CdnFox

really. So - give us a couple of examples of when PP and Harper lied. Not just were wrong but actually lied. But a huge step up on the accuracy scale. They are actually immoral. They actually do engage in corruption and bad ethics. That's not 'theory' or 'opinion' they've been caught at it many times. Did anyone say he's immoral because he's a liberal? But it is true that the party itself has behaved immorally many times. Ahh - so anyone who thunks different than you is stupid. In other words you think trudeau is right. Nobody intelligent could possibly support PP. I support PP. Are you suggesting my IQ is below average? And all this in your response demanding that hyperbole be dropped.

well.... fair point i guess..

That's about the third time. I let it slide with me but enough. That is enough of your bullshit. He did not say you were a liberal. I also did not say you were a liberal. But every time someone points out something about the liberal party YOU have a HISSY FIT as if someone called you a liberal. But nobody has. Get your head out of your ass and don't be so dishonest. IF - IF you voted liberal - you voted to support corruption and immoral behavior no matter how you want to dance around it. IF that makes you uncomfortable then vote for someone else next time IF you did NOT vote liberal then it really doesn't apply to you. But enough bad mouthing other people just because YOU obviously have some guilt issues to work through. You're being disrespectful of others who are being QUITE respectful of you - dishonest and childish. Knock it off. You are NOT on the moral high ground here.

First off, if he's just doing what he's supposed to then he doesn't really deserve 'credit' and second - the fact that he caved to the pressure might mean parliament is doing it's job but it doesn't mean he was. He failed to show leadership - others had to force him to it. That would mean the ndp and cpc deserve credit, not the libs or justin.

No credit necessary. He was forcefully pressured into it by the opposition. He had no intention of doing that on his own.

I think if you're just throwing it around indiscriminately then that can be true but i don't think it's "meaningless' if you are addressing legitimate actions and patterns of behavior. I would agree that at some point you cross a line into meaningless rhetoric. But certainty there is more than enough evidence out there to make a very real case that Trudeau is a bad man who will continue to do bad things. Not just things "we dont' like" or such, but demonstrably criminal or unethical. He's got a fairly extensive track record. It would be like arguing that trump is a good communicator to say otherwise . Saying the liberals are "Evil" is a little hyperbolic but saying they are a corrupt party who regularly supports immoral actions is no stretch. Aside from the slight exaggeration (and who doesn't do that) the position is fairly defensible. I don't see a problem with calling a spade a spade, in fact i would argue it's important as long as it's a defensible position and not just short hand for "i don't like them".

Clearly the counter-offensive is still on but i have to say, unless there is an AMAZING game of misdirection going on this is being SO telegraphed that the russians might as well be sitting at the planning table. Everyone knows where their forces are and their numbers and gear, its pretty obvious what their objectives will be, russians have even been evacuating command staff from areas they're sure they're going to attack in, it feels like there's zero element of surprise or anything. Maybe they've got something tricky up their sleeves or maybe they're just hoping that the russians are so disorganized that it won't matter, but it sure looks like the Russians are going to see this coming. Or it's all illusion and the Ukraine is planning one of the bigger sucker-punches of all time

Yeah - that one is a complete nothing-burger. THat would be cnn basically behaving like they claim fox news does. Every commercial tv entity out there cares about what it's fans think. He didn't say the network would lie, he didn't say that they would fake news or the like. He just said they would be more cautious and slow about calling another state. There's NOTHING wrong with that.

Well it's not a bad idea of course but sadly it wouldn't even make a blip. And you run back into the same problems - just getting approval to do the work would take 2 or 3 years, and by then the population has increased more than the benefit of those conversions. And in fact it's not like it hasn't happened - the old "woodwards" building which sat empty for years in vancouver was proposed to do exactly that, along with some low income rental to help alleviate that issue in the downtown core. Then the city wanted more low income, then they had other requirements, the developer threw up his hands and walked because it wasn't going to be profitable anymore, then councils changed and finally a deal was reached and eventually work began but it too, MANY years before the first wall was torn down inside. In the end it's not that we COULDN'T build enough buildings. But our entire system is designed in such a way that it prevents it from ever happening without making significant changes.

In what way would that be wrong?

