Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by CdnFox

  1. 3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

    There is 1 thing that can be done, but it would be a bit costly. 

    Look at the skyline of all major cities. Tall, empty towers. Instead of forcing people back to them, convert them to apartments. 

    Well it's not a bad idea of course but sadly it wouldn't even make a blip. And you run back into the same problems - just getting approval to do the work would take 2 or 3 years, and by then the population has increased more than the benefit of those conversions.

    And in fact it's not like it hasn't happened - the old "woodwards" building which sat empty for years in vancouver was proposed to do exactly that, along with some low income rental to help alleviate that issue in the downtown core.  Then the city wanted more low income, then they had other requirements, the developer threw up his hands and walked because it wasn't going to be profitable anymore, then councils changed and finally a deal was reached and eventually work began but it too, MANY years before the first wall was torn down inside.

    In the end it's not that we COULDN'T build enough buildings. But our entire system is designed in such a way that it prevents it from ever happening without making significant changes.

  2. 8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

    Or...have parents who saw what was happening and mitigated the risk.

    Sure. Or parents who have houses and will leave it behind.

    OR EVEN what we're seeing more of - multigenerational homes, where the kids take over a part of the larger house that's now a little big for the parents and then start raising their own family. You've got built in daycare for the kids, help for the parents, extra retirement income for the parents and very affordable rent for the kids, and eventually when the parents "Move on" so to speak the kids take over and the process can repeat.

    And that's now. within 5 years this is going to get completely stupid, and the young kids will be marching in teh streets over how "Unfair" it is. They'll demand stupid things like all landlords be shot and their homes distributed to those who don't own one (Forgetting that would mean there's no rental units any more).

    This is going to be a bid deal if the gov't doesn't do SOMETHING and there's not much they can do to fix things in the short term.

  3. Well it ain't over yet - this wildfire business is not helping her at all, and she's also got to deal with it while campaigning. Notley isn't taking a break or anything.

    The latest poll has the UCP up overall in popular vote, but the NDP is leading in the critical battlefield of Calgary. So the actual seat count projections went up by one or two for the ndp and down for the UCP,


    However the increase in votes solidifies a few close ridings so the chances of the UCP winning a majority went up even if they win with a couple less seats. The Odds of a UCP majority (reduced in seats) is now 77%



    • Like 1
  4. 3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

    You've reminded me of the underlying truth. Thanks.

    Through the mid nineties I was the IT dude at the Canadian embassy in Prague. That's where I learned, you play their games, or you're out.

    We've made a self-serving compost heap out of our dreams of self rule.


    I am reminded of that great quote from "Deadwood"....  I may be a sinner from hell beyond all hope of redemption. But at least i am not a politician.

    • Haha 1
  5. 1 hour ago, Aristides said:

    FN killed the bison for furs

    You're saying they didn't? Would you care to make a wager :)  It's pretty well documented.

    1 hour ago, Aristides said:

    and over fishing and habitat destruction had nothing to do with the decline of salmon stocks.

    I literally said FN overfishing is believed to be a serious factor explicitly, twice. And then you claim i've said it had nothing to do with it.

    Is lying your ONLY method of argument?


    1 hour ago, Aristides said:

    Your posts just keep getting dumber. How can someone be so ignorant of their own history?

    I assume you're talking to your mirror. Pathetic.

    Everything i've said is not only true but very easy to verify.

    Everything you've said has turned out to be wrong. if not an outright lie.

    THIS - THIS is why we need more 'white' heritage days.  Diptwits like you want to rewrite history and recon white people as the villians.  Europeans may have made their fair share of mistakes but they are NOT the only ones NOR are they to blame for even a quarter of what you seem bound and determined to stick them with.

    • Sad 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Aristides said:


    The only way they could vote was to give up their status.

    So when i said they could leave the reserve and enjoy the benefits of canadian society - and you said they coudn't because they coudn't even vote....  you now admit you were lying.

    Well that's a good start.

    And in any case you're wrong again. As i said any first nations person serving in war could vote.  And it was extended by john a WITHOUT revoking status to the eastern first nations, they could vote. He was extending it to ALL first nations but then the rebellion happened. I'd say that's on them.

