CdnFox

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.

Because one is a minor gaffe that's more inappropriate than actually a sign that he's genuinely racist that happened at a time when perception of that kind of thing was VERY different, and he's acknowledge that in light of today's morals it would be considered offensive by many. So its really a bit of a bullshit issue that happened a long time ago when the world was different and evne when it broke the conservatives said 'we don't really care, what pisses us off is he's trying to lie about it now and pretending it happened once, then 3 times, now he can't remember how many", And the other is a deliberate act to violate the rights of Canadians engaged in lawful protest and a gross misuse of power that's been seen as dictatorial all over the world that happened last year. They are not the same thing.

You were the one arguing against it I love that now you realize you're wrong you try to pretend you were for it all along So - you agree that there's mark up, you agree there's several steps where each party would mark it up, but you don't agree that there's lots of mark up. ANd i gave you an example which you've ignored. So - i can't help that you don't understand math. I'll try to dumb it down for you. Mark up is exponential. If there are 4 parties between the beginning and the moment something is sold to the end user, and they each put a 100 percent mark up on their goods - then it's not a 100 percent mark up. It's 100 marked up to 200 marked up to 400 marked up to 800. That's how it works. That's math. That is why historically gov's do NOT allow sales tax to compound like that, the sellers all get a refund for or not charge sales tax to other sellers, the tax is only payable by the buyer. GST works that way, PST tries to work the same way. But the govt deliberately didn't do that with carbon tax. So yes - eache step of the way the carbon tax is added to the markup. Worse - ADDITIONAL carbon tax is added each step of the way. So carbon taxes add a lot of money to the cost of food. It's not the ONLY thing that does but it certainly would be one of the easiest things for the gov't to use to reduce the costs of food right away. Is that more clear for you? I don' t know how much simpler i can make it.

Stop using it then. ROFLMAO - speaking of deflection and counter-accusation And you obviously don't know what 'whataboutism' actually is. It is the attempt to dismiss a bad action by claiming someone else at some point did a non-related bad action and therefore because they are so bad it justifies this person being bad. In otherwords - "sir you lied to your constituents". "So? that other politician embezzled money! What about that?". They're both wrong things to do and they're not even related. Whataboutism isn't if you compare the same thing btw. That's precedent or comparison. For example it's not whataboutism if someone were to say 'Sir you declared the emergency act to stop a protest". And they replied "So? Justin trudeau did the same thing in similar circumstances." That would not be whataboutism. PP said what his people did is unacceptable. His jab at trudeau simply says "We already hold our people to a higher standard than the liberals do, and the liberals forgave justin's far worse example of racism so what's the issue. Not whataboutism little guy So you were wrong. Go on now - have your hissy fit in reply Directly afgter saying you've been seeing nothing but stories about election interference. I'm sure you know how english works, i don't have to explain this do i? You - "the left wing papers are full of these stories. I'll mention the cbc and the star" Me " theres nothing in the cbc or the star" You - "What?!?!? Why would you bring up the cbc and the star??? That was completely unrelated and said at random!" ROFLMAO - Tell the whole world you're a cheesy person without teling them LOL - wow, that was bad even for you Like i said - being dishoenst to cover your mistakes. Honestly - if you make a mistake like that it's better to either just ignore it and move on OR even better just be a man about it and say 'ok, that was wrong' Now you just look ridiculous to everyone

Predictable. The people have to get more upset about this. And i hope PP keeps promisng a full investigation after he wins

there is no law whatsoever requiring that you be sane or rational. You do you!

all more signs of a system that wasn't working. Other places in ontario were horribly overwhemed but obviously if you're correct the system couldn't even 'load balance' properly.

The stats will be for how many are in per day - not how many new admittances per day. But maybe i'm wrong - go ahead and post the stats for the various timelines and we'll compare it to reports for those times for how overloaded the er's were. I think you'll find i'm right but hey - the stats are the stats so post 'em and we'll find out. well, the united states for the most part would be one. they often had a lot of pressure, they were strained, but they didnt' get overwhelmed like ours did. You didn't see them calling in the military or flying people to other states becuase every ounce of capacity had been reached. Sweden's system did better too, and they didn't have lockdowns. Again - strained (as you'd expect) but not like we had. I'm sure there's plenty of other countries too. But it's Irrelevant for 3 reasons. 1 - you would also have to compare rates of infection. If they had a larger surge they may have gotten overwhelmed eventually but with much larger numbers. 2 - the fact that another hospital in another country got overwhelmed even in similar circumstances wouldn't make it ok for ours to be that bad, it would just mean theirs was that bad 3 - almost everywhere around the world has returned to normal - ours hasn't. So - you got an answer but your question was pointless. Now - lets see those stats of yours and we'll take a look at bc

the main ideas of Canada were 'gee, it'd be great to sell some beaver pelts back home' followed eventually by ' gee it would be great if we had some where to grow some food and be nice to people. Also - do you think someone would buy this tree if i cut it down. but we have developed a bit of that european "the gov't will take care of important things for me so i don't have to think" mentality and we've made some bad choices there which have eroded our personal freedoms. We can only hope that at some point we start to care about our freedoms and make better choices.

