CdnFox

Yeah - but he's still a dink right? Putin?

I hear there are some truck EV's either available or coming on line soon. But the bottom line is that even if that weren't the issue today, some of the more sticky problems with EV's are just not going to go away. In some areas the environmental savings is highly questionable. THe power grid upgrades are not happening in the near future and i see no plans to make them happen. New buildings aren't even being built with the capacity to charge all the vehicles if they were ev's. And retrofitting old ones is going to be an expensive nightmare. I like the ideas of ev's. I like the reduction in smog in the cities and i think that when the tech matures just a LITTLE more they will be a great option if we can solve the power issues. I think that if you look at the model A ford you could find all kinds of problems, but it wasn't long till things got better. But i just don't see that we're going to be there soon, and it seems like really pushing hybrid tech would bridge that gap nicely.

Awww muffin Don't go away mad So the cbc website is the worst place to get news? Well - i'm not saying you're wrong but i'm surprised you feel that way. There are TONNES of free access news sites and you've ALWAYS had to pay for newspapers. I've used those services. more than enough to read a newspaper or even watch a cbc news broadcast online. Did you think the CBC was free? We're paying for the news one way or another. I just dont' want to pay for YOU to watch the news. You pay for you and i'll pay for me So i was right Well that's a HELL of a lot less than i pay in taxes so sounds good!!!! Lets go with that Look - if someone somewhere wants to give you free service then great - grab it. But - don't expect ME to pay for YOUR 'Free' service. And don't complain if i don't want to. The cbc will be defunded and if people want it they can pay for it. If they don't it dies as well it should. It was necessary once upon a time - those times are long gone and they are bias as crap.

You can't even read my post and respond to it sensibly and you feel you're going to 'analyse' Canadian law? If what you were hoping for was a rational discourse, don't you think starting off with a little honesty and fairly addressing the concerns raised would have been appropriate? By failing to do so and making demands of others all you demonstrate is that a) you have no interest in a reasoned discussion and b) you suspect that deep down we have a point and would like to avoid it. Next time come to the table as an honest player and we can try again - but don't mistake me for someone who suffers foolishness lightly. In the meantime i'm sure if you try real hard you can find plenty of examples of people being cancelled or fired or arrested for their speech. Sadly, the examples are legion.

So what you're saying is you didn't read my post and/or can't address the concern. Well - you may be a bit of a troll but you're an honest one I appreciate that.

tonnes. But is there a point? I'm thinking that even if i provided 100 or 1000 no matter how good they are you'd find exception or excuse for them. I mean, it seems a little disingenuous that you're claiming you know NOTHING of any such language laws in canada where speaking against the established doctrine is an offense. Seriously you've NEVER heard of anything like that, absolutely cannot possibly guess what i'm talking about, that's your position is it? And you don't think it's still going on? Oh btw - just gonna leave this here .... enjoy https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-residential-school-denialism-declared-hate-speech-1.6744100

Have they? last i saw they doubled down on it when it was pointed out they hadn't even seen the 'emails' claiming that the unknown source was SOOOo reliable that everyone should just trust them. Nice if they have retracted it - i wouldn't know, i rarely have time to read the paper all the way to page 78 these days and i'm sure it would have been after that Our weakness is our strength.

You'd have to be a devout believer of the new religion to believe that

No, if anything prices were stagnant in the 1980s. In fact it did start before then. I would argue we saw it begin somewhere not long after the turn of the century, with a brief pause during the recession but then quickly making up ground. But - it became severely exacerbated during Justin's time and has now grown from a problem to a crisis and bordering on a national disaster and yes his immigration policy is making it much worse. You have to tie immigration levels into the increases in infrastructure or it will be a fail. At the end of the day tho it's about population. You have to make sure that your medical, educational, housing, etc is keeping pace with your population growth. Always. Whether that population is temporary or permanent, natural or immigrant, if you don't have basic resources pretty soon it gets ugly.

Man, there are days where if i could only think of a way to get off the planet....

Pretty close to 100 percent. of the elected people most will serve on one committee or another and they all have influence. Some more than others but none are none so to speak. But why wait - you can have an impact at the policy convention as well and that does have a major impact. As to the rest - the perfect leader for everyone is just not a thing. You look for a good leader and work with them I get if you're a little too old to be 'standing up' any more. I feel that way myself some times. But that's a choice - that's not because you wouldn't be able to. I get the idea of hangin' up the shootin' irons - we all get there. But if you wanted to, you could have a large impact. And i've met dozens and dozens of mp's over the years and they've always had time for me and others. I'm sure there's the odd one who doesn't but it's literally their job. For those who want real change - get up get involved and participate. It's actually easier than you think to make real change.

