CdnFox

No they are not. Not at all. And no, they don't base their legal system on rome. Sorry. There are similarities because it's not a bad system but in fact the roman system and china's legal system are very very different. No, you were speaking of specific laws. You can't just backtrack now. And no, my example is perfectly good - it shows that while the laws may be BASED on bibilical principles that is not to say they are the same, so even with THAT reference there's diversion. So the idea there's one ubiquitous morality for all people is obviously false. Nope - it's that we base our laws on christian beliefs, but everybody around the world has different moral values. But the fact that ours are based on christian beliefs does distinguish them from some other systems of morality. Then your point is false. Sorry - many many things the romans considered perfectly fine INCLUDING MURDER are not part of the christian moral code. So - basically if that was your point you were wrong entirely.

That's a really inappropriate attitude. It's not an overreaction for someone to be upset about someone disrespecting their country. And make no mistake, it is disrespect. Now - it's one thing to say 'well lets put it in perspective" or have a discussion but your attitude is "Screw you, your feelings on the subject don't matter and go Screw yourself".' and if that's not what you MEANT to say - that's absolutely what you actually said so be aware of that. We get NOWHERE when we just dismiss people's concerns like that. Sorry - it is a big deal to many and it deserves honest discussion. Words matter. Ask black people if being called N--- is ok. Canadians don't like being told they aren't native to this land - which land do you THINK those of us who are born here are from? And we're not going anywhere. If you don't want to be part of the solution maybe at least don't be part of the problem.

LOL - it has been the way of things for just over 40,000 years now i think

I think that's a bit of a circular argument and to be honest it's not accurate. Laws vary a GREAT deal all around the world. If morality was ubiquitous as you suggest that wouldn't be the case. No it isn't. In fact, the definition of it varies a HUGE amount. What is murder in one place might be perfectly lawful homicide somewhere else. Consider the US - there are places where in some circumstances you can shoot and kill someone legally where the same circumstances in Canada would be called murder and net you our harshest penalties (3 months in a halfway house, no pizza i believe is the current max). So no. It isn't. And? Is your point that if the bible didn't create the language for something then it's not biblical? Nobody claimed that perjury didn't exist before the bible. Murder did too, and the bible touches on that, so did coveting for that matter The bible didn't CREATE these things, it only discusses how "god" sees these things and how you should view them. No you can't. the fact is that there is no universal morality. At all. Even countries with common backgrounds and ethnicity don't have that. If you feel like it give it a shot but good luck with that. At best you might be able to come up with a few general principles but even then there will be exceptions. If you mean 'legal system' in the sense of our courts and such then it's a null issue - there wasn't a proscribed biblical model for how to try someone for a crime other than a few guidelines here and there so there;s nothing to compare, If you mean our actual laws then no. Like hell no' If you mean our base morality then you'd still have a very rough time making that case. And lets not forget that the western roman empire (the byzantine) lasted a lot longer that the eastern one, influenced the world even more and was christian. Morality be it biblical or otherwise often does have a practical element. In a way that's a chicken and egg argument. But there is no doubt that the specific collection of moral beliefs generally attributed to Christianity as a whole is unique as a system when compared to others.

Not really. I mean, he did at least try to address the issue and points to him for that. But - it turns out there's a THIRD way to balance the budget - hand some one else the bill. Which is largely what he did - he downloaded costs to the provinces and kept the money he should have transferred. I believe funding for health care for example went as low as 18 percent. He downloaded a bunch of other costs as well. It's not 'leadership' or 'courageous' at all to simply say 'I can't pay this... ummm... here, you pay it" The rest of his money came in the end from robbing the EI accounts. He took 70 BILLION dollars in money that had been collected on behalf of tax payers for a specific purpose and stole it to use for his budget. Literally more than all his 'surpluses' combined. Theft of the people's money isn't 'leadership' either. Even if you can get away with it legally. Other than that - we paid the deficit down thanks to the GST and massive trade surplus the Free Trade agreement created. Both of which he promised to scrap and both of which he kept. THat was someone else's leadership. Chretien did do a few noteworthy things and you can't blow off his achievements entirely, but your portrayal of his debt fighting is not accurate nor warranted. He did not beat the problem by leadership.

