CdnFox

you - "I've been reading all these articles you might not like. Stay away from cbc and the star" Me - so you read the cbc and the star You "WAT - NOOOOOOOOO what ever could possibly have given you that idea?!?!?!?" ROFLMAO !!! Give it up kiddo, you're getting dumber with every post on this and the rest of us are dumber for having read your thoughts LOL~

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-reject-user-content-amendment-online-streaming-bill This will allow them to censor a much larger group than they are claiming. This is pretty orwellian stuff.

But russia is right across the straight to our north. You know that, right? And they've been disputing their border with us. You know that too right? So to pretend that this issue involves countries 'on the other side of the world' is simply not accurate. Russia is not some remote distant country that we have no interaction with. It is extremely to our advantage to have russia weak militarily. It's not like this has no impact on us

Well even better ban it for 'less savory' countries. That's another way to smak them in the face But we're not even close to THAT yet - we don't even have a law saying that chinese agents have to register in canada and say what they're doing - a law most other countries have. So even if we DO find one that's been influence peddling , we can't charge them or the like. It's insane that we allow agents of the chinese gov't to operate here without any regulation. Hard enough to catch them but now even if we do we can't even say anything

Yes, they were asking about racism in the Conservative Caucus in light of the meeting with the german bimbo.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-introduces-provincial-firearms-act-to-push-back-on-federal-gun-bill-1.6771176 It's interesting - between quebec and alberta i think we're going to see more and more of this sort of effort to cut back the federal powers on the provinces. They're essentially rendering the law unenforceable.

You literally offered them as examples of left wing newspapers you had been reading alll these stories in - in fact nothing BUT these stories Turns out not so much with teh stories and now you're pretending you never meant to suggest there's any stories in them LOL - this is why nobody takes you seriously! "There's all these stories in these papers! Trust me! Don't look!" 'i looked. There isn't. " "WAAAATTTT - i told you not to loooooook! Derp!" LOL - give it up man.

Yep. Unlike you I don't just use two fingers so it only takes me a moment

You can still do business with them without tolerating having them interfere with your elections. In fact doing business with them is a good idea as it at least gives you SOME power or leverage over them. If, for example, we said we were going to stop selling them oil or coal right now and ban exports of those products to them, that would actually have an impact. So while i don't know i would have called you a "capitalist commie", i would have said you were wrong We should do business with such countries except for those items like military etc. But - that does NOT mean we shouldn't aggressively go after them when they pull this crap.

Naaaah. I know your game. If you can't win, make the other guy work You'll ask for this, then you'll ask for something else and every time i take the time to go look where it is and cut it and post it you'll try to blow it off. Look at what you did with the whole "i didn't mean the cbc' thing in the other thread. You very clearly said something in plain english then tried repetitively to argue you mean something utterly ridiculous. I get it's amusing to make the other guy jump around from time to time and sure it's kind of funny but I'm not playing that game with you anymore. The carbon tax adds a sizeable amount of cost to our food bills and is one of the reasons food is expensive, and it's one of the things the gov't could address to ease the burden on consumer food prices if they gave a crap.

He has this weird history of immediately doing things that look like a cover up even if he doesn't need to. Like when the military was looking at that sex case and he rushed out and denied his guy had heard of it and denied a bunch of other stuff when really all he had to say was 'the process was proceeding as per the protocol and we're satisified with that'. All the stuff he denied was utterly not relevant and THEN IT TURNED OUT TO BE ALL LIES and they DID know about it - so you lied about something that didn't matter, and now the controversy is about your lies even though you actually did nothing wrong! Here, if he didn't have any collusion he's sure making it look like he did. I hope it picks up steam. We both obviously agree this is a major major thing and people should be very upset about it, and if WE'RE agreeing on it it MUST be pretty damn serious

it's already there. We both know it's true. And i haven't been arguing much this entire time - it's just been post after post of pointing out simple facts and correcting your errors But - hey, at least you've given up pretending that the carbon tax doesn't make a significant impact on food prices Glad we could move beyond that finally.

