CdnFox

I heard it was because some dude named 'archie duke" got hungry and shot an ostrich. ... (or maybe the archduke of austria-hungary got shot, one of the two).

No - dude this is a legal challenge inside a legal court with a legal judge presiding over the court case. This is going to be a legal judgement period, So - anything he does is ok because leaders have all been criticized one time or another? How does that make sense? Yes - someone LIKE him. Not him, Who asked you to? Nobody said you should compare anyone to anyone else. I said imagine that someone LIKE donald trump had those powers. Imagine how they might be misused. No comparison required. Sounds like you're just dodging the issue.

Nope, but i can see why you'd believe that. After all, apparently you believe anything that sounds good to you.

Of course it is. Proven in the field, replicated in the lab. Absolutely cast iron real. It boggles my mind you can pretend something that is proven using the scientific method is NOT true and yet believe something with ZERO evidence like your imaginary friend or the roman equivalent of 'harry potter' is absolutely guaranteed 100 percent real. Oh well.

Kid - you are just too dumb for this conversation. I never criticized anything. I accurately pointed out the rich would be fine without taxes. So right off the bat you screwed that up. And no - the 'welfare state' policies are not what made america a 'first world' country. No, historically that's not true. HIstorically the wealthy simply become wealthier and the peasants remain in poverty creating the wealth. That's why you get things like the french revolution. If you're going to argue something is true, pick something that doesn't have 2000 years of history proving you wrong. As it stands, the big 'benefit' to our modern society is that the poor and the middle class do pretty well for themselves compared to the past and most people think that's a good thing. But it's not a financial 'benefit' to the rich. "trickle down" and "trickle up" are terms that people who don't understand keynes use. They were never his terms, and they're not accurate in either case. The rich do just fine in a capitalist economy like ours or the us etc. They also do fine in many other models. They do just fine in aristocracies, even socialist models etc. Putin isn't starved for cash and neither is Xi. But - low and middle class ONLY do well capitalist models. So once again - capitalism is for the benefit of the poor and middle class, not the rich. It's not complicated. Next time actually pay attention to what people are saying, you're just making yourself look retarded accusing others of making statements they didn't make.

Sorry kid - repeating a lie doesn't make it true. the left is all about cancel culture and lies. The left bans books and is perfectly happy with it - the right says 'that book is fine but not in schools" and they freak out. The left screams about 'misinformation' like a banshee - but the right passes a law that says if you lie you will be held to account and it's all WAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!! Pathetic. the left these days are not great people.

No there aren't. And they'd be pretty stupid if there were. Evolution exists period. That has been proven. Of course - you believe in a storybook and imaginary friends so i guess it's not hard to understand you'd fall for nonsense and fake books. And what you posted shows you didn't undrestand what you were told in the slightest. It's disappointing to see people that uneducated in this day and age. Still - i guess people make a hell of a lot of money off of religion so they're going to print crap like that knowing a percent of people aren't smart enough to realize the issues with it. Evolution is a proven and repeatable thing. We can see it in nature, we can reproduce it in the lab. it's real. Cross species evolution is more hypothetical. There is much evidence for it but not enough to be definitive or certain enough to say 'that's it for sure'. It probably is but there's room for doubt. There is ZERO evidence that god did anything at all. That is the LEAST evidence based conclusion.

