CdnFox

Sure. The libs have the pet ndp to turn their minorities into majorities Yes he did, and he frequently put out reports and did his job so obviously he did And harper didn't get along with the first one but he got along fine with the second one. The contempt motion was to force an election by the opposition and we all know how that turned out - the voters said 'bugger off' to the oppositon and harper got a majority. That's the word you used. So if what you're saying is that the only leg i can stand on is that what you said is wrong... er.. ok, i guess so. Well normally i don't approve of self-diagnosis but i think you've hit your problem right on the head there The irony of you claiming others are doing it is delicious You have these little freak outs (and not just with me i notice) and then crybaby about how it's everyone else who's "emotional", and when it's pointed out you claim others are the REAL emotional ones LOL! Check your medical coverage - maybe you can get some therapy covered?

No it didn't. You started it off and i wasn't even replying to you, Bugger off child. This ain't russia, you don't get to order me around. You're pathetic.

ROFLMAO - well suuuuuure. You didn't suggest i was a liar. You didn't freak out making claims i said things i didn't None of that right? Please. You acted like a childish jackass and now you're trying to play the innocent martyr . Awwww poor you. Life is hard. Oh look - the russian advocate wants to give me orders and silence me. What a shock So you attack me - i attack back and you're on the defensive and you want to blame me for it. Hnmmmm- what conflict could that POSSIBLY remind me of? Putin, is that you? Boges was a Persian official and military commander, who functioned as governor (hyparchos) of Eion in Thrace (Achaemenid satrapy of Skudra) under the King of Kings Xerxes I (r. 486–465 BC).[1] Huh. Odd reference but ok.

But actually. He followed through on a lot of them. More and more over time. Remember that he only had a minority gov't for the majority of his time in power. That limits what you can do (unless the ndp is propping you up of course ) No, that's certainly not true. The PBO always had enough to do its' job even when it occasionally fought for more. And if your evidence that harper was not transparent is that he hired someone who shed light on every single area that wasn't being fully reported then i'm afraid you defeated your own argument. No they didn't. Sorry, that's just made up. THe media always wants MORE access but they didn't complain about it crumbling. That would be YOU being emotional not me ROFLMAO - god you suck at this

The left is always eager to spend other people's money to solve a problem Personal responsibility isn't in the cards Or imaginary dollars they can can just print. Money printer go brrrrrrrrr.... And then they wonder why we have economic issues Ahhh well. The first nations demands and positions are getting more and more outrageous and i think that people are getting sick of it and sympathy is starting to fall , These are after all a people who keep voting liberal - and yet the liberals treat them the worst of any party. But yet - thanks for the donation! it's getting to the point these days where you have to wonder if many in the first nations don't want 'reconciliation', but rather intend to use the bodies of their ancestors as a cheap theatrics in order to exploit them to extort money for themselves today. There certainly is a feeling of that when you read things like 'we should only consider one side's history and not the other when discussing reconciliation'. It's all getting rather ghoulish.

Yes -but by and large they don't work. They just drive up the price of housing. I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. Did someone say businesses weren't in it for profit? Gov't is in the business of providing services and also providing fertile ground for the market forces that the country needs. If they interfere with those forces by excessive beurocracy, it may require something from them to offset that to allow the ship to right itself. Sure but if people don't have a place to live they riot and burn cities. That's just life, no matter what you might think. So at the end of the day there has to be enough product to satisfy the need. Generally speaking I agree. But - if the gov'ts actions are making homes more expensive in the first place, then that changes the picture. If they're going to cause the problem, then there is a need for them to help fix the problem. AND - we're not just talking about buying here. This affects rentals just as much. A home is a home whether it's rented or sold and if there's not enough and you can't buy and can't rent then there's going to be a problem.

Awwww muffin - don't go away mad, just go away Obviously you need your cookie and your nap. It's not my fault you can't read and choose to call others liars when they didn't. Next time dont be such a Cont, you fooker ROFLMAO!

