CdnFox

Well there's the kick in the teeth. Eventually it has to come out. The logic for hiding it form the parent is that it's POSSIBLE that the parent MIGHT be angry and become violent or something, despite the fact that the parents in these cases don't have a history of that. (if they do call the cops and have them arrested) Yet - eventually this HAS to come out - now whatever feelings the parents may have with regards to the transition are COMPOUNDED by the sense of betrayal by the system, and the sense of betrayal from the child who has basically said they trust their teachers more than their parents and they believe their parents would physically harm them, which is probably the furthest thing from the truth. So if there was already a chance that the family would turn their back on them or be unsupportive, that chance just jumped several hundred percent. And the parents would never trust the school again. That might be a problem if they have OTHER children in the school system. The whole practice is wrong morally and it's wrong logically.

You are incorrect. 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). When alberta challenged the feds over gun control the courts ruled that firearms ownership IS INDEED A RIGHT. But that it's a tertiary right and that the gov't is within it's rights to regulate it in the name of safety and security in the country. If you are of the opinion that ONLY rights SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the charter exist legally in canada, there are SEVERAL groups who would like to have a word with you.

I do believe there are still strong cases to be made for EV's in specific individual cases. I don't think they're a horrible idea over all. I just don't think they scale well and attempting to shoe horn a majority of the population into that solution will end in disaster on several levels.

Well a pension is not a subsidy. Seriously,- c'mon And elections canada doesn't subsidize his party, elections canada pays for the election. That is not remotely the same thing. When we have an election then Elections canada covers the cost on behalf of the taxpayer. It is the TAXPAYER who is the beneficiary. This is in order to provide the taxpayer a free and fair democratic process. So no - that's not subsidizing him personally. I"m quite sure he's getting paid, but he's not getting subsidized.

That would be bad enough but unfortunately i think it's worse. I think they have now gotten to the point where they are completely rogue and will pursue whatever left wing agenda is in their heads. If they'd rather see the liberals in power - then they deliberately organize their publications in such a way as to support that. IF they don't like the convoy as many on the left didn't, then they deliberately lie and print false information in order to vilify it. If for some reason the decided they didn't like trudeau then they would be slanting the news to get rid of him. We've seen their recent completely unsubstantiated attack on danielle smith. They are a power unto themselves. They believe they are entitled to their money and nobody can stop them. They don't just report events - they want to control them. They want to be a political power within the country with no master. They have to go

errr..... well alrighty then.

We need to be clear that the problem is not 'immigration'. Strong levels of immigration (certainly compared to other countries) is a positive thing for Canada. This really isn't about immigration. It's about not keeping infrastructure including houses, health, etc growing at the same rate as our population is. And just to be blunt - we are experiencing this worse than any other country anywhere by a huge factor. We build far fewer homes per capita than just about anyone else in the g7 and our population, both permanent and temporary, is growing at a very high rate per capita and accelerating. And worse - as i mentioned the way our whole system is structured currently developers will ALWAYS be building behind demand. In other words - if you cut immigration today development would slow within a short time and the problem would remain and grow worse albeit at a slightly slower pace. Solving this will require some pretty radical changes and the feds would likely have to lead that charge. And even if they do that the fact is that it will take a minimum of a decade after we start till the problem is brought under control, and possibly up to 2 before it's resolved and things are sloser to normal. What i'm concerned will happen is that people will grow impatient and a left wing gov't will offer to 'fix' the problem by building a bunch of 'gov't rental housing' in large numbers to rent out at 'affordable rates', and that will be a disaster in and of itself. Theres no big problems with a gov't doing that a little bit, but if they try solve this problem that way it will be a catastrophe.

Not till he wins a seat he isn't.

Why are you being dishonest about goal posts being moved? There is none. At least when you look at our 'hate' speech as it's used today. It can be considered hate to state that a biological male is a male if they preferred to be thought of as a female. But that is in no way hatred at all, it's a factually correct statement. Some people just don't like other people saying it and it offends their sense of what is right and wrong, but that's just their opinion. It could be considered blasphemy to suggest that the universe MAY have come into being as an act of causation and evolution, and not by any deity's hand. But that's a factual statement - that may be how it happend. Some people just don't like other people saying it and it offends their sense of what is right and wrong, but that's just their opinion. The only 'difference' occurs when one group tries to claim the issues THEY care about are more important than the other's so it's "Justified" in their case. But no, it's exactly the same thing. In both cases it's people saying something that another person doesn't like and that other person wraps themselves in 'righteous indignation' and demands the other person be prevented saying such things by force of law regardless if they're true or not. Suppressing an "offensive" opinion or fact in the name of "A Greater Good" where no one is actually threatened and no crime is being proposed or committed is absolutely common to both. It's just a case of whether or not you prefer to wrap yourself in holy indignation or social justice outrage. Bullshit. I just did it without one and frankly you have no interest in analyzing anything. You are pursuing a rather cheezy online debating trick where you are afraid you'll lose the discussion as is so you try to drag it into another direction by getting mired into the specifics of one example after another, possibly with a little sealioning thrown in for good measure. As you tried to do with the native issue i posted. Very dishonest.