No sweetie - i asked how YOU felt about it. I asked a question. That's what the little crooked mark at the end of the sentance means. So it's up to YOU to do your research and make an answer. I'm kind of getting tired of explaining how english works every single post - is there maybe a remedial english class in your area that you could take? It would speed this up. Nope. She was in one movie that was specifically offered by ben shapiro to say eff you to disney - and it was drastically reduced pay. Her career has been torched. By leftists. Nope. She lost a huge carreer - they planned a spin off based all around her character, she was in a world famous part and making huge dollars and that is gone now. Because of lefites cancelling her. So once again we see - you lie rather than admit the truth. the left LOVES to cancel people. It's their bread and butter. They are the true facists, attacking anyone who's opinion doesn't match their dogma. A number of them. Not to mention the anti-semite stuff which SOME people (erroneously in my books) call racism. If you want to count that or not. Yes. he was. He was kicked out of his prestigeous job donig the work he loved and now he's doing lesser work. And no, i don't believe hes on the rosetta project any more. So what this shows is that the Cancel Culture Lefties are so aggressive that they can take a guy who's just a normal scientist doing great work for our knowledge and understanding of the universe and cripple his life - and that they're happy to do so. That's your side. Your side attacks and destroys people for the WEAKEST of reasons just to flex their woke muscles. ALL the time. And you downplay it. "Oh it NEVER happens! Ok maybe it happens but there's no consequences. Ok maybe there's consequences but they only destroyed his career a LITTLE bit..." You are a terrible person defending terrible people. Trump, for all his flaws and dysfunctions and degenerate behavior is still a better person. Which is REALLY saying something. You should be deeply ashamed of defending actions like this.

Why not? You've been wrong about everything else so you might as well go all in with the dumb Ummm - it WAS the world for much of it for thousands of years. Yes. Well - maybe not THAT bad but generally yes. Which is why.... taxes benefit the poor. The poor pay very little of the tax money, the rich pay most of the tax money, and so the poor get access to things they couldn't possibly afford while the rich basically get what they would have had anyway (if they're lucky). Well that's just dumb. We went thousands of years like that and guess what - infrastructure got built. But - its use was controlled and it was largely owned by local lords and minor nobles and yes - the poor suffered. That's why... taxes.... benefit... the... poor.... not..... the....rich. No - if the rich own the police there tends to be a lot less need for annoying trials and such Criminals tend to go bye bye. Sure - you get the odd 'robin hood' but the reason that story sticks out is it's so rare. Canada is already basically 7 hockey rinks surrounded by bears So - to sum up - your claim that taxes are for the benefit of the rich is hogpoo. It's to benefit the poor, and middle class. Now - we can probably agree that a society where the poor and the middle class have access unfettered to infrastructure like that is desirable. But - lets not pretend that it's for the benefit of the rich.

The rich could pay for their own roads, police, bridges etc. And historically did. Then they can even charge tolls and such So it benefits them less. The rich would be just fine with no taxes and they provide the infrastructure. It's everyone else who wouldn't be happy with that.

hypothesis. If it's just a reasonable assumption or 'best guess' explanation that hasn't been proven or isn't accepted as a mostly factual thing then it's a hypothesis. Theories are a little more concrete than that. The 'Theory' of evolution has indeed been scientifically proven but only within a species. We can prove deer evolve into other deer creatures. We can't prove that a deer might evolve into a cat. We don't have any way of simulating enough generations of that yet to find out. So the THEORY of evolution is real and it is HYPOTHESIZED that it's responsible for the creating of new species. And thus - to say that there's NO evidence is, of course, poppycock of the highest order. There is in fact proof that evolution is a thing, and a reasonable amount of evidence that it could very well account for the creation of new species. Meanwhile there really is NO evidence of god, and yet you believe in that. So - i think you need to work on being a little more consistent in either your logic or your hypocrisy.

Well fair enough. Also fair enough. Sufficiently equitable. Ignoring the autocorrect error there sure. the situation is complex enough that we're likely beyond simple amendments. I would guess that there's a lot of moving parts that a solution would need to align across a number of acts.

Sure - but this is a legal judgement in front of a judge in a court. It actually does hold legal weight We are literally talking about the pushback now. this whole legal exercise is pushback to those events. And trudeau got called out on it on the world stage specifically. So not like there was NO repercussions. Is that what i said? Are you being entirely honest with that comment? Go read what i said again and see if i was comparing us to another country. If you need i can explain it again another way to make it more understandable.

