CdnFox

well we bought the damn thing and you have to shoot SOMETHING with it...

This has the ring of truth, athough i did see one study specifically addressing first generation covid and masks. It indicated that specifically in small enclosed poorly ventilated areas (inside someone's office for example) masks could be useful extending the amount of time you need to be exposed before you catch it. In other words, if it took 15 mins of exposure without a mask it might take a half hour with one. You would still get it if you stayed long enough. But the masks were useless outdoors, in well ventilated areas like larger high ceiling grocery stores etc. AND- that was original covid, not delta or later which was much more contagious. And it didn't address contact transmission. So - USELESS? Probably not useless. But - so CLOSE to useless that it only would be helpful in very very select circumstances and not worth making mandatory at all.

Well if they were the first immigrants in fairness they would also be the first nation right? As to indigenous - depends on your definition. We did not evolve into humans on this land. But it is the land of our birth and creation. So when it comes to canada, either everybody born here is indigenous or nobody is, depending on your definition.

ohhhh - GAY jokes!! I get it - you're not just a commie, you're not just a hypocrite, you're not just a dishonest person, you're ALSO homophobic! Wow - you really are the full package aren't you Tell me again how you don't resort to insults You started this. Don't get mad at me that you can't finish it translation: Wahhhh wahhhhh - i picked a fight with someone and they turned out to be tougher than me and i want them to stop but they won't do what i tell them tooooo WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH! Wow it really is amusing to see this in a thread about the ukraine war You and putin should start a support group I know - try ordering me to go away again. See if that helps.

Lying to yourself is one way to cope i guess I bet any money if i post what you said you'll still try to claim you didn't say it or you meant to say something else but lets try. Me: It has been upheld many times by the supreme court that a thing doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in the charter or the constitution to be a right. And generally people have the right to do anything except where restricted by the gov't specifically and such restrictions are not to be unreasonable (there's actually a recognized test for that). Blackbird: Not necessarily. Did you read what I wrote? The historic right to own long guns is well-established in Canada within the framework of training, passing an exam, and receiving a permit. That cannot be arbitrarily taken away. You in reply: I read your post. You’re wrong. You literally directly replied to him and replied the same to me elsewhere that even tho we were very specific about the framework and that it wasn't a primary right WE WERE WRONG. So there you go. Looks like I really do 'win again'. You should feel pretty ashamed of your performance, and you owe both of us an apology. Id' be willing to bet you aren't that good of a person tho.

No, that's basically the opposite of what i meant. Nobody who actually understands the issue uses the term 'Mass' immigration. It's the literary equivalent of going over an overpass with your turn signal on. It's like a sign to the world "blink blink, i'm clueless" But i was trying to be nice about it No, most of that is just dumb. The first part is just kind of xenophobic - it's only 'mass' based on language? How does THAT work. Mass is a function of volume , not ethnicity. Yeash. THe rest is about as intelligent. The vast vast majorty of people speak english even if they can speak another language or even if they prefer one. My grandparents spoke german and russian at home quite a bit even tho they spoke perfect english - do you have some sort of problem with that? None of that makes any immigration "Mass". Sure. I think i mentioned some of the limiting factors i consider to be important. No, i said it's used by people for that purpose to convey that sense but that it has no meaning in this context. Look at your own examples - "mass" immigration means you don't like the language they use. Well that isn't Mass. That just means you would prefer different immigrants who spoke a language you approve of. Which economists are those? I haven't seen any suggesting that. Pushing the retirement age back was really about addressing other problems. Still a good idea but different topic The person who ISN"T an economist by trade (although is by training many decades ago) doesn't say that. He doesn't talk about declining populations. He talks about trying to offset the boomer bubble with increased immigration, That is an ENTIRELY different issue. If that were true there would be no problem. It is not. Sorry. I literally addressed that directly. Well over a paragraph. So - maybe read a little before you comment. There is a great deal that suggests it would. But the devil is always in the details of course. Oh dear. Well.... i guess we can see where the problem is. First - despite the headline the 'bank' doesn't really say much about immigration holding wages back. There's no detail. That leads me to believe that they're using the standard data. Well - the problem with that is right in the observation made by the 'bank' itself. The difference in immigraiton - which means the numbers are a little skewed. Here's how it works. Immigrants are NOT desirable for businesses for the most part. Most businesses would rather hire people who were raised here, speak the language and understand the culture perfectly, were educated in our systems and methods. etc. And they like strong ties to the community which come from being raised here. They will pay top dollar for Canadian workers outside of the most basic jobs. They will pay LESS for an immigrant because they are percieved as 'not as good', at least for a long time after the immigrant arrives So - they're willing to pay 30 for a canadian, and only 20 for an immigrant. In fact many will pay 35 to attract canadians and only 15 to an immigrant. So they don't drag down canadian wages. But look at the math. If you have 10 canadians earning 30 and 1 immirgant earning 15 then the average wage is 28.65 If you rack up immigration and now there's 10 canadians and 3 immigrants the average wage is only 26.53. oh noes - the wages are falling!!!! But it's still the same for the canadians. And it's still the same for immigrants. It's just the ratio that's changed. So immgration doesn't actually change wages. It just changes the 'average'. It' s a common misconception that businesses "want" immigrants because they're "lower wage" - but the reason they're lower wage is taht businesses don't want them. They'd rather have canadians if they can. Except mcdonalds or the like. So raise them. You'll get no argument from me that trudeau is screwing up immigration which is something we were doing very well previously at least since 2006 when we made the last significant changes. But that doesn't mean we shoudn't have immigration. Your suggestion to stop it would not be a good thing,.

