CdnFox

Dude, it's not a fallacy. It's true. Perhaps what you meant is that there are other factors. But - lets take a look at that. Oil changes - well that costs me about 100 dollars ever 7000 k or so (probaby could get away with less.) AND if i wanted i could do it myself to save costs. But lets say i don't. So if i drive 20k a year - which is far more than i do acutally but lets make it closer to the average - that means based on my average gas milage over say 5 years of the vehicles life i will buy about 1500 dollars in oil changes, and i'll buy 5,555 litres of fuel approx. SO at just over today's gas prices i'll spend 10 grand in fuel. So i'm at 11,500. That means after 5 years i'm STILL paying less. With a fair bit of room for price increases and the like. And for ME personally that would be more like 15 years, i don't need to drive much, i do about 5 - 7 k a year right now. And my car is as nice as comfortable and feature rich as i want entirely. And here's the thing - you've got some good points and as i and others have said I DO believe it could very well be a good choice for some specific buyers and circumstances, but you're trying to sell it as being WAAAAAAAYYYYY more of a practical choice for "everybody" than it is. And then you wind up stretching your argument too thin. I paid for my car cash and it was just under 20grand, i could very easily afford a top end ev. I do not want one, it would not be a good choice for me, and i have other things i'd much rather spend the money on. I consider 'luxury' cars to be a waste of cash (for me) and while i get others may enjoy that it's just not something i would spend money on even if i was a billionare. (except maybe my own personal batmobile. I'd spend cash on that.) And subcompact cars are not the only car cheaper. You can get a new corolla as was mentioned for pretty close to 20,000, you can get one that's a year old or so for under that. So there you go. You're taking a good argument for some people and stretching it into a ridiculous argument that's supposed to apply to everyone. There are people who like EV's. There are people who like subcompact cars. There are people who like corollas. There are people who like big trucks. All of them should be able to get the vehice they want and satisfy their specific needs. A modest but significant part of the market will find an EV a great choice. And more power to them (pun intended ) . But - that's it. It's a BAD choice for others. Stop trying to hammer your square peg into every hole

Apparently the provocation was that Ukraine said they'd like to join nato and nato said no. Obviously that's grounds for war and totally justifies the slaughter of children and innocent people.

Literally your entire argument But nato was not interested. And if it's that far back, why didn't russia invade in 2002. So obviously no threat. They didn't even agree to let them in after 2014, when russia took over the crimea in an obviously illegal fashion. Or was that little bit of empire building ALSO 'self defense'? Awww, look at you, trying to lie your way out of losing an argument on the internet You remind me of my 9 year old niece trying to lie to get out of something she did. Except she's grown out of it now. In fact YOU SPECIFICALLY asked a question ABOUT HOW MANY CONFLICTS THE CHINESE HAD BEEN IN. I literally posted that precise information, listing all the armed conflicts they had been in without any judgement or commentary as to whether they were 'war like'. I didn't compare them to the US at all. Here's a hint in life - if you have to lie to make a point, you probably don't have a very good point. S0 lets just recap. You're still a commie and defend china and Russia with lies. You're ok with children and innocent people being killed because it's justified given that in 2002 ukraine wanted to join nato and nato said no. Driving tanks and troops across a border without provocation in order to bring down another gov't and expand your empire is "self defense". No russians were killed or injured in the making of this war, and those who claim there have been casualties (including several gov't orgs) are simply repeating CNN talking points. Uh huh. Bud, it is so obvious you have no clue what you're talking about that even my niece would be disappointed with how thick you're being. And all you have left is lies it would seem. Yer done. Keep dancing like a monkey if you like, or if your communist friends are paying you or something, but nobody is going to take you as anything other than cheap entertainment and proof that commie supporters are still out there and as full of shit as they ever were. You have a great day kiddo

And here's the thing. If you can buy an ev for 40 grand, or a comfortable reliable car like a corolla for 22 grand or the like, then if you buy the cheaper ICE car you've got around 15 plus thousand dollars to put towards fuel. That is a LOT of fuel, even at today's prices. So - the big 'incentive' of saving gas money is largely gone. For a lot of people that's the reality.

