CdnFox

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.

I thought you had concluded that the trend in public statistics was disturbing? Am I not correct? Ahhh... so the problem here is you don' t know what a "conclusion" is. Well fair enough. As it is - you would have to make a reasoned claim as to why the trend in public statistics should be concerning for anyone to care about it. And as i've said you have not done so. I bring it up because you seem angry nobody is taking you seriously and this is why. No, it would not be possible to arrive at that conclusion based on the evidence you've presented. Which isn't to say it isn't true, but as i've said you have to make a logical connection there. Why would that data indicate that a) the beurocracy has had 'endless' funds rather than limited funds, b) that the 'beurocracy' (which you'll have to define) is in any way incompetent or unprofessional or untimely?

You would have to fight that on a riding by riding basis and prove that it is LIKELY that the interference changed the outcome - which is a fairly high legal bar to attain. And the best you could hope for is that riding would have a byelection. But it's REALLY hard to get there. What we would be better served with is recall options - they're ALMOST useless at actually recalling people but in cases like this they may well work and at least they're a shot across the bow to put them on notice people are watching.

They almost always do. Sorry - that's the way it is. If you're active in their campaign, they listen. The vast vast majority of them do anyway and if they don't call them on it. I've never had a problem getting to meet them and talk with them. Even ones i didn't campaign for were pretty easy. That's just a bullshit excuse. Hey - if you don't like the leader get off your ass and help recruit one you do like. Fact is harper was a good leader, and that was less than a decade ago. He DID listen and his people did too. It is not ok to d make excuses if you don't like how things are. Get off the couch and get involved and deal with it. It takes work but it IS easy to make a difference. What do you think i'm trying to do with you? Stand up and do something! Get involved! And you've answered your own problem - if they're not interested in saving the nation but only in staying in office then the simple solution is to make the only way for them to stay in office to save the nation. The challenge we run into there is that 50 percent of voters are below average But we can work on that. If we start punishing corruption (ontario - hope you're listneing) and punishing failure to achieve goals without a damn good excuse and demand better then we'll get it. When we keep voting for people like trudeau and reward their lies, corrutpion and failures then we get.. you guessed it... lies corruption and failure.

No they are not. Not at all. And no, they don't base their legal system on rome. Sorry. There are similarities because it's not a bad system but in fact the roman system and china's legal system are very very different. No, you were speaking of specific laws. You can't just backtrack now. And no, my example is perfectly good - it shows that while the laws may be BASED on bibilical principles that is not to say they are the same, so even with THAT reference there's diversion. So the idea there's one ubiquitous morality for all people is obviously false. Nope - it's that we base our laws on christian beliefs, but everybody around the world has different moral values. But the fact that ours are based on christian beliefs does distinguish them from some other systems of morality. Then your point is false. Sorry - many many things the romans considered perfectly fine INCLUDING MURDER are not part of the christian moral code. So - basically if that was your point you were wrong entirely.

That's a really inappropriate attitude. It's not an overreaction for someone to be upset about someone disrespecting their country. And make no mistake, it is disrespect. Now - it's one thing to say 'well lets put it in perspective" or have a discussion but your attitude is "Screw you, your feelings on the subject don't matter and go Screw yourself".' and if that's not what you MEANT to say - that's absolutely what you actually said so be aware of that. We get NOWHERE when we just dismiss people's concerns like that. Sorry - it is a big deal to many and it deserves honest discussion. Words matter. Ask black people if being called N--- is ok. Canadians don't like being told they aren't native to this land - which land do you THINK those of us who are born here are from? And we're not going anywhere. If you don't want to be part of the solution maybe at least don't be part of the problem.

LOL - it has been the way of things for just over 40,000 years now i think

I think that's a bit of a circular argument and to be honest it's not accurate. Laws vary a GREAT deal all around the world. If morality was ubiquitous as you suggest that wouldn't be the case. No it isn't. In fact, the definition of it varies a HUGE amount. What is murder in one place might be perfectly lawful homicide somewhere else. Consider the US - there are places where in some circumstances you can shoot and kill someone legally where the same circumstances in Canada would be called murder and net you our harshest penalties (3 months in a halfway house, no pizza i believe is the current max). So no. It isn't. And? Is your point that if the bible didn't create the language for something then it's not biblical? Nobody claimed that perjury didn't exist before the bible. Murder did too, and the bible touches on that, so did coveting for that matter The bible didn't CREATE these things, it only discusses how "god" sees these things and how you should view them. No you can't. the fact is that there is no universal morality. At all. Even countries with common backgrounds and ethnicity don't have that. If you feel like it give it a shot but good luck with that. At best you might be able to come up with a few general principles but even then there will be exceptions. If you mean 'legal system' in the sense of our courts and such then it's a null issue - there wasn't a proscribed biblical model for how to try someone for a crime other than a few guidelines here and there so there;s nothing to compare, If you mean our actual laws then no. Like hell no' If you mean our base morality then you'd still have a very rough time making that case. And lets not forget that the western roman empire (the byzantine) lasted a lot longer that the eastern one, influenced the world even more and was christian. Morality be it biblical or otherwise often does have a practical element. In a way that's a chicken and egg argument. But there is no doubt that the specific collection of moral beliefs generally attributed to Christianity as a whole is unique as a system when compared to others.

