CdnFox

That is the LAST thing we need. I posted on another thread the other day how we would start seeing calls for this and why it would be a disaster. The problem exists because the gov'ts have over interfered with the natural market forces and at this point things are in such a way that not only is it seriously against the developer's interests to build housing in advance of need (which is what we want, houses in place before people show up so we have a small surplus) but also the bureaucracy will not let them build enough even if it was worth it. What we need is strong leadership pulling the provinces and the feds togethter and treating htis like a crisis and imposing the necessary changes together. THere are many, this isn't a simple thing, and they all need to be addressed to fix this. Building gov't 'affordable' homes will make the problem much worse. Sure gov'ts can still build a few places like that for the very poor but there is no way they can build enough to solve this problem or come close and trying to will actually reduce the market's effort to build so you'll just be worse off. We are 1 million homes short of where we need to be in order for housing prices to stabilize and become more affordable. And we're still not building enough - so we need to increase what we're building AND THEN add 1 million units. That is NOT going to happen with gov'ts building "affordable" housing.

Yeash. It's getting to the point where we should stop referring to it as 'an election' and start calling it 'regime change". It is beyond terrible that Canadians can see this stuff, and from csis mind you not some conspiracy site, and not be furious. The fact that ANYONE will still vote liberal is shaming.

Hasn't happened yet. But then i never go into negotations with bullshit. I'm also pretty consistent from beginning to end, which means i don't have to pretend i didn't say something later or explain that i meant something different than i said - which is the problem you've been running into. If we were negotiating i'd basically walk out with everything you own if that was my goal

Says the guy who;s not talking to me My problem is trying to type while i'm laughing so hard at your posts I suspect a lot of people have that problem

I note that you have weird fantasies about doing things to peoples ass Not that we're here to judge, there's nothing wrong with your lifestyle choices. And as others note you're already being laughed at Certainly by me as well - but if that's what you're into then keep going by all means We can use the entertainment watching you dance like a monkey! LOL - at least you've stopped begging me to go away like you're a child or something That was pretty amusing!

Thanks for the explanation.

Awwww muffin ? You mad bro? (ppsssst - you're still talking to me! )

You're not wrong.

No, it's about the same. there's just no appetite for it right now. The hope is still very strong amongst the public that the first nations will stand up and build a future for themselves at some point and quit being victims. And some are, with some signing new deals and getting serious about participating in resource use in their areas instead of just saying 'no', and many are beginning to prosper. So - there's still hope. But the day that vanishes and people get fed up - it's over. That's always been the case and it will always be the case. Ask the Japanese about how fast peoples 'rights' can change if the public wills it.

But how does that work with the other countries already chipping in as well. As i understand it they're up to 100 new tanks now to be delivered and they have a fair bit of offensive firepower. With other countries sending their stuff too wouldn't it be likely the ukrainians would be able to conduct offensive as well as defensive operations? Not my area of expertise but it seems like they're building up for a aggressive move at some point.

Funny thing - turns out you DON'T need them in court. Remember when the first nations rights were taken away anyway? Peppridge farm remembers Remember when we solved the problem of court by making it illegal for first nations to hire lawyers? And all that's necessary to overrule the court is pass a new law. We don't because of our ethics and how the first nations are perceived. But it's VERRRRRRY easy to if it comes to it.

Honk honk

Nah i've got no problem getting what i want in negotiations You just have to not put up with bullshit.

Sorry - i don't take orders from the kremlin. And the only thing stopping the discussion is your hissy fits. You act like a jackass and you get treated like one. Try NOT acting like a jackass and make some sort of intelligent point and maybe things will get better for you Unless you're bound and determined to be the comic relief around here.

Hey -this is a family friendly place, you talk to your 'little fella' on your own time thank you very much. Still talking to your mirror i see And i can see how 'well respected' you are here LOL - you must be a masochist :) But i'm glad you're sticking around, i can use the laugh

