CdnFox

Of course it's true. The evidence is clear. Hell you can get the raw data and count for yourself if you doubt it. That's nice. We're talking about long covid. I' m afraid i have a strict "one conspiracy theory at a time per person' policy That might be true .... if i had ever suggested for a moment that i think covid infections or deaths are down. I have not. Not once. I said that long covid cases per infections is down. And they are. Were you deliberately misquoting me or did you just read to fast and misread what i wrote?

I've seen only a few studies and they're pretty deeply flawed so i won't bother posting them. I think identifying long covid in children is more challenging and often it's the parents doing the reporting. For example one of the symptoms for the 0-3's was "moody". REAAAAAALY! A moody 3 year old! Imagine! MUST be long covid I haven't seen much research that's compelling to suggest it's a big problem in kids. There seems to be some indication that it does happen but there's no where near the data there is for adults. In theory. Of course the reality is it doesn't every time. And some of the variants are unsuited to continue and die out. It doesn't against omicron. It did a little against delta and it did a lot against the original. And we were talking about vaxxing kids when the vaccines first came out so that would ahve been original and leading into delta.

He will for one thing. Votes. he knows if he goes into the next scheduled eleciton still as part of teh non-coaliton-coalition or worse if Justin breaks up with HIM first then he will almost certainly be creamed in the polls. But - he can't break with justin over just any old reason - it's got to be something that's a real wedge. Something that makes him look really good and justin look bad. "We've tried working with teh liberals and wanted to have a stable government until the next election, but we cannot turn a blind eye to justin selling out Canada to the chinese and demand in the interest of the national voters confidence that we investigate and find him guilty as hell" If he can sell that - then he might be able to regain his popularity, stab the libs in the back and pick up some seats and hold onto his job as leader. If he doesn't pick up seats or worse loses more then this will be his last go at it. He's been trying - but nothing so far has stuck. This might be the golden bb.

Possibly, but it wouldn't be OUR racism you see. The allies basically forced that saying 'we're never going to talk to you on the phone if you don't ban them you dolt" so he had to (or miss out on all the best parties). So that's AMERICAN racism and anti-chinese sentiment. BAD americans! Bad! ( you can't see it but i'm squirting a water bottle in their direction)

I would put it to you, sir, that two things can be true at once.

Based on your previous posts i can see why your comprehension skills wouldn't have made that clear. Doesn't matter does it - it was most prevalent when the vaccine wasn't around and i was specific about that before your brainless post, so we know that the vaccine isn't the cause. And demanding research on something that doesn't exist is beyond thick. I was very clear about that. A child with a grade 5 comprehension level could clearly understand what i wrote. Oh - guess that means i'll have to simplify it for you. As I said, it would not be an indication that the vaccine reduced long covid. It MIGHT have but that would not be clear from that data alone - it could be the new variants didn't cause it as much long covid or some other unknown factor which occurred at the same time was the trick. (That was a lot of words for you, i know. Maybe take a nap before continuing. We'll wait.) But what it DOES strongly suggest is that the vaccine certainly doesn't make it worse and isn't the cause of it considering it was worse and prevalent before the vaccines and reduced and occurring at a lower rate after. We don't know why it got better, but we do know it didn't get worse, so vaccines don't seem to have been a factor as the cause. Especially as it existed for a year before the vaccines. Was that simple enough for you this time? Or shall i get Dr Seuss to transcribe it into something you can understand. You've already pretty much burned your bridge with me with your ignorant childish personal attack as your very first interaction with me. So by all means stick around, it's fun to have a pet monkey i can point and laugh at but dont' expect to be taken seriously and do expect to be mocked and ridiculed. You clearly don't even have the intellectual capacity of a gerbil and you've the manners of a diseased and flatulent troglodyte. Maybe next time you meet someone dont' act like a mentally deficient orangutan right off the bat. Hmmm?

Dude under trudeau canada is ALSO one of the most corrupt nations on the planet. So for him, it's just a scarf really. And he berates Canadian citizens when we dare question him syphoning off billions to give to himself. I mean - what part of that whole mess is out of character for him?

I can see how it might look that way and no matter what action or inaction is taken there's always risk, but i don't think we'll see this escallate to a larger conflict anytime soon, and russia will very much regret playing ball with china in the long run.

Then why bother. IF they don't mean anything then don't do it. If they do mean something then we shouldn't be doing it. Car companies and industry will rely on the declaration and attempt to move in that direction even if the problems haven't been solved. So if they're not serious and it's "Hey, it's just a bit of a goal, we don't MEAN it" then just don't. That is demonstrably not true. What targets were picked for the introduction of the first hybrids by the gov't. The first EV's? None. All that happened because of the free market - which is and remains the NUMBER ONE tool for moving things forward. Having the gov't impose an arbitrary goal that is not based in science interferes with that, it doesn't help it. And it's one thing for the gov't to mandate the implementation of new tech, its' quite another for it to mandate that the tech be invented. There's just too many problems with EV's and the infrastructure right now to ban other solutions, and so the gov't is mandating tech be invented. And what happens is if it can't they go with what they've got even though it's not going to get the job done and that has serious reprocussions. And spare me the whole 'it's only new vehicles' line. If i can't use an ev for my circumstances and i crash my ice vehicle, i want to relace it with an ice vehicle Sure, and we can suppose that this is a hopefully temporary situation which will correct itself over time. But at the end of the day until the tech works for anyone you should be able to buy both. When the tech gets to the point where EV's make mroe sense for the majority or all people there won't need to be any laws passed, people will just move to them.