I can see why you feel that way and it's possible, but honestly i doubt it. There are serious power fractures inside Russia. And it's not like putin can fire off nukes on his own. I think if they start to lose crimea then we'll see some serious efforts at regime change at home, and nobody will be interested in sparking a nuclear war. Russia's new offensive is not going well, there's rumors that they will do a major aviation blitz to try to break through in the next 1 - 4 weeks. We'll see. If they can't make it happen then Ukraine will get it's chance at an offensive in about 2-3 months. We will see how much they can manage to take back if that happens.

At the risk of being hated by both sides.... I feel like both sides in this argument are making some good points (and perhaps overhyping some). But - isn't the solution then to look at plug in hybrids? Environmentally you get about 90 percent of the benefits of electric vehicles with hybrids, depending on where you are perhaps more. You don't need to worry about massive electric infrastructure changes. That problem is bigger than people think, especially for those in condos or townhouses (which is a very sizeable portion of the public these days and growing). You need about a quarter of the batteries, so you are putting less strain on a limited resource giving more time for the next gen of batteries to be born. And the vehicles can still operate with the batteries at low capacity from age so there's less 'urgency' to replace them. They can still do long range road trips without having dedicated charging stations everywhere. It seems like for those who are proponents of EV's, Maxing out this tech until battery and electrification issues are resolved is really the best of both worlds. I mean - a sizeable hunk of the country still burns fossil fuels to produce electricity in the first place so until we beat that i'm not sure the gain for FULL ev's is worth the pain. I shall now put on my helmet and body armour and await your replies.

My dog can't tell the difference between political parties. Everyone smarter than him can. However, if you are one of those poor unfortunates who feel there's no difference between any of the parties, your solution isn't how you vote, it's what you do between votes. Voting is the final (and in some ways least important) part of the democratic process. There's a LOT of work we're supposed to be dong as voters (or even non voters ) before that which is critical. For example, get involved with your local riding association. Pick a good candidate to run for your riding and work with them to help set policy. You'd be amazed at how much influence a person can have at the riding level, and that can translate directly to your concerns being expressed in caucus. Attend the Policy Conventions - parties do take policy conventions very seriously and you can propose policy to vote on for the convention, you can go and vote on policy that's been proposed, and have important discussions with others within the party to share ideas. They matter a lot. Help pick a good leader. Not always the easiest thing to do but do your best and try to select someone who's going to be able to get the job done. And be useful at election time - volunteer, scruitineer, help with GOTV duties. People remember the volunteers - they are who gets you elected. If you're just sitting back and waiting to vote for whomever everyone ELSE has selected without any input from you, then you're really not doing your job in a democracy, and you can't be surprised when you don't get the results you want.

If you want to make the claim that the data you presented is evidence of the phenomenon you claim it is and be taken seriously, yes. That's not an interpretation of "professional responsibility". Its a factual requirement of a logical and reasoned position. If you wish for your ideas to be considered valid by intelligent people then you have certain criteria your argument must meet and you have failed to reach that requirement. Sooooooo...... So what you're saying in the end is that you are unable to actually draw a connection between the data and your conclusion and you're unhappy. Well - that's fine but you can't blame anyone for not talking you seriously. I pointed out a legitimate problem with your position and instead of addressing it all you could do was reply with this nonsense. Which again is fine but don't expect to be taken seriously then.

Well they'll certainly try. The CBC will as well of course But powerful as both are, they can only do so much.