No. Suffering fools isn't my forte. Still working on it. Awwww muffin, you're having delusions again I didn't support 'heavy' immigration at all. I very specifically said there needs to be specific restrictions and trudeau's screwing it up. See - this is why you wind up coming across as an uneducated buffoon. If you stuck to the facts and simply made your case you'd be better off. But when you realize you're wrong you get snappy. Yeah you did. I asked what makes immigration 'mass' and you said "well i hear people downtown talking other languages too much". So - that's what you said. As your answer to the question 'what does "Mass" immigration mean. Sooooooooo No, they don't claim there's a problem with it or that there's too much immigration just because people speak a different language. So you're the only xenophobe so far. No, i'm literally taking what you said. No straw men. I commented on your specific answer. "Straw men" and "Gaslighting" and "goal posts" are usually the battle cry of people who are afraid they're losing an argument. Not always but mostly. Seems like the case here. Well only you would know for sure - all i can say is you think migration is 'mass" migration if the language in your downtown area is different than whatever one you like. Yup. I read fine. i don't think they quite say what you think they do ? and they certainly don't say that there's too much immigration because of language. Well there were a lot of big words in them so you probably wouldn't have understood anyway. Nobody said we did. I said if we didn't have immigration we would. But we do have immigration So we dont. And aging is by far not the only issue. Yes - because we have immigration. Which was my point You said we should slow or better yet stop it. I said we can't stop it because if we do we would have negative growth. How is this confusing you, it's so simple. You mean where you imagine that and it never happened? Actually i said that population growth is a problem but the solution is to increase supply not decrease population. And you've not proven wages for canadians are stagnant in the slightest. And the only other 'bad' thing you mentioned was that the language down town isn't to your liking. Well i'm sure your career in macdonalds has lead you to conclude that but in the real world employers want the BEST employees with ties to the community so they don't up and leave. It doesn't apply to your kind of work, anyone can ask if someone wants fries with that. Right now due to shortages employers are hiring more immigrant workers than usual, but that's because there are no Canadian ones left basically. Sure - for farm work and macdonalds. You won't find that in the engineering sector. Yes it does - it would be true regardless of whether employers preferred immigrants or not. Nothing you've shown shows employers prefer low wage low skilled staff either. But there are studies out there. I just don't waste time digging them up for those who can't read and are pre-prejudiced. You can find them if you feel like stepping out of your echo chamber. They've done lots of research into how immigrants fare after coming to canada and what holds them back. Language is number one - if they can't speak english they struggle. Most can. AFter that it's that without an employment track record in canada employers don't want to hire them. For exaclty the reasons i said. So if they HAVE to they do at lower wages. That gap shrinks over time as the immigant establishes themselves, but they will tend to lag at least a little always. They just won't have the work experience and established record of people who were born here. Nor the same contacts as a rule. Even temporarily hurts us. Unless you mean like 'for a week'. And as i pointed out it wouldn't actually make any difference because of the way our real estate system is structured. There'd be a very short blip and then we'd be underbuilding again. The only difference is it would take that much more effort to ramp back up when you started immigration again and so the problem would be worse. Like i said before you lost your marbles, the solution has to be to increase supply, not repress demand.

Holy shit, what are you in kindergarten? You are literally talking to me so it would seem like you're talking to me I guess YOU forgot you weren't talking to me if that's the case. If you don't want to talk to me then don't talk to me. that's up to you. You dont need to involve me in your weird little delusions or update me, it really doesnt' matter that much to me either way. I didn't stop talking to you. When you act like a jackass i talk to you and point out you're a jackass. When you say something that makes sense i say 'that makes sense'. Btw - you're acting like a jackass. Your behavior is pretty shameful.

They're already conquered. We provide for their every need, there's no more thorough way to enslave or conquer a person than that. And we negotiate when it suits us and our collective moral feelings at the time. Not much need to sue either. No, historically you just change the laws or the interpretation. It's really not a big deal, we've done that many times. So it just depends on what we want to do over time and how much sympathy people have for the first nations. It won't last forever, nothing does. But hopefully while the sentiment allowes for it they'll finally find their footing and look at how they want to govern themselves and fit in and start to make their way in life. For the first 300 years or so the first nations and the europeans got along great. Then sentiment changed and for 100 years or so they didn't, and canadians who decended from the europeans had no problem stripping the first nations of their rights and interests. Now it's swinging back, has been for the last 50 years or so. The first nations need to give up the 'woe is me' nonsense soon and start building a life before it flips back again.

They didn't. We do. We are a caring culture and we see them suffer and also we feel some guilt for their inability to care for themselves so we look to try to right those wrongs in some way. But that's just us, if we decided not to do that they would have no power. Lets face it, as a culture they've become professional victims. Unless something changes it's not like they have any ability to make their own way.

well we bought the damn thing and you have to shoot SOMETHING with it...

This has the ring of truth, athough i did see one study specifically addressing first generation covid and masks. It indicated that specifically in small enclosed poorly ventilated areas (inside someone's office for example) masks could be useful extending the amount of time you need to be exposed before you catch it. In other words, if it took 15 mins of exposure without a mask it might take a half hour with one. You would still get it if you stayed long enough. But the masks were useless outdoors, in well ventilated areas like larger high ceiling grocery stores etc. AND- that was original covid, not delta or later which was much more contagious. And it didn't address contact transmission. So - USELESS? Probably not useless. But - so CLOSE to useless that it only would be helpful in very very select circumstances and not worth making mandatory at all.

