CdnFox

I don't think it was at all stages. but show your numbers on that if you like I guess that would be relevant if people ate carbon. But lets take a look at some of the numbers Lets go with 100 grams of carbon per tonne per km. When you look at all the places it has to go, it's reasonable to say that on an average the seller has to pay for about 1000 km to the average end user, and that's being VERY generous, and doesn't include the costs in fuel to the farmer to spread it of course. So - roughly 100000 grams or 100 kilos per tonne. Or about 100 kg or about 5 dollars per tone of fertilizer. Now, it gets a little hard to follow from here becuase different foods need different amounts. But for corn. you'd need about 10 dollars worth that carbon cost of fertilizer a year to grow a tonne of corn. Then that gets marked up of course. And again. And possibly again. so that's about 80 dollars As you noted the average person eats just under a tonne a year. Not all of it is plant of course but the cost for beef for carbon tax is pretty rowdy as well, So - to provide enough food for what a person eats per year the end user's costs will be somewhere in the range of 80 dollars or so That's JUST the effect of carbon tax on fertlizer. It does not include the costs of farming, or transporting to the producers or to the grocery store or of electricity or any thing else. ANd it doesn't include the increase in inflationary labour costs we discussed. Fertilizer is at an all time record high right now btw. Guess what else is? Our produce prices. Most of us don't eat only corn. But its pretty clear that for vegetables anyway it's adding a very healthy amount to the family food bill. All tolled up we're talking hundreds of dollars a year. Of course they do. The farmer will charge a mark up on his TOTAL cost of production. Then the next guy does and so on. That's how it works So have food prices. ANd because it takes a year or so to trickle down the line it's no surprise that we're still watching it grow. Yes, but you'd be lying if you suggested i did. It is 100 percent accurate. And it was predicted and explained many times when the carbon tax was proposed, Harper and his economic people explained it would be a 'tax on everything' and how it would impact people and that it would drive food prices up very high. It's like telling someone 'gravity is a serious thing, please don't jump off the cliff", and they do and on the way down they say "well blaming gravity for the fact i'm falling is fallacious". No - it is the aboslute most likely outcome. It's predictable. It's obvious. and it's significant'. Right now people's food bills are going up thousands of dollars a year. Several thousands in some cases. The carbon tax is not responsible for all of that. But it's responsible for a very respectable hunk - many hundreds of dollars. So when we talk about bringing food prices back under control we have to look at that. It's the easiest thing at hand we would have to help drop prices significantly. INstead we're raising carbon taxes in 1 month. Wanna bet our food prices continue to go up'?

That's kind of circular logic,

Well that's all that holds ANY gov't in check. But at the end of the day the voters are to blame. We are free - we just don't take our freedom seriously. And then someone else comes along and DOES take it seriously and we wind up where we are now. Democracy hinges on the voters making good decisions. And not just in the elections.

we're free to elect a gov't that would change that. We just don't. Unfortunately freedom isn't just automatic in a democracy - the people have to make good choices. Elections matter. And unfortunately too many make bad decisions. Yep.

Nope - as long as a law makes it through the house it's deemed to be reasonable by definition. The charter says any property may be taken by legal process. I might think it's unreasonable, You might. But the law does not. Everything you said after that is true, but from a legal point of view irrelevant.

Well that's not the problem at all is it. The problem is what is considered 'reasonable' , and the charter says any removal of property is reasonable if it is first passed in law. in other words it's 100 percent constitutional for them to pass a law that says 'everything dougie owns belongs to the gov't. Or to me for that matter. Whatever they like as long as they make a law. Perfectly in compliance with section 7 and 8. as to self defense sure, the courts uphold that all the time. But the gov't forbids you to access to the tools for self defense under the "reasonable" premise that it's too dangerous to let common people have them. So sorry - but you've misidentified the problems and unfortunately it's entirely constitutional.