No they weren't. if anything he generally got marks for improving transparency. When he got critisized it was generally not for making improvements fast enough, but not for making things worse. Transparency was bad going into it and it was better when he left Whereas trudeau is universally condemned for his making transparency far worse. Soooo - your story isn't adding up here. That's still voting for corruption, bad governance and all that good stuff. All you're suggesting is they prefer that to other options. That's still bad. ROFLMAO - i never mentioned anything 'emotional' - i think you must be talking to the mirror So basically is that how you work? Whatever you're feeling you apply to others? You think i'm smarter so you assume i must think that as well, you get emotional so you assume i must be getting emotional as well? Wow. You're a little broken aren't you.

I didn't say i didn't refer to your post. I said i wasn't replying to you. So stop lying What kind of loser do you have to be to accuse someone of that twice and still be wrong? Further: lets look at your quote: "Saying "we dont' need to add ww3 to our problems" suggests that if we allow putin to have his way then he'll be happy " Where in there do you see the word 'capitulation'? In fact - where do you see the words 'he said"? So when you claim i quoted you saying that capitulation is bad or the like, that's just a blatant lie. I said that saying we don't need ww3 SUGGETS - not that YOU MEAN or anything. It SUGGESTS that if we allow putin to have his way then he'll be happy. And it does. Sorry if you don't like that. But nowhere does it claim that you said that. Now if you're done being a complete dolt for the morning, then move on. I"m not your therapist.

Of course i do And the only thing i've been "caught" at is pointing out the gross errors of your arguments and then your immedate freak outs after Nobody is making up anything - those are your words and your sentiments and when they get pointed out you try to either pretend you said something different or change the channel. Which is exactly what you're doing here. Once again you couldn't address the argument and you're trying to attack me instead to cover the fact you couldn't refute what i said, You're beginning to convince me that you are right - I AM actually smarter than you

I've commented on this already. "punishment by process" is bad. They shouldn't. It's an abuse of power. For many years the firearms community fought back against this kind of nonsens by crowdfunding for teh person's defense whenever anything like this came up to cover the costs and send a message to the prosecutors. I've been out of that for a while so i don't know if they still do but a lot of cases were eventually won based on that.

The cost of the land is determined by the value of what you can build on it. It has always been this way for developers. So the cost of the land goes up to match the value of the housing or whatever you plan to build and sell. It's a reverse drive not a forward drive. THat's why the cost of building is the same everywhere (more or less) but the cost of the land fluctuates radically. Location location location. If there were enough houses then prices would go down and that would mean the land value would go down as well. Because there are not enough homes. That is INEVITABLE. And it's not the last few years, my family has always been involved in real estate and i remember when it suddenly became a thing to put in full price offers and then suddenly there were bidding wars with buyers sitting out in their cars as agents ran in and out with new offers. That was UNHEARD of. And that started in the early 2000's in parts of the country. No subject offers etc suddenly became the norm. Some reports say that we've been falling behind by 100,000 homes per year since 2016 just to keep the problem from getting worse. Some now say we're a million homes short in this country. For sure. And the current structure STRONGLY discourages developers from building enough homes to match demand. That needs to change. There isn't any 'one' thing you can change to fix the problem. We need to change how projects are green lit, we need to green light a lot more of them and streamline the process, we need to change how developers are taxed on new homes before they're sold, changes to lending and funding rules would help, and we may need to look at something like a gov't based 'real estate investment bank' to offset some of the issues created by overregulation in the past to get builders to build more homes than they can immediately sell right now. It ain't easy. But at the end of the day the solution is more homes. Nothing else will make a difference.

