CdnFox

Yes. We absolutely can. And PP has said he'll do exactly that. There was a time when the CBC filled a critical purpose which could not be achieved otherwise in a normal market environment. Those days are over. All we need to do is say 'there is no money for the cbc in next years budget at all". They will still exist, they can go find other revenue (they make other revenue now), they can become an independent company. If they can appeal to the market they can make money and pay their own way. If not they die. But either way- i don't have to pay for them any more.

The climate imperative is leading people to make bad decisions. As to the time line 12 years doesn't even come close the way things are. It would not be possible to accomodate that unless massive changes started taking place today which the gov't has no provision for. We can flap our arms as hard as we like, but it won't help. If the gov't wanted to do something useful it might have done something like "we'll put 20 billion on the table and a new law that every province must be able to provide for ev charging and infrastructure within 12 years". Then things might have moved along. But as it is - the goal is outrageously unrealistic. And that causes people to basically ignore it. And when it doesn't work and the next idea is proposed people will be 'we tried before, i don't want to try again'. This is just the worst kind of harmful virtue signalling from trudeau. It cost him nothing so what the heck and who cares if it hurts rather than helps, he'll be gone by then

Every time you say that, i post a quote showing it. And every time you just sputter and change the subject. Everyone can see what you said - its become a common tactic for you to pretend you didn't say things you clearly did. The Romans wrote the new testament. In greek. And THEN translated it to their own language which was latin. And these romans worked on it for centuries. Because romans wrote it. Well - i tihnk we've definitively demonstrated that you know less about the history of these things than the average 5 year old That's pretty hilarious The romans didn't write the bible, new testament or old. And roman values and laws were very different than the ones in the bible. Which is one of the reasons that old rome kept throwing these people to the lions. If you agree with someone's beliefs and morals you don't go tossing them to a hungry kitty I think this conversation has probably reached the end of it's useful life I think you need to do a LOT of reading before you'll be in a position to make any useful comments moving forward. "The romans wrote the bible in greek" LOLOLOL!

Well that's not what they get paid for. which is kind of the point. If they won't do what they're paid for we should stop paying them. Then they're absolutely free to go ahead and do that if they wish - IF people are willing to pay for it directly. They will have to be accountable to the market forces. ANd i have no problem with that.

Well in fairness i think it depends on the goals. Setting a goal for ev sales or conversion before we have the tech doesn't seem practical to me. I think if we wanted to set a goal for having the tech then that would be a different story. If something is hard to do but doable, then setting a hard goal and 'forcing' everyone to figure it out is potentially useful. But if you say 'by 2030 everyone must fly to the moon by flapping their arms"... well that's not useful. And i kind of feel we're there with ev stuff just yet. I don't believe it's possible to achieve the goal the feds have set without doing severe damage to our economy for no significant benefit. Here's the thing - we didn't need to force people to give up horses and buy cars. When the tech was there and the time was right people just did it because it made sense. I feel like that will be the case here. As you say everyone loves the concept. As things change to make that a more practical solution people will migrate to it of their own free will. Trying to force that just encourages poor execution and problems with adapting, and that could delay the process far more than it speeds it.

But you see simply doing that MAKES you a 'denier' under the law Unless you're saying the number should be higher, that's fine. And this is a major problem right now. Anyone even questioning elements of "doctrine" may be found to be guilty of 'hate speech", regardless of facts. For example - if you say "according to the records the vast vast majority of children who died in residential schools did so from tuberculosis which was also killing people on the reserves at about the same rate", you would be saying something that is factually defensible and likely true. And - it would NOT be saying that the residential schools were a good thing or that the first nations didn't suffer there or anything like that. It would simply be pointing out that the children didn't die of some sort of abuse. But - you will be called a genocide denier and the ndp is currently proposing a law to make that hate speech punishable under criminal law. People should be free to point out the truths, or have their own ideas or own interpretations of the facts without fear. Even if it upsets some people.

Sure - who wouldn't consider it. As a concept it's great. And for many people that concept is a practical reality, but for many more it's not until the tech and infrastructure changes substantially. I think we're basically in agreement at this point - the tech will have to change before ev vehicles are practical on a wide scale, although they certainly are for some individuals now.

Probably true. And it would tend to interrupt and disrupt the natural market forces even further, which means the problem gets worse. I did mention it would be a disaster But i don't know if that would stop them from trying. ?

