CdnFox

Uhhh - you get that this is a native issue right? The first nations is who was asking for this.

They are saying that and it is TOTALLY erasing history. The left Hates america (and canada) as it is today. But - you can't exactly replace it with their socialist utopia if everyone still thinks its a great country. So - the left is aggressively trying to erase and rewrite history and destroy any symbols of it that are positive so that people will decide maybe america is bad. They lie - claiming lincon was a terrible person. They claim 'america was built on slavery' when only a tiny percent of americans ever owned slaves. They try to pretend there is NOTHING positive about it and it should all be torn down. It's dishonest - and so are you for lying about it.

Thanks for proving my point You don't see people as individuals. You see them as a few big groups. ALL conservatives - ALL of them - are the way you think they are. You KNOW how you think is wrong - because you try to cover it up. "ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE DELUSIONAL AND THINK THE SAME WAY". Ohhhh - ummm -- but i still think of them as individuals. LOL You very clearly don't think of them as individuals at all Then you crybaby that other people don't understand that people are individuals. There is no difference. Sorry. You're just a racist bigot and like every racist bigot you THINK you've got a good excuse for your racism and bigotry. But all the blm marchers are aware that it's going to happen and these people will use the march to do that. So they're still accomplices. The MAJORITY of blm supporters tolerate this as part of their marches. Or they wouldn't march, or would take actions to prevent it. And they all tolerate the violence and destruction done by THOUSANDS (not hundreds) of their own supporters. Hell - they raise money to bail out the ones arrested. So MILLIONS OF BLM SUPPORTERS AID AND SUPPORT THE VIOLENCE. Yet - when a tiny handful of right wing people damage the capital buildings - the entire left screams for months that its' ALL CONSERVATIVES who caused it. Again - hypocrisy thy name is 'the left" I never even mentioned the jews. YOU were the only one to do that. So why are you trying to pin this on the jews? Why are you trying to drag the jews into this and give them a bad name? Can you point out anywhere i said ANYTHING about jews before you claimed they were involved in this? NO? Anti semitism is another trademark of the left these days. Drop the hatred of the jews please - it's disgusting and it's getting close to a line. Hate speech is still a crime in canada.

Sure. And it's weird because there was a time when at least republicans thought a balanced budget was a good idea. But even trump had no interest in even moving in that direction. america has the advantage currently of being an anchor or reserve currency. That means debt is a little less destructive for them than it is for someone like us. BUT - there are limits and they are currently pushing it.

So then by what right does canada have ownership of this land? By what mechanism is this canada's land? Who gave 'canada' the land? And yes canada absolutely is bound by laws that were in the past if they're still relevant today. We still recognize a shit tonne of old laws that we inherited. It's just childish to say things like that. You can't change the world by pouting and kicking your feet. This is adult stuff, simply saying 'NOOoooOOoo don't like it" is not a valid argument. Yeash.

one could. If it were true. It WAS easy to understand why. Not so much these days. And it's a dying concept. The ones who really prop the idea up are countries we generally don't like. What you really mean is you'll sweep the issue under the rug and not address it, attempting to dismiss it as the ignorance of the peasants beneath you who dared bring it up Please. The cbc bias is severe and constant. We're not talking about letting personal feelings bleed a little into the story here and there. We're talking about very deliberate and identifiable efforts to treat some political parties and stories very differently than others. Which would be fine if they were independent. But - at this point the cbc is basically like a billion dollar advertising campaign for the liberals that's funded in part by conservatives. That is not fair. Defund them entirely and see how they do. Let the market decide if they have value.

That's way too complicated to answer on an internet forum but here's the short short incomplete version Ratchet up incarceration times for violent offenders, create a 'dangerous offender' designation that is basically life in prison until we have reason to believe you're cured for repeat violent offenders, Reinstate the consecutive life sentances for mass murderers. bring back serious sentances (mandatory if necessary) for genuinely criminal gun crimes, such as walking around with a loaded glock stuffed down your pants. No special consideration due to race. REPEAL Trudeau's bail law and stiffen bail rules. And you need to institute MUCH better rehabilitation and re-integration programs and build more prisons. Some of that will require the use of the 'notwithstanding' clause. So be it. But that would be a good start.

Well that is kind of how it works. Actually they get the bank of canada to do that for them. Yes. That's exactly what happens. To prevent that the bank will buy up their outstanding credit and that's exaclty what the bank has been doing. The problem is that erodes the banks position (the bank lost money recently for the first time in history) and it puts pressure on our dollar. e And if the gov't doesn't pay back the interest it puts our economic standing with the world economic markets in serious trouble and if they just print money to cover it then it hurts inflation and weakens our dollar. If you thought there was NO consequence to printing money - that was not accurate. It does HORRIBLE things to your credit rating. Oh you mean like Greece did. How'd that work out for them. You are seriously downplaying a VERY serious problem. It is FAR more negative than you're suggesting and the impact it will have is massive. Don't kid yourself. This is serious, pretending it isn't won't make it go away.

