, mNRA Technology is a brand new science that is radically different than anything that has come before and has never been used wide scale in the past. It's still being developed. It holds a tremendous amount of promise partially because it is capable of being adapted to carry different "payloads" Which means it can be used as a base to create medicines for cancer and a bunch of other things. But it's new. And they knew perfectly well it had not been fully tested or deployed and the ONLY reason they used it here was because they felt the crisis justified the risk. But they didn't advise the public as to how significant the risk was. The government did not express the risks to the public in any meaningful way. They severely downplayed any risk when it was mentioned at all and suggested people that felt there was more risk were terrible people. A lot of people doubted whether or not the government was accurate in this respect. But they further doubted that if it turned out the government was wrong that the gov't would stand behind them and resolve the issues that DID come up And again that's proven true.

That's TERRIBLE! Lets totally blow him out of the water - go ahead and post the actual science that proves he's completely wrong!!! Go ahead! Teach him a lesson! Any minute now.... Uhh... john?....

Yes, i was. It's the kind of thing we see from the left all the time these days. Instead of making a reasonable counter argument they go with this kind of cheap and lazy insult instead. I wish i had another example handy to show you Oh there you go!! Well done, thanks! Ahhh when you get backed into a corner, always try to lie your way out That's the leftie motto I have never ever said global warming is a hoax in the slightest. I have ALWAYS said it's real and it's a concern. What i've said is that it's a scam to claim that it's a 'Crisis' or that any of the proposed 'solutions' would be effective at all. But you've got to lie because the truth doesn't serve you. Rather than make a rational argument you've got to lie about something i said and argue with that You couldn't have made my point for me any better than that

Yep, and you've apparently got to lie to make your point. It's true that economists loved the idea of it but as I said it became apparent fairly quickly on but it doesn't work. And at this point we now know that to be a fact and we know why Your fault! Your side light and made shit up in order to bring in more tax revenue and people have figured it out Cry harder little guy

That would make the battery a secondary source which would mean i was 100 percent correct. Fcuk you're stupid. You literally just piped up and demonstrated i'm right.

We haven't done anything. And that's a fact. No new gear, no 'raise' that wasn't clawed back, no better prepared than before, So we're dong' 'nothing ' faster than ever before? Great.