CdnFox

That's the montegue case. And a provincial court. Pay attention. You'll find the supreme court overrides that. And the supreme court has spoken saying that while we have no guaranteed right to firearms as a primary right as they do in the states that we do have such a right subject to reasonable restrictions by the gov'ts. Sorry kiddo.

Before you go any further, i 've got about 500 pages of engineers reports on my desk right now regarding ev charging in specific buildings. I don't really care what your weird air conditioner theories are - i know what i'm talking about. Central air takes ONE hook up. And in fact they do cause a lot of power issues. Ask california about that. And to answer your question for the most part they started to design new buildings with central air and incorporate it into the original design - old buildings did without it. But if everyone's got an EV then ALL buildings must provide for it. It's a world of difference. A modest sized condo would have 80 units. To provide 30 amps between them even if you load balance over 4 units would be 600 amps and you'd have to be able to supply that all at once for extended periods. That's above and beyond the building's other power needs. Buildings are not built for that. It CAN be done but you'd have to go back and re do the building grid and that is NOT cheap. Then theres the costs of the coring to get to the parking stalls. None of that is cheap or easy either. So - who's paying for that? ANd how long will it take if we started today to get all the buildings up? Unless we import a hell of a lot of electricians it's going to be more than 12 years. I can barely get one on site to fix a light fixture right now. It cannot be done without extensive modifications and in most cases the local grid couldn't do it for more than about one building if at all without upgrades. So we're also talking about hundreds of millions in upgrades for hydro . This is NOT a simple prospect. If you're counting on a roll of the dice - then it is morally and ethically wrong to set a hard date. A gov't goal must be achievable. No, it is possible to stimulate advancement without being destructive. An off the cuff example would be requiring all provincial power companies to produce a plan for how they will upgrade their grid to allow for ev's when the need is there with details. That helps a lot with planning and gives politicians an idea fo what's possible to develop strategies with. Or require all new buildings to be plumbed with conduit for ev charging circuits, and to have the internal capacity physically even if they don't have enough power run to the building day one. That at least starts to provide for infrastucture moving forward and it's an order of magnitude cheaper than retro'ing the building later. There's things we can do. But now - the gov't can say "oh we solved that problem" without having actually done ANYTHING constructive and can just walk away. And 12 years from now when we're stuck in the same boat the liberals will be like "oh well - that guy is gone now, vote for us! We can solve the problem in 12 years from now, isn't that great!?"

Nope - romans would write it in latin. Greeks living in rome would write it in greek You LITERALLY DID. You claimed it didn't matter where in the empire you were born, you were a citizen. ONCE AGAIN changing what you said when you realize you're wrong. You literally claimed otherwise. But if they're just living in the city and they are not citizens - then they're not romans are they. ROFLMAO - It was YOUR point!!!! LOL!!!! YOU were the one who made the claim!!! I literally just responded to you!!! HAHAHAHA!! Well at least you're admitting your point was nonsense I guess that's progress sort of You - 'this thing is true and relevant" Me - "its' not true. Here's the facts" You - "Oh - well - it wasn't relevant anyway and you're a bad person for bringing it up!" LOL - I'll give you this, you're not right very much, but by god you're entertaining No, you're just self-evidently delusional. And apperently not familiar with what 'self evident' means. The values of christianity are distinguishable from other religions and cultures (possible exception of the jews for obvious reasons). That's pretty obvious. Most other religions don't agree with the christinan beliefs. Muslims don't. Bhuddists dont'. Christianity is unique. Most of the religions are for that matter but christianity is. It was not written by the romans, it was not simply stealing all the roman morals, sorry.

Keep digging your hole kiddo For the time period and the activities you're talking about you're referring to the byzantine which became the holy roman empire in around the 900's. The byzantine was the eastern roman empire initially till it split. Once again you display a remarkable lack of knowledge. You're probably a nice kid but you just clearly don't know what you're talking about. It would be like someone claiming that einstein invented physics. Sorry kid you're just so wrong it's comical Next time do a bit of research first.

If you want to call reality my world (rather than yours) then sure. It's not remotely close to that tho is it. If the Canadian gov't wrote a document they wouldn't write it in chinese and then translate it to english. If some chinese people who lived in Canada wrote a document and someone else translated it into english you wouldn't say "canada wrote this". AHhh... no. No, a person born in gaul under the romans was not automatically a roman citizen. In fact it wouldn't be till 200 years later that gauls were granted citizenship other than specific cases. Yes - just like you say that rome wrote the bible, that murder is the same everywhere, and a bunch of other similarly intelligent things Which is why you have to keep going back and changing your story. Read a book kid. Then we can talk. Christians have a distinct and unique moral value set. And our country was based on it Sorry for the incovenience to your preconceived ideas.

