CdnFox

Well.... depends how you want to score ww2. They won against germany for sure, but they very clearly would not have if it weren't for the allies both in direct support and by opening a second front

I don't think i'm "loyal" to any brand, but i think i do take into account a brand's track record with me when considering a purchase. For example, i am in no way loyal to Toyota, but i've owned a number and they've all been really good to me, so if i'm choosing a vehicle and the choice is a close race between a toyota product and another product that's going to be a significant factor. So i have brands i tend to trust more based on track record, and some i expressly don't trust based on track record. And of course ones i have no experience with and are neutral.

I'd point out they absolutely have admitted defeat before historically. I suspect that in this case it would involve getting rid of putin and blaming everything on him. Russia has said that if ukraine tries to join nato that's grounds for an all out war. I mean sure - if there was a deal where russia kept crimea and some of it's occupied territory and Ukraine joined nato then that would be a fair situation to people like you and me. But russia absolutely cannot stand the idea of ukraine being part of nato and having american military forces on that border, AND i'm not sure nato really wants ukraine to be part of it. THey're not exactly a perfect country as far as stability and corruption goes. I don't know that they do "know" that. And by then there isn't going to be much left of their military. And that's a serious concern for them. Also - it's hard to say how much land theyll still occupy by then. If ukraine's spring/summer offensive this year is as successful as last years, russia could have very few bargaining chips on the table. And the draft was not very popular. Another round of drafts which might be necessary to hold out would turn sentiment against him again. I think there's going to be a lot more pressure on russia if this drags out another year. it is impacting them.

Germany, Japan, denmark, Poland and a few others would like to have a word with you Although Germany only raised it's hand half way and is looking a little sheepish. Pretending russia is an innocent little lamb that would never attack anyone is silly. They have, they would, they will in the future if they get a chance. If only there were some modern or recent example i could give you of russia invading someone's country without military provocation... gosh it seems like there should be at least one somewhere.... what was this thread about again?

I mentioned already that you could 'release' them in flin flon and hope for the best. But the fact is that is only for refugees. You couldn't do that for immigrants who make their own arrangements to enter the country after approved or are already in country when they're approved. So yes - you could try it with the 40 thousand or so refugees we get and HOPE that they stay put instead of boarding the first bus to a bigger city (which most will), but that would do nothing about the 460,000 others who immigrate the normal way under trudeau's plan. And we're not even touching on the moral freak out politically that they'd get, it would make martha's vinyard look tame. Not to mention - how many new people do you think flin flon can absorb? How quickly would they run out of housing and jobs? A lot of smaller communities are struggling to keep their ER's and hospitals open as is, what happens when that overloaded sysetm gets a few hundred thousand immigrants or refugees? Putting refugees there won't magically create jobs or houses for them - pretty soon flin flon's rents will be the same as toronto's. But the real problem is you just can't. I get that you want that to be a solution, but it would not be one under our current laws. At best you could encourage people. Sorry,

the law doesn't ask people to be 'rational'. The law asks 'how would a reasonable man react'. That's very different. It's entirely fair to say a reasonable man in those circumstances would take ANY actions necessary to be sure his family was safe including the use of lethal force. The criminals intent does NOT come into it very much at all. If the homeowner was reasonably fearful for his life and feared death or grevious bodily harm was a real possiblity then he's justified in stopping the attacker with lethal force. And just having the guy in the house like that is reason enough to believe that. I honestly believe you don't understand the law here or the problem. The problem is NOT that the law wouldn't allow for you to shoot an intruder in your home. It absolutely does. The problem is for their own petty reasons beurocrat types will use the system itself to harass and hurt those who dare to exercise this right. Despite the fact they know the person was within their rights. It is a gross abuse of power that many in the public ignore because they think using guns for defense is 'so american'. But they don't realize that if you allow crap like this eventually it will be used on people You DO like.

It isn't. This isn't a vote. He's voluntarily resigning. How is that a democratic thing? If you do something voluntarily why would others vote on it? When was the last time you saw someone take a binding vote in order to quit He was democratically elected. He gets to decide when he's going to quit, same as everyone else.

