CdnFox

Oh - i forgot that you're too stupid to remember this is a Canadian site Sorry - i keep mistaking you for an adult It's not till you say something that i remember you're just a dolt. 1 - you have to be 10 kinds of stupid to say you know how a carbon tax works that doesn't exist yet. So if you were refering to carbon tax IN AMERICA... you're pretty stupid 2 - Canada's carbon tax is a great example of a carbon tax . So when you say carbon taxes do this or that - we're quite aware of how they work 3 - the only proposed carbon tax was discussed by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, and it looked exactly like canada's. So far carbon taxes are ALWAYS at the point of sale to the end user - and usually are ALSO background. So it would be YOU who is talking out of his ass. God DAMN you're stupid You don't know how carbon taxes work elsewhere and you don't even know what was proposed at home. You're now internationally dumb

You realize barbara and all her friends are now going to vote trump, right?

I agree- you have no evidence to doubt EVERYTHING he posts and yet you do LOLOL English! It's great. Learn it.

Burn.... More.... Oil.... I"ve heard they have some of that in texas. Pretty simple answer. They can do without wind or solar just fine. BUT - if you get rid of their oil and coal produced power... they would be in trouble. They can't create wind and solar power reliably enough to meet demand. Solar and wind is nice but they don't need it. They DO need oil.

1.2 percent, which is a little high. And it's not a plan, that was a recommendation by a group that's buddies with Trudeau. The challenge is that ALL of that growth plus a bit would come from immigration. Our birth rate is not even keeping up with replacement levels. And that rate is very high if it's all based on immigration. it takes time and resources to intergrate immigrants and they are not as productive economically as natural born canadians, and that does create some serious issues. We would have to seriously tighten up on our points program and avoid immigrants who are harder to integrate.

" i know i'm wrong and you're right but i can't really say that so i'll just resort to ad hominess and dishonest rhetorical questions". See? I said exactly the same thing you did but so much shorter.

Not really. I mean yes, it happened under his watch in the year that he was elected but the changes MUST have been in the works for at least 2 or 3 years minimum, you don't just pull that out of your ass as a minority gov't the year you get elected and completely reform the system. Harper obivously approved tho, he would go on to make very significant tweaks along the same lines that significantly improved the new system over time. And the changes and tweaks were wildly popular, it was one of their more successful portfolios. The data certainly supports that, at least up to 2019 ( and probably beyond, i just don't have that). They are not a DIRECT drain, which is what most people think, and then there is also the economic activity they create which contributes. They are net contributors overall, even if it is at a lower rate than natural canadians generally speaking. Most of the studies i looked at included refugee claims in the over all figures. If we took them out and dependents of immigrants and just looked at people who immigrated based on the point system their contribution is WAY higher than the total averages. So when you blend them together you get a lower number. But - as you say the percentage of immigrants who are refugees has been climbing a bit and of course immigration has been increasing - i'm not sure that the latest numbers would be the same as it used to be. But they're probably still a net benefit. Fact is - if a refugee shows up here and can speak english (or french) well then they can probably earn a living. Might not be making a tonne of money especially right away but they're not likely to be on gov't assistance for long.

A very serious one there's no doubt. I have no doubt that he could have rolled into moscow and the fighting would probably have not gone putin's way. But i dont' think Preggers wanted to be killing fellow russians. I"m not really sure this was really about 'power' in his mind. I think a lot of his people got killed because the russian army officials were playing games and he was furious. I think he literally did it out of frustration.