It is in fact. You do gain some efficiency because a power plant can be geared to run at 'constant' speeds rather than needing to accelerate etc. And some forms of fossil fuels are less polluting that gas or oil. But - in some places it doesn't make as much sense, you lose most of the benefit and the cost of getting there is pretty high.

Wow - how childish. You "lose" a discussion and have a hissy fit. Sorry kiddo - the bible is in fact a unique and seperate collection of values and it did influence canada's creation. And you haven't been able to offer a single example otherwise. You say "Roman" then are forced to admit they had different laws and moral values. I don't know what to tell you, You run along now, sounds like you could use a cookie and a nap. You're at that level of debate at this point.

It absolutely does. Liberal issues go seriously underreported and conservative mistakes stay in their news cycle. They don't report on anything that other papers don't. And it's not about not wanting to hear - i can always change the channel. But i shouldn't HAVE to pay. It would be like being forced as a tax payer to pay for fox news. A valid point - in 1970. There is virtually no where in canada right now that you can't get internet service and have access to all kinds of news. But sure - you're correct, they should pay for it if they like it. It is a completely bias news source. That is the simple truth. Which is fine, most are - but not if they're going to be on the public dime. So defund them and let them make a go at it in the public market. If people like you find the coverage good you won't mind paying for it out of your own pocket right? Or is it that you just demand your agenda be pushed for free?

Well as i've mentioned and you've been unable to refute we know that's not the case. Sorry It certainly is murder by our definitions. So - i guess they really DID need to be told what murder was And there's plenty of other examples. Shoot a man for stealing your horse - not murder. etc etc. Uhhhh - yea - because of christian values. Prior to that contact, not so much It's perfectly valid. You just realize that it's correct and there's no counter argument so you choose to attack it's validity rather than address it. Nope - it would be the same either way. Again - the fact it originated in one place doesnt mean it didn't also originate somewhere else independently. And in the case of tomatoes that's actually not far off as several species came about in different places. And it's 10 times easier for an idea to pop up in more than one place independent of each other You've realized you don't have a very good point haven't you SImply repeating something instead of making an argument doesn't make it true. As i've shown there are massive differences in laws from place to place, the christian version of morality is unique to itself even if similar (but different) elements appear in other beliefs. Sorry this upsets you so much but yet - the christian belief model is unique and there can be no doubt it's been formative. And as i've noted it didn't exist for "thousands" of years before Oh - are we back to pretending you didn't mention any laws? I quoted one, did you want me to do some mo So simple that it's wrong. And "based on' is not the same as "are" If they are "based" on something they they are by definition different than that thing. So they have evolved or grown into something new. So even though i've demonstrated that you're wrong and these morals are NOT ubiquitous nor are they what came before, even if you were right and they were BASED on something that came before they would still be unique and stand alone. Sorry - that statement is false demonstrably. The bible was never adapted into law. And roman law bears little resemblance to our laws, which use the bible as a base for the moral portions of the law. So the statement is just plain wrong across the board. And with that i think you've pretty much exhausted your argument. The biblical code of morality did not exist before the bible even if some general concepts are somewhat vaguely similar. In fact most are very different. There is no universal set of ethcis that the bible is based on. Our laws are not derrived from the bible but many are based on the morality within it. I get that you desperately want the bible to have no relevance in our system but for better or worse it is patently obvious that it does. Or at least did in the early days. Sorry for the inconvenience

It's bias, expensive and people should't be forced to pay for it'? Do you need more? The right aren't traditionalists. You're about 100 years too late for that. But they do tend to be patriotic which leads to your next point, Well i think all that would probably still be an issue whether they were traditionalists or not LOL Then there's the constant propping up of the liberals. well whether they despise canada or not the fact is that it's highly questionable to force people to pay for them. If people care about that art they should be willing to fund it from their own pockets.