That would be the 'holy roman empire' - the byzantine which existed AFTER christianity was founded and which was based on Christianity. Not the 'romans'. And even then they didn't 'write' it. As you say, collection of letters and stories from other people that were compiled. Paul wasn't a roman for example. So the idea that the bible was written by the romans' is pretty crazy

What difference would that make? That's not going to help with the transition. They can't. It's not possible wihtout spending massive massive amounts in infrastructure changes on many levels. The majority of people (in cities - edited) these days live in a strata or will be soon. Those buildings, even the new ones being built, cannot support a charger for each individual stall. Most can't provide one for even a 10th of the stalls. Not without massive rewiring at great expense. AND - even if they could, the electrical grid can't supply them yet. It's not possible without doing massive economical damage and honestly unless massive efforts were underway today which they are not i doubt we'd be ready in time. I already see this problem every day. There are many who realize they bought ev's prematurely for their circumstances. It is quite easy to deal with the cost issues. The problem is that NOBODY including the newest buildings are putting in enough electrical provisions to handle that kind of power load. Even with load balancing (splitting feeds amongst users when there's more than one using it) you can't provide for even half of the average building. Townhouses are often worse. And as i said - even if you rewire the buildings the power grid isn't there. I can't get enough power to provide for owners even if the building could handle it, which they can't. And for a strata it's a long process to even begin that work, which they won't if there isn't a clear path. There's general meetings to be held, there's proposals to be obtained, the owners have to be convinced it's worth spending the money, It's just not reasonably possible in 12 years, unless MASSIVE gov't investments and regulations happen pretty much right now, And they're not. Hell most provinces haven't even changed the building codes to require conduit for ev charging.

The proof is already there. I feel no particular need to indulge the wishes of children who like to pay games. All romans spoke latin. The fact that some also spoke greek is nice but that would mean it wasn't the romans who wrote the bible it would mean it was greeks who had become part of the roman empire. You mean the large nation spanning continents i assume. Sure - but most of those people weren't romans. Gaul was part of the empire, but the gauls weren't romans. I think you got confused again. We were talking about the romans and how they treated the Christians God you have the attention span of a goldfish. No no, I'm not saying i'm smart. I'm saying you're stupid. ? And i think that's pretty apperent to all without me saying it Do better next time. "the romans wrote the bible" - i mean... yeash kid.

Yes. We absolutely can. And PP has said he'll do exactly that. There was a time when the CBC filled a critical purpose which could not be achieved otherwise in a normal market environment. Those days are over. All we need to do is say 'there is no money for the cbc in next years budget at all". They will still exist, they can go find other revenue (they make other revenue now), they can become an independent company. If they can appeal to the market they can make money and pay their own way. If not they die. But either way- i don't have to pay for them any more.

The climate imperative is leading people to make bad decisions. As to the time line 12 years doesn't even come close the way things are. It would not be possible to accomodate that unless massive changes started taking place today which the gov't has no provision for. We can flap our arms as hard as we like, but it won't help. If the gov't wanted to do something useful it might have done something like "we'll put 20 billion on the table and a new law that every province must be able to provide for ev charging and infrastructure within 12 years". Then things might have moved along. But as it is - the goal is outrageously unrealistic. And that causes people to basically ignore it. And when it doesn't work and the next idea is proposed people will be 'we tried before, i don't want to try again'. This is just the worst kind of harmful virtue signalling from trudeau. It cost him nothing so what the heck and who cares if it hurts rather than helps, he'll be gone by then

Every time you say that, i post a quote showing it. And every time you just sputter and change the subject. Everyone can see what you said - its become a common tactic for you to pretend you didn't say things you clearly did. The Romans wrote the new testament. In greek. And THEN translated it to their own language which was latin. And these romans worked on it for centuries. Because romans wrote it. Well - i tihnk we've definitively demonstrated that you know less about the history of these things than the average 5 year old That's pretty hilarious The romans didn't write the bible, new testament or old. And roman values and laws were very different than the ones in the bible. Which is one of the reasons that old rome kept throwing these people to the lions. If you agree with someone's beliefs and morals you don't go tossing them to a hungry kitty I think this conversation has probably reached the end of it's useful life I think you need to do a LOT of reading before you'll be in a position to make any useful comments moving forward. "The romans wrote the bible in greek" LOLOLOL!

