CdnFox

So we agree that she committed a crime correct?

So that would be no?

It only took you four words to be wrong No you don't. Your childish rants and emotional response indicate that you actually find this very upsetting. You're so emotionally buthurt that you try every device possible to try and upset me or make me feel bad, which is something we see with small children on a regular basis. Hence your use of "faux" instead of my actual screenname. You'll notice i'm not so childish as to call you john stupid or something equally childish. It's plain that I have emotionally hurt you and that you're angry and bitter about it. Pretending to find it amusing is a defense mechanism that you throw out there but your actual words and manners indicate that it's simply not true Sorry little guy It's pretty obvious this is distressing for you

Well I think that was my point though as well, the concerns here are more political than practical LOL Well if your point is Their that data centers are pretty low on the list of well-established nut bar theories out there I will concede the point Not really, no. I'm racking my brains but I can't think of any. In history where that's how it works. Other than occasionally the government provides for the infrastructure and in such cases it's an equally available to everybody and usually at the same price. Or if there is a different price it's completely based on usage or the like I don't recall that happening either and to be blunt no same business person is going to put their data center in a place where there is not enough power to adequately run it after providing for local services. Like, if you were starting a bottled water company would you open it in the desert? The cost is not distributed, the cost is borne by the data center. I am not sure where you're getting the idea that it's different than this but literally every type of business out there is in exactly the same boat. I mean Automotive manufacturing and Industrial applications such as steel require insane amounts of power as well, this is not the first industry that requires massive amounts of power. The cost does not get distributed down to the people, it just doesn't work that way. In fact the more power usage there is generally speaking the more affordable it is to provide the power generation infrastructure necessary to satisfy everyone's needs I don't feel that you've made the case that they are legit. As I've noted the issues you brought up do not appear at first glance or even second or third glance to be real actual issues. In fact they tend to go in the face of established norms. That's not to say there's no valid concerns but I'm just not seeing any significant valid concerns The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact the existence of the other may lead to the deployment of the first. Nothing drives the move towards cheaper energy From the presence of large power hungry users Well I don't really understand why that's a concern, that sounds more like in a reality that needs to be faced. But wouldn't that argue even more strongly that people shouldn't embrace and support the development of this important technology in their communities?

Sure. Which is why I find it odd that they haven't. And yet they have proposed that anybody who speaks out against it should be treated as a criminal and that law should be passed supporting that. This is where I begin to have a problem We don't know that. As I mentioned earlier I would expect it because residential schools were also churches for the most part and with the tuberculosis crisis tens of thousands of children died across the country and it would be weird if none ever died there and were buried there. But at the end of the day it's entirely possible that no children are buried there I don't really feel like that's a bigger issue. If that legitimately was the issue they would start digging, they would find remains, and we would be able to determine likely causes of death. But what we do know with certainty is that there were many many children who were reported dead at the schools and somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of all of the deaths were due to tuberculosis. Tuberculosis was killing children all across the country and including my own family who lost children to tuberculosis in those days. And it is worse noting that first nations people for whatever reason are vastly more susceptible to tuberculosis than other races. Even today they contract tuberculosis at a rate 40 times higher than other groups Of the remaining children who died from something other than tuberculosis, the vast majority died from influenza. The remaining handful died from accident, other illnesses, etc. But at the time all of the deaths were recorded, it's not like children died and nobody wrote anything down. It's a sad fact that the records regarding this as well as many other records were purged by the government to save space some time ago and it is truly unfortunate that these kids and many other people by the way were buried with simple wooden crosses that of course rotted away over time. But that doesn't indicate anything nefarious There is really no reason or evidence whatsoever to suggest that these children came to an end that was in any way shape or form unlawful or inappropriate. If there were any such cases they were extremely rare That never happened to the first nations. I understand that that's the narrative but the reality is that is absolutely not what happened The vast majority of the time the first nations attendance at residential schools was optional. They're only a handful of decades where it wasn't the case and by the way it was the liberals that brought that in. Initially under John a attendance was completely optional The parents absolutely had access to the schools. In addition the children were allowed and even encouraged to return home for the summers. They did not live at the school year round unless the parents wanted them to stay or they had no family. Any of the residential schools openly encouraged local bands to visit and share with the children. In fact the residential school closest to where I live was famous for inviting the elders of neighboring bands to come regularly to talk with the kids about their culture and teach them cultural issues. By the way when I grew up and attended Elementary School First Nation studies was taught by the local first nations chief. Further mandatory attendance at school was inflicted upon more than just the first nations. And there was huge outcry and even minor riots from other groups including my own family who found their children forced to attend schools and learning the language and history and customs of the English rather than their own schools. Sorry to burst your bubble but the world is not the way that the first nations advocates with a political agenda today portray it It never did the way that you say. Sorry

