CdnFox

There is a chance... a SMALL chance but a chance nonetheless.... a chance that those sources are not completely unbias.

Well i think he will simply defund the cbc and then it has to survive on it's own (or not.) So it will have to appeal to a target market and win them over to keep it's income the old fashioned way. I don't think that will make them more neutral, but if whatever changes they make don't appeal to enough people they'll die. And PP is the kind to find ways to funnel money into media companies that are right of center to offset the constant left of center media we've seen in the past. That might be through things like giving exlusive interviews, spending gov't money in advertising, etc etc. Make the right profitable and let the left languish a bit to turn back decades of having it the other way around. Oh for sure! The gov't appoints the judges to the supreme court, and most are older by the time they get There. For sure some will retire and when they do PP can appoint people that he knows are more to the right. to counter balance the judges. It's a bit of a shame - harper put a process in place that was very clever to select judges in a very neutral fashion, eliminating a lot of the political leanings. Over time it would have made for a supreme court that was based strongly on merit and bipartisan acceptance. Trudeau of course dismantled that day one and just appointed judges he likes. Absolutely. It has to be done right or companies will decide consumers are used to those prices and will just up their prices to pick up the slack, but if you do it right that can be avoided. All good ideas. Have you considered running for gov't?

Sure you will. They're out there and they're chomping at the bit to try to get ahead. Most keep their heads down but don't kid yourself - there's lots and lots of potential to make changes to put right of center people in place in a lot of the structure. Including judges etc.

Interestingly enough there is historic precedence for that. The nazi party largely arose as a response to the communist party of germany's aggressive and often violent pushing of their agenda for example. The 'Red Wedding" incident (not game of thrones - this happened in a place called Wedding which was called red wedding because of the communist control of the area) really pushed people into letting the nazis take power specifically to address communist aggressive tactics. Often times in history the 'left' gets hostile and agressive, and the 'right' becomes radicalized in response. It CAN go the other way as well but generally doesn't. The reason for that is that when people overthrow a tyrant that controls their lives the last thing they want to replace it with is a totalitarian regime that also wants to control their lives.

True. True. Mind you he did give the finger to the minority 'lesser' western provinces, soooooo.....

But without the battery life ? Ba da bingggg! Tip yer waitresses folks, i'm here all week...

It would be arguably true that the us wants war, but it would be insane to think it isn't going well. They coudln't ask for it to be going much better. One main rival is being ground down and having their reputation and military arsenal completely trashed, another quesitonable nation is now so indebted to them it isn't funny and will be well within their sphere of influence How is that anything less than awesome for them? Trudeau does not want to stand against what he perceives as the prevalent sentiment in nato. Hell he didn't even buy OUR troops anti air gear and he's buying it for ukraine. Well - quite a few actually Here's a list for the PRC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People's_Republic_of_China and here's some history. THey've pretty much always been killing someone too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles to be fair tho - it's basically us and the netherlands who are not out there constantly picking a fight with someone. And even then we tend to hitch a ride whenever everyone else gets worked up.

By finished you mean they won already so they're done?

You're a good man dougie. That's as it should be.

What the kids? Yeah, that's what she says too. Man, you buy ONE pack of discount brand condoms.... Oh - sorry you were talking to someone else. My bad. Ignore that.

That sounds more like someone who's bitter than a rational argument I think he will make some pretty significant changes indeed compared to how things are being run under the liberals However - i think you may also have misinterpreted my meaning. He will make changes that won't really matter or be seen by you or me per se, but which will eliminate much of the structural advantage the libs have. The liberals have people they've appointed in all kinds of key positions. They have things structured to make it challenging to make the kind of financial changes the CPC would want to. They have media types such as the CBC who support the lib efforts. Senators and judges will need to be appointed. There's all kinds of goings on where the liberals have historically loaded teh dice in their favour and PP is going to know many of them.

Oh please god yes! Take the damn cat too!