Sure. Or parents who have houses and will leave it behind. OR EVEN what we're seeing more of - multigenerational homes, where the kids take over a part of the larger house that's now a little big for the parents and then start raising their own family. You've got built in daycare for the kids, help for the parents, extra retirement income for the parents and very affordable rent for the kids, and eventually when the parents "Move on" so to speak the kids take over and the process can repeat. And that's now. within 5 years this is going to get completely stupid, and the young kids will be marching in teh streets over how "Unfair" it is. They'll demand stupid things like all landlords be shot and their homes distributed to those who don't own one (Forgetting that would mean there's no rental units any more). This is going to be a bid deal if the gov't doesn't do SOMETHING and there's not much they can do to fix things in the short term.

Well it ain't over yet - this wildfire business is not helping her at all, and she's also got to deal with it while campaigning. Notley isn't taking a break or anything. The latest poll has the UCP up overall in popular vote, but the NDP is leading in the critical battlefield of Calgary. So the actual seat count projections went up by one or two for the ndp and down for the UCP, However the increase in votes solidifies a few close ridings so the chances of the UCP winning a majority went up even if they win with a couple less seats. The Odds of a UCP majority (reduced in seats) is now 77%

I am reminded of that great quote from "Deadwood".... I may be a sinner from hell beyond all hope of redemption. But at least i am not a politician.

You're saying they didn't? Would you care to make a wager It's pretty well documented. I literally said FN overfishing is believed to be a serious factor explicitly, twice. And then you claim i've said it had nothing to do with it. Is lying your ONLY method of argument? I assume you're talking to your mirror. Pathetic. Everything i've said is not only true but very easy to verify. Everything you've said has turned out to be wrong. if not an outright lie. THIS - THIS is why we need more 'white' heritage days. Diptwits like you want to rewrite history and recon white people as the villians. Europeans may have made their fair share of mistakes but they are NOT the only ones NOR are they to blame for even a quarter of what you seem bound and determined to stick them with.

So when i said they could leave the reserve and enjoy the benefits of canadian society - and you said they coudn't because they coudn't even vote.... you now admit you were lying. Well that's a good start. And in any case you're wrong again. As i said any first nations person serving in war could vote. And it was extended by john a WITHOUT revoking status to the eastern first nations, they could vote. He was extending it to ALL first nations but then the rebellion happened. I'd say that's on them. Laurier brought back the original requirement but that was later. Again - you're not being honest. The bison were gone by the time the prairie farmers even showed up. The population of the praries at the time was tiny. The first nations were the ones who did most of the killing in Canada - and mostly for furs. They were already almost wiped out by the time the railroad was even put thorough. First nations got 3 things - guns, horses and trading posts and thats what ended the bison. Metis hunters were sending 50,000 hides a year out of canada at it's height. And while first nations in Canada had hunted the bison, they weren't dependent on them. They had the cariboo and other sources. THey would have missed the hides and the bones - but they had european textiles to make it up. THere are some who have said that John A wiped out bison in select areas to try to make the local first nations more dependent on the canadian gov't - but the evidence for that is extremelyl weak. And there's no doubt they were already vastly in decline by the time that could have happened. And it would have been 'economically' weak, having removed their trading stock. Sorry - if you thought it was europeans in canada who did it you were dead wrong, In america the army shot bison and the railroads fed thier people with them but not here , Bad news sparky - I AM a local old time resident. There were never 10 times the salmon, that's for sure. THere's no doubt runs have gone down a little but in my creek most years they're still thick enough to walk across the water on their backs so to speak. And the DFO's numbers would tend to agree. And as i've said - again, first nations overfishing combined with global warming trends are thought ot be two of the biggest culprits Canada didn't cause global warming and the overfishing isn't the europeans. Once again - wrong on all counts. The europeans didn't wipe out the buffalo in canada. There's still plenty of salmon, and if their numbers are going down it's not the europeans that are the primary responsibility. And first nations definitely had voting rights before the 50's, and even at their most restrictive they could leave the reserves and be just like anyone else. And it wasn't even always that restricted. And in return they got horses, guns, metal tools, medicine, access to education, longer life spans, and they lived the way they always did until technology chaged to the point where they just didn't bother any more. So they got electricity and modern housing and so on. And they wiped out the buffallo for profit. Not because non existant farmers were getting their crops trampled. Any other complete lies you'd like to share about the first nations? Or are you done.