Not really. I mean, he did at least try to address the issue and points to him for that. But - it turns out there's a THIRD way to balance the budget - hand some one else the bill. Which is largely what he did - he downloaded costs to the provinces and kept the money he should have transferred. I believe funding for health care for example went as low as 18 percent. He downloaded a bunch of other costs as well. It's not 'leadership' or 'courageous' at all to simply say 'I can't pay this... ummm... here, you pay it" The rest of his money came in the end from robbing the EI accounts. He took 70 BILLION dollars in money that had been collected on behalf of tax payers for a specific purpose and stole it to use for his budget. Literally more than all his 'surpluses' combined. Theft of the people's money isn't 'leadership' either. Even if you can get away with it legally. Other than that - we paid the deficit down thanks to the GST and massive trade surplus the Free Trade agreement created. Both of which he promised to scrap and both of which he kept. THat was someone else's leadership. Chretien did do a few noteworthy things and you can't blow off his achievements entirely, but your portrayal of his debt fighting is not accurate nor warranted. He did not beat the problem by leadership.

I can see why you feel that way and it's possible, but honestly i doubt it. There are serious power fractures inside Russia. And it's not like putin can fire off nukes on his own. I think if they start to lose crimea then we'll see some serious efforts at regime change at home, and nobody will be interested in sparking a nuclear war. Russia's new offensive is not going well, there's rumors that they will do a major aviation blitz to try to break through in the next 1 - 4 weeks. We'll see. If they can't make it happen then Ukraine will get it's chance at an offensive in about 2-3 months. We will see how much they can manage to take back if that happens.

At the risk of being hated by both sides.... I feel like both sides in this argument are making some good points (and perhaps overhyping some). But - isn't the solution then to look at plug in hybrids? Environmentally you get about 90 percent of the benefits of electric vehicles with hybrids, depending on where you are perhaps more. You don't need to worry about massive electric infrastructure changes. That problem is bigger than people think, especially for those in condos or townhouses (which is a very sizeable portion of the public these days and growing). You need about a quarter of the batteries, so you are putting less strain on a limited resource giving more time for the next gen of batteries to be born. And the vehicles can still operate with the batteries at low capacity from age so there's less 'urgency' to replace them. They can still do long range road trips without having dedicated charging stations everywhere. It seems like for those who are proponents of EV's, Maxing out this tech until battery and electrification issues are resolved is really the best of both worlds. I mean - a sizeable hunk of the country still burns fossil fuels to produce electricity in the first place so until we beat that i'm not sure the gain for FULL ev's is worth the pain. I shall now put on my helmet and body armour and await your replies.

My dog can't tell the difference between political parties. Everyone smarter than him can. However, if you are one of those poor unfortunates who feel there's no difference between any of the parties, your solution isn't how you vote, it's what you do between votes. Voting is the final (and in some ways least important) part of the democratic process. There's a LOT of work we're supposed to be dong as voters (or even non voters ) before that which is critical. For example, get involved with your local riding association. Pick a good candidate to run for your riding and work with them to help set policy. You'd be amazed at how much influence a person can have at the riding level, and that can translate directly to your concerns being expressed in caucus. Attend the Policy Conventions - parties do take policy conventions very seriously and you can propose policy to vote on for the convention, you can go and vote on policy that's been proposed, and have important discussions with others within the party to share ideas. They matter a lot. Help pick a good leader. Not always the easiest thing to do but do your best and try to select someone who's going to be able to get the job done. And be useful at election time - volunteer, scruitineer, help with GOTV duties. People remember the volunteers - they are who gets you elected. If you're just sitting back and waiting to vote for whomever everyone ELSE has selected without any input from you, then you're really not doing your job in a democracy, and you can't be surprised when you don't get the results you want.

If you want to make the claim that the data you presented is evidence of the phenomenon you claim it is and be taken seriously, yes. That's not an interpretation of "professional responsibility". Its a factual requirement of a logical and reasoned position. If you wish for your ideas to be considered valid by intelligent people then you have certain criteria your argument must meet and you have failed to reach that requirement. Sooooooo...... So what you're saying in the end is that you are unable to actually draw a connection between the data and your conclusion and you're unhappy. Well - that's fine but you can't blame anyone for not talking you seriously. I pointed out a legitimate problem with your position and instead of addressing it all you could do was reply with this nonsense. Which again is fine but don't expect to be taken seriously then.

Well they'll certainly try. The CBC will as well of course But powerful as both are, they can only do so much.

Depends on how you describe murder. Many would allow the killings of people that we would condemn. Hell - many parts of the states would. And there are many christian countries who have allowed gay relationships for example. France comes to mind, they had a special legal arrangement for it centuries ago. So.... it's one thing to suggest our laws are based on christian values. It's another to say our laws are directly biblical.

it is against the law. Just not criminal law. It's not just grounds for divorce, it's a LEGISLATED grounds for divorce. Civil law is still law. There are a number. The scandanavians for example. And of course there are some where teh religion actually supported it such as Japan, tho it was directly tied to pedophilia with a tradition of priests having an acolyte 'boyfriend' till he came of age as a man and went his own way. Same with the samurai. So i don't know if we want to go there. But the point is that religion or no pretty much all societies disagree on various aspects of 'morality'. Christianity may form the common basis for what our forefathers considered 'appropriate' including sex, theft, murder etc. But that's not to say that while that may be the genesis (heh) of the laws that it some how means our laws are biblical directly.