Well - did we tho? There's a difference between a mistake or a gaffe or something politically embarassing and an actual ethics breech or corruption. What did we have under harper that was actually an 'ethics' breech? A 14 dollar glass of orange juice? You could say that the duffey thing was probably an ethics breech - but the big crime there was he was pressuring someone to give BACK money to the taxpayers and may have provided the funding for that indirectly. I mean seriously - we could use more "ethics breeches" like that. Harper was different. You broke ethics under his watch, you were gone. And he didn't. And there was a history of politicians standing down when they did get caught in a genuine ethics breech. Look at harcourt for the ndp in BC, took it on the chin for something that arguably wasn't HIS ethics breech but he owned it for his party. Or the recent resignation of tory. I think you can say some politicans are substantially worse than others. Sure, many do. But there are lots who do not. And some offenses are arguably actually worse than others. Bev Oda spent 14 dollars on orange juice and didn't try to hide it. Justin spent 6000 bucks on a hotel room and won't even say who stayed there. It is reasonable to say one is worse than the other.

Well and this is why the right keeps bringing it up. You're absolutely right, he's got a history of going back 10 years or more to what people have said to try to suggest their racists or the like. If the situation was reversed there's no doubt he would have claimed it proved the other leader was racist no matter what he promises today.

it should be. But so far it's not getting the traction it really should

ummm - you would be the war monger. You've excused the russian war, you've pushed regularly for the idea that the us will enter the war, and now you're pushing the idea that nato is about to enter the war. The people speaking against all of that or complaining about the source would not be 'warmongers'. The word you were looking for there is the 'sane'. We're not going to war in ukraine.

Sure you did - that's why i laughed at the time when you changed your tune. I get you feel like backtracking on it now. Quite understandable. Here's the thing. Remembering we were ONLY talking about the cost carbon tax added to fertilizer for transport, there's a LOT of steps between the fertilizer factory and the dinner plate (and we didn't even add the carbon costs of producing the fertilizer). Lets take a loaf of bread. There was the mark up the fertilizer company put on for the farmer, the farmer's to the distributor, the distributor to the processor to turn it to flour, the processor to the bakery who makes the bread, and the bakery to the grocery store. then the grocery store mark up to the buyer. Now some times its less than that - sometimes it's even more than that. But theres a LOT of mark up on food. The cost of growing enough wheat to make a loaf of bread and the other ingredients is literally a few pennies, and the time involved is worth only a dime or two as well - but we pay several dollars a loaf. The markup on food vs the cost to actually grow the stuff is massive. it's impossible to argue otherwise. I dont know how you got it in your head in the first place that this wasn't how it worked but it is. Carbon tax adds several hundred dollars at least to the cost of every families grocery bills each year and that will be going up every year for a while. It's the easiest thing gov'ts could use to reduce pressure on food prices.

Yep - i predict if you push a cup off the table it will fall downward not upward. I'm freaking amazing! Hopefully i won't get burned as a witch Some things are very easy to predict. they follow easy to measure and calculate paths and there's sufficient previous experience to predict future behavior. There's nothing difficult about it. Most guys can accurately predict that if they sleep with another woman their wife will be unhappy about it. IT's not hard to work out. Apparently for you the idea is shocking, LOL "What!?! She's ANGRY?!? Who could have predicted THIS!!!?!?" Putin's attack on ukraine was barely any harder to predict than that. Everyone with a brain knew it was only a matter of time. Nato had squat all to do with it. Remember his stated original purpose was to go in after nazis. The nazis were the problem - thats why the war had to happen. He never mentioned nato. There was always going to be a 'convenient excuse'. One way or another when he felt the time was right he was going to try to take over ukraine. And he did. Try that is. Awwwww muffin - don't go away mad! I get that you feel like sticking your head in the sand and humming because reality isn't matching up with your preferred narrative, but it would be better to be a grown up about it and simply accept your narrative needs work and isn't accurate. But i guess running away with your tail between your legs is easier. Well whatever - you do you.