Well i only responded to your statement about him being subsidized, but if you're asking me to weigh in on other matters.... regardless of how it is earned a pension is private money. Whether the pension came from a public or private employer is of no consequence. It's like buying a house - whether the gov't built your house or a contractor did makes no difference, is YOUR house now. It's got nothing to do with how you conduct yourself in public, you already own it However - if you are taking money and getting paid and you create a platform as a result of that employment and then use that platform to attack your employer..... yeah that's a very different issue. If you want to create and use a platform to spread a political message or attack someone then really you should not be taking public money to do that (unless of course that's what the public job is. I mean - otherwise we couldn't have an official opposition ) There are a lot of nuances there which i'm skipping, and it is important to remember there's a difference between criticizing a gov't policy and the country as a whole. But in a nutshell, there you go For the election? We've been over that. That's like saying that "there's only one source of money so we're ALL subsidized by the gov't." That would be what experts refer to as a "steaming pile" A tax write off isn't a subsidy. Receiving a govt service like health care isn't a personal subsidy. Having an armed forces to protect us isn' t a subsidy. You can't just call something a subsidy because it involves "gov't money" somehow. We pay for political parties to participate in elections because we want to eliminate the power of money from controlling elections. That's a chocie we make to protect ourselves as voters, not a subsidy to others. And if doorknob manages to ever win a seat and gets paid by the people, even then he will be hired specifically to crtisize the gov't, so that's a little different. However - if he used is political posiiton to advertize and sell coca-cola.... that would be really bad. And we all get that - but somehow the idea of a person selling an agenda that's not part of their job by using the stage their gov't funded empoyment gave them DOESN"T seem problematic to you?

Sure, especially if you have the ability to install a proper level 2 charger at home. And i fully support people having as many buying choices as they can get. I don't think there's all that much dispute there - i think the issue is when you try to scale it and make it the default solution for people. I don't think the solution scales well at all (right now with today's tech and infrastructure). I honestly believe that we really couldn't support more than about 5 percent of the population having full ev's without major and massive infrastructure changes that would be extremely costly and probably would not be worth the 'benefits' we'd get from making the changes. And i think that's where the waters get muddy and it's hard to actually work out the numbers and benefits to get a clear answer on that. I still believe we're missing a trick not encouraging better development of hybrid or hybrid like tech. THe vast majority of drives are short range and you can create a much more efficient engine if it can run at a constant speed. Other than that, we need to wait for better and more practical tech to emerge.

I've seen that reported in a few places - that's absolutely hilarious

No, i mean LARGE numbers. Most provinces have some social housing, and that's fine. It's not really intended to resolve a shortage of housing. But what we have seen historically is that gov'ts try to take over a substantial hunk of the provision of new housing thinking the private market won't get it done fast enough or cheap enough - so they start building tens of thousands of 'govt rental' units. In England we saw a similar reaction back in the day where the gov't bought up housing and started to build row housing. The Iron Lady put an end to that disaster and turned things around but it had already gone very badly by then,

I seey our english is as sharp as your wit Oh look - yet again you try to pretend you didn't say something that you clearly did. Yawn. In fairness i wouldn't want to admit to saying half the stuff you do either, But they didn't. Which is the point. You keep saying it but it's absolutely not true. As i've noted. Which was the point i made. You really aren't very good at this are you The romans did not write the bible LOL Oh my god And i love that you think anyone just sat down and "wrote" the bible, like they got it all done in a few months and sent it to the publisher It's like "Harry Potter and the Holy Spirit" in your mind ? Ahhh - i see that your comprehension challenges are kicking in. Let me say a few things a little slower for you. The morality of the bible is radically different than the morality of rome or roman law. There came a point where a 'second' roman empire started, and that was largely founded on CHRISTIANITY- not the previous roman moral and ethical codes. It survived for about 1400 years. But it was based on the bible from pretty much the get go. The bible represents a complete set of morals and principles that represent a unique ethos. There is nothing else quite like it. It is not simply a mash up of roman culture. And the Romans didn't "write the bible". And of course the bible has been the basis of the moral codes of many countries before ours came along and our culture is based on the christian culture and bible. Is there anything else you need cleared up? Like maybe how to button your shirt or something complex like that?

Of course. That's why they changed the law to forbid reporting results till all the polls were closed because people in the west were always pissed off THe west was a tiebreaker. But that only underpins my point. If the CPC wants to win, then only ontario needs to change its' mind. As long as ontario is willing to prop up the corrupt regime of Justin Trudau and as long they support corruption and bad politics, the cpc will be hard pressed to win.

Here's the actual abacus report - they just released it to the public today https://abacusdata.ca/canadian-politics-polling-abacus-data-february-2023/ Some interesting new tidbits - Jagmeet's approval is plummeting. The non-coalition-coalition is not working out for the ndp in general but it seems to be pretty bad for Jaggers specifically. That probably means we're at least a year away from even a possible election at minimum. The libs are low, and the ndp is even worse. Jaggers will still try to find wedge issues that he can use to make himself look different and better than the libs (without actually upsetting the libs) but unless he finds something really sticky it would be death for him to go to the polls now.

Well there's the kick in the teeth. Eventually it has to come out. The logic for hiding it form the parent is that it's POSSIBLE that the parent MIGHT be angry and become violent or something, despite the fact that the parents in these cases don't have a history of that. (if they do call the cops and have them arrested) Yet - eventually this HAS to come out - now whatever feelings the parents may have with regards to the transition are COMPOUNDED by the sense of betrayal by the system, and the sense of betrayal from the child who has basically said they trust their teachers more than their parents and they believe their parents would physically harm them, which is probably the furthest thing from the truth. So if there was already a chance that the family would turn their back on them or be unsupportive, that chance just jumped several hundred percent. And the parents would never trust the school again. That might be a problem if they have OTHER children in the school system. The whole practice is wrong morally and it's wrong logically.

