CdnFox

Well between computers and cell phones and such it's pretty easy. And in reality if you look i'm actually not here for large patches of time. But - it SEEMS like a lot to YOU because you're slightly below average intellectually and it feels like it would be a lot of effort to post that much. In reality it takes me just a moment or two for most of my posts. I just think faster and type faster than you (Ok - in fairness i use voice dictation a fair bit so maybe i don't type faster) . You've got me confused with your mother LOLOL Hey i'm sorry it's such a burden for you to post here. Maybe try typing with THREE fingers and see how that goes

Their argument is that locking them up for life is cruel and unusual. That's just locking them up. What do you think their ruling on capital punishment is going to be? the answer to that is the notwithstanding clause. Sure, liberal gov'ts are a bad thing, Nothing we can do about that - seeing as the time between conviction and execution is about 16 years guaranteed you'll have a liberal gov't in power wanting to change the law at some point before someone is executed. No, that's just your imagination working overtime to try to preserve what you WANT to be true. Nope. It costs WAAAAAAY more money, as in millions and millions more, to kill them. Keeping them alive is cheap. As i've already proven. Nope. Given the length of time that it takes for a murderer to be executed there's really no differnce. Also - there's a lot more compassion for people getting killed, so it's far more likely the public will support changes to avoid killing people than it is for life in prison. Life in prison was actually popular. nobody cares about your imaginary friend. This is a discussion about logic and reason.

Well sure, for people like you who can only read by sounding out each letter it's a real burden. I'll try to include more pictures ?

One of those rare occasions that we agree. This is what i was saying earlier - that sure, electricity is probalby the way of the future when the tech matures and sure, we should be moving to cleaner solutions as fast as the technology advancements allow and yeah - for some people right now EV's may be a very good choice ... BUT - imposing false and impractical timelines to force change unnaturally is a very bad idea and tends to hinder the process of tech development. You never saw a gov't rule requiring all horse sales to be replaced with cars People just moved over when it made sense,

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/younger-canadians-views-of-our-country-and-its-institutions-getting-progressively-worse-nanos-survey-1.6317915 So overall people are becoming more dissatisfied with Canada, but it's far more extreme with the youth. And it appears to be trending down. The youth seem particularly unhappy with the 'sunny ways' and the problems that come from the quasi-socialist and social engineering policies of trudeau's liberals. It makes you wonder if we won't see this next generation growing up a lot more conservative than previous ones.

The modern left is simply Pinochet in sheeps clothing. They still want their enemies to disappear, they want to radically reform the economic model and wealth distribution, they want to establish an authoritarian straglehold over the political and social apperatus. They are vicious and violent. Honestly, it's the same picture.

Well yes. And because you have to allow every appeal automatically you're talking about lawyers for a lot more trails. And you're probably paying for his and it won't be some local crown defender. And you're paying for extra judges so you have enough to deal with this crap and still deal with the other business. Plus you're still paying to incarcerate and feed them while this process goes on, and in the states it's an average of 264 months for this process to happen, which is 22 years. 16 - 22 years between conviction and execution is pretty normal. https://knowledgeburrow.com/how-long-do-death-penalty-cases-last/ And like i said its more likely they'll be found innocent because of the higher bar of proof so you have to add the costs of going through a significant portion of that process only to have them walk away to the total cost of having the death penalty. And they STILL make mistakes with all those protections in place. Not many but i don't think it's ok to kill even one person who was innocent. Better to lock them up for life, no chance of parole, minimal contact with the outside world Let them stew for decades over what they've done.

