CdnFox

No problem. Sit. roll over. Awww nooooes!!! I don't tolerate dumb. If you insist on being dumb, then by all means leave. You won't enjoy the conversation. Waaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!! I was an insulting jackass to someone and now they've insulted me back!!! How could they!?!?!!? Hey sparky - if you want to pick a fight with someone and cry when it doesn't go your way, then maybe don't pick fights.

One will be sufficient if you can actually articulate it and it's compelling. And? That doesn't explain anything about why you wouldn't help someone in need. It's not like we're going to war. And the chances of a wider conflict go up if the russians have an easy win. Sooooooo..... I assume you don't want to raise your children when they come to believe that if someone needs help it's best to stand idly by. That's not a reason at all. That's just a statement that you've got a family. That might be an argument why you woudln't want them involved in ANY war but it wouldn't even begin to explain why specifically war shouldn't have an economic benefit to those who aren't participating in it. Why? We haven't sent any troops to war. Maybe you should ask any war veteran reading this, if your country sent you to war and you had no equipment, would you hope a friendly nation would lend you the equipment you needed to defend your homeland? That's actually a thing that's happening.

Says the guy who started off being belligerent. How'd that work out for you? We? I've told you before, you shouldn't be listening to the voices in your head like that. At least YOU should know where 'm coming from - If you act like an ass expect to be treated like an ass. Which is exactly what happened to you. So stop being an ass if you don't like it.

It's not a question of whether or not they have it. It's a question of do they have enough spaces. And when over a thousand new students MORE than what you expected show up, that's a challenge. And what about next year? And the year after? This really is a story whether you realize it or not. The resources for these kids will become strained and if that keeps getting worse there's a price to be paid.

Well i'd place some in burnaby as a start People can and will move around over time but generally you can figure out what their initial destination is. Some will change their minds and some will get there and decide over time they want to be somewhere else but as the story notes there's modelling for that which is fairly accurate. You can't say what ONE person is going to do but you can say what people will do over all.

Well yeah - csis can't release information unless authorized by the gov't of the day. That's a necessary design element to your security apparatus But a more interesting question is why did the authorities believe that it's not worth investigating more into the interference itself, but IS worth trying to find out who spilled the beans about it. As to why the gov't didn't want the info getting out -well i think we know that.

No, that's what he accused you of and you offered your statement as evidence it wasn't true. I swear to god you've got the attention span of a goldfish. Are you a nazi or a racist? Well that's a blatant lie. Which is pretty much standard for you - you don't "see" things how they are, you simply say whatever fits your agenda. And i'm sorry - but that would make YOU the Tweenkie. No logic, no facts, just feelings. I assume you're talking to the mirror You've made no argument other than an appeal to emotions. Sorry kiddo. The facts aren't on your side and everyone can see you're not making a rational argument, you're just making emotional statements. And when someone points something out you don't like you try to change the channel by either lying or bait and switch. Which begs the question - if the truth isn't good enough for you, what is it you feel you need to hide?

Well there you go - and you're worth every ruble i'm sure Already posted. I take it you didn't read it all. And - its super easy to find many other examples. So. More lies from you. How shocking.

Yes. Really. If it were in isolation and you said nothing else it might. But that's not the case. And the rest of what you say points in a different direction. And i'm sure Putin appreciates that sentiment. I'm not sure i see how that would eliminate the possibility of you being a sympathizer.

i suppose that's true, your 'employers' might disagree No. it does not. not even a little bit. As i pointed out i never suggested it was never given as a reason. I simply said that the reason i gave was one of the reasons given since the start. Which you called a lie. Which of course turned out to be absolutely true. So as long as you 'ask' someone HONEST then you're the dishonest person here . And you seem to be continuing that trend. Not only did you fail to, but as i noted its' not a new idea at all that the benefits were a reason for the us to assist financially and militarily. In fact it was being discussed even before the war started. As i have proven. Which you claimed was not true. Falsely. So it's a lie to say it's a new idea, especially after i posted proof it's been put forward from before the war and all during the war till now. But to circle back to your point for a moment - 1 wars have been largely about economic benefit since there have been wars. The number of wars that have been fought for other reasons can probably be counted on one hand or close to. Wars are fought to gain territory and resources. They are very rarely because of something like helen being taken to troy. 2 This isn't a war for the us. The us is not a belligerent. The war happened without the us's input or approval. All they're doing is giving supplies to one side. So the idea that they are 'at war' for profit is silly. 3. Russia started this war. So if we're talking about 'excuses' for war you'd have to look at them, nobody else got a say in whether there would be a war or not. So the 'reasons' and 'justification'' for the war must come from russia and no one else. And more distraction. Did the us start the war? No? Then shut up. At the end of the day all wars are detestable. They're a crappy way to settle a difference. Sometimes there simply is no other choice but that's rare. But THIS one was started by Russia, and they bear the SOLE responsibility for justifying it

Well you're making it very complex - now you're suggesting that a foriegn nation seized control against the will of the people. The 'how' of that is important. The us could petition for canada to be removed from nato and that would be their more likely avenue. But how they would address the specific issue is highly questionable - it would depend a little on how china came to manage to take over canada without the people being ok with it. As to trudeau - he doesn't give a flying fig about democracy. He's under pressure from the other nato leaders to chip in and the public opinion at least in the beginning favoured helping ukraine. It gave him a chance to look tough as well, just like he 'orderd the balloon to be shot down" when in reality the americans said "Ima shoot that balloon, is that ok with you?"

