CdnFox

Everybody does. Who has managed to get through their entire life without saying "he" did this or "she" did that. I think what you mean is do you use people's preferred pronoun. Generally speaking when I encounter a person who is biologically one sex but wishes to be referred to by a pronoun indicating a different sex I will almost certainly comply. Growing up in and living around Greater Vancouver this isn't a rare phenomenon and I do have friends from childhood that have transitioned. So yeah if my friend 'gill' wants to be called 'john' now and wants me to refer to them as "Mr" then i will and i won't think much of it. If they want to be called "ze or "zarina" or 'attack helecopter' then no. Hell no. Stick to english. I may as a concession try to make a point of referring to them by their name instead of a pronoun but if I slip up I'm not apologizing

We know that but what science suggests that he shouldn't have? Or do you agree that he should have and you're just pointing it out And? Ok, and where's the science that says he shoudn't have done that? And? And? And? Still not seeing any science here big guy..... AAAAANNNNNNDDDDDD? Science does indeed arrive at conclusions. Science is all about observation, experimentation, and evidence-based analysis. That's what it does, it produces theories and formulas that make accurate predictions. It's not "probes". It not just observation. And science absolutely 100 percent seeks to 'prove'. Not relevant. For it to be relevant you would have to provide evidence that we are facing a situation where it's critical that we continue to monitor. I asked you for the science that shows that he is wrong to take these steps, that there is a crisis that we need to spend money monitoring, and that this monitoring is somehow very important to that. And I'm not seeing you producing that. Or it's trump eliminating wasteful bureaucracy that costs money at a time of extremely high deficits. You haven't actually made an argument either way all you did was make a statement that you don't seem to be able to back up I wouldn't be that hard on yourself but still, obviously you can do better Yup But i have faith you can do better.

Except he did as I've already demonstrated. But maybe if you keep repeating the LIE often enough it'll somehow magically start to be true It is beyond weird that you quote yourself all the time. It's like you know nobody's going to talk with you and it upsets you so you talk to yourself or something.

Ahhh so it's your university of facebook degree that's leading you astray Carbon taxes failed in Canada. And more than once. And they had a long time to work. Sorry that reality doesn't agree with your echo chamber. If you actually look yourself and do the research you get to the truth, carbon pricing is a complete failure. The gov'ts that want to charge it to increase their revenues and those who support them tend to be the only groups who pretend otherwise.

But harper didn't do it. You dealt with a Chinese but everything was above board no secret arrangements no deals between police agencies with hidden factors So harper never did it. And if he had it wouldn't be okay. And it's not okay when Carney does it now So you admit that I'm writing you can't actually address the point I made and have to have a hysterical moment to try and cover that fact? Well fair enough, as long as we both agree the point is valid and obviously you do or you'd have made an argument against it He never did.If you want to compare anything he actually did sign with what was signed now he would have to be able to read the document which you can't. Also this wasn't a memorandum of understanding this was an agreement The RCMP has not entered into an mou or released a statement stating that they would like to work more closely with china to resolve international crime. They signed an actual agreement that will have terms and conditions and responsibilities and requirements and we have no idea what it says. Harper never did anything like that and neither has any other prime minister in our history But they are bound to this one. It's not an mou it's an agreement. So under harper they agreed to something that they weren't bound to, under carney the RCMP has signed an actual agreement that they cannot back out of in the same way that they must honor and we don't know what it says It is absolutely new, it has never been done in our history, nothing like this has ever happened Where our police force signed an agreement with another nation's police force and all of the details are kept secret. That is especially true considering that the nation in question is hostile and not an ally. This is not an MOU, this is not a deal signed in broad daylight with the public's full understanding, this is nothing like what we've done before. This is new. And it's with China. And that's a problem

I guess you feel if you repeat a lie often enough it'll start to be true We already know it doesn't work. Didn't work in British Columbia and it didn't work federally. Nor did the government expect it to work. They did in British Columbia where they set goals and measurements to record over time whether it was having the desired effect. It didn't but at least they thought that it might and we're checking on it. But the federal government admitted that they had no goal, did not have any idea or plan as to how well it would work, had no way to monitor it and didn't bother trying. So they obviously never thought it was going to work from the first place and didn't care In the real world it failed and that's now recorded history. And that would be your fault and the fault of your Like-minded fools

