CdnFox

Math is hard. Especially for those on the left.

Sure - that's fair.

That's two - how about 2 more? LOLOL You have any idea how stupid this makes you look You literally coudn't stand i wasn't paying attnetion to you fast enough so you had to repeat yourself

6 years i believe. Jaggers will be elegible in 2024. I believe his 'pensionable service' started when he won leadership of the ndp and then first sat in the house as leader. So - january 2018, so january 2024 his pension kicks in. That's two - how about 2 more? LOLOL You have any idea how stupid this makes you look

If you mean i don't understand your fantasy make believe world, there's probably some truth to that. Why would i give a shit about what HIS claim was. Your claim was that it was a pretty good score. It is NOT - it's crap and they should be deeply concerned about it. I get why you'd try to distract from your completely indefensible position by pretending i was talking about him, but sorry - i wasn't. What you said was wrong and remains that way. The FBI's reputation is dog crap at the moment. And i'd point out that your own chart STILL exhonorates his point of view - the number you're looking at does NOT include those who didn't care to answer. So - when you add those back in LESS than 50 percent of people were prepared to say they respect the fbi. Which means he was entirely right. You were and remain an !diot.

Ok. sure.

Sigh. Tyrant An extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel ruler. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions, especially one who seized power illegally. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person. Hitler was voted in and then seized power illegally. From wikipedia: A tyrant (from Ancient Greek τύραννος (túrannos) 'absolute ruler'), in the modern English usage of the word, is an absolute ruler who is unrestrained by law, or one who has usurped a legitimate ruler's sovereignty. Hitler was not a fascist. He was a socialist. He was not a dictator, he was a tyrant. I expect him to be stupid Aristides, i expect better from you. Shame on you.

We're not looking at a 'major drought'. We're looking at unusually dry conditions. But my creek is full of water, the fraser river still seems to be running, there's a tonne of water about and there will be all year even with dryer than usual conditions. So they'll have to do things similar to how they do in the states and manitoba for example. But we have 20 percent of the entire world's fresh water in canada - even if it gets drier there will be water to be had. Even if that got cut in half we'd still have vastly more than anyone else and they make do. It will take new infrastructure and some spending but not even all that much. We're talking about canada. We're about 40 million strong, that's it. It's not hard to take care of our needs. Again - nobody is claiming there's NO effect. But the costs to adapt are mild, and the tech is readily available. If bc put about 2 billion a year to adapting to climate change within 4 or 5 years we'd be set for far worse conditions than we're supposed to see for over 100 years.

You mean you and me? I didn't think we were, it's been a pleasant talk at best! You want to see fighting let me introduce you to a few of my ex's . Some of them make make a German SS panzer division seem 'non confrontational ' If you mean the country in general... I dunno. I mean, gotta argue about SOMEthing. Well - with luck people will grab a brain and more towns will have fire mitigation plans so they don't burn, more dikes will be built higher so there is no more flooding, irrigation systems will be put in place as necessary, etc etc etc. And if not pretty soon the towns that are going to burn are burnt and the crops that are going to die are dead etc and people learn to build differently and plant different crops. We're talking about minor changes over all. This is peanuts to deal with. This isn't going to be like the great weather shift of the 1300's There won't be a potato blight. Meh - it's dependent on perspective. Compared to history and even other weather changes in human times this is nothing. There was a time when it just didn't rain for a million years and then suddenly it didnt' stop raining for 2 million That's some serious weather change! how about this for a definition - any weather change that we can reasonably adapt to with a modest cost and existing tech is 'mild', anything that requires a sizeable portion of our budget to adjust to is moderate to high - anything we can't adapt to without developing new tech is extreme. With that as a measure, what we're talking about right now according to the average of the models is pretty mild. Right now we spend more money on free drugs for drug users than we do fighting forest fires in all of bc - we have a 136 million dollar budget. Bump that puppy to a billion and we won't be evacuating towns for a while.

They are if we're talking about scale and history. Evacuations have always happened. We've always had flooding. There have always been extreme weather events. So all we're talking about is a mild increase in what we've already have Now - ANY change has the potential to have a large impact. So - it's necessary to adapt. Like i said - better forest management practices. we can't afford to just skate by with what'we've been doing so far. It's not doable. We have to get far more serious about managing forests and being ready to fight fires. But that's it really. Serious weather changes make it significantly harder to live here - and there are many places that will face that.

Like i said, it's not popular to talk about so you have to dig to find any info - but from what i understand it's more like you'll stay in place and there will largely only be minor changes. We might have longer growing seasons, we'll have more extreme weather events that we'll have to prepare for so it doesn't impact us. For bc for example that might mean more heat domes, more forest fire seasons and more flooding in the winter. So - more air conditioning, better forest management and better dikes. That sort of thing.

Well - you might have me there I'll counter with it's a bad gov't when the topic of discussion tends to land on debating which of his decisions shows he's more useless than the other

One of the biggest mistakes you can make as a leader is to send contradictory or mixed messages. If you think that masks are still necessary for some reason - then you should think it loudly and universally. If you think the pandemic is over - then you should think that completely and your actions should reflect it. This kind of nonsense just makes you look weak and indecisive. Chasing shadows and ghosts and dividing people and creating friction and controversy where there doesn't need to be any, and not even in the hilarious way trump used to which at least was always good for a chuckle but in a boring, divisive, pointless way. This really is a useless gov't. IT's bad enough to be a bad gov't, but if you're going to be a bad gov't at least have the dignity to do it with a little backbone.