Depends on how you describe murder. Many would allow the killings of people that we would condemn. Hell - many parts of the states would. And there are many christian countries who have allowed gay relationships for example. France comes to mind, they had a special legal arrangement for it centuries ago. So.... it's one thing to suggest our laws are based on christian values. It's another to say our laws are directly biblical.

it is against the law. Just not criminal law. It's not just grounds for divorce, it's a LEGISLATED grounds for divorce. Civil law is still law. There are a number. The scandanavians for example. And of course there are some where teh religion actually supported it such as Japan, tho it was directly tied to pedophilia with a tradition of priests having an acolyte 'boyfriend' till he came of age as a man and went his own way. Same with the samurai. So i don't know if we want to go there. But the point is that religion or no pretty much all societies disagree on various aspects of 'morality'. Christianity may form the common basis for what our forefathers considered 'appropriate' including sex, theft, murder etc. But that's not to say that while that may be the genesis (heh) of the laws that it some how means our laws are biblical directly.

Well like most contentious subjects the numbers change quite a bit. They used to be very high (in the high 40s as i recall) before harper won. BC at the time was even higher. It went way down during harper's term. Now it's back up a bit but fluctuating. Still definitely well below what would be needed. But things can change, and suddenly. The potential is there. I really don't think it'll happen tho if it's JUST alberta.

well we do have laws against adultery. That's still considered a bad thing under the law. And there are societies historically that didn't have 'murder' as an absolute prohibition . Or had definitions of it so loose we wouldn't recognize it. Meanwhile many societies without a bible have been against gays. sooooo ... I think nobody would say that our laws are "Copied" from the bible. But I think that many of the things we perceive as being human rights and worthy of incorporation into society come from the morals we historically derive from the bible and overall those aren't bad moral principles Yeah. Not happy about being right about that But i think it's human nature, we as a species have always wanted to 'punish' "wrongspeak" and there's only a few brief periods in history where we really manage to rise above that. Sigh - sometimes it's hard to think of humans as the best we could do with 4 billion years of evolution - but whatcha gonna do

No no - this is as low as it's been since 2009. But there's a lot of pent up market just waiting for the financial situation to stablize and when it does they'll come off the benches like mad, same as last time. LOL - not laughing at you but that kind of sounds like the bumper sticker of the entire real estate market for many right now yes although less so if you're talking about newfoundland or nova scotia for various reasons. But we've seen that kind of price hike in many areas. And "insane " is the right word for it. Historically prices for homes go up maybe 2 - 5 percent per year, slightly better than inflation. The big perk was that you controlled your mortgage so if interest rates didn't spike you were going to pay less than rent before long and protect yourself against future inflation for your living space. Now - there are simply not enough homes. People are desperate and will pay whatever they can afford to get into a home. For years now - MANY years - it's been a question of how much OVER asking should you put your offer in for and that's in many markets. If you don't get a home now, you might not get one ever is the common thought. With regards to the situation you specifically mention TONNES of people are retiring to the atlantics because they can sell their modest home in Vancouver/toronto etc for 1.5 million and buy acreage there for 350 k and have a hell of a retirement boost as well as a nice home. So 350 is nothing - but as competition goes up so do the prices.

Just to be clear - it sounds like your argument is that because there's a couple of laws (literally 2) that you feel were biblically based that you don't like, this somehow means that all laws that may descend from biblical belief are wrong. Murder is a biblical no no. Are you suggesting we should allow it? Pretty sure perjury is too, quite a few others i can think of. Unless you can demonstrate that the majority of laws that come from religious morality are bad, you can't dismiss them just because there's a couple you don't like. The fact is that we generally run into trouble when we try to base our laws entirely on morality rather than people's rights anyway, but that's another subject. ROFLMAO - you think we don't have 'Blasphemy" laws that punish speech currently? LOL! And the ndp are suggesting we should add to that with making it a criminal offense to dare question the use of the term 'genocide' with regards to the first nations We absolutely see that all the time right now, we've just changed the 'religion' involved. We do not live in an era of free speech. You can pay a very heavy price for saying something against the dogma of the day.