Awww look at that - the guy who supports the commies is calling me a leftie Oh noes - how WILL i cope Does lying to yourself help you sleep at night? Because it's a lie. I have this funny thing about telling the truth. You wouldn't understand. I understand that Russia invaded the ukraine without provocation to expand their empire and CLAIMED it was to defeat nazis. You don't understand that nothing that went before that justifies killing children and innocents. And now russia is paying the price. LOLOLOL - i produced several independant estimates and you didnt' produce a single thing, but yes ... ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD ARE WRONG - but you're right It's the REST OF THE WORLD that's crazy, not you!! Here's a hint kiddo - the voices in your head are NOT your friends. Well you're the one in the commie camp, so you tell us what the leftists are doing comrade And i dont' think anyone needs to call you crazy - it's pretty self evident

Still talking to your mirror i see you should work in a movie theatre - you're all about projection aren't you. Yeah - they know russia is a power hungry country that will invade other countries without just cause in the name of expanding their empire. Meanwhile - Now Russia knows their gear sucks, their army is trash, and they've lost a huge amount of gear and manpower and are losing a war to the ukraine. They are utterly humiliated. Hear their latest attack just got smashed as well. Awwwww. And we learned you think that an imaginary alliance which hadn't been approved is sufficent grounds to kill thousands of civilians and you'll laugh about their deaths because it's so amusing to you. So there's that. All kinds of education going on isn't there But the funnest part is - NATO wouldn't likely have ever done a deal with ukraine and now it's probably going to happen as a result of this. oh.... and 'self defense' isn't killing someone because they might do a deal with someone else. Sorry.

Are you talking to your mirror? I was responding to your blather, the facts had previously been given by me and you offered none. "I'll give you no facts - WAAAAAAHHHH YOU GAVE ME NONE IN RETURN!!!!! WAAAHAHHH" yesh - calm down and go change your diapers. Still talking to the mirror i see Ahh well Its absolutely true. Prove otherwise. Simply pretending it isn't is childish. And we both know who the liar here is. Say hi to your mirror for me. As to the rest - more lies and bullshit from a guy who supports the murder of children and innocents as a reasonable response to the idea that some day ukraine MIGHT join nato - which had never been approved, And all the while providing NO facts while crying that others don't provide enough. Sorry kiddo - like i said your credibility went out the window when you said that the invasion and slaughter of women and children is justified as an 'act of defense'.

Again it's hard to look at the results and disagree.

Which is odd because in ww2 the russians not only understood and mastered blitzkrieg and the idea of the shwerpunkt but they also mastered how to counter it, so you'd think they'd be really strong at executing that kind of attack. Oh well - they're certainly relearning a few things now i'm sure.

I'm having trouble counting how many levels that's mildly disturbing on.

Sure - https://news.yahoo.com/one-russias-war-ukraine-numbers-191051196.html pretty detailed from the uk gov't. https://uawar.net/stats - they cite their sources https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/ukraine-conflict/1677675998-russia-s-death-toll-in-ukraine-highest-of-any-post-wwii-conflict-report Another source arriving at similar numbers. You need more? or are you done pretending at this point. The tanks and such are easy to count. Riiight - i forgot you've got no problem with civvies getting killed as long as it's russians doing it. "LOL". And as you can see those numbers are way out of date. I've barely heard anyone call it a genocide period. Some have said the russians stealing the kids would be, and arguably thats true by the definition but other than a tiny bit of hyperbole here and there i see nobody referring to it that way in general. I think that's something you latched on to and isn't really a thing at any point. Always fun to create fake talking points if you can't win with facts i suppose. Ahhh -that's where you learned it The problem with relying on stupidity is that often you meet people who aren't. And then you look like an absolute child. But - you do you. Little fella.