Sure. Or they can buy ICE vehicles which use gasoline made from our oil which we HEAVILY subsidized for almost a decade I'm not a big fan of corporate subsidies (and really that's not the right term so much - usually it's just tax relief) but sometimes you have to prime the pump a little if you want the water to flow naturally. I think if you don't make the current generation EV's at least a viable option for a significant part of the population, then you wind up shutting down the car maker's research and investment into future tech. And ice vehicles ARE a dead end for us eventually.

LOL c'mon - holding someone when there's reasonable grouds to believe a crime has been committed until they can be tried is certainly not the same as doing away with jurisprudence. If we're going to take that attitude - nobody should ever be arrested. How dare you detain someone without them having been proven guilty. I have no problem with it being a 'reverse onus' on the prosecution - in other words they have to PROVE that the charges and the situation warrant no bail. That would involve things like the seriousness of the crime, the weight of the evidence showing it's likely he did it, the past violent record etc. Basically convince a judge there's a strong likelyhood he did it and that he's likely to do more violence if released. Rather than it just being 'automatic'. And of course the cases should be tried in a timely manner - no waiting 5 years to go to court. But there's no offense to jurisprudence to hold someone until they can be tried in and of itself. Well i suspect he's talking about things like the cop who just died at the hands of that first nations guy out on bail who has a massive violent criminal record. That was preventable. NOT releasing homicidal nutbars into the public prevents that. A finger in jail can't pull a trigger. the rights of the accused are very important. But the rights of the members of the public are important too. And right now it seems like the majority of violent crime is being committed by those who are out on bail or some other species of release for another violent crime. And the crime rates are shooting up. So - there does need to be a balancing. I'm pretty sure PP will be planning on addressing that.

( I mean, he's not wrong... )

A report that started off by saying that a reasonable man might very well come to a completely opposite opinion. And the report won't have legal weight. It's basically his personal opinion, not a legal opinion. So this will be examining whether or not it met the requirements of law. I don't think you realize the import of the precedent here. The civil liberties groups do - those are not exactly right wing groups you know But the know damn well this absolutely will have a huge impact on people's rights in the future. The police don't get charged when they kill people at protests (yes, it's happened). That doesn't make it right. But - demonstrators and police are one thing. They kind of go hand in hand. But the freezing of bank accounts and the other actions they were looking at.... that's next level. It's one thing to charge every protester with a crime, you really can't do that. But imagine if you froze all their assets. And the assets of anyone who donated to their cause. I mean - simple enough right? Hey - we're looking at holding the protesters financially responsible for damages - all bank accounts frozen and garnishee their wages until the final bill comes in - should just take a year or so. You would shut down people's ability to protest other than small groups at street corners. And the civil liberties people know it. You need to stop thinking 'what if the liberals have this power". I know you trust them. You need to start thinking "what if someone like donald trump did". Because sooner or later that will happen in Canada and that's who WILL have that power. Think carefully.

Sure - i was responding to you, i wasn't emotionally invested in discussing it right now I don't know there's much more to say tho. At the end of the day the tech just isn't there and i'm not sure we're seeing it's 'final form' if you will. I think it's good to proceed with some decent provisioning and encouragement and i do believe that electrification is the way of the future one way or another, but we're not really ready for full scale adoption i think, And trying to force it is more likely to set us back.

Oh -sorry forgive me, i assumed you had some basic knowledge of such things. That's my bad. No, that's history. It's always how it works. But - there's always a group like you who manage to convince themselves that one abuse of power couldn't POSSIBLY lead to another. Sigh. I would be upset about that. But - i guess it's the world that Canadians want to live in. You obviously are ok with it, a lot of people are, so ... guess that's what we're going to do and you git what you git and don't throw a fit, amiright?