I suppose if you don't have an intelligent argument then lying and buzzwords is always an option You very literally did. You said you have no right to that property. I and others pointed out you do - the federal gov't cannot deny you ownership of a thing without lawful excuse. You cried to the heavens NOOOOOO NOOOOOTTT TRUEEEEE now it's like 'oh yeah, everyone knows that' LOL - tell me you haven't got a clue without telling me Now - as to arbitrary removal of property, you're actually wrong there as well. The feds can arbitrarily take your lawful property at any time provided they first pass a law. That's what the charter of rights says. They can literally say "as of today, treebeard's house and stash of inappropriate anime and dope belongs to the gov't. Poof!" And you no longer own it. So in fact they can take literally anything they want from anyone if they follow the procedure and can do so arbitrarily. The gov't is not really beholden to your rights. They can make it illegal for you to practice your religion, they can make it illegal for you to be married, they can do whatever they like. So 'rights' in Canada are a little bit more fluid than some other places. iF you doubt that - ask the japanese about it.

Well - he was installed as leader of the party but his party WAS elected and formed gov't. And that's thanks to the liberal voters. And they do need to step up and give a crap for a change.

Really? Because you argued otherwise until a second ago Seriously if you don't feel a little stupid for not figuring that out until right now there's something wrong with you We do have a right to firearms subject to reasonable restrictions (as i believe i told you some time ago). We don't have an absolute right as they do in the states, not to be infringed. But we do have a right. As these police found out.

My folks came from manitoba. Not sure how going back there would help I'm as 'native' to canada as anyone else. The first nations 'folks' came from aisa. We're all descended from immigrants here. We call first nations indigenous from time to time but of course that's not true. Mind you it wasn't true they were 'Indians' either. Definitely in the running for 'most mislabeled people in history'. As to obligations the fact is the definition of and recognition of obligations change all the time. A court says 'well, when we look at it this way these are the obligations", only to have another court later say "But, now that i look at it from this different perspective, THIS is how it is..." etc. The recognized 'obligations ' have changed much over the years. I'm sure the first nations have all kinds of ideas as to what 'obligations' they feel they are owed. But the fact is that it's all pretty much bullshit - the obligations are whatever the majority of people will accept. If the majority feel differently then one way or another things will change. So saying there's no way for the country to 'get out of them' is ridiculous. Of course we can - we just change the obligations. No problem. I think the majority of people by far would like to see the wrongs of the past at least somewhat corrected and i think most would be willing to pay IF it meant the first nations were able to get on their own feet and care for themselves instead of being cared for like children as they are now. And i think that's true regardless of 'obligation'. But that can and inevitably will change. The first nations can't play victim forever, eventually they have to produce results and start being responsible for their own lives.

I take it you're talking to your mirror ???