Who;s the second? Is it us? It's us isn't it. Well at least he didn't declare the emergency act on the guy

actually things were going pretty good until we STOPPED doing that. NOW things are getting worse, and that's why we've had the recent calls to revisit that stuff. Letting them out just means they kill cops for no good reason or slaughter people with knives. If we went BACK to just locking them up there'd be less crime. the problem is the current left wing and many first nations leaders have no empathy for the people that these criminals rape, kill, injure, etc. Like zero. And the sad thing is - most of the victims are first nations. And that's fine i guess, if they're happy kililng and raping their own people i guess we can't argue that but when it affects others then there's a problem. That's a pretty common lie told by various left wing sources - but it's not true. In fact right up till the mid 1800's the relationship between the europeans and the first nations was quite good and mutually beneficial. The hudsons bay company radically improved first nations life and the first nations worked hand in glove with them to scout and map new areas. Things went bad for about 100 years max. roughly the 1860's to the end of the 1960's. During that time we saw the res schools at their worst, laws limiting first nations culture, the removal of their right to vote, and their right to hire a lawyer, etc. And then we saw that all returned. SO no - there were no 'centuries' of mistreatment. And honestly people will get fed up waiting and give up on them if it takes 'centuries' for them to get their shit together. Compared to what happened to other cultures they had it pretty damn good, there's no reason in the universe they can't get their act together within a generation. Well - no reason other than they're being trained to be professional permanent victims currently. And that has to stop. In any case - people don't break the law and hurt others because of the 'impacts of colonialism'. These are grown ass adults, they know what's right and wrong, they make their choices. If what you're saying is it's impossible for them to live in civil society ... well i guess then they have to be removed from it. There's no universe where it's ok to let them go around hurting people because their daddy learned to read at a residential school. that's not ok,

Because...its...against....the...charter... of....rights. You can't make a contract or deal that violates the law. Murder wouldn't become legal just because you signed a contract or agreed to commit one as condition of entry any agreement still has to follow the law or it will be unenforceable. You might be able to use the notwithstanding clause (maybe - i'd have to look at that) but i doubt it and if you could you would be crucified - every canadian would be worried you'd use it to control where they live next. And frankly i don't think it would stand up even then. Freedom of mobility is guaranteed in other places than just the charter. I just don't see it being legally possible. You would have to give them an incentive. that you could do as long as it's over and above any social services they would normally get.

He had the tools, and did the job and produced reports. He just wanted to expand his job and got cocky. If Harper had intended to create a fake position or neuter it he would have been much more selective about who he hired, making sure it was some species of loyalist. Fake outrage about a non-problem. It's pretty obvious. Have you even READ any of the reports generated during harper's time by that office? no? If you had instead of pretending to be fake-outraged by this you'd have noticed they are in fact full of facts, very detailed and critical of the gov't frequently. Harper improved transparency a great deal. If he hadn't - he would never ever have had to fight with the guy in the first place. So lets quit with the fake bullshit. Overall harper's time in office was an improvement in transparency. Overall Justin's time has been the opposite. So your pretending that this is some sort of justification for liberal supporters and yourself to avoid the CPC is clearly not genuine or justified, Want to try again? Or are you done pretending now.

So the point is you can't say 'don't live here'. That would infringe on the charter. You can't tell people 'you can live in canada just not our cities" lawfully under the constitution. The best you could do would be to encourage them or something - offer a bonus of cash or the like to those willing to move outside the cities for a set period. Like offer to give them a full downpayment on a house or something if they will live in Likely BC or something But you couldn't withhold gov't services or the like, Those would have to be provided no matter where they lived.

Well it's probably too soon to say why it's happening for sure, but it's not controversial that it's happening and it's definitely covid related. But these people weren't vaxxed. This showed up before the vaccine even came out. So we can say for certain that the problem at the very least exists alongside any vaccine side effects. There's way too many cases to blow off. There are literally tens of thousands. they say 1 in 15 had lingering problems and many had serious problems stretching out a year or more. And it slowed down after vaccines and variants came out, it didn't speed up. So it appeared in huge numbers before the vaccine and only was found in people who were recovering from covid. I'm all over additional research but come on. You'd have to be pretty good at self deception to claim covid wasn't a direct factor for this.

Then people will move their money elsewhere whether they go or not. Period. More importantly we wont' get investment in canada. So not only will those people not have a home they won't have a job. And even better, the few who do build houses and make things will charge more money to make up the new taxes. Guess who pays for that. You'd only be taxing the poor and middle class. And driving up inflation. You really need to think - what you're talking about will get people homeless and destitute, and that gets people killed. Smarten up.