Yeah, well there's a sad truth there. But - the sheer numbers of it are starting to get staggering.

Agreed - all sources say there's enough evidence that the Russians and wagner specifically are taking a real beating. I just don't know how bad the ukrainians are. I heard at one point the casualty ratio was 5 - 1 in their favour but i understand that's gone down.

Well they'll have to make their claims and of course Canada makes it's claims and off we go. But, the first nations believe this will make things a little easier for their claims. I don't think it will make as much of a difference as they think. We'll see.

@Moonbox, I would offer the latest polling as evidence for my last post regarding PP https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/poilievre-surpasses-trudeau-when-it-comes-to-preferred-prime-minister-nanos-1.6335280

Why? Everyone also has the right to disagree with you. Why shouldn't he or anyone else call out your hatred and intolerance. If you don't like it don't come on the forum. You won't be lonely, you'll still have your imaginary friends to talk to. But if you DO come and you continue to act disrespectfully and arrogantly and rudely - then don't complain when people call you disrespectful arrogant and rude. Or at least don't act surprised.

It was still considered to be 'international law' at the time. All european countries still respected it. Again - not just religion, also politics. That's because you're not listening. THat's what passed for international law in those days and it was recognized by all countries. It is the principle they operated under. There wasn't even a canada when this was happening, and wouldn't be for hundreds of years. But - the question is who has the right to the land. If i steal the title to your house and sell it to someone and run off with the money - who owns the house? The people who bought did so in good faith and registered title, but they bought from someone who had no right to sell. The original owner didn't sell it and legally owned it - but now he doesn't have title to it and has recieved no compensation. How do you resolve that. Either the buyer has to give up the home or the seller has to lose their property - or there has to be some species of compromise where they both take a hit but get some compensation. This actually happens in Canada and there is law around it and it doesnt' favor the first nations. So it's probably not going to have a MASSIVE impact. But - it can play a bit of a role and it's something the first nations have been pushing for for a very long time.

Well that was brutally complex to read. It seems like they get some of the provincial share of the hst back but i'm not sure all (if i'm reading this right Charities resident in Ontario can claim a PSB rebate of 50% of GST and the federal part (5%) of HST. With the introduction of HST in Ontario, charities resident in Ontario will also be entitled to a PSB rebate of 82% of the provincial part (8%) of HST. Charities resident in British Columbia can claim a PSB rebate of 50% of the GST (5%) and the federal part (5%) of HST. With the introduction of HST in British Columbia, charities resident in British Columbia will also be entitled to claim a PSB rebate of 57% of the provincial part (7%) of HST. Now - HST was cancelled in BC some time ago and we're back to pst and gst. BUt - it seems they still have to pay SOME of the tax. And in ontario they'll be paying property tax (i THINK they already did in bc). So there's still SOME taxes paid by a church. I think - why the hell is it that complex? It's a frikkin' charity, it would be cheaper just to tax them than it is for them to pay for an accountant to figure that crap out.

Well - i don't think scheer did. That was the worst campaign ever. O'toole, he started off doing so. He was a 'reasonable' alternative in a general sense but he already looked a little dishonest going from 'true blue' to red tory at the start of the election and then he blew it entirely over the gun issue. He spent three days flip flopping in the worst way over something that should have been a 10 second slam dunk for him. And after that he lost momentum and people just didn't trust him. So - it wasn't that he wasn't an 'alternative', he just came across as shady and when the media smelled blood in the water they pounced on him and for the last half of the campaign his numbers just went down. I think PP has already offered an alternative vision. And the results are showing that - his reputation is trending up and the CPC is trending up while the libs trend down. The CPC is even stealing NDP votes. Of course - he can't TRULY present an alternative till he puts all his cards on the table and shows what his actual plans are. "get rid of the gatekeepers" is great -but what does it really mean. And he can't do that until an election. Doing it now would be absolutely insane and political suicide. But - i think he's laying solid groundwork for that and if he runs a good campaign i think it'll be a question of minority or majority.

It's so hard to say tho, and this is kind of the frustrating thing. We have all kinds of info and data on russian losses, but there's nothing on ukrainian losses or how it impacts them. If the ukrainians have an army of 40 k and the russians have one of 400 k - then unless they're getting a 10 - 1 kill ratio in bakmut they are still losing even if more russians are killed. I don't know how big the ukraine army is right now after losses, i don't know how many they're losing daily. So we can't even guess if things are going well or poorly for the russians, they might be quite happy with a war of attrition right now. I don't really even understand why the russians want bakmut so bad. Looking at the situation it doesn't seem like it's worth what they're paying for it. Encircling it and leaving it stranded would have seemed to make much more sense but for some reason they're absolutely desperate to have it. It's really hard to tell who's really 'winning' at this point.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9584241/toronto-teen-stabbed-accused-criminal-history/ Here we go again - out on probation after MULTIPLE violent crimes and multiple breeches of probation and court orders before and we're shocked when he just ups and stabs someone. It's pretty much daily now. All the violence is being done by people who have previously been violent. It's almost like violent people are violent. But perhaps the worst part of the story is this: This is truly disgusting. The parents of the dead teen don't blame the killer. Noooo - not his fault. He didn't get enough cuddles. The system let him down. He wasn't properly breast fed as a child. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM TODAY. NOBODY wants to hold anyone responsible for their actions. She doesn't ask "why was he not in jail being held responsible for his previous crimes?" She doesn't want him locked up for life now. She wants the SYSTEM to be held to account FOR NOT GIVING HIM ENOUGH HEALTH CARE. Biatch - this is EXACTLY why your child is dead. People didn't want to hold this guy responsible. Your son deserved better than you as a parent. NOTHING changes tiil we decide the criminal is responsible for his actions and the rights and safety of the public is AT LEAST as important as his rights.