A small handful are, and it's the first stage. How many 12 year olds are able to be sexually active? At most a course on what happens to people during puberty is appropriate but those kids won't be sexually active or enter the later stages of puberty anytime soon for the most part. And if their parents feel they're a little more 'advanced' that way then they can make arrangements. But entering puberty is not the same as becoming sexually active and there's no need to be teaching sexual positions and techniques to kids who are 12. Then parents can make arrangements if they feel their kids are suddenly about to become sexually active at 12. And again - sex ed when it IS taught can focus on misconceptions and physical realities such as std's and prevention etc. it doesn't have to have anything to do with homosexual or transgender issues. It's pretty much the same for everyone. Some understanding of pregnancy risks are also important but there really aren't a lot of threats associated with gay sex that don't also apply to heteros. I"m sorry but there just is no 'responsible' way to mass-teach children who are under the age of 12 about the complexities of sexual relationships. If some need it then individual parents can address it.

So when trump gets re-elected because of stunts like this... does that mean the gays win? They'll be so happy! It's the most !diotic argument ever- "You Fool, can't you see the gays WANTED to shoot themselves in the foot and turn americans against them? And you FELL for their nefarious plan!!!!" LOL - yea, HE'S the !diot in that equasion LOL

The problem is they are not - their users are. It's not like facebook itself is posting news stories. Canadians go to free websites and post news stories from the papers that can be accessed for free and say "look at this story blah blah". Many of the actual news companies have sites that they post their own content for free. So - what you're really doing is penalizing these companies for what their users are posting. So all they can do is ban users from posting it. I would imagine come groups like 'google news' might be affected but for the most part that's not the issue.

There is a lot of research on this and a good hunk is available online. If you read through it, you will find the following consistent results that seem well proven and supported: prior to 2006, immigrants tended to be a drain albiet a small one. After 2006 reforms changed that a great deal and the current system with it's points show that even averaged out across all types of immigrants they tend to be net contributors although at a lesser rate than 'natural' canadians, although over time that gap closes. The ability to speak one of the two official languages is the largest single determining factor in how successful they will be and how well they will contribute. More than race religion country of origin sex or anything else. If they can speak it when they get here or their skills are pumped when they get here to be at a conversational level or better then they will likely be net contributors and succeed While the immigrants themselves will, on average, be lower net contributors than natural Canadians, their CHILDREN will tend to be above the average. So - i think your initial statement is a little flawed in the sense that on average our people AREN'T drains on the system BUT - it is certainly fair to say that over all between 2006 and about 2019 anyway (last year i had data for) on average immigrants are not a drain. I worry about how trudeaus radically increased immigration is doing though. The system only got better by the effective use of points and flags which kept the quality of immigrant high overall, i'm concerned that may have been watered down a little.

In this case i'm not sure that's a good idea.

Yes, and the challenge now is even if you claim you want to do it sensibly NOW there is the very justifiable concern that they'll try to sneak in inappropriate stuff in the future. The quickest way to scare people into thinking you have a hidden agenda is to start off with it being your actual agenda and then try to hide it

As a complete aside, this totally reminded me of a line from Hoyt Axton's performance where he's talking about accidentally swallowing a bag of Narcotics. "I felt like I could saaaaave the universe!!! But I didn't know what was attacking it. So I decided to attack it and save it from myself! Shazzzam!"

Pretty much true. The idea of confrontational politics was supposed to be that by forcing parties to appeal to the people and competitively attempt to outdo each other they would force the cream to rise to the top and only the best options would survive. These days it feels more like a race to the bottom.

For the same reason that teaching heterosexuality to children in elementary school is inherently wrong. Children are by and large not mature enough to deal with complex issues regarding sexuality at that age. If there are some who are and their parents feel they should be educated that early they can make those arrangements privately. Some people (not saying you) like to pretend that sex is just another mundane topic, like learning how to boil an egg or what various nations capitals are. But we know that it has a very complex effect on our psyche and it is NOT a casual concept. Very bad things can happen introducing children to sex at too young an age. There's a REASON we don't allow minors to have sex for example. Teaching them that some people have two mommies or two daddys (or a mommy OR a daddy - single parents get no love in our school system) is fine as long as it's kept to that. You're not really touching on sex at all. and its inclusive for children who have same sex parents or single parents. But beyond that? Oh hell no. Parents have direct control over that. If you're letting your 10 year old have unrestricted access to the internet on their personal cell phone without supervision or blockers then that's your business i guess, i don't think that's very good parenting. But - so be it. That does not mean it should be taught in schools.

