CdnFox

Also - assuming they did who the hell would go try to rob a guy who (according to you) has 400 guns for the express purpose of shooting a guy who tries to steal from him BTW - this town of 100 people - did it have a dedicated police station with staff 24 hours a day locally? Or did police have to come from somewhere else? I"m just wondering because if I lived in a place with that high a crime rate and there were no police around and the cops would have to travel a fair distance if i called 911 - that would be a pretty damn good rational reason to be concerned about a bad guy showing up.

Oh i think you change it on the fly to suit your needs just fine. Isn't even close. But sure - all you need to do is change what you meant before. However you'll be wrong again - which greek city state had the state and not people own the land? Which place was that that you're referring to? I promise not to laugh until you actually answer. so - the only reason for those definitions are because those are what people mean when they use those words. Just out of curiosity - what did you think 'definition' meant? You were wrong according to the accepted definitions. If you mean that communism means whatever you mean it to mean whenever you feel like and doesn't really have a sdefiniton, THEN you're right. I accept your stupidity.

It also means he has a 1 in 100 chance of being the victim of a crime. But - the stats there say that its closer to a major crime per month. So if there's about 100 people as you suggest that means he has more than a 1 in 10 chance of being the victim of a serious crime. Ohhhh so the crime rate is just my clueless imagination!!!! Riiiight. if there are two houses there's an 'east west' . You are totally busted here. You made a number of statements that are clearly false and IF you've ever been to that town and IF you ever talked to this person and IF he ever suggested that he's concerned about possible crime, THEN HE WAS RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED. If you have to lie to make your point, you don't have a very good point kiddo.

Sure. It should be easy. Does it go bang even after we abuse it a bit? That's a good pistol But the problem is the procurement process. And that's a good example of how 'taking your time to do it right' can get out of hand. I noticed in the paper this morning bc estimates it's got to build 25 percent MORE homes than it ever has per year for 5 years to prevent the housing market from becoming utterly unaffordable and to have enough homes for people at all. So, now because the process was excessively lengthy before, they're going to have to cut corners and go ultra fast now. So we go from too slow to too fast because of the problems that created. If we'd focused on making the process more efficient in the first place so it was faster but still thorough then we'd be a lot better off.

We're just all thankful you're here now to tell us how to think. Man - it was a rough 1700 years but now the light's at the end of the tunnel.

If you're trying to claim they don't and pistols are unimportant pieces of equipment that soldiers don't need to rely on, then perhaps you can explain why we (and most other militaries) issue them at all? Please. Don't spout nonsense. Pistols are important and soldiers need to be able to trust that their gear will work in combat. So the REAL issue is - why would it take 11 years to figure out what to repalce old ones with? It's a pistol, we're not talking about a fighter jet. This is a good example of how gov't can complicate things and make the timeline unnecessarily long, resulting in serious delays. And delays often cost money or opportunity or in this case potentially lives. Processes should be no longer than they need to be. Making them longer frequently makes the outcome worse, not better.

Ahhh like the cracker! Hey - are you calling me a 'cracker' ? That's racist.

That's nonsense. I"m not protestant. Edit : AWWWW Crap - i just remembered my grandfather was an orangeman. So. I mean he's not wrong.

The real question is this - the first nations aren't aboriginal - they immigrated here long ago. Now they are considered native. So -- how many generations do we have to be here before WE'RE considered to be native to this land?

Also blackbird: There i go, making TRUE accusations again. I just can't help it.

Yeah it's the other people who are the problem. ?

How about buying the army's new pistols? the military was still using browning hi powers for heaven's sake - and i believe it took 11 years to go through the selection process. For a pistol. Most gov's do that in 3 or 4 years. Here found a newspaper story. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-on-military-sidearms This is a great example of how the gov't can turn a simple process into an extended nightmare.

And their voters are really big on honesty and keeping your word, so they can't just promise and then not deliver like liberals do. It is actually more difficult to be a conservative leader than a liberal one in canada. Liberal voters are a lot more forgiving as long as you win. And ndp voters never expect you to win so it's easy to keep THEM happy

Whoops - i think i broke him. He's become delusional That's about 190 THOUSAND people. I think most people would call 190,000 a lot of people You can always tell when a leftie loser knows they're losing - they beg you to stop and try to convince you you're always wrong Sorry sparky - we both know the truth of it. But as usual you're having a hissy fit because the facts offend your feels ROFLMAO - yes - it's pretty easy to 'recover' from "losses" like that LOLOLOL Meanwhile you'll be up half the night pissed you were wrong and got shown up If that weren't the case you wouldn't be trying so hard to convince yourself now