No, socialism is a bigger risk demonstrably at the moment. Religion is about a distant 4th or so. No we're not, who told you that? We already tax the wealthy and we're not paying the bills. The wealthy don't have enough to pay the bills even if we tax them at 100 percent, and if you over tax they take their money elsewhere period. It's all about choosing the right pillow. Here's the deal. I'm all over taking the steps necessary to allow the market forces to bring housing back in line. It's only because people like YOU have pushed the gov'ts to do the WRONG thing and interfere and make bad choices that we have this problem in the first place. But if you're not ready to get serious, if people like you are still out there going "tax the rich" and "gov't should build all the housing", which is exactly the wrong thing to do - then don't expect ME to feel bad for the people YOU are screwing over. You want people to have houses - then start WELCOMING the rich and THANKING the landlords. The more of those we have the more homes get build and the cheaper housing gets

Feel free to leave. I believe venezuela is accepting immigrants. they share some of your thinking. This is a capitalist economic system. The system ONLY works when people pay the value of the goods they want and get paid for the work they do. The reason prices are so high is because the gov't has interfered. Attempting to get the gov't to fix the problem they created is not reasonable. You hate developers, you hate landlords and yet it's the fact we don't have enough of either that's the source of our problem. You need to think about that a bit. If you hate those people you can't expect them to actually provide. THey'll invest their money elsewhere and people will freeze on the streets.

they estimate we're about 1,8 million homes short of where we need to be right now, so if we assume about 300k to build a unit even if they get the land cheap and even if we cut that back to 1.5 million that would be 450 billion dollars the gov't would have to come up with.

Well again - the constitution (or more accurately the charter) forbids it.' I'm sure you recall the challenges that came up during covid when provinces wanted to prevent people from travel between provinces. Everyone in Canada is subject to the charter, immigrant or not.

Freedom of movement is pretty much a constitutional right - you couldn't say "we're only going to provide gov't services if you live in such and such a spot.". I don't think that's a workable suggestion.

That might be true if it weren't for the fact that covid still affected young people even if it didn't kill them. Thousands are going through long covid with life altering results. Further, runaway transmission tends to lead to mutation. And that can be very very very bad. Fortunately the mutations we got weren't SO bad, with transmissibility going up but serious health issues going down. It doesn't always work that way. I wont' judge a younger person for not getting vaxed if they don't want to and i'm utterly opposed to mandates. But it would be crazy to think that allowing something as dangerous as covid in it's original form to run unchecked is a "good" idea.

HOw does that work though? Once people are in-country they can move around wherever they like. You could never police it and it wouldn't be constitutional if you could.

There system don't allow for there to be that many, and that's causing it's own problems right now. And the ones they do have tend to leave. And they move their money when they don't move themselves. And btw - people are leaving sweden in record numbers right now, and most of the other countries mentioned have sinilar problems. They simply can't support their models. So yeah - tax the rich and lose the country. Or the state - New york tried this too and it was a disaster that's left them with massive problems. Rich people will pay a certain amount in taxes, and after that it's cheaper to pay someone to hide it or to move it out of country for you. Or to leave and pay taxes in a cheaper jurisdiction. That is ALWAYS how it ends up.

I''m afraid that isn't true. The total number alone is inadequate. There is a HUGE shortage of all styles. The vast vast majority of homes built in greater vancouver for example are "average" townhomes and apartments. Not luxury. But we're still falling way short. It's estimated that we fall short about 100,000 homes per year. We are now short by close to 1.8 million homes as it turns out: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/adv/article-are-we-building-enough-homes-the-short-answer-is-no/ There's a few research documents on this. And this is why housing prices and rents are through the roof. And there is NO way to fix it except build more homes. and by 'more' we're talking shit-tonnes more.

Well we are dangerously close to something very bad that's true. High immigration beyond our ability to integrate people and which tends to be pushed into tight communities, no housing for anyone to live in, poor medical access, severe inflation driving prices up to the point where it's hard to get food... that's a recipe for disaster. And for sure the day is coming where work is harder to find, and then you get the kind of explosive unrest we've seen in European countries

Well this comes back to my original point tho - the voters have to hold the highest level of gov't to account if they don't pay attention. And they're not doing that. Voting liberal after all that's happened is absolutely horrible - and we get excuses like "but there's no alterative - after all harper hired a budget officer and it's turned me off the CPC". As long as the liberal supporters are prepared to vote in gov'ts who do this - why would they change.