OF course not - russia was on the side of the coalition and signed off on the UN war. You dont sell weapons to the OTHER SIDE in a war - the US isn't selling any weapons to russia right now are they, Iraq invaded kuwait not only without permission from moscow, but without even telling them it was going to happen. The russian minister was traveling with an American counterpart the day it happened. Moscow was furious. Not sure why it's relevant. if we're going to talk middle east then the us during russia's afghanistan would be relevant - the us supplied arms and training and yet somehow we didnt' see an escalation

Sure i do. Just like i knew when they gave putin crimea he was going to come back for the rest of it. And he did. This is as easy to predict as it is to predict that if i push a cup off the table it will fall thanks to gravity. Its' a probability so high as to be a practical certainty. And lets be honest - deep down you know it too. The only reason you get angry about it is it doesn't fit the narrative you've emotionally invested in. But yeah - this was going to happen.

I will have to learn to live with their disappointment in me.

Yep. you said they were baloney because businesses didnt do the mark up thing. then you said they do the mark up thing but not all of them Then you said that maybe they all do but math is hard (essentially) Swing and a miss kiddo Really. Give me an example. When have new cost not been passed on to the consumer? Lets have an example where input costs rose but prices never went up. I'll wait. Sigh. Lets go over math again. Your argument is that because total prices hae only gone up 3-5 percent then carbon taxes cant have been marked up that much. First - food prices have gone up radically more than 10 percent since 2019. They're currently more than that PER YEAR, and that's also compounding. But setting that aside, Carbon tax is only one of the costs in food. So when we add it to the cost of food post 2019 that particular input cost might go up 800 percent (considering it didn't exist before) but that doesn't mean the TOTAL cost of food goes up 800 percent. Just that portion of the cost that are related to carbon tax would. So lets say (to make the math easy for you) that carbon tax was 10 percent of a foods cost, and the food cost a dollar. If it went up 800 percent the cost of the food would not be 8 dollars, it would be 1.80. Hopefully that's more clear. I've done quite a bit. It's just painfully obvious you don't know what math looks like Of course it does, and i've explained why. This is very simple and very obvious. If i have an input cost, and i put a mark up on my goods, then others put another mark up and another mark, the cost of that input is compounded. Now you're just making yourself look dumb. Yeash. get it together.

That was literally the definition of it that i gave you. Sorry kiddo. Should have looked that up before speaking Oh - and it can be either or and both a justification and a defletion "The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, " No, i never said you asked me to look at the cbc and the star. But you DID offer them as eaxmples immediately after saying you'd been reading nothing but this type of story in left wing media, So - you are trying to sell the idea that you were talking about stories in left wing media and just happened, out of the blue and for no reason, to mention two completely unrelated to the discussion left wing media sources and suggest i should stay away from them for no particular reason Do you really need me to explain how desperate and foolish you sound right now? Seriously - have SOME pride.

Soooo - the russians start a war. The us isn't fighting that war or sending troops to that war, but somehow they're marching towards a war, because they're selling weapons to a country that the russians ACTUALLY invaded and started a war with. If anything the americans actions are avoiding war. Had putin won easily in the ukraine, he would have attacked another country. That's a given. So now he won't be doing that. The conflict is well contained within the ukraine and russia, and even if somehow russia gets a bit of a victory here and claims some land the cost will have been so high they won't be thinking about doing that again for the next 20 years or so. Meanwhile the allies can turn ukraine into a fortress - something they were not interesrted in before russia provoked this, which will AGAIN make russia think carefully next time, This is the best way to stop a larger conflict later - and you have not been able to demonstrate how that isn't true despite having had it pointed out many times,

Nato didn't start the war. Putin started the war. Nato did not ask ukraine to join. Ukraine asked and nato said no. For decades. There were a million ways to address any concerns without conflict, they chose conflict. This war absolutely would have happened without nato.