Yeah - but he's still a dink right? Putin?

I hear there are some truck EV's either available or coming on line soon. But the bottom line is that even if that weren't the issue today, some of the more sticky problems with EV's are just not going to go away. In some areas the environmental savings is highly questionable. THe power grid upgrades are not happening in the near future and i see no plans to make them happen. New buildings aren't even being built with the capacity to charge all the vehicles if they were ev's. And retrofitting old ones is going to be an expensive nightmare. I like the ideas of ev's. I like the reduction in smog in the cities and i think that when the tech matures just a LITTLE more they will be a great option if we can solve the power issues. I think that if you look at the model A ford you could find all kinds of problems, but it wasn't long till things got better. But i just don't see that we're going to be there soon, and it seems like really pushing hybrid tech would bridge that gap nicely.

Awww muffin Don't go away mad So the cbc website is the worst place to get news? Well - i'm not saying you're wrong but i'm surprised you feel that way. There are TONNES of free access news sites and you've ALWAYS had to pay for newspapers. I've used those services. more than enough to read a newspaper or even watch a cbc news broadcast online. Did you think the CBC was free? We're paying for the news one way or another. I just dont' want to pay for YOU to watch the news. You pay for you and i'll pay for me So i was right Well that's a HELL of a lot less than i pay in taxes so sounds good!!!! Lets go with that Look - if someone somewhere wants to give you free service then great - grab it. But - don't expect ME to pay for YOUR 'Free' service. And don't complain if i don't want to. The cbc will be defunded and if people want it they can pay for it. If they don't it dies as well it should. It was necessary once upon a time - those times are long gone and they are bias as crap.

You can't even read my post and respond to it sensibly and you feel you're going to 'analyse' Canadian law? If what you were hoping for was a rational discourse, don't you think starting off with a little honesty and fairly addressing the concerns raised would have been appropriate? By failing to do so and making demands of others all you demonstrate is that a) you have no interest in a reasoned discussion and b) you suspect that deep down we have a point and would like to avoid it. Next time come to the table as an honest player and we can try again - but don't mistake me for someone who suffers foolishness lightly. In the meantime i'm sure if you try real hard you can find plenty of examples of people being cancelled or fired or arrested for their speech. Sadly, the examples are legion.

So what you're saying is you didn't read my post and/or can't address the concern. Well - you may be a bit of a troll but you're an honest one I appreciate that.

tonnes. But is there a point? I'm thinking that even if i provided 100 or 1000 no matter how good they are you'd find exception or excuse for them. I mean, it seems a little disingenuous that you're claiming you know NOTHING of any such language laws in canada where speaking against the established doctrine is an offense. Seriously you've NEVER heard of anything like that, absolutely cannot possibly guess what i'm talking about, that's your position is it? And you don't think it's still going on? Oh btw - just gonna leave this here .... enjoy https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-residential-school-denialism-declared-hate-speech-1.6744100

Have they? last i saw they doubled down on it when it was pointed out they hadn't even seen the 'emails' claiming that the unknown source was SOOOo reliable that everyone should just trust them. Nice if they have retracted it - i wouldn't know, i rarely have time to read the paper all the way to page 78 these days and i'm sure it would have been after that Our weakness is our strength.

You'd have to be a devout believer of the new religion to believe that

No, if anything prices were stagnant in the 1980s. In fact it did start before then. I would argue we saw it begin somewhere not long after the turn of the century, with a brief pause during the recession but then quickly making up ground. But - it became severely exacerbated during Justin's time and has now grown from a problem to a crisis and bordering on a national disaster and yes his immigration policy is making it much worse. You have to tie immigration levels into the increases in infrastructure or it will be a fail. At the end of the day tho it's about population. You have to make sure that your medical, educational, housing, etc is keeping pace with your population growth. Always. Whether that population is temporary or permanent, natural or immigrant, if you don't have basic resources pretty soon it gets ugly.

Man, there are days where if i could only think of a way to get off the planet....