Why immigration is good is a complicated topic, even for someone as verbose as me online I'll hit on the high points but i have to say the fact you use the term "mass" immigration suggests that you're already of a certain closed minded mindset. "Mass" immigration isn't a thing. There's just immigration. When does immigration fall below "mass" to just regular immigration in your mind It's a phrase used by people who are trying to express the idea that immigration is bad because MASS. Mass is code for 'too much". Mass hysteria, Mass destruction, etc etc. It's a negative word that has NO meaning whatsoever in this context. To very briefly answer your question though, we don't have enough births to increase our population naturally, and a declining population has a very very negative effect on the economy and investment into the country as well as causing labour issues. Serious talent also tends to leave declining populations as there's not the same level of opportunity generally speaking. Immigration has other side benefits such as bringing skills and methods that are different to ours that we can learn from. There's others as well but like i said - complex. So if we were having enough kids immigration wouldn't be AS positive but Sure - but the obvious healthy answer there is to fix supply, not demand. If you've got more customers then you want to produce more supply, not kill the customers Immigration doesn't drive down wages. That's a myth started by people who don't understand the stats. I can explain if you like. BUT - you are correct that if there is already not enough product to satisfy consumer demand, and you add more consumers, you make the problem worse. Immigration levels should absolutely be tied into increases in housing, education and medicine. IN other words - you can only let the population grow at the same rate that the supply of those three things is growing. There is also the matter of integration capacity but that's a separate issue. We already bring in specific people, we use a points system currently. And stopping immigration would solve nothing at all as far as housing. With the way our system is set up, developers would just stop building houses. The shortage would remain.

T hat doesn't really explain your multiple posts does it I literally quote what you're saying Every time. the problem is once you realize what you said is wrong or foolish, you try to change what you said. And that just doesn't work. Which is why you have such a tough time addressing the actual argument. I asked a simple question - what did harper do to make you feel that there was a lack of transparancy. And you couldn't answer that, so you tried to just post a list of gaffes or talking point issues from his time. And when i shot that down you basically just attack me. All you're doing is proving my point and making yourself look bad - and that is NOT my fault. And i love that you think i believe i'm 'so smart' You've brought that up several times now and i haven't once said i was smart. People who think that about others as you do about me generally are displaying an inferiority issue. It means YOU believe that I'm so smart. So you project that I believe the same. LOL - thanks for telling me you believe i'm smarter than you without telling me I'm sorry i intimidate you that much. But honestly none of this is that complex, you are smart enough to do better if you actually THINK before you type a bit more.

Nobody said you did. I wasn't even replying to you. Settle the heck down kiddo, it's too early on a friday to get offended over nothing What I said and i stand by it is that you can't avoid a world war by capitulating to aggressive bullies. Nothing was attributed to you. Russia is not invading due to the history. They've been pretty blunt about that. While i'm sure there IS a history the russian invasion is not due to russia being offended by corrupt elections They have their own problems there. Putin wanted the land, and thought he could take it quickly and easily and that went sideways. That is not what brought russia in at all. What brought russia in is the idea that they could reintegrate ukraine into their little empire at the cost of a three to seven day war that would be a walk in the park and by the time the UN or anyone else could intervene it would be all over. That is NOT how it went though. You are undoubtedly correct that western countries are happy with this outcome and are glad to see Russia's military might being trashed and russia weakened. Obviously a weaker russia is to their advantage. And they are achieving it just by sending some weapons, most of which were getting old anyway. THat's like the cheapest war ever. A few billion and russia's military capability is severely damaged? They can't sign that cheque fast enough. Nope, none, Not a drop. Zero, zilch nada. Russia (and putin) Decided on this course of action completey on their own, there was no negotiation, there was no attempt to address any issues peacefully, they had been basically handed Crimea a few years ago, and when they started to build up troops at the border and the west tried to negotiate they refused and insisted nothing was going on. This war is 100 percent putin and russia. They are not pawns in anything. They are being attacked by a superpower, and are desperate to fight back and keep their country. Other superpowers are agreeing to THEIR requests because it benefits them to see russia get punched in the nose like this. But that is the will of the Ukranians, not 'western superpowers'. It's their choice to defend their land, they're not being 'manipulated' into defending their country. And of course the allied countries are giving them what they need - it hurts russia who has been very aggressive in the last few decades and it does it on the cheap. They get to test out all kinds of weapons systems to perfect them and evaluate tactics, and they'll get prime position for contracts to rebuild ukraine after. Why wouldn't they.