If you can't communicate properly, don't blame the others around you. I have no interest in taking into account your conversations with OTHER people when we're talking (unless i was at least party to that as well so i get the reference) You can do TONNES about housing. You absolutely can encourage and entice builders to build more. You absolutely can work with banks (or start a national real estate development bank if you have to) in order to make more money available and building apartments is fine, just build more homes. Obviously it would be nice to see some thought go into an apartment/townhouse/detached ratio that makes the most sense but whatever. And you absolutely could afford it - it's the land cost that drives up prices so badly as a rule. I'm not sure why you would think those particular things are not possible. In fact they're relatively easy. Most people aren't that dumb. Most people would be quite happy if they could pay 3 grand a month and have a home. Rent in vancouver is about 2700 now for a one bedroom. So lets not take the lowest denominator and pretend it's the average. Well sure. In fact - 65 grand at 18 percent interest would have run just about 1 grand a month in costs to own that home. So you spent 1/3 of your income on the house with your dual income. If we could get housing prices down to 1/3 of hte average two person income i think the kids today would be pretty happy.

Well if NOBODY can then the gov't will build them and control where people live. Which the libs would love But lots of people can afford them. Homes are selling right now. We're in a serious low and there were still 35 k homes sold in January - the worst month of the year for homes sales. It's just the lower end of the economic scale that can't afford them so they'll build for the top end. Pretty easy. You're missing the problem entirely. And the fact is the way our system is designed and operating right now developers will ALWAYS build behind demand, never in front of it. I mean - what's your excuse for why we weren't building enough homes for since 2016, when prices were increasing year after year and homes were being sold as fast as they were finished? You are correct that we have to make a number of changes in order to get developers to catch up right now. The system is designed to punish developers for building homes ahead of need. The interest rate issue will resolve itself in the next 3 or 4 years max and possibly much sooner, and then those buyers who have been waiting will come into the market and home prices will go up again, but we still won't be building enough homes. And if your point is that it's going to take real work to solve that, along with a fair bit of time, then yes. That's kind of my point

Some of the takeaways: This is unchanged since the January poll The libs are falling hard in quebec. It's a close race in ontario but the CPC is still ahead. Aside from the occasional blip right around an announcement the liberals are continuing to stay in pretty negative territory. The polling suggests that the CPC would win a strong minority. It's not unusual for the incumbent to take a bit of a dip in the middle of a term but it does look like there's a lot of fatigue for the liberal brand and more interesting the NDP are also down, and there's not likely a lot of votes to steal from them. Obviously with 3 years to go (theoretically) anything can change but it's looking like the cpc will be in a strong position to take the next one. The question will be can they do a majority? PP will have to continue to build on his successes so far and break into the older voting block that so far hasn't been as strong for him

Social crisis and civil unrest go hand in hand. We've had demonstrations and worse over some of the issues you mentioned. Nonsense. You cannot make houses affordable without building more. If we build enough for our needs then they become affordable, you absolutely cannot do it the other way around. There is no way to make homes affordable if there isn't enough homes. The rich can afford them so no problem. There's no point buying a home as a foreigner if they can;'t be sold or rented either is there. So that's not the issue. Housing starts are down due to instabilities in the market. Remember, developers borrow money too in order to build homes and they're just as worried those rates may go up. You can't say how much you should play for the land today if you don't know what your interest rates will be till you sell, which is usually about 3 years later. If we have enough homes then prices fall, same as with any product. If we have enough homes then rents also go down. If we have enough homes it really doesn't matter how many are owned by foreigners, there's still enough for people to live. If we don't have enough then you can't fix anything. Rents continue to go up and owning a home continues to go up. People haven't realized this much but the cost of OWNING a home has STILL been going up for everyone except those who can afford to pay cash. You still pay a higher mortgage now that rates are higher even if prices are down. Everything comes back to the number of houses. Sure. Unfortunately Canadians made the wrong choices there and now the damage is being done. There is no way to 'quickly' fix the problem, it will be generational. By the time Justin leaves office even if he is voted out in the next election the developers will be focused mostly on producing higher end homes for the upper half of the income scale and there simply won't be enough build to go around. People just don't realize how bad of a problem that is going to be

