CdnFox

well you should give it back seeing as you disagree with it so much Anywhoo, i'm sure those people will appreciate having the same opportunities as you to get wealthy.

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHHA!!!!! LOLOL!! Well. I'm literally crying a bit i'm laughing so hard i mean after all the confirmed reports, after seeing it with our own eyes, after all that's happened can you imagine saying that

It was determined that we could compete in those areas and we did. We can compete with wheat as well but the idea of the marketing board was to allow the government to use wheat as a international political bargaining chip and control the flow, there was never a fear that we wouldn't produce it. There were a variety of reasons but eggs and chicken and milk products were not seen as being something that we could compete at without using methodologies that we weren't comfortable with. Right or wrong that was the thinking You're not the only one saying There are many who feel that the government has gotten too bog down into areas that are not as corresponsibilities and as a result the core responsibilities have suffered

Story was about trump tho. sooo yeah, it wouldn't be your side if you WERE a canadian They're not the ones doing the crying Oh you must be one of those evil terrible no good repressive 1 percenters who got rich off of everyone else's work then. I've been expressly told they're the only ones who benefit

Yup. You're brainless. Certified.

We did. Harper was 3/4 of the way through negotiating it and it was going well if not difficult and they were right at the end when justin took over. Unfortunately Freeland completely bought the deal and while we did sign something it did not take into account the EU propensity for excessive regulation which attempts to filter out foreign products and we didn't get an exemption for our products. The end result was that they started selling us more and we really didn't sell them anything that we weren't already selling them.

Yeah yeah except of course he never said any of that. And he's the one asking the questions, the person you're listening to is the one answering. And as I noted you are welcome to remain as ignorant as you like. There's no law that says you have to get involved in politics at all or educate yourself in the slightest. In fact i always kind of assumed that WAS the case with you. Some people just don't feel compelled to participate in democracy. But i believe that it's the responsibility of citizens and voters to listen and educate themselves and not rely on echo chambers or bias confirming news stories when picking a leader and exercising their democracy so that they can make informed and intelligent choices based on their own observations as well as the facts available. But it's just a belief, you're free to continue to believe that educating yourself is counter productive.

It is, sort of. Well, socialistic to be more precise. It is believed, probably correctly, that Canadian producers would not be able to match and compete with American Producers for those specific Industries and we would lose the ability to produce our own food in those Industries. So even though everyone knew it was going to cost more to do it this way it was determined that we should have supply management in order to manage the supply and make sure that we always have the ability to produce our own poultry and dairy and would never be beholden to another country for such things. Or at least that was the theory going into it. That it would be worth paying the penalty and prices to secure our own food to make sure we were beholden to no other country in the event that there was a food shortage or some sort of supply interruption by accident or intent. Now it's just sort of become the dairy Mafia, but that's why we have it

Sure I'll concede the point your entirely correct but I don't believe that this was a factor in the two examples were discussing. I feel like there was more than enough time for human beings given their technology and supposedly intellect a base to adopt to the idea of cleaning up the forest Or improving firefighting access and equipment readiness. Also - to any americans listening - quit shooting down our firebombers with drones! Ya dinks! Yeash! in the absence of control adaption becomes critical. And I think we can both agree that no matter what Canada does our entire output barely factors into global emissions. Adaptation is crucial for us

Good lord man... do we need to all chip in and get you some dribble bibs? You're completely foaming at the mouth!

Just remember, your side picked a candidate that made this guy look good enough to vote for instead Too late for crying now

Well they could have diverted a small amount but it would have gone to irrigation. It wouldn't have been available to fight the fires. And they would have paid an insane amount to do it, if that same money have been put into cleaning up the forests in the area or fire prevention methods it probably would have achieved vastly more results. I mean you're talking about essentially building a thousand miles or so of pipeline similar to an oil project where half of it is going through some pretty horrific terrain. Even if the project had started then I'm not sure it would be finished by now, we're not talking about a short distance. Nobody is faster than I am to take a swipe at that ultra pathetic Californian loser of a governor and he does have some liability here, but I think that the whole should have brought water from canada thing is probably at best severely grossly over exaggerated. That is absolutely true. They spend all of their money and time and energy worrying about social issues like whether there's enough diversity and inclusion in the workforce and they ignore the basics such as "Our neighborhoods tinder boxes that will explode into violent flames at the drop of a match and should we do something about that?" In fairness there has been a significant that outflow of businesses and other people from California for some time just because things haven't been handled properly and this is yet another example

Dude you literally look horrible every time you two go at it. And because you have everybody else on ignore you can't see how many of the people are laughing at you. And yeah, when he makes a mistake he's got the balls to admit it and stand up. Whereas when you make a mistake you just double down on the stupid.

Oh look. A leftie losing an argument decided to play the 'why are we even talking about this' card. Shock!

The reality is you failed the test That's for him and the voices in his head to know and you to find out! (neener neener!!)

That just never gets old

Not really. The simple fact of the matter is we don't do anything to adapt. The earth is in a constant state of either getting warmer or cooler or doing something. Humans and every other form of life succeed by adapting to these changes. We don't have forest fires or even more severe forest fires because of climate change. We have them because we get lazy and we don't address the problems that are right in front of us and adapt. Years ago the federal government got a report saying they needed to clear the beetle kill and take care of the Jasper national forests better. They didn't do a single thing. Then the forest burnt down and took Jasper with it. And everyone like you cried about how it was climate change. If we know there's a risk and we take no action.... it's not climate change. There were talking years ago about the need to clean up the forests in those areas in Cali that are burning. They were told of the severe risk. They did nothing. This isn't climate change.