Well, certainly within the boundries of the behavior of our political leaders if nothing else

I don't think that's possible. Without going into 1000 words, basically anyone who has the balls, the drive and the willingness to do what it takes to get to the top is going to be somewhat dirty. Good clean honest people go do something else. So - instead i think the answer is to try to find someone who's dirty for positive reasons so to speak. Or at least reasons you can live with. Harper was a good example - as cuthroat as they come but wanted to be pm for reasons we could live with. And he did a good job. Layton would have been another example, even if you don't like the man's poltiics. There are others. The problem is that the lib party has been around so long and has been so corrupt that in order to climb to the top in that party you HAVE to support corruption and being willing to accept it, too many of the party's mp's and officials are in on it. The lib party really needs to get blown up completely like the old PC was and rebuilt from scratch.

Well it wasn't ALWAYS this way - it USED to be that real estate developers were basically punished for building for future needs, they were only able to build for today's needs. So in a growing population that was not great but it was still manageable. Basically now they're only financially allowed to provide for YESTERDAY'S needs. Which means the situation is now getting worse and will continue to do so as long as there is ANY population growth. The population would need to shrink for things to get better and shrinking populations have significant problems of their own. So the challenge is that if we don't get at least back to providing for today's needs the kids may find that scrimping and saving doesn't cut it. They may have to go to alternate solutions like living in rv's on the street or the like.

So you don't need to do the thing you're actually doing. Gotcha And you wonder why no one respects you It's a mystery!

Sure kiddo What was that about going into hysterics trying to avoid your mistakes?

ROFLMAO - i'm literally replying to a post where you admitted you knew what i was talking about. Everyone knows kiddo. When you get caught doing something you go back and change your post to pretend it didn't happen. You're that kind of person But to be honest looking at people's comments everyone knew you were a liar and dishoenst person long before then. So i doubt it changed anyone's opinion of you. So, when you claim you own your mistakes we ALL know that's a complete lie. You will go to great lengths if you can to deny your mistakes. As i suspect your next post is about to do again But - we all know you and what you do.

I would argue that really there is no great divide - there is only a great divider. We all have differences, within the cities or without. THere's poor in both places, there are those who can't afford what the 'climate change' fight is bringing,etc. Our politiicans however find those differences and then weaponize them for political capital and power. The reason that the rural people will suffer more is because politicians do some math and realize that nobody in the vote rich city with tonnes of seats up for grabs is going to see the rural people suffering, so they tell the urban people that rural people are just too stupid and they're "hicks" and we should just go ahead with what we the enlightened KNOW to be correct and they'll figure it out on their own in time. THey do that with east vs west as well, gun owners and non gun owners, religious vs non, vaxxed vs unvaxxed. Etc etc. The only reason we have actual divides is because that's what our politicians want there to be. That's why they call them "wedge" issues.

Which is why the rest of us wind up having to live with their crap.

So you admit there was the one well glad we got that out of the way (gotcha ! ) So yeah - you're the kind of guy who'll go to THOSE extremes, So for SURE you're all about the hysteria But i see you're settling into your new self appointed job as a grammar nazi nicely at least

Sure - thats why i said they'd have had to target the brit navy, especially destroyers, earlier on. It would have been very difficult by the time hitler realized britian wasn't going to cave The problems were far from unsolvable. They just didn't try. They knew if they went to war with poland that france would declare war and fight, and they planned accordingly. Voila - victory. They knew that england would declare war - but BELIEVED they would make peace. So they didn't try to plan. And that was a problem. But they absolutely could have. Yeah... fun topic tho (and back on ground i have a little expertise in ) we should do that as a thread one of these days - the 3 or 4 pivotal points in the war and could they have reasonably gone differently and why they didn't. Or something. Well if history is true to form here, then one of three things will happen: 1 - somehow his forces gain successes that they can then reasonably declare as a win and he saves face and this ends. 2- This stays in stalemate forever considering the ukrainians don't seem willing to ever back down and eventually the strain on the russian economy and people becomes serious 3 - There's a successful counter offensive and at some point he starts to lose. For two and three there historically comes a point where it's just not possible to hide the fact you're not winning. So how does putin react in that case? When it gets harder and harder to convince him there's any victory, and worse the people are getting upset or his forces in the field are being pushed back and may actually be driven out? Start shooting commanders? What do you think we'd be able to see to suggest he's reaching that point.