Well that's not what they get paid for. which is kind of the point. If they won't do what they're paid for we should stop paying them. Then they're absolutely free to go ahead and do that if they wish - IF people are willing to pay for it directly. They will have to be accountable to the market forces. ANd i have no problem with that.

Well in fairness i think it depends on the goals. Setting a goal for ev sales or conversion before we have the tech doesn't seem practical to me. I think if we wanted to set a goal for having the tech then that would be a different story. If something is hard to do but doable, then setting a hard goal and 'forcing' everyone to figure it out is potentially useful. But if you say 'by 2030 everyone must fly to the moon by flapping their arms"... well that's not useful. And i kind of feel we're there with ev stuff just yet. I don't believe it's possible to achieve the goal the feds have set without doing severe damage to our economy for no significant benefit. Here's the thing - we didn't need to force people to give up horses and buy cars. When the tech was there and the time was right people just did it because it made sense. I feel like that will be the case here. As you say everyone loves the concept. As things change to make that a more practical solution people will migrate to it of their own free will. Trying to force that just encourages poor execution and problems with adapting, and that could delay the process far more than it speeds it.

But you see simply doing that MAKES you a 'denier' under the law Unless you're saying the number should be higher, that's fine. And this is a major problem right now. Anyone even questioning elements of "doctrine" may be found to be guilty of 'hate speech", regardless of facts. For example - if you say "according to the records the vast vast majority of children who died in residential schools did so from tuberculosis which was also killing people on the reserves at about the same rate", you would be saying something that is factually defensible and likely true. And - it would NOT be saying that the residential schools were a good thing or that the first nations didn't suffer there or anything like that. It would simply be pointing out that the children didn't die of some sort of abuse. But - you will be called a genocide denier and the ndp is currently proposing a law to make that hate speech punishable under criminal law. People should be free to point out the truths, or have their own ideas or own interpretations of the facts without fear. Even if it upsets some people.

Sure - who wouldn't consider it. As a concept it's great. And for many people that concept is a practical reality, but for many more it's not until the tech and infrastructure changes substantially. I think we're basically in agreement at this point - the tech will have to change before ev vehicles are practical on a wide scale, although they certainly are for some individuals now.

Probably true. And it would tend to interrupt and disrupt the natural market forces even further, which means the problem gets worse. I did mention it would be a disaster But i don't know if that would stop them from trying. ?

Well i only responded to your statement about him being subsidized, but if you're asking me to weigh in on other matters.... regardless of how it is earned a pension is private money. Whether the pension came from a public or private employer is of no consequence. It's like buying a house - whether the gov't built your house or a contractor did makes no difference, is YOUR house now. It's got nothing to do with how you conduct yourself in public, you already own it However - if you are taking money and getting paid and you create a platform as a result of that employment and then use that platform to attack your employer..... yeah that's a very different issue. If you want to create and use a platform to spread a political message or attack someone then really you should not be taking public money to do that (unless of course that's what the public job is. I mean - otherwise we couldn't have an official opposition ) There are a lot of nuances there which i'm skipping, and it is important to remember there's a difference between criticizing a gov't policy and the country as a whole. But in a nutshell, there you go For the election? We've been over that. That's like saying that "there's only one source of money so we're ALL subsidized by the gov't." That would be what experts refer to as a "steaming pile" A tax write off isn't a subsidy. Receiving a govt service like health care isn't a personal subsidy. Having an armed forces to protect us isn' t a subsidy. You can't just call something a subsidy because it involves "gov't money" somehow. We pay for political parties to participate in elections because we want to eliminate the power of money from controlling elections. That's a chocie we make to protect ourselves as voters, not a subsidy to others. And if doorknob manages to ever win a seat and gets paid by the people, even then he will be hired specifically to crtisize the gov't, so that's a little different. However - if he used is political posiiton to advertize and sell coca-cola.... that would be really bad. And we all get that - but somehow the idea of a person selling an agenda that's not part of their job by using the stage their gov't funded empoyment gave them DOESN"T seem problematic to you?

