CdnFox

Been over that a trillion times. I'm not repeating myself again and again and again. If you're too much of a coward to address what i've already clearly said on that subject then go change your diapers and find someone to debate about whether cyclops or wolverine would win ffs. Been answered 100 times now, you're in full on coward mode, running and hiding from what i said and just repeating yourself. far /fär/ "Far" is a versatile word used primarily as an adverb or adjective to indicate a significant distance in space or time, or a high degree of measurement. [1, 2] Common Meanings & Examples 1. Distance in Space or Time (Adverb / Adjective) [1] Meaning: At, to, or from a great distance. Examples: We didn't hike far. We live far from the city center. The far side of the moon. [1, 2, 3, 4] 2. Extent or Degree (Adverb) Meaning: To an advanced point, or "much" and "considerably". Examples: This approach is far better than the old one. She will go far in her career. [1, 2, 3] Common Idioms and Phrases So far: Up to this point. ("So far, everything is going well.") By far: By a large margin or amount. ("She is by far the best student.") As far as: To the extent that. ("As far as I know, the store is closed.") [1, 2] Related Grammar Forms When comparing distances, "far" has irregular forms: [1, 2] Further / Farther: Used to indicate a greater distance (e.g., "We need to drive farther.") Furthest / Farthest: The maximum distance (e.g., "Who ran the farthest?") [1, 2, 3] far /fär/ "Far" is a versatile word used primarily as an adverb or adjective to indicate a significant distance in space or time, or a high degree of measurement. [1, 2] Common Meanings & Examples 1. Distance in Space or Time (Adverb / Adjective) [1] Meaning: At, to, or from a great distance. Examples: We didn't hike far. We live far from the city center. The far side of the moon. [1, 2, 3, 4] 2. Extent or Degree (Adverb) Meaning: To an advanced point, or "much" and "considerably". Examples: This approach is far better than the old one. She will go far in her career. [1, 2, 3] Common Idioms and Phrases So far: Up to this point. ("So far, everything is going well.") By far: By a large margin or amount. ("She is by far the best student.") As far as: To the extent that. ("As far as I know, the store is closed.") [1, 2] Related Grammar Forms When comparing distances, "far" has irregular forms: [1, 2] Further / Farther: Used to indicate a greater distance (e.g., "We need to drive farther.") Furthest / Farthest: The maximum distance (e.g., "Who ran the farthest?") [1, 2, 3] ' It's a three letter word and you needed it explained to you. Shameful.

Sorry, but trump Always Chickens out. That's why he hates our poultry supply management Gone full maple maga today too, said Canada can help 'Make america great again". When he's in europe it's all about 'rupture' but in new york he's a full on maga

You mean uncle Santiago? I hear he likes Tacos....

Don't Use words if you don't know what they mean I'm not anti-vax. It appears to be an assumption on your part. In fact I am vaxed and double boosted. I'm in a high-risk group I took a look at the information that was available and determined that in my opinion my risk of covid injury was higher than the unknown risks of the vaccine but I was well aware that I could turn out to be wrong. Even with the new information that we have i would probably get vaxxed again in the same circumstances ,as i'm more likely to suffer serious harm from covid due to preexisitng conditions such as diabetes. And I was aware of the fact the gov't wasn't being honest because I did my own research and realized the government wasn't being honest at the time. But came to the conclusion that of the two risks covid was the greater for me. My angle here as everywhere is the truth. I explore the truth regardless of political agenda. It is a true statement that the risks of the vaccine were not properly explained to the public both in Canada and in America. I suspect everywhere else as well but to be honest I haven't fully looked at what the public was told in other countries so I can only speak to those two. It is also a true statement that the government is failing to live up to its duty to care for those who were negatively affected by the vaccine who took it believing it was safe. And we still have people suffering 'long covid'. And the whole point here was that is extremely bad. When you lie about the dangers and then double down by not taking care of those who were harmed as a result of the dangers then the next time you want people to believe you and get vaccines you run the risk of a much higher lack of cooperation So my point isn't anything about being vaxxed or unvaxed, my point is that the government should have been more honest with people about the vaccine and it's dangers and they should be far more aggressive to stand beside those people financially who were harmed by taking a drug that the government told them to. That would likely prevent problems in the future. That is my angle I am not here to judge or make statement on goddesses position. It is absolutely true that the vaccine turned out to be far more risky than originally thought. That is not a shock or a surprise, and even I who took the vaccine expected as much. All i'm saying is they should have been more honest about it and let people make decisions with more complete knowledge. Not everyone is as adept or inclined to do their own research as i am

When we look at Real gdp per capita we see the same sort of pictures And obviously we've been in a serious economic downturn for some time Which is why the libs have to borrow so heavily now, we just don't have the gdp per capita to raise the funds necessary to provide services to the population. And it's getting worse.