LOL - i'm not THAT old

They were written wrong? Honestly i don't know what you mean here. I thought most had no written component at all. If i was mistaken then my apologies. Yes. It may be an incorrect accounting of history but it's a historical document for the most part. Some of it but most of it not so much. They are written first hand accounts. (supposedly.) This was already covered - please read before you reply. Based on letters and first hand accounts. Now - it could be false. It could be forged and made up. But it is a written, not oral history. Very few historians ever actually saw the events they recorded, they refer to documents and testimony and search for physical confirmations. Then they write their findings down. And thus preserve them in their original form for future historical reveiw. Written. History. Well that's just a blatant lie. Do better. It's possible some of the stories are fictional, and indeed some have very little corroborating evidence. BUT - i don't recall any of them being out and out disproved. And the first nations oral traditions tend to reflect what they want them to say today. So its not so much proof as confirmation bias. The 'stories' will of course match the facts. Have you noticed there's no much effort being made to write down all the stories in a 'definitive official' way? They want them to remain 'fluid'. Which means very little when it comes to assessing the veracity of the stories, other than you sound a little bias. There is nothing to study. that's the problem with an oral tradition. It's so easily changed to reflect what the people of today want it to say. You can confirm very very little of it because you can't confirm if the story remained as it was originally told over time. And sorry - but you really did take a severe blow to your credibility when you suggested the bible is just an oral tradition handed down the same way the first nations stories are. And that politics isn't affecting first nations stories.

I totally get where you came to that conclusion. I"m sorry, i should have pointed out a little more. You have to factor into it the following: The birth rate includes immigrants who arrive and give birth. If there are no immigrants the birth rate goes down. Further - birth rate and death rate don't really tell the whole story. "Fertility" rate is a little more of the factor and as we can see the number of births is below 1 per person on average. So - because EVERYBODY dies eventually and we KNOW that there's almost as many males as females, if the average fertility rate is below 2 per female (which gives us 1:1 for both sexes) then we are going to experience negative growth without immigration and i happen to know those figures indicate that. We'd need a much higher birth rate. but - here's a chart to fertility just to show the point. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310041801 As you can see the fertility rate per female is actually 1.43 Which means we're not replacing oursevles or even coming close. 100 percent of people WILL die, so without immigration and with a 50:50 male female population we need a fertility rate of 2 per woman. And further - the information above does not account for emmigration. Many people leave canada every year and that's a drain on our population as well. So even if we were at a true 1:1 birth per person ratio we'd still have a shrinking population each year by about 60 thousand ish people. So - we'd actually be losing ground pretty fast without immigration. 100 percent of our population growth is from immigration.

I did not explain your point exactly at all. Your point was wrong. Lets look at your first comment: There's so much wrong there. First off - the bible is a written history. It may very well be a work of fiction, but it's written. so it's not a 'bunch of stories handed down' by oral tradition at all. Secondly - if you're going to include oral traditions that were later documented in writing, then its' history predates the first nations arrival in north america by a LONG long time. and thirdly - what we hear today is probably MORE subject to politics than the other - tho i'll at least give you that is theoretically debatable. It goes on from there. It's all pretty much the same. Delusional. Well that may have been one point that came up but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong on both the spiritual side and the history side. And that's not what's happening here. THey're not referring to stories passed down from history. No, i didn't confuse you. You were confused before I got here. And sorry but your ramblings were not rational. One would have to be illiterate not to notice. Things like 'if your grandfather says he worked then you can be pretty sure he worked". No you can't. Hell - there's a lot of women today who're saying their granfather told them they were part native and THEY though they could be pretty sure - turns out their wrong All this gov't policy means is that if the first nations have a memory of something then treat that as evidence and roughly the same as you would science. So - if one guy remembers that there used to be bears in the area - well that's evidence even if it's not strong, just like if you found one bear bone in the area. If 100 guys say their fathers used to hunt bear and they remember them bringing home the bears to process and that's how they made their xmas money so theyd' always be excited to see the bears... well thats PRETTY STRONG evidence, so even if you haven't found a lot of bones you should consider that.

Dude - do you not realize this is the same problem you've always had? Once again you're demanding everyone accept your beliefs as fact. They are not. You can say that YOU believe this to be true. That's fair. But when you claim it's the ONLY truth there's a problem. You have NO EVIDENCE in the slighest to demonstrate that it's true (and the crap you offered is stuff philosophy 101 kids learn to debunk). The only evidence you have is what is in your heart and none of us can feel or see that. You have got to stop invalidating everyone else's belief - you are TURNING PEOPLE AWAY FROM GOD - not turning them TO god. So if god exists i would imagine he's a little pissed with you right now. Just STOP. You can claim your beliefs without stating they're fact or dismissing others. If God wanted absolute proof he could send us all an email personally, or light our bushes on fire if he likes.