Smurfie, it's not a question of how many it's growing. It' s a question of how much MORE it's growing than they expected and planned for. Growth is good - but surprise growth is absolutely not good at all. When that happens then you run into major shortages for all students. This really isn't about any one area. This affects a huge number of areas around the country, If growth is planned for then great, it can be dealt with. If it isn't - then really bad things happen. And safe bet those kids and their families were also not planned for in terms of medical services. That's a problem

He did no such thing. At all. He promised to get rid of the gun registry and he did And even that was only possible with a majority gov't. Show me ANYWHERE he promised to make it so they couldn't prohibit or confiscate guns. That wouldn't even be possible wihtout a constitutional amendment. And get rid of the gun registry. which in fact makes confiscation HARDER by far. He said it in the middle too, but whatever. Except get rid of the gun registry, repeal the backstabbing RCMP's attempts to ban green rifles etc, and that's mostly with a minority gov't. Yeah - and they're ALWAYS going to do that and there's nothing any other gov't can do about that. Other than amend the constitution which will never happen. The moral there is not "harper was a leftie", the moral there is 'don't vote liberal'.

Really. I suspect this isn't actually what you believe but i'll bite: What did he promise he would do that he deliberately didn't do?

No problem. Sit. roll over. Awww nooooes!!! I don't tolerate dumb. If you insist on being dumb, then by all means leave. You won't enjoy the conversation. Waaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!! I was an insulting jackass to someone and now they've insulted me back!!! How could they!?!?!!? Hey sparky - if you want to pick a fight with someone and cry when it doesn't go your way, then maybe don't pick fights.

One will be sufficient if you can actually articulate it and it's compelling. And? That doesn't explain anything about why you wouldn't help someone in need. It's not like we're going to war. And the chances of a wider conflict go up if the russians have an easy win. Sooooooo..... I assume you don't want to raise your children when they come to believe that if someone needs help it's best to stand idly by. That's not a reason at all. That's just a statement that you've got a family. That might be an argument why you woudln't want them involved in ANY war but it wouldn't even begin to explain why specifically war shouldn't have an economic benefit to those who aren't participating in it. Why? We haven't sent any troops to war. Maybe you should ask any war veteran reading this, if your country sent you to war and you had no equipment, would you hope a friendly nation would lend you the equipment you needed to defend your homeland? That's actually a thing that's happening.

Says the guy who started off being belligerent. How'd that work out for you? We? I've told you before, you shouldn't be listening to the voices in your head like that. At least YOU should know where 'm coming from - If you act like an ass expect to be treated like an ass. Which is exactly what happened to you. So stop being an ass if you don't like it.

It's not a question of whether or not they have it. It's a question of do they have enough spaces. And when over a thousand new students MORE than what you expected show up, that's a challenge. And what about next year? And the year after? This really is a story whether you realize it or not. The resources for these kids will become strained and if that keeps getting worse there's a price to be paid.

Well i'd place some in burnaby as a start People can and will move around over time but generally you can figure out what their initial destination is. Some will change their minds and some will get there and decide over time they want to be somewhere else but as the story notes there's modelling for that which is fairly accurate. You can't say what ONE person is going to do but you can say what people will do over all.

Well yeah - csis can't release information unless authorized by the gov't of the day. That's a necessary design element to your security apparatus But a more interesting question is why did the authorities believe that it's not worth investigating more into the interference itself, but IS worth trying to find out who spilled the beans about it. As to why the gov't didn't want the info getting out -well i think we know that.

No, that's what he accused you of and you offered your statement as evidence it wasn't true. I swear to god you've got the attention span of a goldfish. Are you a nazi or a racist? Well that's a blatant lie. Which is pretty much standard for you - you don't "see" things how they are, you simply say whatever fits your agenda. And i'm sorry - but that would make YOU the Tweenkie. No logic, no facts, just feelings. I assume you're talking to the mirror You've made no argument other than an appeal to emotions. Sorry kiddo. The facts aren't on your side and everyone can see you're not making a rational argument, you're just making emotional statements. And when someone points something out you don't like you try to change the channel by either lying or bait and switch. Which begs the question - if the truth isn't good enough for you, what is it you feel you need to hide?

Well there you go - and you're worth every ruble i'm sure Already posted. I take it you didn't read it all. And - its super easy to find many other examples. So. More lies from you. How shocking.