People don't realize how high this is. It's a lot more than you think for most developments. When you consider the costs of permits, the cost of paying the experts to prepare the documents for those permits, the costs of holding the land while you wait for all the permits and zoning issues etc etc to go through, (which is huge and can go on for years) and the costs those delays to build create for you, it's actually pretty damn high. well lets be generous and say something like 200 dollars a sq ft. So - a 1500 sq ft home should cost about 300,000 dollars to build. In even the areas around the major metros that home is now selling for about 1.5 million or more. So it's not the cost of construction that is driving prices up as high as they are. Sure those costs are high, but we could have homes people could afford. Well they do play a factor actually. High taxes, high inflation, and reduced opportunity due to gov't policy all mean that workers demand more money to live before they'll work and that does drive up costs. Gov't taxes such as the carbon tax plays a huge role in building material costs. etc etc. Sure - there's a lot the gov't doesn't control but they absolutely can have a powerful impact on costs. This is the problem with ANY plan designed to help buyers "afford " the market. There have been dozens, they all end the same. The market will always suck up as much as it can for the cost of a home, so if supply is even a little tight prices will aways be whatever the maximum is that people can afford. So if you make it so that people can afford more, prices will increase to account for that. You have to address it from the supply side. Nothing else works for long,

Honestly the article pretty much shoots down their work. From the article: "First, the reasons I don’t totally buy the Cochrane review’s conclusions: The review includes 78 studies. Only six were actually conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, so the bulk of the evidence the Cochrane team took into account wasn’t able to tell us much about what was specifically happening during the worst pandemic in a century. Instead, most of them looked at flu transmission in normal conditions, and many of them were about other interventions like hand-washing. Only two of the studies are about Covid and masking in particular. Furthermore, neither of those studies looked directly at whether people wear masks, but instead at whether people were encouraged or told to wear masks by researchers. If telling people to wear masks doesn’t lead to reduced infections, it may be because masks just don’t work, or it could be because people don’t wear masks when they’re told, or aren’t wearing them correctly." And that's the problem with any meta analysis. If the studies are all good studies then you can tend to get some interesting new results and information, but if the studies are crap to begin with it's really hard to get anything useful. The fact that the reports author doesn't think Covid originated in china doesn't help his credibility

uhh - that actually IS improving transparancy. Not having a PBO and not discussing budgetary issues publicly is LESS transparent. You mean where he tried to force somoene to pay back money to the taxpayers that he felt they'd taken inappropriately? First off - that's my kind of scandal! I wish we had MORE Leaders giving money TO us under the table rather than taking moeny FROM us But - that's not really a transparency issue either. And there were no "failing grades" on transparency or information. I mean - that's just totally made up. The G20 'debacle' was a media shitstorm to sell papers, there was nothing really wrong there. And again - not a transparency issue. The muzzling scientists thing is a bit of a media myth. We can go over that if you like but i'd suggest doing your homework first. And again - not a transparency issue, the scienists' work and research wasn't muzzled. Oh - and trudeau has kept those same laws. Soooo - is he 'muzzling scientists'? Odd how a staunch conservative like you thinks it's muzzling when the CPC does it but not Justin. Every gov't in the history of Canada has prorogued parliament. Which one hasn't. Justin has several times now and so did EVERY GOV"T IN OUR HISTORY. It gets done multiple times. The left tried to turn that into some sort of 'scandal' but EVERY single leader has done that. So .. how is that a 'transparency issue? I mean - virtually everything you said is NOT a transparency issue. Except where you just vaguely say he got "low marks" on transparency. You really have no idea what you're talking about do you. Ahhh -so quoting you specifically is 'Making up goofy straw men". Well - you're pretty goofy but if you self identify as a straw man then so be it. I assume you're real tho. (although if you were a bot it would make more sense now that i think about it) That is literally what we're discussing. Liberal voters did in fact vote in favour of that. YOU claim its' because they didn't have any options. And then said that harper made you distrust opposition that talks about transparency. Let me guess - this is yet another example of you discovering that you have no idea what you're talking about when challenged and now you're having your usual hissy fit and trying to change what we're talking about Man you really suck at this.