You really didn't. The post i was responding to which i quoted had zero clarifications in it whatsoever. It just said i was arguing with myself. Soooo once again - gotta lie to try to make your point. Why bother?

More like some people are determined to shoot themselves in the foot. In the flashpan that is gender politics right now that was a colossal mistake. It will drive people away from the dems and drop support for the letter mafia in general. And jokes that make people feel their kids are threatened always go over so well And we know they're not really joking. They DO want to have access to the kids very early to promote their ideology. Which has already got parents knickers in knots. This drives even moderate voters to the republicans in droves. After the whole "Deplorables" comment i often think "there's no way the left can be stupid enough to lose to trump a second time by giving him free ammo like that". But then i see something like this, and realize "Sigh - yes, yes they can."

Well i guess that's about as stupid a comment as you can make in response to a joke that never actually mentioned deciding anything I may not know who's going to hell - but i can guarantee you'll be on the short bus

Sigh - Well thanks for proving the point that the left has to lie from the article: RCMP said Monday that it was not currently investigating political interference allegations during the SNC-Lavalin affair, after a “comprehensive and impartial” review of the matter found insufficient evidence of criminality Insufficient. They had been given evidence going into it. That's why they investigated. You don't launch an official investigation without there being evidence of wrongdoing. This isn't just "we're looking into it" - they had an official investigation. And nowhere in the article does it say 'no' evidence at all. Honestly - are you so stupid you think that the RCMP would say "Oh yes - we had no evidence at all of anything so we launched an official investigation that went on for quite some time". They mention they couldn't get FURTHER information because of parliamentary privilege. Holy shit you're stupid - why wouldn't you at least read the article before you jump in and say something that dumb? Seriously your first clue should have been that they opened an official investigation a all - nobody does that without evidence.

It ignores an awful lot of things.

Apparently you haven't You've misquoted it. The law of supply and demand says that as price goes up suppy increases and demand goes down. But - that doesnt' mean people stop buying it. It means that in a free market the excess supply and the fact people aren't pressured to buy because they can get it more easily will cause the price to move back towards equilibrium. People still want the product but if they can get it from anyone at a better price they will do so. But here they can't. You thought it meant that they just bought less And you forgot the supply never became greater because this isn't a free market situation You've just proven you have literally no idea what you're talking about ROFLMAO ... well no surprise. So we'll add economics to physics and law on the list of things you don't understand I know that's what originally was hoped would happen. But it didn't. And that's because energy isn't an 'elastic' expense. Charge what you like, people stil need to heat their homes, and pick the kids up, and go buy groceries. So they keep buying the gas and cut spending elsewhere. Which economists have been saying for years. It's the same as rent - just because rent is high doesn't mean people stop renting - they still need somewhere to live. And as we can see - emissions did not go down. Nope. Geez dude, where'd you learn your economics? The back of a cracker jacks box or something? Seriously - you are WAY too stupid for this conversation. You're arguing something will happen that we already know didn't happen. And it didn't happen in bc when it was started there earlier either. You don't even understand the economic principles you're misquoting. Stick to playing with lego.

They are not talking about teaching them in high school. THey're talking about teaching them in elementary. And - some pretty "detailed' stuff. And while you may have been educated on the basics of those faiths i doubt very much that the material encouraged you to 'switch faiths'. ALSO i doubt any people of that religion showed up and put their penises in the kids faces. So there are significant differences.

Oh look Everybody - some more gay pride examples of how they're TOTALLY not exposing their male genitalia to children!!! Remember - kids LIKE kink! And YES THAT IS a Canadian federation of nudists poster with a bunch of naked children (Mostly female) on it. Adults would be one thing but you're spreading around pictures of naked kids?