I never said they care. As near as i can tell they think it's a requirement for a good politician. But all the more reason they'd still be leery about giving that person the ability to kill them

It's not actually illegal to deceive the public. You need to think before you speak more. I spend a horrendous amount of time explaining simple things to you. The conversation would go MUCH faster if you'd learn the basics first. No. First off i'm not sure you understand what in camera actually means or what's involved. And secondly most lobbying is not done at an official meeting. Uhhhhh - that's what i said before. It's an earlier post. You quoted what i said BEFORE you claimed i wasn't contributing any ideas for new laws or the like. Attaboy, you've ALMOST learned how to read - too bad you haven't got that whole 'in order' thing down yet LOL - jezuz how do you keep finding new ways to look dumb

Of course there is. You obviously didn't read ANY of the information i posted which had links to individual studies. If you want to know why go read the links, but there is ZERO doubt it's more expensive due to the adddition of safety features to try to keep killing innocent people to a minimum. Something you said you yourself thought would have to be in place and would require 'lots of thought' - well that translates into up front costs never mind the actual extra costs. Thats a matter of record, so you're just lying to yourself now. THere is no such system. And trying would cost shit tonnes of money. And fail. I agree people are sick of seeing people get out. That's why i say lock them up for life and throw away the key and let them die in jail. If it turns out there's new evidence that they didn't do it - great. If not - they spend their entire lives in lonley isolation with no hope of it getting better forever, Well that's a lie. If they're locked up for life or killed its' the same thing. They're not out there hurting others are they. There's no difference. Locking them up for life or killing would have the same deterrent effect. Fact is a lot of them probably wouldn't care if they get killed or not. Texas violent crime rates aren't significantly lower than states without capital punishment. Can't be done. Explain to me what that would look like. You still have humans running it , Sure - lock 'em up for life. So what? It was still a good decision and 3 out of the 5 regular term gov'ts since then prove we really shouldn't give the state that power. THere is no practical solution where giving the state the power of death is a postive thing. ANd if you're so eager to kill innocent people you can put one of your family up first and we'll see if that changes your mind, You're living in a fantasy and just ignoring any fact that doesn't agree with your preferred postion. I would HAPPILY put a bullet in the brain of a child rapist myself and sleep like a baby that night - but you can't give that power to the state.

Oh and for Moonbox and eyeball who are such buddies the one has to show up when the other is losing a debate and console him, a little bit of extra proof on the whole 'crashed' thing: Famous stock market crashes include those during the 1929 Great Depression, Black Monday of 1987, the 2001 dotcom bubble burst, the 2008 financial crisis, and during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stock-market-crash.asp You two should get together and form a support group for when you make yourselves look this bad. It must be pretty hard on you.

bitcoin DID crash (are you saying it didn't?) and the stock market DID crash - as he was kind enough to prove for me SO you want me to own the fact i was right and he was wrong? err.... ssuuuurreee.......... ROFLMAO - your literacy is ridiculous bullshit so i guess two things can be true at the same time He was the one who posted the stats showing the stock crash Don't blame me that i was right LOLOL!!!!!

There is NO CHANCE. THere is ZERO method that could prevent it. I've explained that eye witnesses are the least reliable. So it's dishonest of you to keep bringing them up. And even YOU realize people can lie never mind being mistaken. There will be 'mistakes'. There always has been and always will be. At the end of the day every system is still run by humans, Not quite that much, but it does cost. Last time i saw hard numbers it was 79,200 but that must be 15 years ago. (that's for max of course, some jails are cheaper but lets assume max). So - inflation etc etc a figure of 100 per year wouldn't be outrageous So - how much does it cost to kill someone, Well obviously it depends on how your system is set up but with the automatic appeals and protections to prevent innocent deaths as much as possible, it can run several million PER YEAR just to have the court and legal resources in place to do it. And then each case can run you a few million on top of that. These are us numbers of course. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs/summary-of-states-death-penalty It is brutally more expensive to kill people than lock them up for life. THERE IS ALWAYS DOUBT. It is SO EASY to screw with people's memories - you have no idea. Here have a read https://www.google.com/books/edition/Eyewitness_Testimony/uBlAU24-qsoC?hl=en&gbpv=1 and again - not hard to bribe or threaten someone into saying they saw something. THere is no such system period. Of course it does. Did you see how he tried to interfere in investigations previously? Snc lavlin AND the rcmp investigation? You think there will NEVER be another prime minister to do that? So the point is elected officials CAN and WILL do things for political reasons including interfere with investgations. This has HAPPENED before. You've seen it with your own eyes in your lifetime now. There is no such thing as a system created by man that can't be messed with by man. And as we've seen there are prime ministers who WILL do that - you can bet there's premiers and other elected officials who will too Not to mention the police and others, I will not pointlessly trade the lives of the innocent for 'vengance' on the guilty when there's an easy alternative which is every bit as punishing. Why give them a quick death anyway when you can force them to think about what they've done for the rest of their lives.