It would be the most adult thing you've done on this forum. Sadly And lets get real - that's what you've been trying to do anyway

This is true. For example bc's site C dam went through extensive review and consultation across both federal AND provincai gov'ts and still wound up having unintended consequence. https://environment.geog.ubc.ca/dam-it-the-site-c-dam-on-the-peace-river/ Often when you have long convoluted processes you miss important data. So much is collected that it gets muddled and confused and it's brutally inefficient. From the report: It appears that BC hydro has underestimated the social and environmental costs of the Project and the panel to conclude that the Crown corporation has not performed enough research on these topics which has resulted in erroneous conclusions (Ministry of Environment, 2014). That despite MASSIVE and EXTENSIVE discusions and research. So longer doesnt' make things better at all, and there are a huge number of projects which had long processes which led to problems in the end. Efficient and practical is more important than short and long. If you have an inefficient long process - you are every bit as likely to screw up as a short process. so what we need to be demanding is efficient and fast protocols that are still a comprehensive as necessary to get the job done. ANd accept that no matter what you do there will always be some unintentional consequences and plan for that. Dragging things out DEFINITELY does not make the process better.

I like the dictionary definitions. I don't just change definitions to suit my purposes as you do. Well of course that's untrue. Lets take a look. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine advocating revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that will eventually evolve into a perfectly egalitarian and communal society. Nope - yours isn't in there. He invented communism. Or certainly his communism. What he described was like nothing that happened before at all. All you did was widen the definitions beyond even the most generous of the dictionary definitions to try to squeeze in the idea of communism and then try to attribute that to being pretty much the same as marx's ideas. Which is a lie. And what i said before about the scalability of just 'sharing' things remains true.

Awwww little guy - couldn't think of any actual arguments? It's hard putting up a fight for your hero when you realize everyone else is right I can see why the truth upsets you so much. And who disputed that? You're repeating what I said and acting as if it's news. Again - who said he wasn't? It sounds more like you're reassuring yourself ? It's massive. Thats a hell of a lot of people. To LOSE the popular vote by that much shows that you're NOT what canadians want.

I think a little clarity on these issues would be appropriate, I don't think you could make that claim very well - he had interited a balanced budget - and not just a balanced budget but one with a fair bit of meat on the bones. And his initial promise was to 'only" go 30 billion in debt intentionally during his first term. Not to mention he spent twice that in his first term so even if you can pass off a deliberate 30 billion dollar deficit as being 'right wing" by the end of his first year or two it was obvious he was far more left than even that. This is kind of amusing - this is what happens when people don't pay close attention and don't listen for the lies. Justin NEVER PROMISED PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. He just said he would end first past the post. Now - what he wanted to have was basically a form of 'instant run off". That's where everyone puts hteir first choice, then their second choice, and so on. If nobody gets more than 50 percent in the first round, then the lowest ballots are tossed and those people's SECOND choice kicks in - and this continues until someone gets 50 percent. That would guarantee liberals were always in power. Conservatives are more likely to put liberals as their second choice - they aren't going to put NDP. ANd ndp will always put liberals as their second choice - can't let the evil conservatives win So - for ever riding where it isn't won by 50 percent out of the gate (which MOST are not) then the liberals would tend to win. He was basically hoping to rig the whole system to ensure the libs were always in power But - it turned out that all the ndp were expecting proportional rep. Which is VERY different. ANd the conservatives said if they HAD to have a system other than fptp it should be proportional. Suddenly he realized he wasn't going to get his way - and dropped it The left felt very betrayed but that's only because they didn't understand that he was scamming them in the first place.

Well you aren't of course. You're lying about people calling for genocide and then trying to attach them to the nazis because you feel that furthers your goal. Very Fascist of you Yep - and was clear he was talking about the political element of it, and noted this would be better for both transgender people and the population in general. He was very clear he was not talking about transgender people. Oh - but that doesn't fit your narrative does it. Better lie about it. Exactly. It's not like that at all. People like YOU - who go around insisting that everyone's a nazi (and then support 'punch a nazi' campaigns) spark that violence. You spread hatred and ignorance and convince people that YOU - a violent hate filled radical bigot who thinks all "others" are subhuman inferiors - are somehow representative of trans people and other lettered people. Sorry but if you're looking for a source of the negativity towards trans - you need to look in the mirror. You can't spread hatred without causing hatred.