Well - the results make it hard to dispute any of that. I do remember the old story about an american general noting their tanks were superior to the russians in quality, and the soviet leader of the day saying "quantity has a quality all it's own". I guess turns out he was wrong

LOL - tell me you know i'm right without telling me That's the typical reaction one sees in the fanatic when their beliefs are challenged and they have no logical argument Your lack of understanding of history is abysmal. Although come to think of it the russians attacked poland in the end too didn't they. Of course it is. Period. You might as well be a flat earther if you're going to pretend otherwise. If that were true then they would have accepted "ukraine won't join nato' as a term for ending the war - but vlad didn't want to negotiate then. AND he's not pushing for that now, he wants to keep his territory gains. Or whats left of them. ANd nato was in no danger of allowing full membership to the ukraine. Now however that's a real possibility. The facts demonstrate your theory is just plain wrong. He wanted to expand the empire and control important resources in the ukraine. Period. Nope. The moment they signed - invade. Period. There has NEVER been a time in history where appeasing a predator like Putin has EVER resulted in peace. Remember that russia promised to never ever ever invade or threaten ukraine for any reason when they gave up their nukes. That wasn't long ago. You are literally going to kill people with that attitude. You don't give a shit about the kids, they can die for all you care. You have NO problem with putin slaughtering them by the schoolbus load as long as you can blame it on the west. So spare me the crocodile tears. You want to save childrens lives - you send a clear message to violent warmongers like putin that if they invade another country there is a horrific price to pay. Any other course leads to MORE war - which is FINE with you as long as it's not blamed on poor putin who's done nothing wrong. You're disgusting. Trying to put the deaths of the children on someone OTHER than the guys who literally pulled the triggers. They drove tanks across the border, they slaughtered innocent children and civilians, the bombed and missiled cities and attempted to overthrow the lawful gov't. They absolutely 100 percent entirely started this war and they did so to steal land and expand their empire. Period. Trying to pretend otherwise is disgusting. You might as well claim hitler didn't start ww2. You can't even figure out what chamberlain did - i think this is a little over your head. But the american aggression in cuba lead to a response from cuba and their allies and rightfully so. And in the end they got what they wanted. Same thing here - russian aggression has lead to a response from ukraine and their allies and rightly so. And in the end ukraine will get most of what it wanted. Sorry - you lost all credibility when you tried to excuse the killing of children as perfectly justified as a response because an independent nation wanted to defend itself. Unless it's the US's fault right? Then you're fine with it. If Poor Mr Putin launches nukes then the important thing is he's not to blame.

Missed this. If you really don't think he's lost thousands of tanks and hundreds of aircraft or had dead soldiers - i'm afraid it's not me that's delusional The tanks and planes and gear is easy to verify and many independant sources agree with that. A dead tank tends to stick out, easy to count. There's little doubt. Same with planes, they tend to leave decent sized holes in the ground when they crash. I didn't even MENTION the warships that got sunk. I suppose you think that's western propaganda as well So there's just no debating that. It's childish to pretend otherwise. The casualty rates are another matter. They are almost certainly over estimated, bodies are easily removed and harder to count, and they tend to estimate on the high side. So they're estimating what like 130 thousand? Cut that in half and you're probably pretty darn close to the truth. Even the russians have noted their losses have been very heavy. So if you think that the russians have been getting pounded for a year with little to no losses or casualties .. LOL - give me a break

I'm sure the russians provoked him (two can play at that game )

But most don't. Which is why it's not nonsense at all. No. It's called that because it misuses the power. The two are not mutually exclusive. He's very powerful, AND he's very incompetent. Which is a dangerous combo Well that's what makes him incompetent You're right of course, which is why it usually takes him an abnormally long time to respond to any kind of crisis or sudden issue. Er...ok

Admittedly that's not untrue. "When times are tough people turn to the tories". Traditionally the conservatives do best after the liberals or ndp has done real harm to the economy and someone has to clean up.

So he's losing. A war that country chose. That country does not vanish if you ignore them. They started this war, and if they win it they'll start the next war. There is GOING to be a confrontation, Better to have it now Your logic is the same logic that Chamberlain used. "If we just give them poland, they'll be happy and we'll have peace." no. that's not how it works. Give me a break. that guy couldn't concentrate long enough to enter the launch codes The russians started this war, it's to everyone's advantage for them to suffer defeat and be depleated. If they're going to pick a nuclear fight over this war then they were going to sooner or later anyway. But at the end of the day you do NOT promote peace by appeasing bullies. They and every other bully out there has to know if you pick an aggressive war, it may not go the way you like . I'm sure if putin could rewind the clock he'd never have started this in the first place now.