Well of course you do, look at the problem we've had with kids hockey in Canada with regards to abuse. Or like I said our educational facilities. Or modern churches where we still have problems with priests. Human predators haven't changed. You don't get a whole hell of a lot of evolution in just a couple hundred years Some things have changed, we have a much much better understanding of nutrition now than they ever did. We can treat tuberculosis although it is difficult. As much easier so it's much easier for children to attend schools or be home studied thanks to the internet without having to be resident at the school. The level of scrutiny and reporting is higher, and if a child is abused their ability to have someone to report to is increased But even today it is still natural that a predator or a predatory personality is going to seek out those opportunities which give the best hunting grounds. That includes schools, sports coaching, community services and groups, and other similar occupations. The vast majority of people that go into those things do so for altruistic reasons or reasons that are socially acceptable but you are going to get a handful of abusers and there's no stopping that. But somehow if a white kid is abused by a hockey coach for years it's expected that he'll pull himself up by his bootstraps and get on with life and recover where is it a first nations person's grandfather was abused that person is considered crippled for life and excused for any crimes they may commit.

As I have said to you multiple times the problem is they couldn't. They knew there was a high probability of unknown risks which they couldn't define. They knew that this was different than a regular vaccine. Yet they suggested the risk was no different than a regular vaccine knowing that they could not define the risks with the knowledge they had at the time You're literally making the point. They did not know the risks yet they suggested that the risks were the same as any other vaccine We now know that the risks are higher but that's not relevant. At the time they knew that the risks were undefined and yet presented it as a defined risk The point is it doesn't say different. It lumps all the vaccines together and doesn't differentiate therefore Indicating they are the same This has been pointed out a dozen times to you already yet you keep repeating the same lies over and over and over as if it hadn't been And the point was that they underplayed the risks by claiming the risks were the same as the risks of any vaccine Except it does say that it's the same as any vaccine. Which indicates that it's no different. If I say something is the same then I am specifically indicating that it is not substantially different. But it was substantially different. In fact mNRA Treatment is so different that it really is difficult to even call it a vaccine Good question. They didn't know. Yet they suggested they did Kid you have lost this so hard it's embarrassing. This isn't even a debate anymore this is just you flailing around like the robot from lost in space and looking like a twat. The government severely underplayed the risks which were unknown at the time. They did so in the quote I provided, they did so in the quote you provided. They suggested the risks were the same as any other vaccine and so small as to be discounted. They said this knowing that they were unaware of what the risks would be. I don't even know why you're trying to defend this so much. This is so blatantly obvious that it's not even funny. It wasn't even my initial point, my initial point was that people already felt the government was lying to them about the risks and they also felt the government wouldn't stand by them should the risks prove to be worse than originally thought and that this is a bad thing because it will affect how people view vaccines should this kind of thing happen again And I'm 100% right and you shouldn't be arguing it because it is so obviously true. For some reason you're absolutely bound and determined to defend Trudeau's government, one of the most lying governments in the history of man, and suggest that they were 100% upfront and honest when that is clearly not the case. Get your head out of your ass. The government downplayed the risk and it shouldn't have. Now the government isn't standing beside people who trusted them and are suffering as a result. These are bad things

One conviction for hundreds of churches burned. I don't think they're being investigated terribly hard

It is absolutely a problem but it's compounded when you think about investment. If other countries are doing better economically that's where investment money will go. Likewise if Canada is doing very poorly nobody is going to invest here right now regardless. It's like Canada is uphill of investment while the other countries are downhill. Obviously the investment is going to roll in the easiest direction And it becomes a vicious spiral. No investment means lower growth, lower growth means lower investment, and pretty soon we're Argentina in the 1930s

Be honest I find that they pick and choose between science and emotion (claiming compassion) Willy-nilly and both argue that it should and absolutely should not be a decision driven by evidence In other words they will argue that regardless of the facts we should be compassionate. And if somebody points out there being too compassionate or that their compassion is costing money the claim that the science proves immigration is beneficial. When you point out that the science doesn't prove that and indicates that excessive immigration is extremely harmful then they fall back on the compassion argument So it is both scientific and not scientific and compassion and not compassion all at the same time. As with most things the left wing argument sounds more like an exercise in Schrodinger's cat thought experiments then reality, which is appropriate for a bunch of pussies