Your comments here certainly don't argue against the idea. You lie like a cheap rug attempting to defend the russian position and attack the us one.

Yes - but this time lets do it honesty, not with the attempted bait and switch below. I responded to this comment by you in reply to another poster.: With: You then replied - So you call me a liar and claim the "only" reason given was for democracy etc etc. I then posted SEVERAL articles - some new some old some in between. They all gave reasons why this war was convenient for the US. Including testing weapons systems and tactics, weakening an adversary, improving their position legally, etc etc. And pointed out that all of those were given as reasons all the way through from beginning to end. So. You were entirely wrong. You had no business calling me a liar as it turns out i was quite correct. You had no business claiming that no other reason than 'democracy' had ever bee given. In fact it turned out you were the liar. i get you like to play this game where when you're caught out you try to change the order and meaning of what was said - but there it is in a straight line. You called me a liar for saying that reasons of convenience were given from the start of the war. They were. So you lied about that. You also said nobody every hears anything other than the 'democracy' argument. There are hundreds of articles that never mention it as a reason, i posted a few. You were lying about that. And instead of owning up to it and saying "sorry - guess i was wrong" you try to lie YET AGAIN and pretend somehow that i said they never mentioned democracy at any time. Which we both know is untrue. You're not a very good person are you.

Not at all. I train dogs, you can't be THAT much harder. If i can teach a puppy not to piddle on the carpet, i'm sure i can teach you not to crap the bed posting online. Here's a start. Next time before you reply to someone actually think about what they wrote. Because if you act like a jerk and a pretentious troll where it's not justified, they're probably going to smak you around and make you look silly. It's fine to disagree and such but just being a douche for no reason invites reprisal.

To be blunt it was VERY common to hear about it before covid. There are dozens and dozens of articles about how understaffing and wait times are horrible. Covid for a short time made a really bad situation worse, but it's pretty much over and we're still seeing the same problems. In fact they're getting worse. And for the first time we really are seeing people die waiting for care, and more than one or two. It's easy to blame covid becuase it was front and center in every paper every single day but the problem was serious before covid and has continued to get worse after covid.

If we're being honest, most province's systems were strained flu season or not. They were already putting people in the hallways outside of lu seasons. There are reasons why this happened but covid really wasn't one of them.

I don't know about that - i'm not sure of what the legal ramifications are for having actual military people involved in the conflict even as medics only. I seem to recall reading at some point in the past that there's a serious problem with that and it would potentially make you a belligerent nation. Not to mention if our people were involved anywhere there's fighting some could get killed by russians which creates a problem. If you ONLY provided assistance to civilians it might be different.

They wouldn't be but they wouldn't' invade over it either. Letting the east vote in an honest vote to stay or go would have been a reasonable idea before the invasion but in practical terms it's pretty much off the table now.

Not for people with a sense of humor. Go read the conversation again, it'll all make sense. Hopefully. If not, get someone from grade 5 or higher to read it for you. Said nobody ever. Financing a war is not being at war, not legally or morally or ethically. Being at war is being at war. That's why the US will send money and gear but not troops. They don't want to be at war with the russians. This isn't complicated. If i give you 10 dollars to run off and have sex with a hooker, i'm not having sex. If the US gives guns to the ukraine so it can fight a war that it's having, the us is not at war. it's childish to pretend otherwise.

nope. You're just trying to add fuel costs. But remember it's on electricity, and also the increased costs of things like fertilizer both in processing and in shipping. It also impacts people's personal money, so labour rates tend to go up. If i'm paying more to heat my home, drive to work (most farms aren't on a bus route), buy my food etc then i gotta charge the boss more. So everything that's affected by the carbon tax winds up driving up the costs as a result. And that winds up happening at the processing plant too, and the grocery store and the truck drivers etc. so the impact is considerably higher than you're getting just calculating it on fuel. And most of that wont' have existed prior to the inflation spike. Remeber that it was only very recently that trudeau's carbon tax was implemented, and many provinces which produce our food didn't have any carbon tax before that. It takes time to work its' way through they system. AND it's been increasing every year. And will go up again this april. It's wrong to downplay it's effect. It certainly isn't the only factor in high food prices but it is definitely a much more significant factor than you suggest. TLDR - the carbon tax is certainly not the only factor in rising fuel costs but it is indeed a very significant factor, being a tax on everything.