No, you got it wrong in this case. There have been a number of cases where people took the police or gov't to court and the courts agreed that they could NOT take their guns away outside the framework of the current law. He was very specific about that. That's what the law says. Here's a recent case but there are dozens and dozens and the judges say the same thing - if you can't prove why you should take the guns, then he has the right to them: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-valley-hunter-fights-gun-seizure-in-court-self-represented-and-gets-his-firearms-back As you say - it's the law.

Buzzwords instead of addressing the issue must be yours. You couldn't come up with a single rebuttal to the facts i posted i see. So why did you mention property then? No one else did - that was you . So - it's so simple that you couldn't understand it? LOL!!!! First off - i love that you went from 'THERE"S NO LEGAL DEFENSE" to "you MAY be charged... " LOL. You are nothing if not amusing As to the rest - breaking into a car and a home are radically different things. Canada recognizes the castle principle. If someone invades your home you have the right to assume they mean you harm just by that fact and can act accordingly. That's got nothing to do with defense of property. As to defense of property you can arrest someone who's stealing your property and if they resist and try to harm you then you can shoot them if necsesary. Same as the police. But again that's still self defense. I don't know where you got the whole 'property' thing from but that's really not what's being discussed.

Sure. The libs have the pet ndp to turn their minorities into majorities Yes he did, and he frequently put out reports and did his job so obviously he did And harper didn't get along with the first one but he got along fine with the second one. The contempt motion was to force an election by the opposition and we all know how that turned out - the voters said 'bugger off' to the oppositon and harper got a majority. That's the word you used. So if what you're saying is that the only leg i can stand on is that what you said is wrong... er.. ok, i guess so. Well normally i don't approve of self-diagnosis but i think you've hit your problem right on the head there The irony of you claiming others are doing it is delicious You have these little freak outs (and not just with me i notice) and then crybaby about how it's everyone else who's "emotional", and when it's pointed out you claim others are the REAL emotional ones LOL! Check your medical coverage - maybe you can get some therapy covered?

No it didn't. You started it off and i wasn't even replying to you, Bugger off child. This ain't russia, you don't get to order me around. You're pathetic.

ROFLMAO - well suuuuuure. You didn't suggest i was a liar. You didn't freak out making claims i said things i didn't None of that right? Please. You acted like a childish jackass and now you're trying to play the innocent martyr . Awwww poor you. Life is hard. Oh look - the russian advocate wants to give me orders and silence me. What a shock So you attack me - i attack back and you're on the defensive and you want to blame me for it. Hnmmmm- what conflict could that POSSIBLY remind me of? Putin, is that you? Boges was a Persian official and military commander, who functioned as governor (hyparchos) of Eion in Thrace (Achaemenid satrapy of Skudra) under the King of Kings Xerxes I (r. 486–465 BC).[1] Huh. Odd reference but ok.

But actually. He followed through on a lot of them. More and more over time. Remember that he only had a minority gov't for the majority of his time in power. That limits what you can do (unless the ndp is propping you up of course ) No, that's certainly not true. The PBO always had enough to do its' job even when it occasionally fought for more. And if your evidence that harper was not transparent is that he hired someone who shed light on every single area that wasn't being fully reported then i'm afraid you defeated your own argument. No they didn't. Sorry, that's just made up. THe media always wants MORE access but they didn't complain about it crumbling. That would be YOU being emotional not me ROFLMAO - god you suck at this

The left is always eager to spend other people's money to solve a problem Personal responsibility isn't in the cards Or imaginary dollars they can can just print. Money printer go brrrrrrrrr.... And then they wonder why we have economic issues Ahhh well. The first nations demands and positions are getting more and more outrageous and i think that people are getting sick of it and sympathy is starting to fall , These are after all a people who keep voting liberal - and yet the liberals treat them the worst of any party. But yet - thanks for the donation! it's getting to the point these days where you have to wonder if many in the first nations don't want 'reconciliation', but rather intend to use the bodies of their ancestors as a cheap theatrics in order to exploit them to extort money for themselves today. There certainly is a feeling of that when you read things like 'we should only consider one side's history and not the other when discussing reconciliation'. It's all getting rather ghoulish.