Nope. there are now a number of cases where the 'experts' gave inaccurate dna information because the police were "sure they have the right person and need some help". And even when they don't the dna evidence can point to the wrong person: https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead-wrongful-convictions/ Tech may have changed, but humans haven't. It is widely recognized that eye-witness evidence is inherently unreliable. This has been shown in research after research. It's actually the LEAST compelling evidence as a rule. Not to mention someone can lie for their own reasons. ALL evidence is collected and presented by the state, and is therefore subject to tamper, misinterpretation or out right fraud in some cases. And what about mitigating evidence that they bury? We've seen that too. His dna may be found at the scene, but evidence that he'd visited there before is suppressed. Let me keep this short - there is absolutely going to be mistakes, mistakes happen in boht canada and the us to this very day, there is NO system that can possibly be created that is guaranteed mistake free. Period. Anything else is just lying to yourself. Try me if you like with a 'system' and i'll explain how easy it is to bypass. there's no such thing as unquestionable and eye witnesses are USUALLY (not sometimes - almost always) incorrect in many details, and they can also deliberately lie. Do you believe innocent people should be killed? How does that make you different than the murderer? Not to mention the murderer then gets away with it. Nobody's going to 'reinvestigate' a crime where the "bad guy" is already dead. But cases ARE opened when the person is alive and new evidence shows up The rest is more of the same. If you allow capital punishment, 3 things happen and we've see it in the states. 1 - more bad guys will get off. Because they get automatic appeals and the bar is set so high for proof people who would have been found guilty actually get off in many cases. 2 - We WILL absolutely kill innocent people. THat's a guarantee. 3 - Costs go up because of teh extra trials and other costs, vs simply paying for his room and food for the rest of his life. On average it's more epensive to kill them than keep them. Having "full" life sentences takes care of that. If some evidence comes forward later then the person is still alive and can be compensated and freed. Look at how justin trudeau handled the truckers - DO NOT GIVE THE STATE POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH OVER YOU.

This is actually a common occurance as civilizations mature, There tends to be a few generations who fight to establish everything, a few generations that then follow that believing its the best way and then suddenly a generation who throws much of the values out, and the next generation sees the end of that civilization as it falls into decay. The process can take a little more than 100 years to in some cases closer to a thousand but it seems to happen with all of them sooner or later.

SUre - it satisfies justice. IF - and it's a BIG if - if the person they kill is the right one And you can NEVER KNOW THAT. The state has falsely accused SO MANY people it's not funny - deliberately screwed with evidence, HID evidence proving innocence, etc. There are MANY cases. VERY many. In fact the last man executed in Canada was later found to be innocent. There is NO Justice in a system that kills innocent people. None. So if even ONE person is killed who was innocent then the system is unjust. So it is MUCH better to "kill" them with old age. Death penalty should mean "you stay in jail till you die, no faint hope or anything else, and no contact with the outside world other than your lawyer and we'll leave the tv on." THat way - if evidence does appear to show he was innocent as it did in milgaards case then at least we can undo some of the harm done.

ROFLMAO - well there's no point reading beyond this The guy got arrested - you can claim he didn't if you can find a source that says that but he did. Sorry. If you disagree with the source then it is up to YOU to prove the source is wrong So - once again you admit you're dishonest. You know it's true but try to dodge it by claiming the source is the problem ,NOT that the source printed something that wasn't true. So you've exposed yourself to everyone as a liar. All you're trying to do is browbeat and muzzle people who's opinions you don't like through lies. Like a typical Facist.