    Laurier brought back the original requirement but that was later.

    Again - you're not being honest.

    1 hour ago, Aristides said:


    Do you really think buffalo knew what borders were, like there were Canadian buffalo and American buffalo and they all stayed on their own side of the border? How do you think prairie farmers would like herds of tens of thousands of buffalo stomping through their crops?

    The bison were gone by the time the prairie farmers even showed up. The population of the praries at the time was tiny.

    The first nations were the ones who did most of the killing in Canada - and mostly for furs. They were already almost wiped out by the time the railroad was even put thorough.  First nations got 3 things - guns, horses and trading posts and thats what ended the bison. Metis hunters were sending 50,000 hides a year out of canada at it's height.

    And while first nations in Canada had hunted the bison, they weren't dependent on them. They had the cariboo and other sources. THey would have missed the hides and the bones - but they had european textiles to make it up.

    THere are some who have said that John A wiped out bison in select areas to try to make the local first nations more dependent on the canadian gov't - but the evidence for that is extremelyl weak. And there's no doubt they were already vastly in decline by the time that could have happened. And it would have been 'economically' weak, having removed their trading stock.

    Sorry - if you thought it was europeans in canada who did it you were dead wrong, In america the army shot bison and the railroads fed thier people with them but not here ,

    1 hour ago, Aristides said:


    There are thousands of studies done on the decline of  salmon on the west coast. You talk to old time Fraser Valley residents and they say there were ten times as many salmon in local creeks during the 40's and 50's than there are now and they were saying that years ago. Hydro dams destroyed the Columbia River runs.


    Bad news sparky - I AM a local old time resident. :)

    There were never 10 times the salmon, that's for sure. THere's no doubt runs have gone down a little but in my creek most years they're still thick enough to walk across the water on their backs so to speak. And the DFO's numbers would tend to agree.

    And as i've said - again, first nations overfishing combined with global warming trends are thought ot be two of the biggest culprits  Canada didn't cause global warming and the overfishing isn't the europeans.

    Once again - wrong on all counts. The europeans didn't wipe out the buffalo in canada. There's still plenty of salmon, and if their numbers are going down it's not the europeans that are the primary responsibility. And first nations definitely had voting rights before the 50's, and even at their most restrictive they could leave the reserves and be just like anyone else. And it wasn't even always that restricted.

    And in return they got horses, guns, metal tools, medicine, access to education, longer life spans, and they lived the way they always did until technology chaged to the point where they just didn't bother any  more. So they got electricity and modern housing and so on.

    And they wiped out the buffallo for profit.  Not because non existant farmers were getting their crops trampled.

    Any other complete lies you'd like to share about the first nations? Or are you done.




  7. 15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

    I think the average Adult Canadian should already have a pretty good idea what is good moral behavior and what is not...

    Well, certainly within the boundries of the behavior of our political leaders if nothing else

    • Like 1
  8. 1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

    LOL...Ya I guess that about sums it up.

    I think its obvious our politicians have been bought and paid for.

    How can we find a "clean" leader if they're all "dirty"?

    I don't think that's possible. Without going into 1000 words, basically anyone who has the balls, the drive and the willingness to do what it takes to get to the top is going to be somewhat dirty. Good clean honest people go do something else.

    So - instead i think the answer is to try to find someone who's dirty for positive reasons so to speak. Or at least reasons you can live with.

    Harper was a good example - as cuthroat as they come but wanted to be pm for reasons we could live with. And he did a good job.  Layton would have been another example, even if you don't like the man's poltiics. There are others.

    The problem is that the lib party has been around so long and has been so corrupt that in order to climb to the top in that party you HAVE to support corruption and being willing to accept it, too many of the party's mp's and officials are in on it.

    The lib party really needs to get blown up completely like the old PC was and rebuilt from scratch.

  9. 37 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    Well...that works financially for me but, if that's always the way its been...and it makes sense...then those young people who want a house, might just have to scrimp and save...like we did.

