CdnFox

The chances of an incident go up considerably if we do nothing. We were doing nothing and war broke out with ukraine. How long till he takes a poke at poland (again) and suddenly it's even more tense. The reasoning your using is perhaps understandable but it's the same reasoning Chamberlin used just before ww2. Doing nothing encourages them to do more till they see where that line is. That's not how he sees it. That's how he tries to sell it. But he knows the truth of it. He got two fists and a foot into the tar baby and the west is using it to humiliate him and weaken him. As to the exit, hard to say but there are a number of possibilities. Zelazny may not want to negotiate a peace that involves giving up any territory but he also can't continue if the allies stop giving him arms. And the russians may not like whatever deal is put on the table but they know the allies can always send even more gear and russia could lose.' And they can bluster about nukes all they want but everyone knows it's bullshit. So - at the end of the day the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them. Sure - there's an element of risk but there's even more risk doing nothing Well reasonable endgames would include russia keeps crimea and part of the donbas but ukraine either signs on with nato or does a nato lite contract and is firmly in the western sphere. Or retreat to prewar lines but the us says they won't let ukraine into nato ever. When both sides get really sick of it and one gets the upper hand we'll see negotiatons start. Too soon just yet. And russia wont' be using 'every plane and every tank'. And if that does happen they will retreat, as they have always done. They won't be interested in losing their whole country to a nuclear war. DUDE!!!! - family forum here, put your 'little man' away, and stop talking to it for that matter

https://globalnews.ca/news/9512608/alberta-2023-budget-petrodollars-surplus/ The billion dollar question is - will they find a way to use it wisely this time so they don't suffer so bad in teh next downturn, or will they convince themselves the money is here forever and waste it?

Well, war for them is peace for us You'll never fight a war more inexpensively than we're fighting this one.

You've encapsulated the conundrum nicely, but the debate now is more along the lines of: a) is it possible to correct the weaknesses of the current tech by putting some hard deadlines in place to motivate change? b) just how much cleaner will they actually be in areas without plentiful renewable energy like bc or quebec? c) is it possible or practical to look at those changes to the grid etc. d) will using incentives improve adaption long term? And of course d) are we better off to wait till there's something more robust as a solution and suffer the pollution in the meantime, or push for something imperfect now to try to try to reduce emissions and reliance on fuels (which for many countries must be supplied by bad guys). bonus question - would we be better off trying to improve and maximize on plug in hybrid solutions as a better interim bridge till smoething comes along. That's basically what we're discussing.

First time? I don't think so, there's been several similar confrontations between a nuclear power and another by proxy like this. Korea. Afghanistan - BOTH ways. Arguably vietnam. We've seen this before. Well first off that land is important to the west. It's a significant source of the worlds food and a major border for a number of our allies. Having it under friendly control is in fact important. But it's more about weakening a serious adversary. Russia is a threat, period. They've shown it many times. And not just a threat directly but they frequently arm nations hostile to us and our allies. So it is absolutely and massively in our interests to see them severely weakened like this and to have their prestige knocked down. It weakens their influence in the world and also the loss of so much military equipment and men which cannot easily be replaced (especially the equipment) makes it very hard for them to think about any invasions or military actions anywhere else for quite some time. Having a hostile nation fall on hard times like that makes our lives safer. And it'll be a while before they think about any more 'adventures' like that.

The vaccine hadn't been invented yet when it was prevalent. Sooooooo (you don't need me to explain why they can't study the effect of vaccination prior to it's invention right?) It has been noted that cases per infected person have been going down with the new variants, so that would be post vaccine. That's not really a study, more of a counting thing, and there's no way of knowing if it's vaccinations or the new variant that's made the difference but it certainly suggests vaccines aren't making anything worse. The.... vaccine..... hadn't..... been... invented. They....were..... ALL.....unvaccinated. Jezuz - i guess i really DID have to explain it to you. Since vaccines and variants have come out there are fewer cases. That's something they can count. I'm really getting sick of the mentally weak who blurt out senseless blather that only highlights how stupid they are and then whining about other people. And if you are the one who's sick, then it's YOUR job to screw off, not mine to pander to your pathetic insecurities and hold your hand. What kind of mouth breather attacks someone out of the blue like that without even letting them answer their question? I await your reply - it's always fun to have a trained monkey amuse me by freaking out in her little echo cage.