Not one of your questions has been ignored. Literally every single thing you have said or asked has been responded to in detail My last reply to you had your quote in it in its entirety. It's on the same page as you're reading right now. And yet once again having had it hand fed to you you're Asking for it yet again Pathetic. You've been hanging around the liberals too long There's no game of absolutes. The quote you provided which I have quoted you again on directly above specifically notes that this is no different than any other type of vaccine as far as risk and I have provided further quotes which even hammer that home further that have been given by Tam and Justin Trudeau I am beyond disappointed in you. Your stupidity and your answers and your Reliance on cheap empathetic debate techniques is another disappointment. And you cowardly run away from the quotes I've provided you with even though they were quotes that you provided to begin with Again, this is a simple fact and I've proven it over and over again, mNRA vaccines were not well tested and had many unknown risks at the time of covid, they had not been released for use yet, the gov't knew that there was a strong possibility of unknown risks and side effects, they presented it as the same risk OR LESS as regular vaccines which was untrue. Copart, and go sit in your corner and think about what you've done. Your arguments sound less intelligent than robosmiths I don't know how you allowed yourself to get to that point. Asking repetitively for information that's been given to you again and again? What the hell's the matter with you boy?

Funny enough a very good friend grew up in Quebec at an orphanage about 80 years ago and has said frequently when he reads about the accounts of residential schools that it is remarkably similar to his experiences in the christian orphanages. While he was never sexually mistreated his descriptions of the living conditions and punishments and discipline etc as well as the lack of preparation for practical things in life are identical. It's worth noting That the reason the government went with christian schools was that because the christian face have been operating schools in Canada for 300 years at that point, and the government felt it would be considerably cheaper to make use of that existing infrastructure rather than build new facilities and that it would mean reserve as there were so many and it wouldn't teach them about how to survive in "british" culture should they choose to live off the reserves. So it was the same experience that children sent to boarding school had, children sent to orphanages had, and children sent to residential schools would have had. And as I previously mentioned immigrants were forced to send their children to government schools where they weren't allowed to use their original language etc as well.

I honestly don't understand this. I feel like if there was one element of defense that we could develop an industry for and be competitive as a world leader it would be drone technology. It's not like we don't understand it or we don't have experts, it's not like we're not studying how they're being used in the Ukraine right now, I feel like it would be easy for the gov't to put together a company or team to develop our own products and technology and innovate. I mean we have Canada geese, we're already an experts in small highly destructive search and destroy platforms that act autonomously

I don't have it handy but there was a report and study that I read that attempted to take a look at the number of reported deaths of first nations children to tuberculosis Over the times when it was out of control. Long story short they discovered that the first nations children died at an average rate of about three times what the rest of the population's children died at, which was exactly the same as the first nation reserves children who hadn't been sent to school and in fact about the same rate as first nations adults. In other words there was no evidence that children and first nations residential schools died at any rate faster than first nations children's anywhere else. They died in about exactly the same rate and part of the reason for that is that in the early part of the 20th century nutrition and cleanliness and hygiene was not understood as much as it is today anywhere in Canada. And yes, the children died at a higher rate than other races did, but that was true of all First Nations people everywhere. For whatever reason tuberculosis, like many diseases and illnesses, seems to affect the First Nations people more readily I see today that once again the first nations advocates are attempting in the senate to include "residential school denial" in the new hate speech laws being considered by the federal gov't

If only you had some evidence to back up your claims.... -Everyone on the left BWAAAHAHHAHAHA Joking aside I think it is important that we acknowledge that there were problems schools, abuses did happen and let's face it they happened at christian run orphanages and still happen today at regular schools. Every year there are numerous stories of inappropriate teacher student interactions and that's with today's monitoring and culture I think it's also worth mentioning that the medical experiments involving starving or deliberately allowing children to be malnourished did indeed happen in the 40s and 50s in Saskatchewan. And they did so specifically with government approval, this wasn't hidden. So in the approximately 100 year history of residential schools there are legitimate things that we can point to and say we're terrible. But the vast vast majority of the statements we see today about how all of the children suffered and they were locked up and treated horribly and all gang raped systematically is just simply not true.