Well if they were the first immigrants in fairness they would also be the first nation right? As to indigenous - depends on your definition. We did not evolve into humans on this land. But it is the land of our birth and creation. So when it comes to canada, either everybody born here is indigenous or nobody is, depending on your definition.

ohhhh - GAY jokes!! I get it - you're not just a commie, you're not just a hypocrite, you're not just a dishonest person, you're ALSO homophobic! Wow - you really are the full package aren't you Tell me again how you don't resort to insults You started this. Don't get mad at me that you can't finish it translation: Wahhhh wahhhhh - i picked a fight with someone and they turned out to be tougher than me and i want them to stop but they won't do what i tell them tooooo WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH! Wow it really is amusing to see this in a thread about the ukraine war You and putin should start a support group I know - try ordering me to go away again. See if that helps.

Lying to yourself is one way to cope i guess I bet any money if i post what you said you'll still try to claim you didn't say it or you meant to say something else but lets try. Me: 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). Blackbird: Not necessarily. Did you read what I wrote? The historic right to own long guns is well-established in Canada within the framework of training, passing an exam, and receiving a permit. That cannot be arbitrarily taken away. You in reply: I read your post. You’re wrong. You literally directly replied to him and replied the same to me elsewhere that even tho we were very specific about the framework and that it wasn't a primary right WE WERE WRONG. So there you go. Looks like I really do 'win again'. You should feel pretty ashamed of your performance, and you owe both of us an apology. Id' be willing to bet you aren't that good of a person tho.

No, that's basically the opposite of what i meant. Nobody who actually understands the issue uses the term 'Mass' immigration. It's the literary equivalent of going over an overpass with your turn signal on. It's like a sign to the world "blink blink, i'm clueless" But i was trying to be nice about it No, most of that is just dumb. The first part is just kind of xenophobic - it's only 'mass' based on language? How does THAT work. Mass is a function of volume , not ethnicity. Yeash. THe rest is about as intelligent. The vast vast majorty of people speak english even if they can speak another language or even if they prefer one. My grandparents spoke german and russian at home quite a bit even tho they spoke perfect english - do you have some sort of problem with that? None of that makes any immigration "Mass". Sure. I think i mentioned some of the limiting factors i consider to be important. No, i said it's used by people for that purpose to convey that sense but that it has no meaning in this context. Look at your own examples - "mass" immigration means you don't like the language they use. Well that isn't Mass. That just means you would prefer different immigrants who spoke a language you approve of. Which economists are those? I haven't seen any suggesting that. Pushing the retirement age back was really about addressing other problems. Still a good idea but different topic The person who ISN"T an economist by trade (although is by training many decades ago) doesn't say that. He doesn't talk about declining populations. He talks about trying to offset the boomer bubble with increased immigration, That is an ENTIRELY different issue. If that were true there would be no problem. It is not. Sorry. I literally addressed that directly. Well over a paragraph. So - maybe read a little before you comment. There is a great deal that suggests it would. But the devil is always in the details of course. Oh dear. Well.... i guess we can see where the problem is. First - despite the headline the 'bank' doesn't really say much about immigration holding wages back. There's no detail. That leads me to believe that they're using the standard data. Well - the problem with that is right in the observation made by the 'bank' itself. The difference in immigraiton - which means the numbers are a little skewed. Here's how it works. Immigrants are NOT desirable for businesses for the most part. Most businesses would rather hire people who were raised here, speak the language and understand the culture perfectly, were educated in our systems and methods. etc. And they like strong ties to the community which come from being raised here. They will pay top dollar for Canadian workers outside of the most basic jobs. They will pay LESS for an immigrant because they are percieved as 'not as good', at least for a long time after the immigrant arrives So - they're willing to pay 30 for a canadian, and only 20 for an immigrant. In fact many will pay 35 to attract canadians and only 15 to an immigrant. So they don't drag down canadian wages. But look at the math. If you have 10 canadians earning 30 and 1 immirgant earning 15 then the average wage is 28.65 If you rack up immigration and now there's 10 canadians and 3 immigrants the average wage is only 26.53. oh noes - the wages are falling!!!! But it's still the same for the canadians. And it's still the same for immigrants. It's just the ratio that's changed. So immgration doesn't actually change wages. It just changes the 'average'. It' s a common misconception that businesses "want" immigrants because they're "lower wage" - but the reason they're lower wage is taht businesses don't want them. They'd rather have canadians if they can. Except mcdonalds or the like. So raise them. You'll get no argument from me that trudeau is screwing up immigration which is something we were doing very well previously at least since 2006 when we made the last significant changes. But that doesn't mean we shoudn't have immigration. Your suggestion to stop it would not be a good thing,.