CdnFox

Few sane people care but it's a bugaboo for the left. The left frequently dredge up old quotes and activities and hoist them as proof a person is unfit today. So when they get their nose rubbed in trudeau's blackface it forces them back a bit, they have been arguing that kind of thing SHOULD matter for some time. I mean i do get why blackface still irks them and the emergency act doesn't. The reasoning is fairly transparant. But it shouldn't be that way, i think that was Pers's point and it' not a bad one I can see feeling that way, it's not without merit. But in fairness he did do that and the press is still continuing to hound him. The danger is that he wunds up having to answer the same question for the next two weeks while the left-friendly media tries to keep it in front of voters. This kind of kills that. And we've seen him do that successfully before. It actually plays fairly well with moderate voters brecause it's not the angry name calling thing they hate but it's clever and gets the point across. So it shuts up the left, doesn't offend the middle and even amuses them slightly, and plays well with the right. It's a pretty darn good way to handle a tough question that the press wants to feed on.

Sadly accurate. This isn't "bending to the public desire for answers", this is distraction chaffe that will buy time for the issue to fade and produce a muddled answer that will appear to suggest there's no further need for investigation without clarifying anything.

Well that's a great way to go I don't know that tory is that rich, or that powerful True. Although presumably they haven't discovered the power that booze can have over men.

It's fair to say that as far as public opinion goes he's gotten a bit of a pass on the whole trucker thing, while somehow we're still worked up about his blackface. Perspektiv has a point that it should probably be the other way around, people should be furious over the use of the emergency act to attack lawful protest while not caring about blackface 30 years ago. But - ya gotta work with what you've got It was a great line and it makes it hard for the media to keep bugging him about 'racism' issues in this context

https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2016/03/21/nitrogen-math-simple-calculations There are dozens of different examples - go look it up. You will need to read several sources to get a clear picture, i'm not putting together a lesson plan for you. But it's recommended you fertilize three times a year (different amounts of fertilizer each time tho). there is a reason why fertilizer is one of the biggest expenses for farmers. No, that's emissions. Not total fertilizer used. Lime wouldn't even be factored in there for example. And we're calculating the cost of getting the fertlizer to the farm, not the environmental impact of the corn or fertilizer so you're not even looking at the right issue. Total Swing and a miss. It's entirely how that works. If you go buy an ear of corn from the farmer directly it might be different but every step of the process it gets marked up again. So when you buy a can of corn it's actually brutally higher than what i mentioned. So it averages out. Think of it like this. How much would it cost you to actually grow an ear of corn? Less than a penny for the seeds, a few cents per ear for fertilzer, and time That's about it. Corn can be produced for next to nothing Now how much do you pay for an ear of corn? Most years it's about a buck an ear. That's probably about a 1000 percent mark up. Sorry but that's largely how food works. of course you can. The inflationary cost of labour is driven in part by carbon taxes. It makes everything a little more expensive, which means employees need a little bit more money. It's not complex. The carbon tax was only started in most agricultural areas in 2019, and it takes a few years for it to trickle down. For example the first year's impact would have been minor as it came in after farmers would already have made many of their purchases, and it wouldn't even begin to start showing up till later in the year or the next year. And lo and behold - food prices have been on the rise since then. Amazing. As i've mentioned quite clearly carbon tax is absolutely not the only factor in rising food prices. But it is absolutely NOT insignificant. It adds a fair bit of the increased costs to food - and it goes up every year. So to bring this back to the topic on hand - IF we're looking at ways to make food more affordable, then cutting carbon taxes on all stages of food production and transport would be a very good way to start. It's one of the few thigns we can do that would have an instant benefit and wouldn't add to inflation. And it would save hundreds per year for the average family in food. Other things should be done as well but taxing food production is a bad idea to begin with. People need food. Aside from air it's the most important thing to preserve life. It' shouldn't be a cash cow for the gov't in the first place, and right now while people are having trouble affording food that's doubly true.

AAAAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAH!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sorry but whether you like him or hate him, PP is an absolute BEAST at answering questions from the press like this

This is what i was saying. "China has directly interfered with our elections and it's possible some of our politicians are compromised or chinese agents at this point!" - POLICE: "Yawn." "and someone leaked that info to the public who has a right to know whether their democracy has been compromised!" POLICE: "What!?!? Someone TOLD them? Put down the donunts and saddle up boys...."

Says the guy who keeps responding to my posts in a pathetic effort to try to make himself look slightly better. You didn't mind making the effort to pick this fight in the first place. Run home to your mommy little guy, and don't pick fights you're going to cry about when it doesn't go your way. You clearly do. People who genuinely don't care don't repetitively reply to someone. So it's painfully obvious you do care. You picked a fight, you then got shown to be wrong in your original argument which as i showed was incorrect but also got your face smaked for being a dickweed, and you have now spent how many posts trying to pretend you don't care? "Snif - i don't care" - (posts that 50 times.... ) And you're STILL coming back and begging for more! I'm basically living rent free in your head at this point Sigh. Go home kid, before you wind up permanently emotionally scarred. And don't pick fights if you can't take it in the future.

Paper has never kept anyone anywhere in check ever. Laws and agreements last right until the parties involved decide they don't. And ideas are not held equally by all people. That is patently ridiculous. Ask the black community what their 'ideal' of the us is right now. Or the latinos. Ask someone in texas and then what someone in New York thinks america's all about and what's important. Americans are not one big huge homogeneous single entity. There may have been a time in the past where it was all mom and apple pie but those days are LONG behind us. Canada is in exactly the same boat as the states and is no more or less a collection of rules than they are. THe big difference is we'll tolerate more rules and abuses of our freedoms without taking action. And i don't mean 'action' like a revolution - i mean even the simple act of voting out gov'ts that abuse our freedoms and voting in ones that don't. Picking leaders and candidates that will protect and improve our freedoms instead of trampling on them and throwing out those who won't. So the only real difference is the people. If voters in Canada were as intolerant as the ones in america of gov't overreach we wouldn't have it.

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?