Yes -but by and large they don't work. They just drive up the price of housing. I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. Did someone say businesses weren't in it for profit? Gov't is in the business of providing services and also providing fertile ground for the market forces that the country needs. If they interfere with those forces by excessive beurocracy, it may require something from them to offset that to allow the ship to right itself. Sure but if people don't have a place to live they riot and burn cities. That's just life, no matter what you might think. So at the end of the day there has to be enough product to satisfy the need. Generally speaking I agree. But - if the gov'ts actions are making homes more expensive in the first place, then that changes the picture. If they're going to cause the problem, then there is a need for them to help fix the problem. AND - we're not just talking about buying here. This affects rentals just as much. A home is a home whether it's rented or sold and if there's not enough and you can't buy and can't rent then there's going to be a problem.

Awwww muffin - don't go away mad, just go away Obviously you need your cookie and your nap. It's not my fault you can't read and choose to call others liars when they didn't. Next time dont be such a Cont, you fooker ROFLMAO!

No they weren't. if anything he generally got marks for improving transparency. When he got critisized it was generally not for making improvements fast enough, but not for making things worse. Transparency was bad going into it and it was better when he left Whereas trudeau is universally condemned for his making transparency far worse. Soooo - your story isn't adding up here. That's still voting for corruption, bad governance and all that good stuff. All you're suggesting is they prefer that to other options. That's still bad. ROFLMAO - i never mentioned anything 'emotional' - i think you must be talking to the mirror So basically is that how you work? Whatever you're feeling you apply to others? You think i'm smarter so you assume i must think that as well, you get emotional so you assume i must be getting emotional as well? Wow. You're a little broken aren't you.

I didn't say i didn't refer to your post. I said i wasn't replying to you. So stop lying What kind of loser do you have to be to accuse someone of that twice and still be wrong? Further: lets look at your quote: "Saying "we dont' need to add ww3 to our problems" suggests that if we allow putin to have his way then he'll be happy " Where in there do you see the word 'capitulation'? In fact - where do you see the words 'he said"? So when you claim i quoted you saying that capitulation is bad or the like, that's just a blatant lie. I said that saying we don't need ww3 SUGGETS - not that YOU MEAN or anything. It SUGGESTS that if we allow putin to have his way then he'll be happy. And it does. Sorry if you don't like that. But nowhere does it claim that you said that. Now if you're done being a complete dolt for the morning, then move on. I"m not your therapist.

Of course i do And the only thing i've been "caught" at is pointing out the gross errors of your arguments and then your immedate freak outs after Nobody is making up anything - those are your words and your sentiments and when they get pointed out you try to either pretend you said something different or change the channel. Which is exactly what you're doing here. Once again you couldn't address the argument and you're trying to attack me instead to cover the fact you couldn't refute what i said, You're beginning to convince me that you are right - I AM actually smarter than you

I've commented on this already. "punishment by process" is bad. They shouldn't. It's an abuse of power. For many years the firearms community fought back against this kind of nonsens by crowdfunding for teh person's defense whenever anything like this came up to cover the costs and send a message to the prosecutors. I've been out of that for a while so i don't know if they still do but a lot of cases were eventually won based on that.

The cost of the land is determined by the value of what you can build on it. It has always been this way for developers. So the cost of the land goes up to match the value of the housing or whatever you plan to build and sell. It's a reverse drive not a forward drive. THat's why the cost of building is the same everywhere (more or less) but the cost of the land fluctuates radically. Location location location. If there were enough houses then prices would go down and that would mean the land value would go down as well. Because there are not enough homes. That is INEVITABLE. And it's not the last few years, my family has always been involved in real estate and i remember when it suddenly became a thing to put in full price offers and then suddenly there were bidding wars with buyers sitting out in their cars as agents ran in and out with new offers. That was UNHEARD of. And that started in the early 2000's in parts of the country. No subject offers etc suddenly became the norm. Some reports say that we've been falling behind by 100,000 homes per year since 2016 just to keep the problem from getting worse. Some now say we're a million homes short in this country. For sure. And the current structure STRONGLY discourages developers from building enough homes to match demand. That needs to change. There isn't any 'one' thing you can change to fix the problem. We need to change how projects are green lit, we need to green light a lot more of them and streamline the process, we need to change how developers are taxed on new homes before they're sold, changes to lending and funding rules would help, and we may need to look at something like a gov't based 'real estate investment bank' to offset some of the issues created by overregulation in the past to get builders to build more homes than they can immediately sell right now. It ain't easy. But at the end of the day the solution is more homes. Nothing else will make a difference.