Well that just looks really bad.

16 is TERRIBLE. For a law organization for a country - that is very bad news. It SHOULD be closer to the postal service. And it looks like the legal system in general in the states is also suffering from a very serious lack of trust. I'm afraid you don't really understand the numbers your posting - it's not a presidental race, the goal isn't to get 51 percent or better - the legal system should have a VERY strong majority in favor. You kind of proved his point without meaning to.

Yeah - but unfortunately they also get rich. So they don't mind. I'm sure that the tiny bit of effort that Johnson put in netted him several hundred thousand. And he's largely retired so the hit to his rep really doesn't cost much. SNC lavalin is back doing gov't contracts and they made hundreds of millions from the crimes they committed with no real penalty. WE made millions and millions - and htey probably are the ones who came off worse. Aga Khan suffered no ill effects for his bribery. Even the chinese walked away after buying 2 elections.

Yup - still about grade three LOL - as long as you're here entertaining me why would i not? Now you get your brain back together and I'll play with you again in a bit

HAAAHAHAHAHA!!! I LOVE it when you get so upset your "engrish" goes to hell and you can't write a coherent sentence LOLOL When your writing skills hit about grade 3 i know you're thorougly pissed Read what you wrote again when you calm down. You'll see what i mean This isn't the fastest i've pushed you over the edge in a day but it's damn close Laughing my ass off at you takes very very little effort and the effect is great - i've barely finished breakfast and i've already had a great laugh to start my day off

Actually that's my understanding as well. It's not reported on much (for obvious reasons) but as far as i can tell Canada walks away pretty unscathed and in some areas even better off with most of the modelling. We'll have to change a few things to get ready for more extreme weather events but it won't be a massive problem for us.

The question is "now what". A public inquiry is the obvious answer - it would answer a lot of questions and it would tend to be the end of the discussion in most cases. However - i think the last thing the liberal party wants to see is a lot of questions getting answered. So what does justin do? Even if there's embarrasing answers that come up - an inquiry will be over and forgotton long before the next election most likely. Jaggers obviously is still too scared to go to the polls now. That would probably be the best route to go. Otherwise he's got to go find someone who is squeaky clean with NO ties to him that are public knowledge and then try to convince people that this is still a good idea. And that makes it harder to 'control' what the guy says. Not impossible but still a pain. Perhaps he consulted his bank account instead of his integrity before deciding.

Well unfortunately the only kids who'll be getting homes pretty soon are those who can rely on the bank of mom and dad, as your kids will have the fortunte of doing. Think about what the average cost of living is right now and what the average 30 year old is making. He ain't buying three homes any time soon Or even one home. And if he's got a family to provide for it's even worse. Very soon the bottom 20 percent of our WORKING population will not be able to afford homes in the way we're used to and will have to get very creative or live with things like two families living in a small house. Parent's homes are becoming 'generational' - the younger generation never moving out and actually raising kids there and then when the older folk die or have to go to a home or the like they take over the house and i suppose the situaton repeats.

Well that's partially true i'll concede - I'm usually talking to loser lefties like you, and there's nothing you can say to refute my arguments. Which is why you resort to name calling and other childish activiteis and have nothing to say Sorry kid - you're just too dumb for this conversation The days of leftie losers running around trying to cancel and intimidate people who are more logical and more intelligent than they are simply put are coming to a close. You couldn't win an argument with me, then you couldn't intimidate me, then your efforts to mock me made you look like a re tarded !diot. My favorite is when i respond to your comment to me specifically and you do the "gosh i'm so surprised to see you" routine LOLOLOL It obviously keeps you up at night And it's painfully obvious that you can't stand that you're not smart enough to come out of this ahead. That's why you keep coming back. For me it's just funny But for you - this is upsetting. Think about why for a bit

Says the guy who never provides proof YoUr OPiniOn is USELESS WithOuT PROOOOOOFFF ThAt My DEMandS are SEleCtiVe!!!!!!! But your commitment to hypocrisy is impressive as always

Of course it does. You are confusing "need" with "Want". I realize English is a challenging language but if you look it up you'll find that they are different words. And people's desire to fill their needs starts with the basics, the desire to have an i-phone comes much much later and is no where remotely close to the need for things like food and shelter. There was a guy named "Pavlov" who did some work on this And as far as wants go or 'perceived needs' it's extremely subjective. If you have nothing and you're watching your family starve and freeze - having food, shelter, security from attack, clothes, warmth - basic basic things - will make you very happy and you will be very very afraid of losing it. If it has been provided for you - you will also tend to lose the knowledge and ability to provide it for yourself. So if someone threatens to take it away .... "if you don't vote for me then the other guy might not provide this.... " And of course today that translates nicely into gov'ts making people dependent on services and things they provide then scaring them that the might go away. The Carbon Tax is a genius example - take the poeople's money, drive up the cost of everything, then give them a little of their money back. Pretty soon they think "I'm barely getting by - i NEED that gov't money". They become dependent not thinking about the fact it's the gov't that's creating that dependency in the first place. You are the kind of special !diot that thinks "look before you leap' means you should literally only look when you're leaping, and doesn't realize it applies to anything else You are special stupid

That makes him a Tyrant. Not a dictator. Look it up Sorry kid - you're still an !diot. Doubling down on being an !diot doesn't make you less of an !diot.