Sure, it's hardly surprising that i can't give a full account on a small forum But it is more accurate than not. And for canada that would be even more so. It doesn't need to be absolute to be real. But individual countries ignored it. It was recognized that while the vote was a little hokey, there was a legit vote and there did seem to be strong feelings in that region to side with russia. And there were reasons for that historically. Compare that with the recent 'votes' which were obvious shams, which NOBODY has taken seriously and every country condemns. Different story. There can be no dobut that if Alberata wanted to try it as a seperate nation it would happen. And other countries would recognize it. But i don't think it would last long without at least some of the other provinces getitng involved. Unless we're talking about some hybrid sovereignty-association crap.

Sure, good examples. but they do. And they have no practical way of making it terribly hard. It's an issue if it's just alberta - but there's only so far they would go either. Alberta could likewise make things more challenging. But at the end of the day for alberta to go it alone without at least a few other provinces - even if Canada remained friendly and the terms were good, i don't think they'd make it. Mind you if they did split there's a very good chance that in short order bc and sask would as well. And that would change things quite a bit.

As a general rule of thumb, the more self reliant you are then the more you'll tend to be right wing. People are more self reliant in the country away from services. The easier you have things and the more things are done FOR you the more you will tend to be socialist or left wing. And that is definitely more to be found in teh cities. Also the more money you have the more you tend to be on the left leaning side of the spectrum historically. People in the country want to be left alone to do their own thing. They use firearms to hunt and protect themselves and their property and animals against all sorts of threats, and they don't appreciate being told they are evil people for that. They are less interested in funding health care for drug addicts while they don't even have a doctor or medical emergency room in their entire community for people who DON"T make horrible life choices. They tend to be focused on actual solutions, not just lip service and virtue signalling. You can't talk a fence into repairing itself. The left tends to focus on issues where their talk and what action they do take doesnt' fix anything. The carbon tax for example hasn't reduced pollution but it has driven up costs especially in places where there IS no public transit. And because left wing people tend to congregate in cities for various reasons it is common for the left to ignore or even hurt those outside those regions IF they feel it will win them votes IN those vote rich areas. The 'us vs them' tactic is prevalent in today's politics but it's always been there somewhat. Also people in cities tend to be more formally educated - and our colleges and universities are extremely left wing focused. They work VERY hard to repress right wing viewpoints of any kind and highlight left wing thinking. This is not as bad in Canada as it is in the states yet, but it is bad. Anyway, those are some of the main reasons. Obviously that's making simple of a complex issue.

You make a compelling case Exactly - the correct answer isn't whether or not HE should quit - it's that they ALL should ? Well there was a day when that happened a lot more but sadly these days the politicians who break the rules tend to say "i take full responsibility", give everyone the middle finger, and then just to back to whatever scams they feel like without condequence

Thanks! There are many worldwide, it has essentially been recognized by the global community that if a region votes to leave a larger body then that should be respected and recognized. This is why many countries had to bite their tounge in 2014 over crimea. Getting closer to home all of this was addressed during the constitutional crises of the 80's and 90's. The Clarity act in article 3 outlines when the feds are required to negotiate a secession resulting from a vote. We are a confederation of provinces after all, and if a province can opt into that confederation then there must be a mechanism for it to leace as well. oF course that creates some of it's own problems - if a province can secede then why not a smaller section? Could upper quebec choose to stay in canada even if there was a vote where a majority in quebec chose to leave? What about first nations communities? Could a reserve vote to stay or form it's own country? If you allow the province you pretty much have to allow for that as well. So it can get sticky But there can be no doubt in the end - if a "clear majority' of albertans want to seperate, then the feds are required to entertain that process and the international community will recognize that right. And the feds would have a very weak position to try to 'force' them to stay.