Yes. Really. If it were in isolation and you said nothing else it might. But that's not the case. And the rest of what you say points in a different direction. And i'm sure Putin appreciates that sentiment. I'm not sure i see how that would eliminate the possibility of you being a sympathizer.

i suppose that's true, your 'employers' might disagree No. it does not. not even a little bit. As i pointed out i never suggested it was never given as a reason. I simply said that the reason i gave was one of the reasons given since the start. Which you called a lie. Which of course turned out to be absolutely true. So as long as you 'ask' someone HONEST then you're the dishonest person here . And you seem to be continuing that trend. Not only did you fail to, but as i noted its' not a new idea at all that the benefits were a reason for the us to assist financially and militarily. In fact it was being discussed even before the war started. As i have proven. Which you claimed was not true. Falsely. So it's a lie to say it's a new idea, especially after i posted proof it's been put forward from before the war and all during the war till now. But to circle back to your point for a moment - 1 wars have been largely about economic benefit since there have been wars. The number of wars that have been fought for other reasons can probably be counted on one hand or close to. Wars are fought to gain territory and resources. They are very rarely because of something like helen being taken to troy. 2 This isn't a war for the us. The us is not a belligerent. The war happened without the us's input or approval. All they're doing is giving supplies to one side. So the idea that they are 'at war' for profit is silly. 3. Russia started this war. So if we're talking about 'excuses' for war you'd have to look at them, nobody else got a say in whether there would be a war or not. So the 'reasons' and 'justification'' for the war must come from russia and no one else. And more distraction. Did the us start the war? No? Then shut up. At the end of the day all wars are detestable. They're a crappy way to settle a difference. Sometimes there simply is no other choice but that's rare. But THIS one was started by Russia, and they bear the SOLE responsibility for justifying it

Well you're making it very complex - now you're suggesting that a foriegn nation seized control against the will of the people. The 'how' of that is important. The us could petition for canada to be removed from nato and that would be their more likely avenue. But how they would address the specific issue is highly questionable - it would depend a little on how china came to manage to take over canada without the people being ok with it. As to trudeau - he doesn't give a flying fig about democracy. He's under pressure from the other nato leaders to chip in and the public opinion at least in the beginning favoured helping ukraine. It gave him a chance to look tough as well, just like he 'orderd the balloon to be shot down" when in reality the americans said "Ima shoot that balloon, is that ok with you?"

Your comments here certainly don't argue against the idea. You lie like a cheap rug attempting to defend the russian position and attack the us one.

Yes - but this time lets do it honesty, not with the attempted bait and switch below. I responded to this comment by you in reply to another poster.: With: You then replied - So you call me a liar and claim the "only" reason given was for democracy etc etc. I then posted SEVERAL articles - some new some old some in between. They all gave reasons why this war was convenient for the US. Including testing weapons systems and tactics, weakening an adversary, improving their position legally, etc etc. And pointed out that all of those were given as reasons all the way through from beginning to end. So. You were entirely wrong. You had no business calling me a liar as it turns out i was quite correct. You had no business claiming that no other reason than 'democracy' had ever bee given. In fact it turned out you were the liar. i get you like to play this game where when you're caught out you try to change the order and meaning of what was said - but there it is in a straight line. You called me a liar for saying that reasons of convenience were given from the start of the war. They were. So you lied about that. You also said nobody every hears anything other than the 'democracy' argument. There are hundreds of articles that never mention it as a reason, i posted a few. You were lying about that. And instead of owning up to it and saying "sorry - guess i was wrong" you try to lie YET AGAIN and pretend somehow that i said they never mentioned democracy at any time. Which we both know is untrue. You're not a very good person are you.

Not at all. I train dogs, you can't be THAT much harder. If i can teach a puppy not to piddle on the carpet, i'm sure i can teach you not to crap the bed posting online. Here's a start. Next time before you reply to someone actually think about what they wrote. Because if you act like a jerk and a pretentious troll where it's not justified, they're probably going to smak you around and make you look silly. It's fine to disagree and such but just being a douche for no reason invites reprisal.

To be blunt it was VERY common to hear about it before covid. There are dozens and dozens of articles about how understaffing and wait times are horrible. Covid for a short time made a really bad situation worse, but it's pretty much over and we're still seeing the same problems. In fact they're getting worse. And for the first time we really are seeing people die waiting for care, and more than one or two. It's easy to blame covid becuase it was front and center in every paper every single day but the problem was serious before covid and has continued to get worse after covid.

If we're being honest, most province's systems were strained flu season or not. They were already putting people in the hallways outside of lu seasons. There are reasons why this happened but covid really wasn't one of them.