I read your post fine. Your answers aren't honest and are polerized against conservatives. That is most often a liberal trait. NDP supporters also don't like conservatives but they tend to be more honest and upfront about it. What is the point in having a lengthy discussion if you don't intend to be honest about it. The CBC plays a significant role in our culture and it's elimination will bring change. Yeah - i don't really believe that to be honest. And it's pretty common for liberal supporters to pretend neutrality on forums to pretend to be a 'non partisan' viewpoint But your comments and actions don't really jive with your stated position here. Why would hiring gays or the like 'assasinate' those who supported PP from the start? The cpc has supported gays since about 2006. The first cpc candidate i volunteered for was gay, At the policy convention where gay marriage came up there was strong support for the gays. I supported PP"s campaign and I'm pro gay rights. Let me guess - you're one of those liberals who actually believes justin's propaganda that conservatives hate gays right? Sigh. Yeah - definitely not a liberal supporter. Gotcha. Well - yes and no. You see - socialists of any type are willing to allow private business PROVIDED that a) the gov't controls it to the point where they might as well own it - thus taking no risk but still exercising control and b) provided they can tax the bejeezuz out of it so that they might as well own it and again do so with no risk. So while they might be willing to allow people to have their name on the business the end result is still the same. What the liberals have been fond of us siphoning off gov't money into businesses which will do them favours or give them a benefit, either as a party or personally. They also do that with charities. etc etc. so they're socialist in the sense that they want to control and tax businesses beyond the needs of the gov't, but i guess you'd say they were just corrupt in that they put a lot of that money in their pockets one way or another,

Well considering i never said anything about alberta hating them i think that you're paying too much attention to the voices in your head again and should listen to what real people say. Just plunged the province into major deficit, inherited the strong economy which is currently slowing down, and many of our prime industries are in distress and looking at downsizing. Also drove landlords out of the market hard during the pandemic and despite promising since day one ot fix the housing issues prices for homes and rent are far worse and largely unaffordable. No, it's peachy.

Ok - so harper won x3 but that's not proof -just when justin does. And - justin got less than 40 percent by a long shot. in fact - he actually LOST the popular vote. The CPC got more votes than him, Yet - somehow he IS reflective of the population while harper getting 40 percent isn't. Tell me you're being dishonest without telling me. Now you're just being childish. if that were true they wouldn't need any gov't funding.

Weird - you said something, i noted you said something and what you didnt' say, and now what you said is somehow my fault. Sorry kiddo - your gaslighting might work on elementary school kids but not actual thinking people. You'll have to step it up. I can explain to you how stupid that statement is if you need me to. But - try to work it out for yourself first. I don't think you've asked a single thing honestly. In fact - the fact you would refer to it as a 'feverish trudeau hater' shows your dishonestly. You asked 'Honestly' by classifying it as 'feverish' did you LOL - kid, i don't know what bridge you crawled out from under but your trolling is second rate at best. I can defend any position i have logically and with reason. and usually in great detail. Nothing 'feverish' here. And emotions usually don't get involved. And the fact you would ask that instead of challenging my actual viewpoints shows that you're not interested in the truth. Oh? You're getting paid instead/? Soooo - how did he assasinate them if he promoted them exactly? they aren't just left, they're far left. And All models of gov't support business, the difference is in who owns them.

And thanks for proving my point.

Oh HELL yes. In fact - when they were in power the last time Alberta voted the BC Premier "businessman of the year" because he drove so many BC businesses into Alberta! No joke!! The ndp has always been slightly neutral or outright bad to business. They're never GOOD for business.

First off - you didn't see a shift for 10 years when harper won? I sure did. Most did. And harper tried to play fair, Second off - you don't think the cbc and it's news plays any role in how Canadians see things? Really? I don't think i'd refer to you as an 'optimist'. I think i'd choose a different word.