Ahhh we're at the point where you realize you're losing the argument so you decide to lie. Disappointing. In fact, what I said quite clearly was that the politicians and the media refused to state the risks in any meaningful way. Not that they never mentioned risk at all anywhere. As i have pointed out the webpage you provided claims the danger is no different than any other vaccine. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Period. Full stop. And you've completely failed to address that simple fact It's not hindsight, they knew that they did not fully understand the risks. The risks were MUCH different. The unknowns were MUCH higher. MNRA vaccines are a brand new tech that has NOT undergone the same kind of rigouros testing and does NOT have the history of regular vaccines. The chances for unknown effects was MUCH higher than regular vaccines. But that's not what they said. They said it was the same as any regular vaccine AND in PUBLIC, they downplayed it even more. It was FREQUENTLY said by our politicians that the vaccine was insanely safe and anyone who said otherwise was a terrible person of one type or another. "Deniers" were the scum of the earth for suggesting there was any concern, In YOUR neck of the woods, politicians were even worse, with Biden saying outright that if you get the vaccine, you'll never have to worry about catching COVID, etc., etc. Or trump saying 'covid is just like the flu' the other way. There's no arguing the fact that The government severely underplayed the risks and did not in any meaningful way express the nature of the risk or the unknown quantities to people. That is a fact proven by your own post Which brings us to the second part, which we've already discussed, is also true So you're 100% wrong. You were kind enough to provide the proof where the government was trying to pretend there was no more risk than a regular vaccine when that turned out to be a complete fabrication They reported falsely on it. Although, to be fair, they were reporting what they were told by the government There is no hindsight involved. The government knew at the time that this was new technology and that it was impossible to know all of the risks or how many complications or problems there would be with something this new. But that's not what they said. They said it's the same as any other vaccine. They knew damn well it was not the same as every other vaccine. They knew the risks were higher than what they were suggesting and so did most people with half a brain who could actually looked into it. What they should have been saying is there are unknown risks and there may very well be complications that we can't anticipate. But for people who are in the at risk groups for covid such as the elderly etc based on what we know today we believe the risks of covid are much much higher. That would have at least been honest. But the problem was that they wanted 100 percent of the population to have the vaccine because they believed that it would 'wipe out' covid and they didn't want ANYONE to have ANY reason to say no. No, it's not hindsight; they knew at the time that they did not fully understand the risks. That was information that they had at that time, that they knew there might be risks above and beyond what they were aware of and that that probably would turn out to be true. They may not have known exactly how much risk but they would have known there was risk But that's not what they said. As per your own quote they blew it off as being no different than any other vaccine and that was not true. Just in case you're unaware, mNRA Technology is a brand new science that is radically different than anything that has come before and has never been used wide scale in the past. It's still being developed. It holds a tremendous amount of promise partially because it is capable of being adapted to carry different "payloads" Which means it can be used as a base to create medicines for cancer and a bunch of other things. But it's new. And they knew perfectly well it had not been fully tested or deployed and the ONLY reason they used it here was because they felt the crisis justified the risk. But they didn't advise the public as to how significant the risk was. The government did not express the risks to the public in any meaningful way. They severely downplayed any risk when it was mentioned at all and suggested people that felt there was more risk were terrible people. A lot of people doubted whether or not the government was accurate in this respect. But they further doubted that if it turned out the government was wrong that the gov't would stand behind them and resolve the issues that DID come up And again that's proven true.

That's TERRIBLE! Lets totally blow him out of the water - go ahead and post the actual science that proves he's completely wrong!!! Go ahead! Teach him a lesson! Any minute now.... Uhh... john?....

Yes, i was. It's the kind of thing we see from the left all the time these days. Instead of making a reasonable counter argument they go with this kind of cheap and lazy insult instead. I wish i had another example handy to show you Oh there you go!! Well done, thanks! Ahhh when you get backed into a corner, always try to lie your way out That's the leftie motto I have never ever said global warming is a hoax in the slightest. I have ALWAYS said it's real and it's a concern. What i've said is that it's a scam to claim that it's a 'Crisis' or that any of the proposed 'solutions' would be effective at all. But you've got to lie because the truth doesn't serve you. Rather than make a rational argument you've got to lie about something i said and argue with that You couldn't have made my point for me any better than that

Yep, and you've apparently got to lie to make your point. It's true that economists loved the idea of it but as I said it became apparent fairly quickly on but it doesn't work. And at this point we now know that to be a fact and we know why Your fault! Your side light and made shit up in order to bring in more tax revenue and people have figured it out Cry harder little guy

That would make the battery a secondary source which would mean i was 100 percent correct. Fcuk you're stupid. You literally just piped up and demonstrated i'm right.

We haven't done anything. And that's a fact. No new gear, no 'raise' that wasn't clawed back, no better prepared than before, So we're dong' 'nothing ' faster than ever before? Great.