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-martin-the-trudeau-tipping-point-is-within-sight-1.6292729 CTV news no less. We've seen a number of these 'gentle prod' pieces suggesting trudeau should step down in the last several months. I think the libs and their supporters realize trudeau is past his stale date and that this could really go bad next election with the CPC getting a decent majority. And PP scares them because he knows the game and the system well enough to actually dismantle a fair bit of their advantage while he's in power, and will probably win a second term. I don't think Trudeau's ego will let him step down. And if he's going to he really has to do it by the end of this year in order to give enough time for a proper leadership convention to be held and for the new leader to have time to prepare for the next election fully. So if they're going to talk him into it, it will need to be soon. I would imagine they'll be ratcheting up the pressure

Oh - Absolutely, there's no history whatsoever concerning English speaking Canadians anymore, it's like they never existed and suddenly appeared today on the planet ! In fact, nobody had even heard of them before until you just mentioned them right now! ROFLMAO!!!!! Soooooo - seeing as we have no history, i guess we all agree the french were responsible for the residential schools and not us now right?

Oh well in that case, pack it up boys - war's over

I suppose if you bashed your head against a cement wall enough that would make sense Or if you were french. Some might argue it's a similar effect. I wouldn't of course, but some would.

I'm sure the french repeat this in front of the mirror repetitively

It's a little more complex than that. I agree if his deal was accepted by both sides then sure. But it won't be. And in the end biden will probably be necessary to get any deal done, as he controls the flow of arms to Ukraine and they don't want to compromise. Xi will still look good and get his lap but i suspect biden will still get his glory moment too, It will say nothing of the sort America has not fired a shot yet. Who did america shoot? China has already been supplying components to make weapons and supporting the Russian war of agression and is now looking at shipping lethal weapons - if china hasn't fired a shot neither has the us. The message to the world is that the us is still the arsenal of democracy and you better have them on your side if there's any chance you might have to defend yourself. China will still get prestige points for their negotiating skills and will win major points with peaceful people around the world. They will be seen to be influential. That's also important and valuable. But more importantly - they will be seen as being stronger than the Russians, and it will give them more clout in areas of influence that normally the russians prevail in. Both will do well. Then the US will get rich rebuilding ukraine and china will get rich exploiting russia. Ha! no. No - the two actual combatants are going to walk away from this worse off than they were when they started no matter what happens. What we're looking for now is a deal where both sides walk away equally unhappy.

Nope! We took it and made it ours so now it belongs to us French Biatches!!!! Muhaahahaaha!

Yeah, well. gotta sell papers i guess. I think since omicron it's kind of a hard sell to get ANYONE to take the vaccines unless you're in a high risk group. Fair point. No, you just missed my point. I did not dispute what you said. I however added that while it has a chance, it generally doesn't and is very resistant to mutation. So while there's a "chance" its small. It is entirely misinformation. it was the first to get vaxxed because they negotiated a brilliant deal to provide medical data back to the drug companies. the drug hadn't been properly tested as you'll recall, there wasn't time. So this was of significant benefit to the companies. Yes - turned out that waiting longer between jabs made a huge difference. Canada adopted that policy and had great results. And the fact you think 50 percent on it's own is a relevant number strongly suggests you're not aware of how these numbers work. IF you were you'd have included the percent of the population vaccinated at the time. Further you'd have to look at the danger factors for the people admitted. The number on it's own is utterly irrelevant. Childish word games. The idea of the vaccine was to prevent infection where possible and reduce harm where it was contracted. NO VACCINE IN HISTORY has EVER been 100 percent effective at blocking transmission. In fact 60 percent is considered very good. no, we really don't. I can explain how those numbers work for you as well if you want me to but the number of people actually dying FROM covid isn't that high. The number dying WITH covid is, but that's just becasue the latest variant is ery very contagious. And we both agree the vaccine does squat to prevent transmission with it Nope. You are again misunderstanding the numbers No they werent . Yes it did and yes it was, It is, it was more than a little, they don't. I would agree that there's little evidence that it did. Bullshit. And while the case isn't clear cut it's very obvious that there was a strong argument for it. However anyone who says it was for absolute sure or absolutely not is either uneducated on the subject or not being rational. There were good reasons, although there were also good reasons not to take it. Which is why it should have been left to the people to choose. You got the first part right. And the part that says it's a travesty to inflict it on people. The idea that the 'worst case is true' is of course puerile bullshit. The idea that vaccinations of the younger adult population was 'completely useless' is also simply not supported by the facts. Whether the benefits were worth the risks is definitely open to debate but suggesting there were no benefits would be as ridiculous as saying there were no risks. You're on relatively solid ground with arguing that mandates were morally and ethically wrong, but you go way to far into areas where the facts are not in your favor to try to justfiy a position that really doesn't need any 'embellishment' to be legitimate. For first gen covid the idea of having the entire population vaccinated has some positive benefits which could be seen by a reasonable person to outweigh any risks. It did prevent transmission, and first gen covid died very quickly once vaccines came out. But - i think you could make a very strong case that the benefits did not justify setting aside people's rights to determine their own medical choices. And a reasonable person could also conclude that it wasn't safe for themselves and the benefits did NOT justify the risks. But somehow we've become so polerized as a society on this that people feel compelled to take the position that either the vaccines were perfect and sent by god and those who didn't take it want to kill their granparents and children, OR the vaccines were completely useless or so close as to make no difference and those who forced it on others were nazi baby eaters who want to control the human race. It's probably somewhere in between those positions