A very high percent of the cost of a new home comes from the cost of gov't regulation and taxation methods. If that weren't there the cost of a home would drop by almost 50 percent or more (depending on the location to a degree). ANd the only reason people are bidding up the price is that there simply isn't enough to go around. If you knew there were ten houses out there you could buy if you didn't buy THIS one - why would you go crazy bidding on this one? People bid high because they're afraid they may not find another house to bid on, or by the time they do prices will have shot up again. There is much the gov't can do - but it requires more than one thing across more than one level of gov't. Which is why everyone's afraid to tackle it.

Sadly you're correct, seems like we can't go a month without a new example but what i'm curious about is why is it always women? Have i been missing the hordes of men who have been falsely claiming first nations history?

And here's the thing. Appeasement never avoids a war, at best it deferrs it Saying "we dont' need to add ww3 to our problems" suggests that if we allow putin to have his way then he'll be happy and that will be the end of it. But history teaches us otherwise. Giving him Crimea did not make him go away happy, it emboldened him to invade Ukraine just a few years later. If we back down now, he'll know all he has to do is threaten ww3 to get whatever else he wants. Didn't work with hitler either. Just ask Neville Chamberlin. I can't think of a time in history that it did work. You beat a bully by ignoring his threats and smashing him in the face till he gets the message. THAT is how you avoid WW3, not by capitulation.

The actual judges are pretty good about that and 'reasonable' isn't always what you think. It doesn't necessarily mean YOU were being 'reasonable' at the time - just that a 'reasonable' person (ie not insane or the like) would have reacted in a similar way in those circumstances. And again - they are talking about what the prosecutors will charge on, not what the judges will convict on. There are tonnes of cases especially in ontario where the judge will find the person not guilty even if the other person is dead. I suspect if the facts we've heard are true and complete that this kid will be run through the ringer, pressured like hell to plead guilty to some crime and if he sticks it out he'll be found innocent. If you want to have some fun go poke around Canlii.org searching for firearm self defense cases. The judges reasonings will generally show you that at least in most cases the judges are reasonable, even if the prosecution is not

Awww little guy - are you still mad because you said something pretty stupid and i pointed it out, and now you're trying to massage your ego? The person who doesn't understand the difference between being charged and being convicted has nothing to teach me about law. Nobody ANYWHERE on this thread that i can see ever suggested that there's "defense of property" law. So because your previous point proved to be wrong completely, now you are trying to create some sort of argument you think you CAN win by inventing something nobody was talking about and saying that somehow is now your point. That's pretty childish And what's worse - your logic is entirely wrong. The article points out there are NUMEROUS CASES WHERE SOMEONE DID DEFEND THEMSELVES WITH A GUN AND WERE NOT CHARGED. So - if your theory was correct and there was NO defense then EVERYONE would be charged. So there obviously IS a defense under the law (not necessarily of property - nobody mentioned that) but what the article says is the defense is applied differently in practice by different jurisdictions. Further, as i said to you before CHARGED is not CONVICTED. So the fact that SOME jurisdictions choose to CHARGE and some choose not to is NOT EVIDENCE OF THE VALIDITY OF A DEFENSE. You would have to look at CONVICTIONS and see if that defense held up in court after being charged. And i can tell you that yes, it does, even in ontario. So you're wrong many times over. I don't know what kind of preschoolers you usually discuss things with to think that those kinds of debate tricks and that kind of childish argument was a good one, but step it up a bit. You're wasting my time and we're all a little dumber for having read your reply.

That's actually a good point i hadn't considered.

Sure give me your email and once we've verified it's you then we'll take it from there You can just post it here. Sure =, 4,204,500, asbboiubouaobiuadobiud oiauaoiu foiuboiua obiuaob aiub oiudbosiuboiuo iuoaubouido iuboiub osuibsodb uso[bui do zxnmbmbvsvvcvd (first initial only to save space) and obviously didn't repeat duplicates) and 'left wing'. There you go. This one was free, next time i charge,