It formed the legal basis for the claiming of the land by the British. It basically said if you found land previously unknown to europe, your country gets to have it. And it was the church that 'authorized' that back in the day so to speak. Refuting it is like overturning roe vs wade. It basically says that Britian really didn't have the right to claim canada essentially. When the king granted the hudsons bay company rights to 'all land that drains into hudson's bay', he had no right to do so essentialy. So it does potentially have an impact on land claims today. I keep trying to tell you - the roman catholic church is every bit as much a political org as a religious org. You keep acting surprised and confused when they're involved in politics.

Fair enough Well sure - like many things in life people don't care much when it doesn't affect them but they do start to care when they see it impacting their lives. If things are going great then who cares about 'deficits'. But - when the see their mortgage rates becoming unaffordable, when they see they can't buy the food they want and have to start to eat less or buy cheaper products, when they can't afford to do the things they used to, when they see their taxes going up and have less money every month .... Then they care. And for sure rubbing justin's track record in everybody's face and NOT letting the conversation be distracted by 'blackface' and 'racism' and 'where's kenney' and all that crap is precisely what PP will need to do to win.

Well if we look at the chart - the pandemic actually was the one time when crime rates WEREN'T going up. They actually went down slightly. And they were increasing steadily all the years up to the pandemic and have been since. And there is no doubt that not only has justin relaxed the laws but there is a sense that he's soft on crime. I don't know the exact mechanics of why but it is crystal clear from history that when gov'ts signal they're going to be 'tough on crime' in canada, crime tends to go down. Even when they're not particularly doing anything that would affect the crimes in question. And likewise when there's a sense that the gov't is soft on crime, crime goes up or goes down much more slowly. I'm not sure why - but historically there's been some truth to it. It's not precise but the effect is there. I will bet you good money that if PP gets in and signals that he's going to be tough on crime, the crime rate 'magically' starts to fall again.

I swear man, half the time i don't know what you're talking about. The other half i also don't know what you're talking about.

Not to pick a fight but it's worth just mentioning a couple of things, and it's not to defend churches per se but just to add some clarity to why they are tax exempt. There's some reasons beyond this but these address your points above. Expenses are tax deductable for "For Profit" businesses. There's no tax deduction for a church because it pays no income tax. But - unlike a business for example, as a not for profit it DOES pay taxes like GST on everything it buys and it's unable to pass that along. So to be clear, churches DO pay tax. just not revenue based taxes. And tax 'deductions' don't benefit them. When a church sells it's building for a 'profit' (ie more than it paid), that money must remain in the church. It can't actually be USED as profit. A business could take that money and give it to the owners of the business - but the church cannot do that. So while there's "profit" nobody can touch it. Now - they can use it to pay salaries and the like and of course buy new buildings and such but it's not "profit" the way it is for a business who could then distribute it to the owner of the business. But the main reasons a church is exempt are this - 1) - you can't "Charge" people for their faith. You can't "tax" people for their religious beliefs. Churches don't SELL their services, they recieve DONATIONS. Donations is another word for 'gift'. We don't tax gifts, because the giver has already paid taxes on that money and is simply gifting the money to someone else. 2) churches DID provide a public service for centuries. They were the official 'agent of record" for communities. When someone got married it was recorded in the church, not the gov't office. Deaths and births likewise were so. And even after the gov't started keeping records the church records were considered important and definitive, often gov't records were lost but the church records were considered proof. So there is some reason why we don't tax churches. They are a not for profit and it would be an infringement on people's right to religious freedom to tax their income again for their religious beliefs.

Well just for fun. lets say there is. So what - we meet with them anyway. You have to keep the diplomatic channels open. Lets imagine a worst case here and see what trudeau would do. Lets say that there's a country over there who's been committing genocides again. And who is now squashing human rights. And who has treated us unfairly in trade wars claimiing our products are tainted. And who took millions of dollars from us in covid research and then refused to give us a vaccine. A country that threatens war on it's neighbours and has squashed democracy. Thats FAR worse than what this politician represents - would trudeau meet with someone like that? Justin Trudeau's visit to China