How would it be used that way?

This probably sums up 90 percent of the entire argument right there. You buy a corolla, you spend a lot less (which buys a lot of gas), you know exactly what the repairs are going to be like and the life of the components, you know you'll get parts everywhere, you know you can get GAS everywhere, you get most of the features anyone could want and it'll have solid resale value. Aside from my truck I bought a corrolla that was 1 year old a couple years back for 19,000. It's got heated seats, radar cruise control (love that the most) automatic everything, driver assist so it stays between the lines on it's own on the road, big info display that works with iphones and android, comfortable to drive, has shifter paddles for SOME damn reason, and is reliable as hell and fantastic on gas. I average about 18-19 km per litre in the summer (mostly highway for me obviously). I don't need to drive that often so for me about 50 bucks of fuel does me for the month. Why would i want to swap that for non-mature teck, questionable battery life and winter performance, questionable charging availability, higher cost and a host of unknowns in order to try to save on 50 dollars a month? It wouldn't be worth it if fuel doubled and i was spending 100. Now - for someone in different circumstances driving to work every day in the city which is less efficient on gas and spending 400 bucks a month on fuel... maybe it's worth the risk for them.

Nobody with a brain has asked me to. I don't generally bother looking information up for chimpanzees You wouldn't understand the studies anyway, many of the words are more than two syllables But hey - way to fight that whole 'anti vaxxers are stupid' stereotype. Your parents must be so proud.

Nothing worth giving serious consideration to at any rate. But honestly i don't think long covid was the impetus for the 'vax the kids' campaign. True but correlation isn't causation. It could be that just more kids were catching it or the like. Honestly i've read a fair bit about covid related topics but this is one i haven't studied much, so i can't really comment with confidence. I'm making perfect sense. Let me assist you with your comprehension problems Every time a new vax cell is created there's a chance of mutation (it has nothing to do with 'passing through' anyone.) But - the chance is tiny and generally they don't because their biology is resistant to that, and even when they do the new mutation often doesn't survive. Which is why we don't see a lot of wide spread variants. No, that's just misinformation that those who are more interested in an agenda than the truth spout. There's been a tonne of research and they have a pretty good grasp as to why this is, never mind that it actually is. Against the original it was surprisingly effective. Not 100 percent by any stretch but very effective nonetheless. Against delta - not so much. Definitely still had an effect but much reduced from the original. Omicron - basically nothing. I understand there are people out there who are DESPERATE and quasi-religious about demanding that the vaccines had NO POSSIBLE BENEFIT AT ALL AAAAAAAAHHHHHHRGH! BUt it's just not true. Considering how fast they were developed and considering how little testing went into them, their effectiveness was nothing short of miraculous. Which isn't saying all that much - if they did ANYTHING in that timeframe it was miraculous But - far from perfect and there are real concerns and issues around them not to mention real risks, and we can definitely discuss the radical religious zealotry that developed around taking them. But - pretending they didn't work when they quite obviously did is simply childish. No point in it.

Sure -you learn to read and count and then i'll post it for you Not much point before that is there you buffoon.