That's your opinion. And I'm not saying it's accurate or inaccurate, but history tends to be interpreted differently depending on the Observer. The left for example has made many attempts to rewrite history. The 1619 project for example. But that's not really relevant. The issue at hand is whether or not people today have a right to anger and outrage on a personal level over events that happened almost 2 centuries ago. Sure. So is white history. In fact so is european history as it lead up to the colonization and to a degree asian history as that's where the first nations people originated. But none of that means that someone living in america today has any right to be mad on any kind of personal level about what happened to someone 200 years ago. Soooort of kind of. What lead to civil war was the question of who gets to make the laws and whether the states were run by the federal gov't. Slavery was the largest (but not only) irritant in that process. But it would be revisionist history to say that the war was all about slavery. Why? Neither has anything to do with slavery. uhhhhhh........why? They have absolutely nothing to do with 'slavery'. I mean.... sure the first nations kept slaves and traded women like chattel but i feel that's moving off topic. We were discussing slavery in the states, not among the first nations. Complete and 100 percent utter bullshit. Remember they were DEMANDED by the first nations under treaty. And initially they were the cheapest and easiest way to appease that first nations demand which the king insisted on as part of founding canada as a nation. They were also completely voluntary (until a lib gov't much later changed that). they were in no way shape or form cultural genocide. Again that's revisionist history let's put forward by people with an agenda and ignores the truth and well documented sources of the day. The crown and the new country of Canada both wanted to make sure that first nations people had the skills to live in the modern age but they in no way shape or form moved to wipe out first nations themselves or their culture. Their goal, as misguided as it was, was to create people who knew how to behave in modern society but still had their own culture and nation And therefore could choose to live in whatever world they wanted It was a fool's idea, but they had no way of knowing that at the time. It's crystal clear if you read the Hansard of the day and the comments by Johnny in their entirety that it was not their goal and first nations culture and if it was they would have had no problem doing so And again none of this has anything to do with slavery Sure. A lot of people get rich selling the religion of the victim. They're not going to give that up anytime soon

Oh Look. Another leftie celebrating violence and murder of someone they don't like. Quelle surprise. The left is all about violence and hatred these days.

I believe it. It's common for the week-minded to take up causes that didn't happen to them and internalize them as if they did. My family is Irish on one side and Mennonite Ukranian on the other. The irish were treated horribly. The russians slaughered my family on the other side. Guess how much time i spend being mad at russians or the english in canada? But there are always those who think "I was told that 200 years ago something bad happened to someone who may have been related to me so it's the same as if it happened to me yesterday

Do not make it a challenge for him pls. I did mention that. Agreed, he lied and they bought it. The polls say they're turning farther away. Pretty soon it will be A distant memory. You guys had your chance and you completely blew it

Canadian Hiring Weakens As Job Vacancies Hit Near Decade-Low - Better Dwelling Canadians aren’t exaggerating when they complain about this job market—hiring hasn’t been this weak in almost a decade. Statistics Canada (StatCan) data shows fewer job vacancies in March than last year. Those looking for employment face the weakest vacancy rate in nearly a decade, a red flag for the whole economy.

Canadian Hiring Weakens As Job Vacancies Hit Near Decade-Low - Better Dwelling Canadians aren’t exaggerating when they complain about this job market—hiring hasn’t been this weak in almost a decade. Statistics Canada (StatCan) data shows fewer job vacancies in March than last year. Those looking for employment face the weakest vacancy rate in nearly a decade, a red flag for the whole economy.

His posts are correct, And as always it's the democrats who have the cult. And yes they are somewhat fascist

Just out of curiosity, and I don't expect you to answer because I know you don't like being exposed for your hypocrisy, but giving your statements here with regards to employers does that mean you are also in favor of Quebec laws that forbid religious expression in the workplace with legal consequence?