I mean, you're not wrong, but...

Well that's the biggest factor. Jaggers has been looking for a 'safe' wedge issue to distinguish himself as NOT being the liberals butt boy in the house, and if he senses this might well be it then he might just jump on the bandwagon and demand inquiries or other actions. It could be a powerful issue.

The mayor derives his powers from the elected provincial gov't. So it's entirely democratic for the province to have given the mayor 'superpowers' or whatever power level they wish. Those are provincial powers they're passing on. The major is still elected. And i guarantee you would not care to live in a city run by democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. We use democratic representation models, or 'constitutional democracies' to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The new mayor will be elected in a democratic fashion to represent the people in due course, and until the the duly elected provincial powers will do their job with regards to the office as well. I'm not seeing the problem from a 'democracy' point of view.

In most cases they submit. I think you meant beat a dog which is different. I don't think you understand dogs very well. But in this case the Russians will not be 'cornered' - they'll have a whole big giant country to retreat into, You know - it keeps getting pointed out that catastrophe is more likely by doing nothing or capitulating than it is by taking this kind of action. And you don't seem to have any response to that. Nor can you demonstrate how doing nothing would be less likely to lead to further conflict. And you've obviously never trained dogs Having done so myself i can tell you with certainty that if you have an intelligent dog then either YOU are going to be the boss or THEY are going to be the boss, and you absolutely do want to corner and confront them when that kind of challenge occurs and make sure they know with certainty that it's YOU. And that zero shite will be taken from them and that challenging you will not end well. And this is the same. Putin specifically and the russian leadership in general needs to understand that when they step out of line that others WILL take action and will not be putting up with their bullcrap and for certain they'll regret it. So yeah - we'll be 'filling our boooooots' and sending the message to his nibs that bad things happen to little boys who step out of line. Punching a vicious bully in the face till he goes home crying is rarely a bad strategy. Saves you a lot of fights in the future.

And they should have the freedom to do so and should be encouraged. I don't even mind putting a few tax dollars on the line to kickstart things - but it's wrong to suggest EVERYONE should by ending the sale of ICE vehicles before the tech is there for everyone. And we're talking about more than "goals". Ice vehicles should be sold until the day that the tech is mature enough to replace them. There should be no 'hard' targets to adapt something that doesn't exist.

This was largely expected all along and there's no 'uh oh' or 'yikes' moments here. If china sends lethal aid to russia the us and others will consider trade sanctions and tarrifs and the like, not a military response.

This exactly. China isn't anyone's friend. The only time they'll offer to have russia's back is if they intend to put a knife in it shortly. China can make russia their biatch pretty fast. China has to be careful though. Russia cannot possibly make up the purchasing power of the US. IF the US decides to replace china's manufacturing another way, then china will be broke,

This is one example - but it highlights a serious problem in your argument that shows up in most of your examples. "Most" people would never be able to take advantage of that tech or already have solutions that work. When you look at where people live, In the city a LOT live in apartments. Well you're not running an extension from the parkade to the 12th floor So they're out. For others - UNLESS YOU HAVE INSTALLED THE APPROPRIATE BREAKER SYSTEM - if you just plug your car into the house system you'll run power over the power lines and wind up frying some repair guy. So people would have to pay to modify their homes. ANd finally in areas where there's a lot of power outages people already have generators. They absolutely have a few gallons of gasoline handy - many like myself have propane systems for their generators and i've got about 300 lb of propane on hand in a pig tank at any time. The thing comes on automaticaly when the power dies. We have a LOT of power outages and people around here have already got the tools they need to live with it. So the benefit to most people is very low. But you're selling it like 'most' people would indeed benefit. there's almost no benefit. "Most" people drive a short distance, which is true but there's a lot who live in small towns or in the country with no public transport who have to drive more than that. So when we talk about making it MANDITORY for EVERYONE - there's hundreds of thousands of people who would get screwed by that if the tech problems aren't solved. When you describe the tech it's all stuff which SHOULD be possible but isn't yet. It IS science fiction until it's science. They MAY develop this or taht tech, they BELIEVE it's possible within this timeline, HOPEFULLY this will be resolved. etc etc. But it's not there. And taking a gamble that it will be is questionable.

Ahhh - apologies then, i misread your intent there. I thought it was a bit of an odd thing to say - i should have double checked that i read it right. As to the CORRECT thing you were referencing ( ) it's still not a democratic issue. Ford was elected, and it is up to him to distribute powers and such to the lower gov'ts appropriately. Recall that the cities do not have their own standing in the Constitution, they derrive any authority they have from the provincial powers. Basically the provinces delegate their powers to the cities for those purposes. So the person in charge of that was democratically elected and that's who would be held to account by the voters.