The left lives on it. Harper has a secret agenda. THe conservatives will ban abortion. Etc etc etc. And ONE justice said it should be reconsidered, and all the others disagreed. But - of course the one that suits your position, THAT guy is the only trustworthy one. Imagine. So in other words there's nothing different he should have done that you can think of. In fact he did very well. Better than biden given the circumstances. Sorry - but only left wing propaganda says different. He got things organized, he shut down borders relatively quickly, he started project lightspeed, about the only thing he did wrong was what he always does, shoot his mouth off without thinking. But in fact other than that he did fine. The dems tried to say otherwise, talking about 'super spreader' events which didn't spread anything and such but he did about as well as anyone else and better than many. It's already real bad. In Canada and the us the egg is actually up to close to 2 dollars and change. Food prices are soaring - and that's not "global" inflation, we MAKE eggs and beef. that's not from china, that's from down the road. Families are literally having tough times affording food. THe interest rates that are fighting inflation are driving up mortgages and as people's terms come up that will get worse and worse for people. A lot of those people simply can't afford an extra 500 a month on their mortgage. Personal bankruptcies are up 15 percent and rising. Consumer debt went up 7.3 percent in the third quarter of last yaer according to equifax and is well over a trillion. Business investment is slowing. For many, it's already happening and as the credit runs out and the economy starts to tank, it'll get worse. And the states is about the same. The last of teh savings that people had under covid are being spent. It's not good. and it's setting up for a real long drawn out mess.

which conservatives did it. That's where that 'green energy' money goes. You guys on the left LIKE that stuff. depends on the program. Don't be dumb. The vast vast vast majority of the rich don't have anythign to do with weapons manufacture and the companies that do are publically traded blue chips - which means the people who make money are the teachers and nurses etc who have them in their pension funds. Nope - no wars. nor did he increase drone strikes. Sorry. It's not. It's neither big gov't or small gov't. Unless the gov't decides to run the abortion clinic. I dont think you get what 'big gov't' is. Stupidest comment you've made. ANd it was up against some pretty serious competition They can't admit it beacuse it's a lie and conservatives prefer the truth. The left prefers lies - so YOU have no problem saying it T'aint where it comes from kiddo Aww look at you - repeating lies and bad arguments that have already been shot down as if they'll magically be true I guess you're a little pissed off that the survey shows women are more dependent so you're trying to suggest somehow we're all equally dependent. Nope. Sure. But you can look it up just as easily. So's banning murder arson and rape. but it should be kept to a minimum. Of course the gov't allows lots of drugs, but some are deemed too dangerous. Of course prostitution can lead to female exploitation so it's historically been banned. And of course if you happen to believe that at some point a fetus is a human being abortion becomes murder at that point - and we can probably agree murder is bad. So - if you disagree with where the gov't draws those lines or whatever you can make your case and get the law changed or thrown out. That doesn't mean that youre 'dependent' on the gov't for your life. No you don't - if i say i want to carry a gun to protect my body you freak out. AND you'd love for the gov't to have control over what i do with my money, what i can work at, what i can say, etc etc. You don't give a fig for rights. You just want stuff for you. Pretty much eveyrthing leftists want is an intrusion into people's lives. Leftists want to dictate how culture evolves by forcing people to do what THEY believe is correct by force of law and to cancel anyone who disagrees. Are you ? - i think you just WANT me to be lying but suspect i'm right. i don't know why, i was clear it had nothing to do with this it was just interesting,