THE PROTEST SIGN BELOW WAS CREATED WITH AI. I HAVEN'T SEEN PEOPLE THIS STUPID SINCE THE "3rd ANNUAL SPCA PIG ROAST"

Adopting is a quarter of the price and it actually works Trying to tax the environment back into shape cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity and played a significant role in wiping out the middle class. Which is why it's such a back burner issue now For a tiny fraction of that damage we could have adapted to make climate change completely work for us. This is why you can never produce any evidence when asked of actual scientific data supporting the idea that climate change is a crisis or that there's anything we can do to substantially reduce its effects directly

Canada slips into technical recession as economy stalls in Q1: StatCan Q1 GDP report: Canada slips into technical recession, economy stalls We were told by Carney there woudn't be a recession. Many economists have said we were in a de facto recession for quite some time. Our GDP per capita has been nosediving and many other indicators would certainly suggest a recessionary economy. The concern is that this came as a surprise. Economists and Carney had predicted a poor quarter but not recessionary. Now all of a sudden we have slipped into recession and to be honest there's very little hope for the prospects of the economy substantially improving. If this continues, Where we are bouncing just above or just below the recessionary numbers, we are going to be in real trouble if we continue to borrow at the levels we have been I have a feeling that this time next year we're going to be seeing similar numbers, either just above or just below recessionary levels with bleak prospects. At least I hope we're "just below" and not diving deep into recession.

Canada slips into technical recession as economy stalls in Q1: StatCan Q1 GDP report: Canada slips into technical recession, economy stalls We were told by Carney there woudn't be a recession. The news agencies that favor the libs are stressing it's a " TECHNICAL" recession suggesting maybe it isn't a real recession. But the fact is most economists have been saying for some time that canada is in a practical recession with reducing gdp per capita etc for over a year. What happens to Carney's "Build baby build" and All this trade he's been working on for the last year spending hundreds of thousands if not millions in travel expenses just for food? I thought we were supposed to be rolling in dough at this point

So we agree that she committed a crime correct?

So that would be no?

It only took you four words to be wrong No you don't. Your childish rants and emotional response indicate that you actually find this very upsetting. You're so emotionally buthurt that you try every device possible to try and upset me or make me feel bad, which is something we see with small children on a regular basis. Hence your use of "faux" instead of my actual screenname. You'll notice i'm not so childish as to call you john stupid or something equally childish. It's plain that I have emotionally hurt you and that you're angry and bitter about it. Pretending to find it amusing is a defense mechanism that you throw out there but your actual words and manners indicate that it's simply not true Sorry little guy It's pretty obvious this is distressing for you

Well I think that was my point though as well, the concerns here are more political than practical LOL Well if your point is Their that data centers are pretty low on the list of well-established nut bar theories out there I will concede the point Not really, no. I'm racking my brains but I can't think of any. In history where that's how it works. Other than occasionally the government provides for the infrastructure and in such cases it's an equally available to everybody and usually at the same price. Or if there is a different price it's completely based on usage or the like I don't recall that happening either and to be blunt no same business person is going to put their data center in a place where there is not enough power to adequately run it after providing for local services. Like, if you were starting a bottled water company would you open it in the desert? The cost is not distributed, the cost is borne by the data center. I am not sure where you're getting the idea that it's different than this but literally every type of business out there is in exactly the same boat. I mean Automotive manufacturing and Industrial applications such as steel require insane amounts of power as well, this is not the first industry that requires massive amounts of power. The cost does not get distributed down to the people, it just doesn't work that way. In fact the more power usage there is generally speaking the more affordable it is to provide the power generation infrastructure necessary to satisfy everyone's needs I don't feel that you've made the case that they are legit. As I've noted the issues you brought up do not appear at first glance or even second or third glance to be real actual issues. In fact they tend to go in the face of established norms. That's not to say there's no valid concerns but I'm just not seeing any significant valid concerns The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact the existence of the other may lead to the deployment of the first. Nothing drives the move towards cheaper energy From the presence of large power hungry users Well I don't really understand why that's a concern, that sounds more like in a reality that needs to be faced. But wouldn't that argue even more strongly that people shouldn't embrace and support the development of this important technology in their communities?