it is literally exactly and precisely what we were talking about. It was the literal question asked. What you've posted is utterly irrelevant. Obviously having now realized that you're trying to change what we were talking about And it still wouldn't make sense, GHG emissions have nothing to do with the actual cost in carbon tax one pays. Couldn't be more useless. It would be on top of what was being discussed. Awww muffin - you've realized i was right and now you're just cranky Gosh so i was right all along!!!! Thanks for verifying. Yeash. Of course it does. In some cases it's far worse than that. In some industries that's just the start. Like i said - the actual cost to grow an ear of corn is pennies. You pay more like a dollar at the store. So - right off the bat we can see you're wrong. And of course it depends how processed it is. AND that doesn't include the other costs, that was just the fertilizer, not the carbon costs of shipping to the processor or the processor's electricity and energy costs or shipping it to the store etc etc, all of which gets carbon tax added as well, tho fewer mark ups as you get closer to the consumer. But yeah. Everyone marks it up. And in the food industry to cover spoilage and damage and such the markups are high. So there you go

No, it isn't. Its what we described originally. Whataboutism would be something different, like saying what they did was ok BECAUSE of trudeau's antics. Instead what he's saying is that he's addressed the issue and there's certainly worse things out there. Amusingly your reply is ALSO whataboutism. Congrats - you've mastered it Now try gaslighting! In order to find the tiny number of stories involving chinese interference you would have to read at least some other headlines or the like. You couldn't find it otherwise. So while i don't know what you've been reading, i know your statement that ALL you've been reading is stories about china is most likely false. you literally referenced the cbc and the star. For heaven's sake if you can't pay attention to me could you at least pay attention to you? No, you did not. We both know that. So.. it would appear you're resorting to lies to cover your mistakes? Awkward indeed. But - i suppose if you have to tell me i was right without telling me that's as good a way as any. I do. but then again - i read more than just the cbc and the star, so i was bound to be better informed ?

Anybody with a brain and the ability to count without taking their shoes off will know it. No 'kidding' necessary. The numbers are not easy to come by but the actual number of covid patients in icu being treated FOR COVID and not something else was pretty small. A few hundred patients across the province was more than enough to bring the system completely to a standstill. That's WITH cancelling surgeries, kicking out slightly less sick people, filling the hallways, etc. That's really nothing. Our system should be able to cope with a decent sized short term influx. An earthquake could leave 2000 people in need of icu care - apperently that would require canada's entire excess capacity. And now we're down to like 14 people in icu WITH covid (which isn't the same as because of it) - so why would there still be a problem? The simple answer is our system was already grossly underperforming before covid, and very little has been done to correct that. It was already falling apart, now it's falling apart even more. So that's a real issue. We have to make changes to get things back on track.

Yes - it's a common tactic on the left that's being used by the right at the moment. And as SOON as the right does, listen to the whining But your whataboutism is hilarious Well obviously that's not true. There's a lot of other stories in the 'left media'. So that's not 'all' you've been reading about if you've been reading their papers. And doing a search on the cbc site, there's actually very very few stories on it.' And of the stories that are there, it's often downplayed or the pm's response is being inflated. Only a few on teh star either. Athough at least some of those are a little more critical. So if you're pretending that somehow the CBC has back to back coverage of this issue - nope. But hey - maybe i'm wrong and just couldn't see it. Tell you what - post one story for each of the last 7 days from the CBC about it and we'll take a look at them. I mean - if it's "ALL" you've been reading about then there must be at least one story a day. Lets take a look. I'll wait. They care. They don't particularly care about blackface but it makes PP look strong and in charge. Guaranteed some of the more left wing papers will try to write an article explaining why it isn't (which is a guaranteed sign that it is). People in general want strong leaders and that kind of reply shows strength and wit and that the person can handle themselves and that's a big deal to voters. That was one of the big problems with otoole, and to a slightly lesser degree scheer. Both had a habit of being caught off guard by a question and not having a good answer that would shut the media down and they got cricified for it - scheer over the abortion question (which he SHOULD have known was coming) and otoole over guns and "where's jason kenney'. They got slaughtered over that - Pollievre will be wining some points with these kinds of responses