Pretty close to 100 percent. of the elected people most will serve on one committee or another and they all have influence. Some more than others but none are none so to speak. But why wait - you can have an impact at the policy convention as well and that does have a major impact. As to the rest - the perfect leader for everyone is just not a thing. You look for a good leader and work with them I get if you're a little too old to be 'standing up' any more. I feel that way myself some times. But that's a choice - that's not because you wouldn't be able to. I get the idea of hangin' up the shootin' irons - we all get there. But if you wanted to, you could have a large impact. And i've met dozens and dozens of mp's over the years and they've always had time for me and others. I'm sure there's the odd one who doesn't but it's literally their job. For those who want real change - get up get involved and participate. It's actually easier than you think to make real change.

It is in fact. You do gain some efficiency because a power plant can be geared to run at 'constant' speeds rather than needing to accelerate etc. And some forms of fossil fuels are less polluting that gas or oil. But - in some places it doesn't make as much sense, you lose most of the benefit and the cost of getting there is pretty high.

Wow - how childish. You "lose" a discussion and have a hissy fit. Sorry kiddo - the bible is in fact a unique and seperate collection of values and it did influence canada's creation. And you haven't been able to offer a single example otherwise. You say "Roman" then are forced to admit they had different laws and moral values. I don't know what to tell you, You run along now, sounds like you could use a cookie and a nap. You're at that level of debate at this point.

It absolutely does. Liberal issues go seriously underreported and conservative mistakes stay in their news cycle. They don't report on anything that other papers don't. And it's not about not wanting to hear - i can always change the channel. But i shouldn't HAVE to pay. It would be like being forced as a tax payer to pay for fox news. A valid point - in 1970. There is virtually no where in canada right now that you can't get internet service and have access to all kinds of news. But sure - you're correct, they should pay for it if they like it. It is a completely bias news source. That is the simple truth. Which is fine, most are - but not if they're going to be on the public dime. So defund them and let them make a go at it in the public market. If people like you find the coverage good you won't mind paying for it out of your own pocket right? Or is it that you just demand your agenda be pushed for free?

Well as i've mentioned and you've been unable to refute we know that's not the case. Sorry It certainly is murder by our definitions. So - i guess they really DID need to be told what murder was And there's plenty of other examples. Shoot a man for stealing your horse - not murder. etc etc. Uhhhh - yea - because of christian values. Prior to that contact, not so much It's perfectly valid. You just realize that it's correct and there's no counter argument so you choose to attack it's validity rather than address it. Nope - it would be the same either way. Again - the fact it originated in one place doesnt mean it didn't also originate somewhere else independently. And in the case of tomatoes that's actually not far off as several species came about in different places. And it's 10 times easier for an idea to pop up in more than one place independent of each other You've realized you don't have a very good point haven't you SImply repeating something instead of making an argument doesn't make it true. As i've shown there are massive differences in laws from place to place, the christian version of morality is unique to itself even if similar (but different) elements appear in other beliefs. Sorry this upsets you so much but yet - the christian belief model is unique and there can be no doubt it's been formative. And as i've noted it didn't exist for "thousands" of years before Oh - are we back to pretending you didn't mention any laws? I quoted one, did you want me to do some mo So simple that it's wrong. And "based on' is not the same as "are" If they are "based" on something they they are by definition different than that thing. So they have evolved or grown into something new. So even though i've demonstrated that you're wrong and these morals are NOT ubiquitous nor are they what came before, even if you were right and they were BASED on something that came before they would still be unique and stand alone. Sorry - that statement is false demonstrably. The bible was never adapted into law. And roman law bears little resemblance to our laws, which use the bible as a base for the moral portions of the law. So the statement is just plain wrong across the board. And with that i think you've pretty much exhausted your argument. The biblical code of morality did not exist before the bible even if some general concepts are somewhat vaguely similar. In fact most are very different. There is no universal set of ethcis that the bible is based on. Our laws are not derrived from the bible but many are based on the morality within it. I get that you desperately want the bible to have no relevance in our system but for better or worse it is patently obvious that it does. Or at least did in the early days. Sorry for the inconvenience

It's bias, expensive and people should't be forced to pay for it'? Do you need more? The right aren't traditionalists. You're about 100 years too late for that. But they do tend to be patriotic which leads to your next point, Well i think all that would probably still be an issue whether they were traditionalists or not LOL Then there's the constant propping up of the liberals. well whether they despise canada or not the fact is that it's highly questionable to force people to pay for them. If people care about that art they should be willing to fund it from their own pockets.