For certain. Provided they get enough gear and support they absolutely can. I would remind you they've taken back more than what's left already, and the russian troops seem poorly equipped and demoralized. I don't think they're getting quite enough gear to do that decisively at the moment but they absolutely could. Sorry but that's just not happening. Nobody is even discussing that possiblity. And poland is not 'itching' to send it's troops anywhere. The only way nato gets involved is if there's nukes used. They have kept more than enough for their own uses and are spooling up production. In fact, they've kept enough so that if they had to reinforce Taiwan in short order they could. Eventually the strain of keeping ukraine armed will actually affect their economy but not by much. American industry is quite capable of gearing up and turning out a lot of product and more importantly you can bet those wepaons manufacturers have been looking hard at how their product and others have been performing in the war and are looking to incorporate that into the next generation of products. nobody's talking about doing that.

The chances of an incident go up considerably if we do nothing. We were doing nothing and war broke out with ukraine. How long till he takes a poke at poland (again) and suddenly it's even more tense. The reasoning your using is perhaps understandable but it's the same reasoning Chamberlin used just before ww2. Doing nothing encourages them to do more till they see where that line is. That's not how he sees it. That's how he tries to sell it. But he knows the truth of it. He got two fists and a foot into the tar baby and the west is using it to humiliate him and weaken him. As to the exit, hard to say but there are a number of possibilities. Zelazny may not want to negotiate a peace that involves giving up any territory but he also can't continue if the allies stop giving him arms. And the russians may not like whatever deal is put on the table but they know the allies can always send even more gear and russia could lose.' And they can bluster about nukes all they want but everyone knows it's bullshit. So - at the end of the day the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them. Sure - there's an element of risk but there's even more risk doing nothing Well reasonable endgames would include russia keeps crimea and part of the donbas but ukraine either signs on with nato or does a nato lite contract and is firmly in the western sphere. Or retreat to prewar lines but the us says they won't let ukraine into nato ever. When both sides get really sick of it and one gets the upper hand we'll see negotiatons start. Too soon just yet. And russia wont' be using 'every plane and every tank'. And if that does happen they will retreat, as they have always done. They won't be interested in losing their whole country to a nuclear war. DUDE!!!! - family forum here, put your 'little man' away, and stop talking to it for that matter

https://globalnews.ca/news/9512608/alberta-2023-budget-petrodollars-surplus/ The billion dollar question is - will they find a way to use it wisely this time so they don't suffer so bad in teh next downturn, or will they convince themselves the money is here forever and waste it?

Well, war for them is peace for us You'll never fight a war more inexpensively than we're fighting this one.

You've encapsulated the conundrum nicely, but the debate now is more along the lines of: a) is it possible to correct the weaknesses of the current tech by putting some hard deadlines in place to motivate change? b) just how much cleaner will they actually be in areas without plentiful renewable energy like bc or quebec? c) is it possible or practical to look at those changes to the grid etc. d) will using incentives improve adaption long term? And of course d) are we better off to wait till there's something more robust as a solution and suffer the pollution in the meantime, or push for something imperfect now to try to try to reduce emissions and reliance on fuels (which for many countries must be supplied by bad guys). bonus question - would we be better off trying to improve and maximize on plug in hybrid solutions as a better interim bridge till smoething comes along. That's basically what we're discussing.

First time? I don't think so, there's been several similar confrontations between a nuclear power and another by proxy like this. Korea. Afghanistan - BOTH ways. Arguably vietnam. We've seen this before. Well first off that land is important to the west. It's a significant source of the worlds food and a major border for a number of our allies. Having it under friendly control is in fact important. But it's more about weakening a serious adversary. Russia is a threat, period. They've shown it many times. And not just a threat directly but they frequently arm nations hostile to us and our allies. So it is absolutely and massively in our interests to see them severely weakened like this and to have their prestige knocked down. It weakens their influence in the world and also the loss of so much military equipment and men which cannot easily be replaced (especially the equipment) makes it very hard for them to think about any invasions or military actions anywhere else for quite some time. Having a hostile nation fall on hard times like that makes our lives safer. And it'll be a while before they think about any more 'adventures' like that.

The vaccine hadn't been invented yet when it was prevalent. Sooooooo (you don't need me to explain why they can't study the effect of vaccination prior to it's invention right?) It has been noted that cases per infected person have been going down with the new variants, so that would be post vaccine. That's not really a study, more of a counting thing, and there's no way of knowing if it's vaccinations or the new variant that's made the difference but it certainly suggests vaccines aren't making anything worse. The.... vaccine..... hadn't..... been... invented. They....were..... ALL.....unvaccinated. Jezuz - i guess i really DID have to explain it to you. Since vaccines and variants have come out there are fewer cases. That's something they can count. I'm really getting sick of the mentally weak who blurt out senseless blather that only highlights how stupid they are and then whining about other people. And if you are the one who's sick, then it's YOUR job to screw off, not mine to pander to your pathetic insecurities and hold your hand. What kind of mouth breather attacks someone out of the blue like that without even letting them answer their question? I await your reply - it's always fun to have a trained monkey amuse me by freaking out in her little echo cage.