Carney was the one who said he would do more and faster and he has failed to do so. Worse it doesn't look like anything's going to change next year either. Maybe a few more trees? Not looking great for the year after that either You're defending the indefensible

I literally provided you a link to what was said in early 2021 and pointed out that nobody read what was said in a government release in December 2020 This isn't complicated. You should be able to figure out that what is said on the news channels and interviews is consumed at a much higher rate than a government release on a web page And I noted that even on that link you provided it compared it to other existing vaccines which isn't true. Please pay attention And right there you lose the argument You just posted an example where they severely and I do mean severely downplayed the risks and pretended they were so non-existent that winning the lottery was more likely. And that wasn't true. We know now that the risk complications is radically higher than that. So you already shot yourself in the foot with your own arguments. He posted one example that compared it to regular vaccines which is untrue completely and then posted an example where they claimed it was far less of a risk than it actually was. You can argue that they didn't know how much of a risk it was but even that proves my point. That just means they were trying to tell us what a low risk it was when they didn't actually know Further it doesn't alter the fact that what I said was that well the government pretending it was safer than it was is an issue I think that another issue equally important was the fact that people did not have faith in the government doing anything should the risk prove to be higher And that's exactly what happened So both your evidence and mind shows the government severely down playing the risk and pretending it's essentially non-existent and comparable to existing vaccines. And the new story shows that people who were concerned that the government may not be there for them should it prove to be more serious we're absolutely right Every now and then you pick a fight over ideology rather than facts and it's never a good look for you. It is an easily demonstrable fact that on many occasions in both Canada and America the government severely downplayed the risks and made statements that they did not know to be true at the time. It is equally demonstrable that there have been complications and more than expected and in Canada anyway the government hasn't stepped up to the plate Therefore what I said was demonstrably and easily verifiably true and in fact your own attempt to refute it has proven it to be true. Next time start with a question and arrive at an answer instead of the other way around

Oh look who wants to look like a twat again 🙄🙄🙄 Everybody knows what batteries are for dumbass The point we were discussing back in the day is that you cannot replace fuel driven electricity with solar or wind because the cost of storing the energy is insanely High And it is. Sorry to burst your bubble. Compare that to fuel which is extremely cheap and easy to store. And can be converted into electricity at a moment's notice That is a simple fact that anyone Beyond grade three can figure out. Electrical storage is insanely expensive, it requires massive amounts of land for the amount of electricity you store, and it is impractical on a large scale. Fuel storage is cheap and easy and you can scale it to whatever size you need Which is why you can't replace it with wind or solar. It would not be financially possible to store up enough electricity and batteries to last you through the winter for example. At best you can use it to offset or supplement your other energy creation and that is true in every single part of the world currently You could replace fuel with water, you can replace fuel with nuclear, but you can't do it with wind or solar because even a toddler can figure out that you cannot store electricity in the quantities necessary economically or feasibly and nobody on this planet is doing so on any kind of serious scale. And I even went over all the numbers with you at the time. Your denial is legendary But I appreciate you taking the time to look like a complete twat again always good to relive the oldies when it comes to your stupidity

None of that addresses the issues at all. Simply stating it does and repeating a lie doesn't make it true And you admit that carney can easily cancel it and never have to actually fulfill the order. Which we've seen many times in the past from the liberals. And yes absolutely the liberals are absolutely famous for canceling orders as you say. No, what I said and what everyone else said was correct and what you said was absolutely stupid Until we have a container that it stores electricity as easily as we store gasoline or fuel it will be nothing but a secondary or tertiary electrical supply. Everybody else got that, you wound up looking like the biggest turd in the entire universe trying desperately to argue that very simple and obvious fact is wrong And yes it's an accounting trick. Sorry to burst your bubble but 15 billion that we were already spending on coast guard does not become military spending just because you change the stamp at the top. 2 billion entry planting that was designed to save the environment does not become military just because you swap the label We aren't at 2% of actual military spending and the Americans are quite aware of it and no, a purchases when you give somebody money and they give you goods. It's not when you promised one day that maybe you'll give somebody some money in exchange for goods possibly maybe we'll see As you yourself said the liberals are famous for canceling purchase agreements. Or just giving them to other countries Kid you are a complete 100% fraud and it's not just me saying that here. Carney hasn't improved the military substantially at all. He promised that procurement would happen faster than any other point in history and it's at a crawl. He's spending money on everything except the military and claiming it's military spending. You're a fraud and a liar and a sap and it's just disappointing as hell to see

Yes By the vast majority of economists, and it turns out they were right That's why I only left-wing governments believe in it

Chirp? Are you hearing random sounds again? I accept your surrender So you're saying you admit you were wrong and you regret it?