You are incorrect. It has been upheld many times by the supreme court that a thing doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in the charter or the constitution to be a right. And generally people have the right to do anything except where restricted by the gov't specifically and such restrictions are not to be unreasonable (there's actually a recognized test for that). When alberta challenged the feds over gun control the courts ruled that firearms ownership IS INDEED A RIGHT. But that it's a tertiary right and that the gov't is within it's rights to regulate it in the name of safety and security in the country. If you are of the opinion that ONLY rights SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the charter exist legally in canada, there are SEVERAL groups who would like to have a word with you.

I do believe there are still strong cases to be made for EV's in specific individual cases. I don't think they're a horrible idea over all. I just don't think they scale well and attempting to shoe horn a majority of the population into that solution will end in disaster on several levels.

Well a pension is not a subsidy. Seriously,- c'mon And elections canada doesn't subsidize his party, elections canada pays for the election. That is not remotely the same thing. When we have an election then Elections canada covers the cost on behalf of the taxpayer. It is the TAXPAYER who is the beneficiary. This is in order to provide the taxpayer a free and fair democratic process. So no - that's not subsidizing him personally. I"m quite sure he's getting paid, but he's not getting subsidized.

That would be bad enough but unfortunately i think it's worse. I think they have now gotten to the point where they are completely rogue and will pursue whatever left wing agenda is in their heads. If they'd rather see the liberals in power - then they deliberately organize their publications in such a way as to support that. IF they don't like the convoy as many on the left didn't, then they deliberately lie and print false information in order to vilify it. If for some reason the decided they didn't like trudeau then they would be slanting the news to get rid of him. We've seen their recent completely unsubstantiated attack on danielle smith. They are a power unto themselves. They believe they are entitled to their money and nobody can stop them. They don't just report events - they want to control them. They want to be a political power within the country with no master. They have to go

errr..... well alrighty then.

We need to be clear that the problem is not 'immigration'. Strong levels of immigration (certainly compared to other countries) is a positive thing for Canada. This really isn't about immigration. It's about not keeping infrastructure including houses, health, etc growing at the same rate as our population is. And just to be blunt - we are experiencing this worse than any other country anywhere by a huge factor. We build far fewer homes per capita than just about anyone else in the g7 and our population, both permanent and temporary, is growing at a very high rate per capita and accelerating. And worse - as i mentioned the way our whole system is structured currently developers will ALWAYS be building behind demand. In other words - if you cut immigration today development would slow within a short time and the problem would remain and grow worse albeit at a slightly slower pace. Solving this will require some pretty radical changes and the feds would likely have to lead that charge. And even if they do that the fact is that it will take a minimum of a decade after we start till the problem is brought under control, and possibly up to 2 before it's resolved and things are sloser to normal. What i'm concerned will happen is that people will grow impatient and a left wing gov't will offer to 'fix' the problem by building a bunch of 'gov't rental housing' in large numbers to rent out at 'affordable rates', and that will be a disaster in and of itself. Theres no big problems with a gov't doing that a little bit, but if they try solve this problem that way it will be a catastrophe.

Not till he wins a seat he isn't.

Why are you being dishonest about goal posts being moved? There is none. At least when you look at our 'hate' speech as it's used today. It can be considered hate to state that a biological male is a male if they preferred to be thought of as a female. But that is in no way hatred at all, it's a factually correct statement. Some people just don't like other people saying it and it offends their sense of what is right and wrong, but that's just their opinion. It could be considered blasphemy to suggest that the universe MAY have come into being as an act of causation and evolution, and not by any deity's hand. But that's a factual statement - that may be how it happend. Some people just don't like other people saying it and it offends their sense of what is right and wrong, but that's just their opinion. The only 'difference' occurs when one group tries to claim the issues THEY care about are more important than the other's so it's "Justified" in their case. But no, it's exactly the same thing. In both cases it's people saying something that another person doesn't like and that other person wraps themselves in 'righteous indignation' and demands the other person be prevented saying such things by force of law regardless if they're true or not. Suppressing an "offensive" opinion or fact in the name of "A Greater Good" where no one is actually threatened and no crime is being proposed or committed is absolutely common to both. It's just a case of whether or not you prefer to wrap yourself in holy indignation or social justice outrage. Bullshit. I just did it without one and frankly you have no interest in analyzing anything. You are pursuing a rather cheezy online debating trick where you are afraid you'll lose the discussion as is so you try to drag it into another direction by getting mired into the specifics of one example after another, possibly with a little sealioning thrown in for good measure. As you tried to do with the native issue i posted. Very dishonest.

Yeah - but he's still a dink right? Putin?