CdnFox

That is not accurate. They are available easily to anyone. But - there's no value to them UNLESS you earn a LOT of money. One of the reasons for that is we tax the hell out of people who earn a lot of money. And the more we tax, the more it become worth it to go through the bother of avoiding tax. There's absolutely nothing to stop some guy earning 40 grand a year form taking advantage of those 'boutique' tax opportunities but there would be no point. But if we're looking at a guy who earns 70 k vs a guy who earns 700 k, even with all the tax breaks in the world the guy who makes 70 k has more ability to shelter a larger percent of his income and pay a lower aggregate tax rate

That would pretty much be the joke and everything that you said after it We've already done your little "But humor can never be hateful" followed by your "Your humor is hateful' routine. And it's not just me as we saw. Sorry kid, you can keep up your desperate pleading not to be a loser and i can keep coming here and laughing at you as long as you like - but it's not going to change the truth. You're spending WAY too much time getting laughed at by multiple people. Are you sure you don't have a little masochist in you?

Sure - and if you can show a path to effective reductions that impact actual global warming then i'd get behind that too - i just don't see it. But we can agree to agree that a) adaption is necessary and b) if there is a solution to reducing the harm then it can happen at the same time,

Well the thing of it is, when you go to a gas station and they take their share of the price for gas they give you gas. When the gov't takes it's share of the money you paid for gas, you don't get anything. The closest you get to them giving you gas is upset stomach thinking about it. So - rather than blame the guy who's actually selling the product and giving me something for my money, i'm more inclined to blame the guys who charge JUST AS MUCH and give me nothing. And even better yet - they charge GST on the tax they collected for the gas. "Here - lemmie just tax you for that tax you paid".

Fair enough The only thing we could reasonably do is develop new tech such as battery storage and energy creation tech that would eliminate the need for GHG creation at an affordable price. That's pretty much it. Instead we did a carbon tax that changed nothing, committed to all kinds of targets in paris that we've totally missed, and patted ourselves on the back about how nobel we are while the weather warms. Give me a solid plan that would actually make a real difference and i'll support it but it's getting hard to know what that would even look like.

It is not possible for us to address the fundimental causes no matter what we do - simultaneous or not. China's increases its' GHG emissions by the entire amount Canada puts out every two years. If we stopped everything tomorrow and shut the whole country down and everyone died - two years later china will have replaced us with new emissions. At best we can be a bit of a symbol and lead by example so to speak - which would be fine but we're not even doing that. Trudeau has missed his paris accord targets by a mile. The only other thing we could do would be to put massive resources into developing next gen tech that will reduce the world's need to use carbon fuels etc. And we're not even bothering with that. So 'simultaneous' really isn't in the cards for us at this point. Except we are simultaneously achieving neither.

Sure - which is why justin and you dolts on the left have been so successful fighting climate change right? Thanks to 7 years of you m0rons we were able to avoid any forest fires this year at all... oh wait.... You don't care about climate change. you care about virtue signalling about climate change.

You and the voices in your head don't represent this thread Sorry kid Kid - you're a hate filled loser who showed up to spew hatred and got called on it. And all you've done is do post after post trying to defend the indefensible. And you're so upset with yourself that you're only defense is to try to attack me - but i really don't give a crap what a person like you thinks of me so all it's doing is making me laugh watching you flail about As entertaining as it is to watch you sink deeper and deeper into desperation and anxiety over this, you MIGHT want to think about stepping back for a little bit at least. You're very clearly letting yourself be emotionally damaged over it

AAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH (brealthes in...) HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!! Well of course it is. That is comfortably the dumbest thing you've said on this board and that's saying something. And it was the left who turned it into one. As they do with everything it was "this is the way it is an anyone who disagrees or asks questions is cancelled!!!" More recently anyone who doesn't believe heart and soul in the carbon tax is a denier and scumbag. Despite the fact it obviously did nothing. If the liberals cilmate policy didn't stop the sumer of fires, floods and storms people are going to start asking questions about why they're lisening to the liberals who've been in pwoer for the last 7 years and achieved nothing

IF anyone's picking apart your stuff on that kind of level in a casual online conversation, refer them to a good psychiatrist. You were clearly working for dumb people. I'm hoping the people you work for now are a little brighter. Yeash - with the old people's attitudes we'd have never developed any of our modern sciences or technology. Mind you, i guess we also woudln't have invented the atom bomb so... maybe they had a point LOL

