CdnFox

Look who's moving the goalposts now Why don't you address what's being said right now instead? Oh that's right - you can't. Because you were wrong. Deflect deflect deflect - far better than facing the truth in your books it would seem. Anyway it would seem that i've shown two things - the "heresy" police are out there in full force these days punishing people for their badspeak. and you're a dishonest player as soon as you discover you're in the wrong

Tell me you don't understand law without telling me Full stop You cited an irrelevant case and tried to draw a conclusion from it. That case made a specific argument that we have a right to firearms derrived from british common law. The judge said we have no such right. in 2000 the court ruled that there ARE in fact civil and property rights to own firearms both personally and as part of the constitutional provision of power which gives the provinces the right over property . however the federal gov't had the right to put reasonable restrictions on it in the interest of public safety - as i said previously: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc31/2000scc31.html So there you go. Swing and a miss

In ontario that is usually the case. Not so in other provinces. there are many many examples where people used firearms to defend themselves and no charges were laid. Not exactly. His being unarmed is irrelevant. if he's in your home and hes' not listening to commands the courts have recognized you must assume he's capable of anything and you're justified in stopping him. Now - if you say He came at me and i decided to kill him, then you go to jail. If you say 'he came at me and i shot him to stop the attack, then you're innocent. Inside the home there is absolutely no requirement to use 'minimal' force or the like. But you can't deliberately intend to kill - if however the person happens to die while you're stopping them then that's fine.

Sorry but we both know that's bullshit. You're trying to deflect from the fact that someone is being persecuted for exactly the thing i suggested is happening. Here's a person who dared to speak against the 'dogma' of the day, no hatred no misinformation, just a simple truth. And for his heresy against the left wing tribal echo chamber he was summarily punished and excommunicated. I get why you wanted to try to change the channel and pretend it was 'goal post moving'. A common if someone deceitful tactic. But its pretty obvious that this is a truth in canada today - we still have people being punished for 'heresy' and speaking out against the quasi-religious beliefs of the church of the left. And that's a problem.

the funny thing is it wasn't a criticism. He wasn't offering it as a comment on or a criticism of anything, not the native position or the gov'ts. He just simply stated an absolutely accurate fact. The vast vast vast majority of the children died from tuberculosis and (to a much lesser degree) spanish influenza. Thats how most of the children died. And this is the result. For stating a simple fact without judgement he's been fired. Because of the quazi religious nature of left wing dogma these days - even speaking a simple truth that doesn't support the approved narrative is punishable, even if its' not a criticism.

Can open .. worms everywhere... This will have massive implications for human rights tribunals and lawmakers federally and provincially. If the judge finds in favour of this person then the implication is that you MUST challenge the person's desire to transition and make sure that other no other better options are available first. However - current practices are that you should NEVER challenge a person who wishes to transition and you should facilitate it. As her doctors did. This could be pretty earth shaking in Canada. It's definitely a case to watch. While it's a provincial case now it's bound to wind up in the federal courts on appeal regardless of who wins

Obviously the liberals are fine with it. Nothing will change till another gov't gets in.

This is quite true inside your home. there is no requirement to retreat. The courts have specifically recognized Castle principles in canada, which says in essence a man's home is his castle and his last refuge and he should never be expected to retreat from it. IF - always if - the story is correct factually he will not be convicted of a crime However - especially in ontario the police and prosecutors practice what's called "punishment by process". In other words even if they know he will get off and be found innocent they run him through the ringer and hurt him as much as possible with legal process and hoops to try to discourage others who might also defend themselves. He'll get off in the end but only after spending a fortune on his defense and being emotionally beaten up by the scumbag cops and prosecutors who know he did nothing wrong but want to punish him anyway.

Soooo lets see here..... lying about what you said, lying about what I said, rediculous statements that have nothing to do with the discussion to date, and delusional comments that you can't back up.' Yep, all there. That's definitely one of your posts all right Lying won't help your case kid. And i've addressed and answered all of that before. You just repeat it hoping if you do it enough by magic the answers will somehow change and you'll be right. They won't. You're not. And at this point i'm just laughing at you

Ohhh and look - remember our conversation regarding people suffering for wrongspeak? Remember the example i gave? Look what showed up in todays paper: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-truth-ignored-as-teacher-fired-for-saying-tb-caused-residential-school-deaths

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.