Nope. It was originally explored by the conservatives as a potentially good idea. It sounds good on paper after all, But pretty quickly they realized it was a failure of an idea and the dropped it. And no the 'majority' didn't particularly think it was a good idea and pointed out the flaws. The gov't CLAIMED the 'majority' liked it but in reality the only ones who did were either working for the gov't or 'environmental' orgs directly or in directly. It's failure is on you. Conservatives and the same people knew long before it was introduced but it could not work due to problems with the elasticity of energy spending. And the liberals didn't even bother to make an estimate as to how effective it would be or put anything in place to track it. They knew it would be a failure day one.

Cool! now do flat earthers

Well no it isn't. Donald hasn't passed any new laws to restrict Kimmel. He hasn't even suggested that he should be prosecuted under existing laws. And I certainly haven't and I'm the one you were replying to So what's happened yet again is that you've realized you said something stupid, I have rubbed your nose in that and you feel completely stupid and angry and you're desperately trying to rewrite your argument so that it doesn't sound as amazingly stupid as it did. You cannot. This has absolutely nothing to do with first amendment rights. It says everything to do with a comedic person going too far and suggesting that the president should be killed or dead. But I really do honestly appreciate you stopping by and making you laugh

Let me know when you get there and we'll find out And yet I'm right and you're wrong. So what does that say about you? Also, 'stupid' isn't a restricted word here. They wanted you to feel included.

It is a hoax and a scam as we have demonstrated many times. "we can TAX the climate problem away, honest!" Yeah no. But that is not the same as claiming that if we do something productive about climate change that it will destroy the economy. It only points out that you and your friends make false statements in suggest fake solutions that achieve nothing harm the economy and line their pockets for no results. Which is pretty much the definition of a scam That's why so few people nowadays have climate changes their number one priority having seen the effect of left-wing climate policy to date and recognizing it for what it is

LOL you're too stupid to be able to actually explain your point because even YOU don't understand it and somehow it's my fault 😂😂😂😂😂 the problem here seems to be that even you don't understand it. And it's hilarious that you would try and pass off the idea that you don't think it's worth posting because I wouldn't understand it yet you actually did make two posts where you couldn't explain it which presumably you did because you thought I would understand it Utterly irrelevant. It is long been established that this in no way shape or form gives people the right to call for the violation of the rights of others. You cannot stand up and say we should kill the blacks and the jews. That would be advocating violence and a crime. However, you've managed to be double irrelevant. Nobody here has actually said that a law should be changed or that congress should take any action. I haven't seen anybody propose a 'kimmel' law or the like. So not only were you wrong to begin with, but you managed to be double wrong because you're talking about something nobody has even suggested You have somehow managed to condense stupidity into a more pure form Well done You still crossed the line and you're still defending it

Those are not the risks presented to the general public by the media or the politicians of the day. Our own prime minister said those who are vaccine hesitant are usually Misogynists and bigots and waste of space and will have to decide if we are going to tolerate them. There is no doubt that the vaccines were presented as being so close to being perfectly safe as to make no difference. People don't read the government web pages they listen to the reporters and the politicians when they speak So the government said it was safe and nobody should be hesitant to take it. That is the thing that happened here in Canada for sure. People who felt differently were mocked and ostracized. I think just from personal discussions and exposure to people's their thoughts that a lot of people were very afraid that in the event that turned out to be a problem even though the government had suggested it would be there for people that they wouldn't be. Read the article. The government hasn't even been able to process the claims yet. So what I can say with absolute certainty is that there were people who suffered ill effects which financially devastated them who have not received any compensation or help. I literally posted an article on it. The precise number is irrelevant because the point is this is what people feared would happen and it has happened Examples weren't honest about the risk. If anything they severely downplayed the risk. They suggested that the big risk is you might have a little bit of a irritation same as any other vaccine. But this isn't every other vaccine. So when they claim that the risk level is the same as any other vaccine that you would normally take that is not an accurate statement. That is actually extremely misleading. mNRA vaccines are nothing like existing vaccines. And when concerns were raised our gov't came back with "no no, safe and effective no cause for concerns" Trudeau, Tam say all vaccines are safe and effective after NACI guidance causes confusion | CBC News The language, the tone the manner and the repetition all sent the constant message that there's practically no chance of any risk We now know that's not true and the risks were higher than originally thought. . And fair enough, things change, knowledge becomes available But at the time many had fears the gov't was wrong about how safe it was (which turned out to be treu) But WORSE a lot of people were concerned if it turned out the gov't was wrong they'd leave affected people to fend for themsevles. And that has now turned out to be true as well.