No, that would be the disjointed and dysphoric thinking of those on the left. What sane people say is "reasonably even if we take it as read that the climate change is a result of humans, there's nothing we can reasonably do as a country that's going to make any difference. So - while we should do what we can our focus has to be on adapting". What the loonie left says is "We must immediately implement a tax because that will work despite the fact it hasn't at all. And china should be forgiven because they're a new emerging economy and climate change will respect that and won't happen because of their emissions. And if you want to adapt then you're a denier". So the sane people watch the forests burn knowing that the nutbars won't help them do anything to ACTUALLY stop it, and the nutbars watch it burn warmed by the fires and their passionate virtue signalling, knowing that they can pretend they cared and that's all that mattered

Well sounds like you used to hang out with people who focused too much on the process and didn't understand what reason and logic are. I hung out with a different crowd personally. But canadian education standards are a little different in the end.

Umm - nobody said you didn't I just pointed out why it's easy to see that is the correct thing to believe And if someone wanted fish for dinner they would go to the store and buy some. Both statements are irrelevant to the conversation though. Proving anything is usually more difficult than it sounds. But - in the real world you gather what information you have and make reasonable analysis and you keep an open mind against the day when new information becomes available. And as it is there's pretty strong evidence what i've said is correct - others being wealthy doesn't prelude you from being wealthy in our current model, and in fact it may help. While 'strong evidence' is not 'absolute proof', it's reasonable to accept it till additional info is available. That's how most sciences operate.

Then there's not enough data present for the math to be remotely relevant to the discussion However - the math alone would not prove or disprove it. It would simply give more detail as to what's happening but it wouldn't be a complete picture of this particular issue. Educated opinions based on logic and reason are the start of all our knowledge. It may be some time before the data can prove it, but that's where it starts. We're just proving some of einstein's theoretical ideas in the last year or two here - if you wait for proof before attempting to come up with a prediction you will never get anywhere. Well we know wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth can be created, there's not a limited supply. Its' not like there's a "wealthonium" mine some where and whomever owns it has all the wealth So what you really mean is it a zero sum game in our society/country and it's structure and it's pretty easily demonstrable it is not. Not relevant to the discussion. But sure, why not.

IF it is your job to take measures - as it is for the voters - and you don't do it then yes - you support corruption. Yes it does - and maybe stop faking other people's quotes in your replies. I know you love to fake other people saying things but it's kind of inappropriate as you can see

You seem to be badly missing the point. Sometimes when people feel they know a topic, they wind up missing the obvious because it's so easy to get wrapped up in the minutia. That seems to be preventing you from having a reasonable position on the matter. Regardless of what math you choose to use, in the real world either the income gap is the cause of people's lack of wealth or it isn't. And in the society we live in today it isn't. It's not that complicated. The fact someone else is rich does not hold you personally back from accumulating wealth. And if you're putting your Y in a place that suggests it is, then there's a problem with you not with the math

They were. THe commissioner he set up caught trudeau. The law he put in place tripped teh liberals up from corrupting the justice system. But. YOU and your kind let them off the hook. You support justin despite this. And yet you're the first to whine like a batch about 'accountability'. When you refuse to hold justin accountable for what he's done. You defend him here regularly At the end of the day you don't give a flying fig about accountability.

Oh look - Michael is defending justin again. Imagine that Tell us all again how you're not a left winger Michael? The cops said it was a crime. THe ethics comissioner said it was unlawful and unethical. But - Mikey knows best and no no ... it's perfectly natural for a Prime Minister to recieve an all expense holiday to a private island worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from a paid lobbyist who's lobbying his gov't. There you go boys - liberal ethics at work

Sure, but long term is how you have to view economies. Short term is important but today's investments fuel tomorrow's consumerism. I think the very statement is flawed. "closing the income gap" isn't something you do which leads to something else - it's what doing something leads to. If left to it's natural devices a fair market will lead to some being very rich but everyone over all climbing. If the gap lessens then it's a symptom of a problem, not a cure. The only reason anyone talks about it is that someone wants what someone else has and they don't want to have to bother earning it, they want it given to them because "muh Feels". As long as there's no absolute barriers to personal growth and wealth creation for everyone else then leave the rich alone.