WHEN LEFTIES ARE ASKED TO PROVIDE THE SCIECE....

Get woke, go up in smoke.

The ground debris thing makes total sense, they haven't managed their force very well and it was obviously a tinder box. As to the water thing so you know i believe trump was the best pick in the last election and that his previous term was pretty decent by any reasonable standard. I'm not anti trump at all. BUT - he frequently says some sh*t that pops into his head that has only a vague connection with reality. And this is one of them. the Columbia River comes through Canada into America and travels down through Oregon and then eventually sort of takes a right and heads to the sea. It is a river that salmon spawn up and provides much needed irrigation and habitat for literally thousands of species. The original plan was to basically hack a path through the mountains into California and divert a significant portion of the river before it takes a right and goes to the sea to allow water to go to California. However, if they took all of the water it would literally leave hundreds and hundreds of miles Of ecosystem inside Oregon without the water it needs causing a massive environmental impact. One way around that is to put more water in the river, but the problem is Canada needs that water for itself and draws a great deal of water from the Columbia River before it gets to the US. We have an agreement about how much water we will let through as a minimum to make sure the US needs are met but if anything we're going to need that water in Canada more and more so the chances of us agreeing to higher levels of minimum water throughput are almost zero. Then there's all the costs and challenges associated with getting the water down to California which is by no means an easy thing. So at the time they shelved it because there were way too many problems. Unlikely to get negotiations with the Canadians. Massive environmental impact in Oregon who wasn't exactly excited about losing one of its major rivers. Extreme costs and challenges getting the water where it needed to go in California. The idea that it was set aside to save smelt is about as bright as trying to fight covid by injecting yourself with bleach, which I believe was another trump idea from back in the day

First off it wasn't harper's plan, it was what the post office proposed. So there you go 7 things to know about Canada Post’s plan to axe home delivery | Globalnews.ca The liberals can pretend it was the conservatives, but it had nothing to do with them. Canada post was broke. They were looking at how to cut costs. The most you can say is that the conservatives wouldn't have stopped them. So i was right, and you lied. Big shock. And btw Canada post is now looking at cutting mail services to once a week or less because.... you guessed it... they're broke. And none of the people in my area had their home delivery restored under the libs. Hmmmm. And you still haven't been able to answer the fairly simple question ... seeing as all of the things you said you were worried about happened under the libs and didn't happen under harper with the exception of the retirement age as i previously mentioned (and you pretended i didn't), how can you claim to be 'afraid' the conservatives will do it? Your precious liberals are obviously worse. You also haven't addressed the fact that even if it is a minority gov't, it will be the SAME LIBERALS who did all of these 'unforgivable' things even after justin is gone. So how do you justify 'forgiving' the 'unforgiveable' like that?

Regardless of whether or not they voice it, it will be reflected in how they relate to that person. The bottom line is as follows: That's like saying for those who define human beings as anyone who identifies as black or white there needs to be a way to differentiate between people who are niggers and people who are white. Saying it does not change the pejorative nature of the term. And it has become a pejorative. We already have perfectly good ways to differentiate. transgender and straight works fine. Transfemale and female, trans male and male, there's no need for anything new. So here's the final proof. If i was looking to name or define something, lets say it was black people, and i decided we needed a new term and i said "we're going to call you black people "nig-gendered". And they said 'well.... that's kind of a problem".... then i would do something else because i don't really care about the specific term. But YOU on the other hand absolutely are. You're attempting to define SOMEONE ELSE against their wishes because YOU feel it's ok to be offensive as long as YOU approve of it. THis has NOTHING to do with how I define male or female or men or women or anything. What you are doing is deciding how to define OTHER people even if it offends them. Which would be one thing EXCEPT your whole sctick is that people should have the right to define themselves. So if it's ok for you to call me CIS, explain to me why it's not ok for me to call someone else a tranny. Or decide that he is a "He" regardless of his 'preferred' pronoun. Etc etc. You've been asked this many times and refused to answer.

Very often see this whenever a party gets itself walloped, half of it will say that it has to move closer to the other side, half will say that they're already too close and the problem is we didn't move far enough away. The CPC in Canada was like that after harper was defeated, there was a very long conversation about whether or not we should be moving towards the middle or stay where we are. And of course Max's wing of the party that said we didn't go far enough and we should be far more to the right on certain issues. I have no doubt that the democrats are going to tear themselves up for a little while over this I'm that the debate will rage I would agree that if they don't return to their more moderate selves that chances are they'll lose at least one more election. And considering that election will be a new candidate with trump: And also considering that in most cases winning candidates get at least two terms in the US they could find themselves walking in the snow for the next 12 years.

You guys can't even fire off a good retort never mind a gun the only thing you'll be shooting is your mouth LOL Plus most of you wouldn't pass the licensing and background requirements in canada I don't remember trump doing that. Are you referring to the columbia river? There were some pretty serious issues with that which did involve more than just "a species", it would have impacted a very major river and all of the life along it in the us, not to mention it would require canada to allow more water through the border which we probably won't.

Arsonist lights fire. The left: CLIMATE CHAAAAAAAAANGE!!!!! (reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!) Sigh. I see the left is continuing with its 'never let a crisis go to waste' nonsense. Honestly it's pretty horrible.