Still don't know how to use google huh. Gina Corano was a right wing actress on star wars' 'the mandalorian'. She was hated by the head of that department who was a horrific leftie. Gino frequently expressed right of center opinions (mild ones, nothing radical). She made a very very tame comment on social media to the effect of 'the nazi's succeeded because they turned neighbors against each other, we should respect each other regardless of politics'. The left wing freaked out about it and the batch used it as an excuse to fire her over twitter for it and blamed her right wing views and claimed it was a 'holocaust' statement - despite the fact that the very left of center mandalorian lead actor made SPECIFIC NAZI REFERENCES JUST A FEW MONTHS EARLIER - claiming that america's border was like concentration camps. She hadn't mentioned the holocuast and hadn't even mentioned any political parties. But the left used it as an excuse to pounce and demand her resignation Corano got a job with the daily wire in a movie but at a fraction of the pay and with her career all but destroyed. This is one of HUNDREDS of examples. Any dolt can find this stuff in TWO seconds of searching. You're a bigot, you're a racist, and you're anti semetic - but most of all you're a liar. Never anywhere near the same pay or professional level. Not when the left cancels them. There's a tonne of examples - famous celebs and near celebs. What happened to matt taylor was nothing short of insane and tragic - a fine and promising scientist who's career was blown up entirely because he wore a custom shirt designed by a local woman artist which other women found offensive during an interview. Poof - good by nasa career he'd worked his whole life for. And you know this stuff happens. You're just too terrible a person to admit it.

What about corano? and 'lose their jobs'? which one 'lost their jobs' and then went on to get other jobs of similar stature exactly? Edit - honestly i don't know why i bother, you're so obviously dishonest it isn't funny. God you're a terrible person. How can people live like you and bear the shame?

depends on which ones. Give me some specific examples and i'll explain them. Most times bailouts aren't for the rich, its' to prevent mass layoffs. But - throw out a few case studies. Endless wars don't benefit the rich. Hell trump never even got involved in a war and biden already has. Abortion got banned to protect the rich? LOL - you'll have to spell that one out for me. Everything you mentioned is small gov't except for banning abortion. Which didn't happen. It was just ruled not constitutionally protected. no, what i said was accurate. Again - suggesting the gov't should foucs on it's core duties is not the same as same as saying they should do nothing. And women want the gov't to do MOAR because they're not comfortable making those decisions themselves. Really. You've never heard the term 'eat the rich". Well - i guess you've lied this far, you might as well lie the rest of the way THe left wants that, and they're not terribly shy about it. well you're retarded then. They even do studies on it. People who don't depend on the gov't want the gov't to focus on only those things the gov't can do that people can't. Like a military - i can't buy my own f-16 or abrams tank. we need a central organized justice system. Etc etc. I CAN decide what pronouns i'm going to use Society isn't an end user. People are. People don't "depend" on the gov't, people have discovered that there's a small number of things a 'gov't' can do better than just individuals can. So - where collectively it makes sense we vest a gov't with that power to administrate a joint interest. That does NOT mean that those people have given up control of their lives to the gov't. Or that they want to. Women just want to give up MOAR control of their lives on average. Apparently. They'd like the gov't to handle their lives and tell them what to do more than men do, on average Well no. We absolutely COULD go back to each of us wearing a gun and dealing with criminals the 'old school way'. What you're REALLY saying is that a centralized professional police force is probably the best way to deal with that and it's one area that the gov't can do a better job than just the individuals can. Again - you're playing this litte dishonest game where if you want the gov't to do ANYTHING it must mean you should support the gov't doing EVERYTHING. Nope. THe gov't should do as little as possible and focus on what it can do best. And no more. Women want to take that farther and have the gov't make decisions for them and tell people what to do They apparently see the gov't as more of a daddy figure than men do. Fun fact - germans also are the same way, polling much higher than most countries when asked if the gov' should be running their lives and making decisions. I found that surprising. Doesn't mean anything here but it's interesting.

Well you may be right, but thats going to be a very tight needle to thread here. The civil liberties groups will be pushing for a 'yes no' kind of thing. I saw the horses crush an old lady - does that count? (also we don't have any tanks, and what parts we have are now going to ukraine). But i'm more interested in the economic part of it. The civil liberties association IS the applicant aren't they? I get the feeling you don't take this seriously. But - if for example blm had a protest and the act was declared by PP and their assets seized - i wonder if you'd be so sanguine, Or if that happened to a first nations community and all the communities bank assets were seized due to 'supporting illegal activity'? You KNOW the next abuse will go a little further than this one, that's how it works If this becomes 'ok' - you may look back and realize what a mistake that was before too long.