Doesn't matter does it. I never claimed people DIDN"T say that they thought it should be for democracy - i said they DID claim the things i said they did. They may have said 100 other things - i never said they ONLY said those things. But I did say the said them and proved it true. YOU - YOU were the one who claimed they didn't and said i was lying. It wouldn't matter if anyone said anything else - if they said what i claimed then I was not lying and it was in fact you who were. I proved that you were wrong and that you' were the dishonest person here when i showed that MANY sources all the way along DID discuss it. So once again you're devolving into lying to try to prove your point. And crybabying about getting called names after calling me a liart start it off. As to your childish example - you forget something very simple: the allies are not actually fighting in ukraine and have no intent to do so. Sooooo how did the kid get blown up exactly? It wasn't fighting a war, because we're not sending our boys to fight are we, Once again - you resort to lies to try to prove your point - which means you probably didn't have a very good point to begin with. Pathetic.

Oh look, dougie has arrived to prove how little he knows But you remain leader of the party regardless. Sigh. No they can not LOL - what provision allows for that? Which line in the constitution says that's ok or which party constitution does? Sure as hell isn't the liberals. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY for the liberals right now to force justin trudeau out of the leadership. They can try to convince him to step down, they can threaten to force an election if the doesn't step down (which he could win) , etc but they cannot force him to step down. If they vote against the confidence of the house then there's an election. And if trudeau were to win that election he'd still be leader and there'd still be no way to get rid of him. He has to lose an election first If he loses the election then they can vote to have a leadershio review and vote on him then, but then they're out of power. It is entirely different. For god's sake, why even open your mouth and make yourself look like a dolt when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Oh sorry - i didn't realize you had no sense of humor at all. Humor is usually a sign of intelligence, i mistakenly over estimated yours. My mistake, I apologize for the offense. I'll keep it basic from here on for you. More amused than disliked. I thought you were making a bit of a joke, but as we've established you don't have a sense of humour so, my mistake. For your statement to remain true however you would have to define what 'war of convenience' meant. It would seem that a reasonably definition could be " a war that conveniently has benefits to a country". If we accept the dictionary definition of 'convenient' as being something that's suitable to one's needs or purpose then in this particular context the terms 'war of convenience' and 'convenient war' would be synonymous. So you'd have to explain the difference and justify your use of the term to actually make the argument. No, that's just silly. to be "at war' you literally have to be in the war. Supplying goods to warring nations is not the same as being 'at war' or a participant in the war. If that's how it worked we would already be referring to this as world war 3 - with most of the western nations giving at least some supplies and support to the war effort with china, iran and many of the other nations on that side of the curtain providing support as well. It's even more countries than ww2. So again, for that to make sense the countries would have to be what is known as 'belligerents'. And at this time they are not. Speaking of beligerant, you managed to take a small bit of humour and turn it into an opportunity to demonstrate you were wrong. Good "thinking".

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/burnaby-school-district-gets-unexpected-influx-of-students-from-outside-canada-6640224 This is a local paper from BC, but i've seen stories like this from many places recently. This is not an anti-immigration commentary, but it absolutely highlights the problems with our constant increasing immigration WITHOUT planning for what resources are necessary. You can have as many immigrants as you like if you've made arrangements one way or another for sufficient medical, educational and housing etc. When the resources get spread too thin, NOBODY gets the assistance they need. The feds have to smarten up and realize this is an issue.

Wow. Tell me you know nothing of politics without telling me. They're both westminster based systems but it is "literally" very different that the british one. That's like saying that china and the us gov't is the same because they're both 'repbulics' according to the name. Or that a hundai pony and a lexus are the same car because they're both based on internal combustion engines. Pretty much all the westminster gov'ts are a little different from each other. They share some common elements but if you thought they were the same you have quite a bit to learn. In fact there's even differences between parties within the system. As mentioned the british can throw out the leader of their party while they're still PM. Sooooo - how does that work in Canada? What's the mechansim there? What law allows that? I mean - you disagreed when i said that it was different in canada than the uk so by all means - educate us all and tell us how that works. How could chretien have been 'voted out' of leadership? It doesn't 'tarnish' it. Many retire successful but unpopular even if they lose an election. Mulroney was very successful, harper was successful, there are many others who are. Chretien was not. HE didn't even lose in an election, he was forced out and is known primarily for his scandals of shawinigate and the 'brown envelopes' of shame. The liberals didn't win - they were forced to a minority gov't (which means they lost less badly than everyone else.). Nobody took enough seats to win. And then he was destroyed in the next go around. And his opponent was someone who the public didn't know well fighting his first campaigns and the liberals were the natural ruling party with massive funding. Chretien ended badly, martin ended badly. This really isn't that complex. And honestly if you don't know there's a difference between canada's system and the brits i'm afraid you're not really qualified to be talking politics in detail in the first place.