So what you're saying is that Charlie Kirk never considered himself a christian nationalist. Somebody else decided to label him a christian nationalist but he never thought of himself this that way I suspect your eyes must be brown, given how you're so full of shit

We're specifically talking about the cabinet and the politicians. If you want to change the subjects you have to let people know You can hear the voices in your head but we cannot As for the voters I don't know that they will. A small percentage might but honestly the NDP spent the last four or five years cementing the mental image and people's minds then it was just a support party for the liberals and polling indicates that that hasn't really changed. Additionally the presence of trump is what drove a lot of people to the liberals from the NDP and that hasn't changed. The polling across multiple agencies is quite clear that climate change is fairly low on the list for most people at this point including left-wing supporters. There's no doubt that some will feel like it's enough reason to go back to the NDP but not that many i think. Plus the ndp is turning many off with it's far left stance under the new leader. That guy was a mistake. I mean seriously, carney convinced the NDP to vote for an international banker who is a specialist in helping Canadian 1% avoid paying taxes and who had a long history of renovictions. I think the ndp voters are pretty sold on Carney for now. No, I said the other day that nobody cared People still are concerned about climate change and they would like to see something improve but they get that the 'climate alarmists' are full of crap and after 10 years of paying their 'climate tax' the environment is no better off. So its fallen off the top 10 list for most people. That's your doing.

None of those people ever served with the NDP of the greens for the most part. With one possible exception I can think of. So I doubt they'll be going back anywhere. The Liberal Party is where they started, and that's where their power and money are. Few will be willing to give that up The Climate Change agenda has been exposed for being a scam for the most part. Some of the diehards will still want to pursue it but the general public won't. If ideas are proposed that don't cost a ton of money and there's some reason to believe they'll be more successful than taxing climate change out of existence was then sure they'll be support for it

It's got to be the most blatant example of clear weaponization of the law to go after a political opponent that I've ever seen. The whole thing is just beyond hokey and very clearly intended to be an attack and not an attempt to enforce justice or the laws After that there wasn't much trump could do that was worse

By existing apparently. Biatch.

Yeah. Kudos for sticking to his guns. I saw him in an interview on this and while i think his agenda is bonkers he believes it and has the strength of his convictions to do the right thing. Gotta admire that at least. Party isn't going to change directions. Carney thinks he is king if not god and can do whatever he likes. For now he's correct, and I don't think very many other liberals are going to have the strength to walk away from their jobs like this. Those people who believe that the liberals are betraying their environmental roots will be slowly pushed to the side Into Obscurity and may or may not get their nomination papers signed next time depending on how they behave If Courtney's popularity ever fades then maybe something might brew in the back benches but right now there's no chance

The venerate people who murder others who say things that they don't like. Is it any shock that they celebrate those who are simply willing to lie to take down a political opponent?

It's the truth. Charlie Kirk was extremely accepting of other people's religions and beliefs. He may have disagreed with them and he may have offered arguments as to why he didn't think they were great ideas but he absolutely and with fervor believed in there right to hold those beliefs and to practice their religions freely. And for that the nut bar left shot him and killed him and then celebrated. And now they want to repeat it and even here we see the left jumping up to defend the idea that it's okay to kill a woman because they disagree with her political beliefs If you need any more proof, do you notice how none of the leftists here are coming out and saying this is terrible and that person should never have suggested that and kirk does not deserve to be shot Instead we have Robo explaining why it's absolutely acceptable that she should be threatened and killed because christians are the enemy

In your opinion. And you have just suggested that this makes it okay to murder them The left is all about violence and hatred these days. I say it over and over and every day they provide new evidence to prove me right

It's not shocking of course but it is still disappointing to see this kind of thing. If true this is yet another in the increasingly growing pile of circumstances where the liberals brought false allegations against the political rival to try and take him out She lied about this it's a big deal, and she should definitely go to jail for it. People have to learn you cannot lie for profit to attack someone's political opponent just because some billionaire told you to. And democrats have to learn that if you do allow that kind of stuff and say it's okay then you can't complain when someone else does it to a politician you like. Either welfare is wrong or it's not and democrats seem to like it both ways depending on whether they like the politician or not.

Honestly. Robosmith is like a glowstick to me, you just want to snap his neck in half and shake him till the light comes on.