All wars are avoidable. Were there some wars you were a fan of? Yeah - not really why this is happening. Well they didn't mean it then either They go with whatever is popular. At the end of the day putin decided this was something he wanted to do and now we're in it, and it's to our advantage that russia be weakened by it . So that's what's happening. Although i'll admit i'm a little surprised that justin is buying air defense systems to send to them from the us seeing as he wouldn't buy those for our own troops.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-food-prices-lower-1.6759117 Here's a few points - first off despite the headline the purpose of this article is to basically say the gov't can't do anything so it's not trudeau's fault. Thanks CBC! But - the one thing they won't mention anywhere in there as part of the reason OR part of the solution? Carbon tax. The farmers are paying carbon tax to grow the food, then more to harvest the food, then the suppliers pay carbon tax to ship the food to their processing plants, and more carbon tax to process the food to a useable state. Then more carbon tax to ship it to the grocery store and carbon tax to keep it cool until you buy it. That's before the carbon tax you pay in your car to go buy it and pick it up. There is a HUGE carbon tax cost in food production and carbon taxes have been going up and continue to do so. But - the cbc didn't mention it even once. Despite the fact it's one thing the gov't could change tomorrow for those industries and would have an immediate noticeable impact. Hmmmmm

"So you ADMIT you're an umitigated evil scum-person?" -liberals, probably

Absolutely it is. They have lost a huge amount of military equipment including ships that they simply cannot replace anytime soon. They have lost massive amounts of prestige - how do you sell yourself as being a superpower capable of standing up to the US when you can't beat ukraine? Sanctions have hurt their economy and every customer they have will be looking at how to buy less from them over time. This has seriously hurt them. It won't kill them but it will put a serious dent in them for quite some time. Not surprising - russia has been weakened and china is moving to make them their biatch. Also they want to reduce dependency on US trade just in case the US starts getting serious about the trade deficit. Like when. Russia is in fact a player on the high level geopolitical scale and there's really no denying that. If countries don't believe russia is strong enough to be a powerful ally, that strengthens the us' s position and weakens russias (and chinas). Also situations like this send clear messages to china - be careful. If you attack another country and they don't fall within the first few days then the allies may help them and look what happened to putin. Not to mention it's a great way to test weapons and tactics that have never been battle tested before. The next generation us HIMARS is going to be spectacular i'm sure - this one really showed how mixing drones and himars can be brutally effective, the next ones will likely build on that.

I agree, but that will just embolden others to seize power and oust him. Then the failure will all be his fault. This is beginning to step outside of my area of expertise, so i'll caveate what i say with that but as i understand things even their fastest missile production is no where near what they need. Apperently many of the funds to upkeep production were 'diverted' into people's pockets, and a serious lack of chips and other key components limits what they can build. Even simple elements like artillery shells aren't getting made nearly fast enough for their needs, which means they have less than they'd like when they attack and have to wait longer between attacks for stockpiles to catch up for even limited use. I have even heard it said they're considering a massive air strike for their next offensive to make up for the lack of artillery even though it could mean significant air asset losses. And while they're running short on missiles, ukraine's air defense is beefing up. which means it takes a lot more missiles to hit anything because more will get shot down. And lets get real, they havnen't seen a tonne of success at all, long range or short. At best they've been able to hit power grids and hospitals but that doesnt' really blunt the war effort and if anything it's making the ukranians that much more resolved. They're not fighting the west. THey can plan all they like but shy of using nukes they won't be racking up any western deaths. Sorry - are you asking me or chaimberline? We quit when and if ukraine loses. Otherwise we're probably going to keep going. Russia is seriously weakening itself both physically and reputation wise with this war and that's in our best interest.

Well.... depends how you want to score ww2. They won against germany for sure, but they very clearly would not have if it weren't for the allies both in direct support and by opening a second front

I don't think i'm "loyal" to any brand, but i think i do take into account a brand's track record with me when considering a purchase. For example, i am in no way loyal to Toyota, but i've owned a number and they've all been really good to me, so if i'm choosing a vehicle and the choice is a close race between a toyota product and another product that's going to be a significant factor. So i have brands i tend to trust more based on track record, and some i expressly don't trust based on track record. And of course ones i have no experience with and are neutral.