As i noted, this person may not be the only one reading it tho i do get your point, More like if they said black history is garbage. Or that blacks don't belong in America and only live on the country "we" built. That'd be a pretty upsetting thing for a lot of blacks to hear. That might not make tensions better between the races. I would argue you should think about that before making a statement like that. Would you disagree? Well my point is if someone does take such a position, you're not helping by saying they are invald as a person for thinking that way. Even if you don't like them as a person as a result, the fact is everyone has a reason for believing what they do and it's better not to simply dismiss them like that imho. we've probably said our piece on the subject, but just something to think about

PHEVS actually have the longer range. Drive 1000 KM and measure how often you stop , I could get 5000 for a pure electric a while back. And did the gov't announcement say that all cars by whatever year are going to be EV? Or both hybrids and ev's? thought it was just ev's. there are a number including the Reuters one which the notes: in the worst case scenario where an EV is charged only from a coal-fired grid, it would generate an extra 4.1 million grams of carbon a year while a comparable gasoline car would produce over 4.6 million grams, the Reuters analysis showed. So - as i said, almost all the benefit wiped out in such areas. And - we're making some assumptions about battery life especially in colder climates which may make the predictions "optimistc". Then you need to factor in the average life of the cars. Some will crash for example, they're not all going to last to their mechanical maximum. Those that are destroyed early will need to be replaced. Seeing as the enviornmental costs are 'front loaded', how badly does that change the picture. And even those numbers don't take into account the costs enviornmentally and actually of upgrading the electrical grids. When the dust settles EV's don't make much sense in some areas when all factors are considered. The pay off is small or non existant for a huge cost or hassle. Other areas it makes more sense but it varies. Sure - but if you have to burn gasoline to generate those 37 kwh you're going to use more than 4 litres. If that were not the case, then hybrids would get 100 kms per liter of gasolline, and frankly that would be a massive enough environmental savings to justify not bothering with EV's at this point. You can't argue that gasoline is inefficient and then try to claim that gasoline is efficient. If it's not efficient powering cars it's not efficient creating electricity.

the difference is in the spread. The conservatives were 'ahead' but mostly in places like alberta. It does no good to win alberta by 100 percent - you have to have your support spread out a little more to win. Convince ontario. That's what was missing. And the news there is good right now, so yes hopefully they can.

No, the deficits just got shifted to the provinces. But it's the same taxpayer. So your argument that he 'balanced the books' by 'reducing costs' is fundamentally wrong. And what i said is correct. Chretien was no leader in that respect. Well setting aside the fact that it was only that high due to the libs in the first place .... Yeah - it's hard to deal with those issues. That's why you need a REAL leader. And he didn't do that, he took the easy way out. So - no leadership points there You said it precisely where you claimed the feds had no responsiblity in provincial health care. It's not a red herring, its the canada health act. And that was the whole deal - we HAD public health care before that but the deal was the feds would raise the tax money and distribute it for half the costs to make sure all provinces had equal funding for health care even if they didn't have the same tax base provided the agreed not to have any private health care. So - the provinces kept their end - but chretien did not. You seem to be suggesting that the health act shouldn't exist and the provinces should be responsible for everything. No, simply putting the word 'defacto' in front doesn't change the facts. raiding the ei fund was not a 'tax' , defacto or otherwise. Ahhhh - no they couldn't A 70 billion dollar 'temporary' income tax levy? ROFLMAO! they would have driven the country right back into recession It took decades to collect that money in the UI fund. it was the cash reserves to pay for people if there was ever a major downturn. And they stole those savings. There's no way to sugar coat this. Chretien was a HORRIBLE leader financially - he "balanced the books' by keeping taxes and trade agreements he promised to scrap, by stealing 70 billion dollars in insurance reserves from workers, and by downloading a lot of costs to the provinces who then had to pay the bills. Compare that to harper, who during a massive recession increased spending to the provinces , passed new laws protecting the ei program from theft and still brought the books back into balance. Chretien was a crappy leader. Sorry