Nobody thinks it's the jews. Sorry that's a total red herring. IF anyone hates the jews it's the marxists and the left these days.

Sorry kiddo, There's no point arguing that the sky is blue. Socialism has been tried and mostly failed and communism is an abject disaster. Socialism at least can survive for a little while, depending on HOW strict a socialism it is Communism has no redeeming qualities whatsoever But sociasm can work in limited fashion. The problem is it doesn't scale. A family is usually set up in a communist or socialist fashion - and families work. The Adults earn and control prodcution, the chidlren contribute as they can, everybody chips in and takes what they need . From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs . but - make that 5 families and things get problematic. make it a country and things get far worse till it all falls apart. Sorry - they've both been tried AND AT A LARGE SCALE as well as small and they both fail except in the smallest examples. They're not 'archaic - they're dysfunctional. The principles they were built on are utterly flawed and unusable. which isn't to say you can't have a LITTLE of the underlying philosophy integreated into your more practical model. But not much.

Man i spend a lot of time fixing your literacy issues Markets crashed that is true. And i said some people's stocks fell by up to 50 percent. You said show me the 50 percent. Sigh - only a liberal complains when you give him what he asked for LOLOL I know math is hard for you - but it fell down to 10 k from 16. That's not 25 percent. I can tell you how much it is if you like or would you like to try again? LOL But lets put a pin in it for a moment - lets use 25 percent. That is a monumental crash overall. That is the entire stock market losing a quarter of its' value. That is hundreds of billions of dollars taht just went 'poof' in a very short time So that's a crash. Stock markets don't normally do that every year Do they. In fact - the last time we saw a drop as large as that was in the great recession of 2009. And the time before that was the crash of the 2000 tech recession https://www.macrotrends.net/1320/nasdaq-historical-chart So yeah. Crash. holy shit kid - if you're going to post the stats at least post ones that prove me WRONG! Proving me RIGHT is supposed to be MY job HAHAHAHAAHAAHA - god you're a riot to talk to But hey, thanks for saving me the hassle of looking it up for you LOL - got any other sources to prove me right? Or are you done looking dumb for the day?

I think it's more likely that you're perfecting your skills at self delusion but, potato potatoe No, you were the one who claimed that. You said they should be arrested on charges of 'something'. What i said is that they're not doing anything illegal, and mentioned a few laws i'd like to see.

Well maybe - they DO say ignorance is bliss so i might like it. You could say something useful with thinking. why should i follow YOUR dreams? ROFLMAO sure kid, that's why you respond so often LOL! I can understand why you'd wish intelligent people who can make actual arguments would go away - that whole truth and facts and thinking thing really cramps your style

Because quebecers know how fast a gov't can become corrupt and they're not nearly dumb enough to give a gov't power of life and death over them as a result.

So we point out that you said something that made zero sense and somehow that's us cheerleading for ukraine I suppose that would be true if you were a russian plant or something spreading disinformation, then disagreeing with you would sort of be like supporting the ukraine but that would only make sense if you were.... oh wait...... gotcha. Well - you have a good day comrade

No, that's what it' about. But what are they supposed to be paying attention TO? The media? the gov't? Where are they focusing their attention to get real information about how serious it is? Oh just charge them with 'something' I hear you can get 7-10 years hard time for 'something' these days I think you're going to easy on 'em, we should charge them wiht 'because reasons" instead. Way longer penalty. currently writing a news article isn't a crime, even if it's factually incorrect. A fact the CBC proves daily. So correcting that is going to take a bit more effort. Well you haven't of course, you've just said go arrest reporters and gov'ts for 'something'. Not helpful. But in fairness yeah, it's a tough question. I guess the answer is removing any gov't influence or involvement with the media and fostering news and media groups so that both sides of the spectrum are covered. I wouldn't mind seeing penalties for stories that are either deliberately misleading or too strongly state things they have no evidence for without hammering that home.