It's not out of our control - we just don't control it. Arguing how much of climate change is 'man made' or 'natural' etc is a m0ron's argument in practical terms. Pretending that we as a nation were ever in a position to affect it is beyond stupid. But - that's all the gov't has done. Pretended they could affect it and then DONE NOTHING. Trudeau brought in a carbon tax which has not made one tiny bit of difference but which he's using to line the gov'ts pockets. And that's it. Everyone can agree that for whatever reason climate change is happening and always is. Hardly the first time in human history where climate change radically changed the world and almost wiped us out. So - what we SHOULD be doing is adapting We've known forest fires would get worse for a decade now. Have we done anything? Developed new technology? Bought more fire tankers to deal with it? Do the provinces have a 'standing wildfirefighter army" to address it or do we still try to cobble together something every year? Are we spending much money on it? No to all. The federal and provincial gov'ts didn't give a crap. Why? We already "fixed" climate change with a carbon tax - what more do you want? BC - which tends to be a major wildfire area going back forever - spends about 130 million on fighting forest fires each year. That's it. 130 million. That figure should be more like 2 billion. We should have a dedicated wildfire defense plan with standing forces that train and are well equippped - we should have forest 'clean up' to help get rid of the dead undergrowth that piles up and makes these fires worse - we should be patrolling the wilderness areas a lot more to catch fires when they start and on the ground to catch offenders who do risky behavior and punish the hell out of them. But we don't. So how serious ARE people about climate change? Not at all really. They pay their tax so the problem is solved. Right?

Bribing the prime minister is a visible problem Just like the actions on behalf of lavalin to subvert the legal process was a visible problem. Breaking the law is always a problem. I get that you'd feel that way but it's simply not true. If anything people will clam you would never have been so "transparent" if you hadn't already set things up to work around it I mean the conservatives made an honest attempt to create more transparency. That's a true thing. And yet your own comments here mock them for the effort. People are just like that - they will find it no more difficult. The problem is that we as voters don't tend to reward transparency - and we don't punish parties when it DOES become obvious they did something wrong. We dont' punish them for lies - we don't punish them for corruption, we don't punish them for failing to achieve what they promised. So they lie, steal, and promise everything knowing they can't deliver. MOAR transparency isn't going to change that even a tiny bit. If we punish politicians for bad behavior - THAT will change things. But historically the liberals don't and the other parties are gettting very close to the "so why should we bother if they don't" side of things.

I can't say you're wrong but i don't know how certain that is. I mean, none of that happened after he took crimea. I think that only the severity of the war and the casualtes combined with the whole "rebel alliance holds back Empire, moff tarkin craps himself" vibe that has developed and that the media sold hard generated enough public support to push those initives forward. If it had been over in a week, i think people would have gotten on with their lives and there'd be no political capital for any of those actions. I could be wrong but i would bet that's what they were banking on and they had a good chance of being right.

LOL - no, you're just desperately trying to convince yourself of that to avoid dealing with your own hatred issues which were pointed out at the beginning. It's not uncommon for people like you to accuse others of what they themselves do, especially after they've been called on it, Children do it too - "i know you are but what am I?" Well in any case hopefully you've learned not to try to cover your hatred in the form of joke and pretend otherwise, It really didn't work out for you. I know, right? Can you BELIEVE he said my joke was hateful?!? Honestly... He'll wind up dating a woman but claim she's a trans-male who's gay

I wonder if he did tho - i think the problem is he misread Ukraine. I think he and the rest of the civilized world (and most of the uncivilzed world) thought that Russia would have complete victory in a week to ten days max. I remember many commments about that just before the war started. HAD that happened - there would have been no time or chance for nato or anyone else to get supplies to the ukraine to do anything. Russia would have won, there would have been diplomatic rumblings and embargos and such but at the end of the day it would be over. Nobody was going to actually start a shooting war over it. But... against the odds and expectations ukraine hung on - and the allies started dumping supplies in and lo and behold they took back a bunch of land and then we hit where we are now. I think that's what the problem was. I think just as hitler got in trouble in russia thinking it would be a 'short war' the russians have got themselves stuck in the tarbaby thinking the same thing,

I feel like that's not quite relevant but i'm not sure i can say why It was a common thing when it happened to his dad and it still hurt him badly next election. He frikkin' lost to Joe clark. Politicians are just held to a different standard, and this will hurt him a bit and that's just the way it is. He knows it - that's why he's doing the 'family' vacation and trying to emphasise he's still a father and they're still a 'family' etc etc. But it'll still be one more nail at a time when he didn't need it to be any harder than it is already election wise,