Sure. Which is why I find it odd that they haven't. And yet they have proposed that anybody who speaks out against it should be treated as a criminal and that law should be passed supporting that. This is where I begin to have a problem We don't know that. As I mentioned earlier I would expect it because residential schools were also churches for the most part and with the tuberculosis crisis tens of thousands of children died across the country and it would be weird if none ever died there and were buried there. But at the end of the day it's entirely possible that no children are buried there I don't really feel like that's a bigger issue. If that legitimately was the issue they would start digging, they would find remains, and we would be able to determine likely causes of death. But what we do know with certainty is that there were many many children who were reported dead at the schools and somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of all of the deaths were due to tuberculosis. Tuberculosis was killing children all across the country and including my own family who lost children to tuberculosis in those days. And it is worse noting that first nations people for whatever reason are vastly more susceptible to tuberculosis than other races. Even today they contract tuberculosis at a rate 40 times higher than other groups Of the remaining children who died from something other than tuberculosis, the vast majority died from influenza. The remaining handful died from accident, other illnesses, etc. But at the time all of the deaths were recorded, it's not like children died and nobody wrote anything down. It's a sad fact that the records regarding this as well as many other records were purged by the government to save space some time ago and it is truly unfortunate that these kids and many other people by the way were buried with simple wooden crosses that of course rotted away over time. But that doesn't indicate anything nefarious There is really no reason or evidence whatsoever to suggest that these children came to an end that was in any way shape or form unlawful or inappropriate. If there were any such cases they were extremely rare That never happened to the first nations. I understand that that's the narrative but the reality is that is absolutely not what happened The vast majority of the time the first nations attendance at residential schools was optional. They're only a handful of decades where it wasn't the case and by the way it was the liberals that brought that in. Initially under John a attendance was completely optional The parents absolutely had access to the schools. In addition the children were allowed and even encouraged to return home for the summers. They did not live at the school year round unless the parents wanted them to stay or they had no family. Any of the residential schools openly encouraged local bands to visit and share with the children. In fact the residential school closest to where I live was famous for inviting the elders of neighboring bands to come regularly to talk with the kids about their culture and teach them cultural issues. By the way when I grew up and attended Elementary School First Nation studies was taught by the local first nations chief. Further mandatory attendance at school was inflicted upon more than just the first nations. And there was huge outcry and even minor riots from other groups including my own family who found their children forced to attend schools and learning the language and history and customs of the English rather than their own schools. Sorry to burst your bubble but the world is not the way that the first nations advocates with a political agenda today portray it It never did the way that you say. Sorry

That's your opinion. And I'm not saying it's accurate or inaccurate, but history tends to be interpreted differently depending on the Observer. The left for example has made many attempts to rewrite history. The 1619 project for example. But that's not really relevant. The issue at hand is whether or not people today have a right to anger and outrage on a personal level over events that happened almost 2 centuries ago. Sure. So is white history. In fact so is european history as it lead up to the colonization and to a degree asian history as that's where the first nations people originated. But none of that means that someone living in america today has any right to be mad on any kind of personal level about what happened to someone 200 years ago. Soooort of kind of. What lead to civil war was the question of who gets to make the laws and whether the states were run by the federal gov't. Slavery was the largest (but not only) irritant in that process. But it would be revisionist history to say that the war was all about slavery. Why? Neither has anything to do with slavery. uhhhhhh........why? They have absolutely nothing to do with 'slavery'. I mean.... sure the first nations kept slaves and traded women like chattel but i feel that's moving off topic. We were discussing slavery in the states, not among the first nations. Complete and 100 percent utter bullshit. Remember they were DEMANDED by the first nations under treaty. And initially they were the cheapest and easiest way to appease that first nations demand which the king insisted on as part of founding canada as a nation. They were also completely voluntary (until a lib gov't much later changed that). they were in no way shape or form cultural genocide. Again that's revisionist history let's put forward by people with an agenda and ignores the truth and well documented sources of the day. The crown and the new country of Canada both wanted to make sure that first nations people had the skills to live in the modern age but they in no way shape or form moved to wipe out first nations themselves or their culture. Their goal, as misguided as it was, was to create people who knew how to behave in modern society but still had their own culture and nation And therefore could choose to live in whatever world they wanted It was a fool's idea, but they had no way of knowing that at the time. It's crystal clear if you read the Hansard of the day and the comments by Johnny in their entirety that it was not their goal and first nations culture and if it was they would have had no problem doing so And again none of this has anything to do with slavery Sure. A lot of people get rich selling the religion of the victim. They're not going to give that up anytime soon