Sure, especially if you have the ability to install a proper level 2 charger at home. And i fully support people having as many buying choices as they can get. I don't think there's all that much dispute there - i think the issue is when you try to scale it and make it the default solution for people. I don't think the solution scales well at all (right now with today's tech and infrastructure). I honestly believe that we really couldn't support more than about 5 percent of the population having full ev's without major and massive infrastructure changes that would be extremely costly and probably would not be worth the 'benefits' we'd get from making the changes. And i think that's where the waters get muddy and it's hard to actually work out the numbers and benefits to get a clear answer on that. I still believe we're missing a trick not encouraging better development of hybrid or hybrid like tech. THe vast majority of drives are short range and you can create a much more efficient engine if it can run at a constant speed. Other than that, we need to wait for better and more practical tech to emerge.

I've seen that reported in a few places - that's absolutely hilarious

No, i mean LARGE numbers. Most provinces have some social housing, and that's fine. It's not really intended to resolve a shortage of housing. But what we have seen historically is that gov'ts try to take over a substantial hunk of the provision of new housing thinking the private market won't get it done fast enough or cheap enough - so they start building tens of thousands of 'govt rental' units. In England we saw a similar reaction back in the day where the gov't bought up housing and started to build row housing. The Iron Lady put an end to that disaster and turned things around but it had already gone very badly by then,

I seey our english is as sharp as your wit Oh look - yet again you try to pretend you didn't say something that you clearly did. Yawn. In fairness i wouldn't want to admit to saying half the stuff you do either, But they didn't. Which is the point. You keep saying it but it's absolutely not true. As i've noted. Which was the point i made. You really aren't very good at this are you The romans did not write the bible LOL Oh my god And i love that you think anyone just sat down and "wrote" the bible, like they got it all done in a few months and sent it to the publisher It's like "Harry Potter and the Holy Spirit" in your mind ? Ahhh - i see that your comprehension challenges are kicking in. Let me say a few things a little slower for you. The morality of the bible is radically different than the morality of rome or roman law. There came a point where a 'second' roman empire started, and that was largely founded on CHRISTIANITY- not the previous roman moral and ethical codes. It survived for about 1400 years. But it was based on the bible from pretty much the get go. The bible represents a complete set of morals and principles that represent a unique ethos. There is nothing else quite like it. It is not simply a mash up of roman culture. And the Romans didn't "write the bible". And of course the bible has been the basis of the moral codes of many countries before ours came along and our culture is based on the christian culture and bible. Is there anything else you need cleared up? Like maybe how to button your shirt or something complex like that?

Of course. That's why they changed the law to forbid reporting results till all the polls were closed because people in the west were always pissed off THe west was a tiebreaker. But that only underpins my point. If the CPC wants to win, then only ontario needs to change its' mind. As long as ontario is willing to prop up the corrupt regime of Justin Trudau and as long they support corruption and bad politics, the cpc will be hard pressed to win.

Here's the actual abacus report - they just released it to the public today https://abacusdata.ca/canadian-politics-polling-abacus-data-february-2023/ Some interesting new tidbits - Jagmeet's approval is plummeting. The non-coalition-coalition is not working out for the ndp in general but it seems to be pretty bad for Jaggers specifically. That probably means we're at least a year away from even a possible election at minimum. The libs are low, and the ndp is even worse. Jaggers will still try to find wedge issues that he can use to make himself look different and better than the libs (without actually upsetting the libs) but unless he finds something really sticky it would be death for him to go to the polls now.

Well there's the kick in the teeth. Eventually it has to come out. The logic for hiding it form the parent is that it's POSSIBLE that the parent MIGHT be angry and become violent or something, despite the fact that the parents in these cases don't have a history of that. (if they do call the cops and have them arrested) Yet - eventually this HAS to come out - now whatever feelings the parents may have with regards to the transition are COMPOUNDED by the sense of betrayal by the system, and the sense of betrayal from the child who has basically said they trust their teachers more than their parents and they believe their parents would physically harm them, which is probably the furthest thing from the truth. So if there was already a chance that the family would turn their back on them or be unsupportive, that chance just jumped several hundred percent. And the parents would never trust the school again. That might be a problem if they have OTHER children in the school system. The whole practice is wrong morally and it's wrong logically.

You are incorrect. 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). When alberta challenged the feds over gun control the courts ruled that firearms ownership IS INDEED A RIGHT. But that it's a tertiary right and that the gov't is within it's rights to regulate it in the name of safety and security in the country. If you are of the opinion that ONLY rights SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the charter exist legally in canada, there are SEVERAL groups who would like to have a word with you.