Oh - you DIDN"T mention murder for example? Did you want to go back and read your posts before we continue that? You literally said "The broad strokes are ubiquitous," And as i pointed out that's not true AND it is not true that they have near universal answers, Nonsense. In fact there have been many times in history where you absolutely COULD do that. You could challenge people to a duel and kill them and walk away scott free. In fact that practice was still going on only 150 years or so ago and as i understand it it's still allowed in many areas. So - wrong. That is not universally agreed on. They literally do. Many many societies were just fine with murder before being exposed to the bible. Japan comes to mind. That's logically incorrect. First - the fact that a thing exists prior to it existing somewhere else does not remotely suggest that it doesn't exist somewhere else. You could say that tomatoes are an important part of italian cooking - if you then tried to claim it was not because greeks used tomatoes too then you'd be seriously wrong. And as we've seen - many of the 'laws' you claim didn't in fact exist in the first place. So whether they did or did not exist prior that does not change the fact that they represented a part of the christian belief system and that our laws are based on that. What we can say with certainty is they did NOT exist universally everywhere else at all, So they are not 'inherent' parts of human belief. Yeah - the fact that not ALL places did proves my point nicely, and the fact that SOME did doesn't take away from the fact that christians did as well. It's possible that the ancient messopotamians had a law that said to remember the sabbath and not work - but i bet that the provinces that had no working sunday regulations probably weren't basing it on that Sure they did. They practiced murder all the time. Half the later roman emporors came to power murdering their predecessor. Not one did jail time. In fact it was considered a sign of strength. If you murdered someone people liked then they may well kill you in return, but that's not the same. So what we can say with certainty is that while lots of people had various ideas about 'morality', some similar to the christian and some not, The christian version is in fact it's own unique collection and it's what our laws were generally based on as far as the 'moral' component of them goes. Sorry - if you're going to try to make the argument that christian values are the same as everyone else's values you're just not going to win that one. Values are different across many religions and many parts of the world.

No the costs remain. Healthcare didn't go away. Social services don't go away. the other things the transfers pay for don't go away. He's just changing who's responsible for writing the cheque. And the Canada health act is predicated on the FEDERAL gov't providing health care funding. Are you suggesting the provinces should scrap universal health care as a reasonable response ? As long as the feds are collecting tax dollars for heath care (which they do with the intent to divvy it up) then they do in fact have a responsibility there So complete swing and a miss on that one. No, a defacto insurance premium. Then it was taken from that. UI isn't a 'tax'. Well the courts said it was but that the gov't can pass a law making theft not theft if it wants. Remember that they sued the gov't to try to get the money back later. Sorry - if you sell someone 70 billion dollars worth of insurance and then take their premiums, tell them you won't provide the benefits they paid for and spend the premiums somewhere else.... that's theft. The fact that it can be done lawfully if you're a gov't doesn't really change that. So he basically passed the bills to someone else then stole 60 billion worth of people's insurance money. Thats only considered "good leadership" if you're a mob boss Sorry.

Well that's what i hear from most racists and bigots when i point out the need to see both sides. I"m not sure that's the mindset you want to follow if you think about it. Further - if you take that attitutde then you have no grounds to complain if someone chooses not to respect the groups you DO care about. You should REALLY think about that before you settle on that idea permanently. Well fair enough but there will be other people reading it as well. I guarantee that a percent who do will walk away with an attitude of "well if THATS how they're going to be then Screw natives! It's us vs them!" Now - you could successfully probably argue that that's not your responsibility but given the escalating racial and tribal tensions in Canada... it might be something to just keep in the back of your mind. Racial and ethnic hatred and violence don't just magically appear.

The vast majority of people drive short distances every day. I guess i should have been more clear that i mean 'overall' rather than on an individual basis, as in "canada would get 90 percent of the benefit". That's my fault for being unclear, sorry. well i know a lot are not. There are many options with ranges of 150 km or more and which are not horrible on gas when they do have to use it. So seeing as the majority of people live within 50 km of their workplace, most would be able to complete the daily trip and still pick up the kids without recharging. If they have to use a little gas it will be a very little. Because that's what gov'ts are pushing. That's what is goign to get the rebates. But that's not necessarily what the gov't SHOULD be pushing I've seen a number of studies that suggest that the pollution caused by generating that electricity basically wipes out the benefits of the EV environmentally in places where they still burn coal and oil And we to still have places that do that in canada. Well isn't that what hybrids do? Soooo we're back to that. I know a thing or two about the battery tech they're using currently in regular vehicles. I guarantee you it's not as big a difference as you might think over the life of the vehicle. It would pay off big time in places like bc or quebec where hydro generated power is abundant. But regardless - and yes i do know a thing or two about this - we simply don't have what it takes to go full ev right now without major costs or serious problems which will impact us on many levels. But we can derive most of the benefit over all with plug in hybrids and it wouldn't take nearly the same effort or cost. It feels like there are environmental 'puritans' out there who really want to repress that idea not because it's wrong but out of love for the idea of a 'pollution free' solution where carbon is not permitted at all. But - we know that's not possible right now in most areas.

LOL - in a nutshell. Or perhaps in a small car where they all fit into in this case.