CdnFox

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,

I see you're playing that old trick of trying to flood people with mulitple responses in the hopes one gets missed and you can pretend you "won" or whatever LOL I'll deal with all your ...er.... 'thinking' in one spot Facts. And no it would save us nothing. The fact that there are issues on the first nations side doesn't change anything we'd owe. I've explained this to you. I know it's difficult but try to pay attention. Ummm - you realize what i originally believed was that you thought the res schools were a bad thing. Soooo - believing you thought they were bad was 'retarded'? You don't spend a lot of time thinking before you type do you. ROFLMAO Is THAT why you're posting multiple posts? Hoping i wont' be able to find where you were being stupid? Bad news ... they're all pretty much you being stupid God you REALLY REALLY aren't very good at this It's like having my own trained monkey to watch

I did. YOU were the one who questioned it. With a bit of a freak out as it happens. I guess maybe my assumption wasn't quite as correct as i originally believed. Normally when people agree with something they don't have a hissy fit

It is VERY obviously not. As i said - a bit of a comprehension problem on your part.

Ahhh you've gone back to the 'pretend ignorance and demand he repost thing endlessly instead" mode i see. You assured me you weren't that kind of person. I guess we'll add dishonesty to racism and hatred on your list of character flaws

Ahhh so it IS a comprehension problem on your part. Fair enough. When two parties reconcile it is VERY rare for only one party to be at 'fault' if you will. Reconciliation requires both parties to recognize their role in whatever brought them to the current situation and that includes all the wrongs and slights, real and perceived. Only then can you resolve them and set them aside and move forward. And of course it wouldn't affect legal actions. Why would it? I don't think you understand what reconciliation is I'm sure you delude yourself into being sure about a lot of things,

You were the one arguing it. I assumed you weren't - but then when i said that you kicked up a big fuss. I guess if j don't like your answer right now i can always wait 5 minutes and get your new answer then, you seem to change your mind pretty frequently.

You changed your tune about your goal when i pointed out your racism and hate based posting, And you seem to do that a fair bit, So i pointed out that hatred and racism are bad things for you and you shouldn't allow that into your thinking. And holy crap have you sure spent a lot of time arguing that point. Hatred and racism isn't healthy. You should not participate in that kind of thikning. If you don't agree then fine, i can't force you,

Ahhh. So you ARE the type who tries to cover their lack of intelligent argument by demanding people repeat the same things again and again. Kinda thought so. It was mostly your display of hatred and racism that lead me to think you needed to hear that, Hatred and racism is not healthy. You should avoid having those kinds of thoughts if you can. There's people who can help if you struggle

Ahhhh yes - the kind who tries to cover a lack of argument by making people repost stuff again and again. Then i repost it and a few posts later you demand it again. It's there in black and white easy enough for anyone to read (unless you're also the type to edit or delete posts)

Pretty much what 'unless' always means. "except on the condition that : under any other circumstance than". I pretty much doubt you and that's pretty clear. You were wrong, unless you believe that the horrors that went on in the residential schools are good. In which case - if you believe that then you were right, Says the guy who got completely confused by the word "unless" ROFLMAO

How much you wanna bet a bunch of them knew she was "passing" and didn't say anything till she got caught, and are now making a show of how outraged they are. It's pretty fashionable these days it would seem for women (especially on the left) to claim first nations status. It has a lot of benefits for them to be thought of as 'first nations'. Pretty bad behavior - they're right to strip her of her degree.

So you're saying that when two groups are reconciling, only one group should ever be allowed to bring up issues in the past? I'm not sure you know what reconciliation is

Kinda looks like your attempts to explain all the things you've said you later regret. Anyway - like i said, hatred and racism are bad things, you should probably try to avoid them moving forward.

Sorry - are you calling them savages now? I sure didn't. Dude - you're starting to walk over a line So you're saying they were dumb to have their land taken? One has nothing to do with the other. I see you can't address the point. Obviously they were informed. No it doesn't - that's insane leftist claptrap. The fact that some things were "Ideal" as you phrase it does in no way take away from the horror of the atrocities. Why would it? If 80 percent of a person's life was great and then they were killed horribly by the nazis, would that some how make the holocaust any less of a horrible thing? Speaking the truth is always desirable. Whether it's convenient to your narrative or not. Fact is the first nations frequently visited teh schools, the kids went home in the summers and talked with their parents, there was plenty of information and this is something the first nations wanted. They made informed decisions. The fact there were some monsters lurking at some of these places is not an issue of 'informed' decisions.

It wasn't manditory till the 20's, and even then as you say could be excused. So the program was in place a long time, enough for several generations to get through the system, before they were 'forced' to. A friend of mine noted that when he grew up about 80 years ago in a catholic orphanage in quebec the discipline and conditions were about the same as described. I don't think it had much to do with first nations, i think that's just how they were. Compare that to the nazi-level food starvation experiments in sask residential schools. I have no idea why THAT's not the hot topic when it comes to residential schools.

Gotta do what you gotta do. Even here we have to put them down sometimes. I see what you did there

Yeah - that's not how law works. A CONVICTION might prove that. Charges don't. People are charged and found to be innocent all the time. But hey little guy - thanks for coming out and trying your best!

Riiiighhht. Really. And which action specifically of harper's made you 'jaded' like that? And why would that be some sort of reason to vote in FAVOR of actual corruption and bad governance, which you claimed the liberal voters were forced to because they didn't have an alternative? And if you're claiming that TRUDEAU is somehow transparent and accountable and therefore there's no other option then i think we can all agree you're either lying or insane. Although i suppose both could be true You know - you have a really bad habit of saying stuff that you later have to walk back and dance around. Maybe you should consider your position before speaking the first time. Liberal voters chose corruption, bad governance AND a severe lack of transparency ( and new laws to go with it) - pretending they didn't have an option is a little silly.