CdnFox

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,

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.