I'd point out they absolutely have admitted defeat before historically. I suspect that in this case it would involve getting rid of putin and blaming everything on him. Russia has said that if ukraine tries to join nato that's grounds for an all out war. I mean sure - if there was a deal where russia kept crimea and some of it's occupied territory and Ukraine joined nato then that would be a fair situation to people like you and me. But russia absolutely cannot stand the idea of ukraine being part of nato and having american military forces on that border, AND i'm not sure nato really wants ukraine to be part of it. THey're not exactly a perfect country as far as stability and corruption goes. I don't know that they do "know" that. And by then there isn't going to be much left of their military. And that's a serious concern for them. Also - it's hard to say how much land theyll still occupy by then. If ukraine's spring/summer offensive this year is as successful as last years, russia could have very few bargaining chips on the table. And the draft was not very popular. Another round of drafts which might be necessary to hold out would turn sentiment against him again. I think there's going to be a lot more pressure on russia if this drags out another year. it is impacting them.

Germany, Japan, denmark, Poland and a few others would like to have a word with you Although Germany only raised it's hand half way and is looking a little sheepish. Pretending russia is an innocent little lamb that would never attack anyone is silly. They have, they would, they will in the future if they get a chance. If only there were some modern or recent example i could give you of russia invading someone's country without military provocation... gosh it seems like there should be at least one somewhere.... what was this thread about again?

I mentioned already that you could 'release' them in flin flon and hope for the best. But the fact is that is only for refugees. You couldn't do that for immigrants who make their own arrangements to enter the country after approved or are already in country when they're approved. So yes - you could try it with the 40 thousand or so refugees we get and HOPE that they stay put instead of boarding the first bus to a bigger city (which most will), but that would do nothing about the 460,000 others who immigrate the normal way under trudeau's plan. And we're not even touching on the moral freak out politically that they'd get, it would make martha's vinyard look tame. Not to mention - how many new people do you think flin flon can absorb? How quickly would they run out of housing and jobs? A lot of smaller communities are struggling to keep their ER's and hospitals open as is, what happens when that overloaded sysetm gets a few hundred thousand immigrants or refugees? Putting refugees there won't magically create jobs or houses for them - pretty soon flin flon's rents will be the same as toronto's. But the real problem is you just can't. I get that you want that to be a solution, but it would not be one under our current laws. At best you could encourage people. Sorry,

the law doesn't ask people to be 'rational'. The law asks 'how would a reasonable man react'. That's very different. It's entirely fair to say a reasonable man in those circumstances would take ANY actions necessary to be sure his family was safe including the use of lethal force. The criminals intent does NOT come into it very much at all. If the homeowner was reasonably fearful for his life and feared death or grevious bodily harm was a real possiblity then he's justified in stopping the attacker with lethal force. And just having the guy in the house like that is reason enough to believe that. I honestly believe you don't understand the law here or the problem. The problem is NOT that the law wouldn't allow for you to shoot an intruder in your home. It absolutely does. The problem is for their own petty reasons beurocrat types will use the system itself to harass and hurt those who dare to exercise this right. Despite the fact they know the person was within their rights. It is a gross abuse of power that many in the public ignore because they think using guns for defense is 'so american'. But they don't realize that if you allow crap like this eventually it will be used on people You DO like.

It isn't. This isn't a vote. He's voluntarily resigning. How is that a democratic thing? If you do something voluntarily why would others vote on it? When was the last time you saw someone take a binding vote in order to quit He was democratically elected. He gets to decide when he's going to quit, same as everyone else.

Who;s the second? Is it us? It's us isn't it. Well at least he didn't declare the emergency act on the guy

actually things were going pretty good until we STOPPED doing that. NOW things are getting worse, and that's why we've had the recent calls to revisit that stuff. Letting them out just means they kill cops for no good reason or slaughter people with knives. If we went BACK to just locking them up there'd be less crime. the problem is the current left wing and many first nations leaders have no empathy for the people that these criminals rape, kill, injure, etc. Like zero. And the sad thing is - most of the victims are first nations. And that's fine i guess, if they're happy kililng and raping their own people i guess we can't argue that but when it affects others then there's a problem. That's a pretty common lie told by various left wing sources - but it's not true. In fact right up till the mid 1800's the relationship between the europeans and the first nations was quite good and mutually beneficial. The hudsons bay company radically improved first nations life and the first nations worked hand in glove with them to scout and map new areas. Things went bad for about 100 years max. roughly the 1860's to the end of the 1960's. During that time we saw the res schools at their worst, laws limiting first nations culture, the removal of their right to vote, and their right to hire a lawyer, etc. And then we saw that all returned. SO no - there were no 'centuries' of mistreatment. And honestly people will get fed up waiting and give up on them if it takes 'centuries' for them to get their shit together. Compared to what happened to other cultures they had it pretty damn good, there's no reason in the universe they can't get their act together within a generation. Well - no reason other than they're being trained to be professional permanent victims currently. And that has to stop. In any case - people don't break the law and hurt others because of the 'impacts of colonialism'. These are grown ass adults, they know what's right and wrong, they make their choices. If what you're saying is it's impossible for them to live in civil society ... well i guess then they have to be removed from it. There's no universe where it's ok to let them go around hurting people because their daddy learned to read at a residential school. that's not ok,

Because...its...against....the...charter... of....rights. You can't make a contract or deal that violates the law. Murder wouldn't become legal just because you signed a contract or agreed to commit one as condition of entry any agreement still has to follow the law or it will be unenforceable. You might be able to use the notwithstanding clause (maybe - i'd have to look at that) but i doubt it and if you could you would be crucified - every canadian would be worried you'd use it to control where they live next. And frankly i don't think it would stand up even then. Freedom of mobility is guaranteed in other places than just the charter. I just don't see it being legally possible. You would have to give them an incentive. that you could do as long as it's over and above any social services they would normally get.

He had the tools, and did the job and produced reports. He just wanted to expand his job and got cocky. If Harper had intended to create a fake position or neuter it he would have been much more selective about who he hired, making sure it was some species of loyalist. Fake outrage about a non-problem. It's pretty obvious. Have you even READ any of the reports generated during harper's time by that office? no? If you had instead of pretending to be fake-outraged by this you'd have noticed they are in fact full of facts, very detailed and critical of the gov't frequently. Harper improved transparency a great deal. If he hadn't - he would never ever have had to fight with the guy in the first place. So lets quit with the fake bullshit. Overall harper's time in office was an improvement in transparency. Overall Justin's time has been the opposite. So your pretending that this is some sort of justification for liberal supporters and yourself to avoid the CPC is clearly not genuine or justified, Want to try again? Or are you done pretending now.

So the point is you can't say 'don't live here'. That would infringe on the charter. You can't tell people 'you can live in canada just not our cities" lawfully under the constitution. The best you could do would be to encourage them or something - offer a bonus of cash or the like to those willing to move outside the cities for a set period. Like offer to give them a full downpayment on a house or something if they will live in Likely BC or something But you couldn't withhold gov't services or the like, Those would have to be provided no matter where they lived.

Well it's probably too soon to say why it's happening for sure, but it's not controversial that it's happening and it's definitely covid related. But these people weren't vaxxed. This showed up before the vaccine even came out. So we can say for certain that the problem at the very least exists alongside any vaccine side effects. There's way too many cases to blow off. There are literally tens of thousands. they say 1 in 15 had lingering problems and many had serious problems stretching out a year or more. And it slowed down after vaccines and variants came out, it didn't speed up. So it appeared in huge numbers before the vaccine and only was found in people who were recovering from covid. I'm all over additional research but come on. You'd have to be pretty good at self deception to claim covid wasn't a direct factor for this.

Then people will move their money elsewhere whether they go or not. Period. More importantly we wont' get investment in canada. So not only will those people not have a home they won't have a job. And even better, the few who do build houses and make things will charge more money to make up the new taxes. Guess who pays for that. You'd only be taxing the poor and middle class. And driving up inflation. You really need to think - what you're talking about will get people homeless and destitute, and that gets people killed. Smarten up.