    Well it wasn't ALWAYS this way - it USED to be that real estate developers were basically punished for building for future needs, they were only able to build for today's needs. So in a growing population that was not great but it was still manageable.

    Basically now they're only financially allowed to provide for YESTERDAY'S needs. Which means the situation is now getting worse and will continue to do so as long as there is ANY population growth. The population would need to shrink for things to get better and shrinking populations have significant problems of their own.

    So the challenge is that if we don't get at least back to providing for today's needs the kids may find that scrimping and saving doesn't cut it. They may have to go to alternate solutions like living in rv's on the street or the like.

  10. 17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    No one, including yourself, has any idea what you're talking about.

    ROFLMAO - i'm literally replying to a post where you admitted you knew what i was talking about.

    Everyone knows kiddo.  When you get caught doing something you go back and change your post to pretend it didn't happen. You're that kind of person ;)

    But to be honest looking at people's comments everyone knew you were a liar and dishoenst person long before then. So i doubt it changed anyone's opinion of you.

    So, when you claim you own your mistakes we ALL know that's a complete lie. You will go to great lengths if you can to deny your mistakes.  As i suspect your next post is about to do again :)  But - we all know you and what you do.

  11. 2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

    I thought this article resonated with Canada's own politics, as well as the US and Europe, particularly on climate change, which is being urged on by urban dwellers oblivious or uncaring that so much of the expense will be borne by those in more rural areas. 

    The antipode to the urban terroir lies in the countryside and rural hinterlands, which are experiencing a modest revival across the Western world. Yet even as they begin to regain appeal, rural areas are struggling against the dominant urban drive to “net zero”, which threatens economies based on local fossil fuel development, farming and manufacturing. For instance, it was high energy prices brought on by climate policies that sparked the Gilets Jaunes movement in France’s small towns, villages and exurban communities. To meet climate demands and limit their use of chemical fertilisers, Dutch farmers, among the world’s most efficient and ecology minded, have similarly risen up and joined their Spanish, Polish and Italian counterparts.

    Even worse, the urban elites propose reaching their net zero fantasies by physically disfiguring rural communities. This offensive is being pushed by oligarchs such as J.P. Morgan’s Jamie Dimon, who resents peasants blocking land acquisition for subsidy-driven “green” investments and seeks federal help to secure these lands. But he is just one man of a wider movement, in which rural areas, home to the vast majority of proposed new solar and wind projects, are now asked to fulfil the green dreams of Manhattan, San Francisco and west Los Angeles. In California, the Nature Conservancy estimates that fulfilling the state’s net zero targets would require up to one-tenth of the farming acreage in the coming decades.



    I would argue that really there is no great divide - there is only a great divider.  We all have differences, within the cities or without. THere's poor in both places, there are those who can't afford what the 'climate change' fight is bringing,etc.

    Our politiicans however find those differences and then weaponize them for political capital and power. The reason that the rural people will suffer more is because politicians do some math and realize that nobody in the vote rich city with tonnes of seats up for grabs is going to see the rural people suffering, so they tell the urban people that rural people are just too stupid and they're "hicks" and we should just go ahead with what we the enlightened KNOW to be correct and they'll figure it out on their own in time.

    THey do that with east vs west as well, gun owners and non gun owners, religious vs non, vaxxed vs unvaxxed. Etc etc.

    The only reason we have actual divides is because that's what our politicians want there to be. That's why they call them "wedge" issues.

  12. 49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    It's quotes now? It was just one you imagined before, without evidence, but now there's more?

    So you admit there was the one :P  well glad we got that out of the way :)   (gotcha ! )

    So yeah - you're the kind of guy who'll go to THOSE extremes,  So for SURE you're all about the hysteria

    But i see you're settling into your new self appointed job as a grammar nazi nicely at least :)



  13. 33 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

    Crossing hostile waters against the largest conventional navy in the world was very much going to be a problem, and resupplying doubly-so.  The German Army chief of staff famously quipped, "We might as well put the soldiers through a sausage grinder" and the German navy was strongly opposed to any attempted crossing as well.  

    Sure -  thats why i said they'd have had to target the brit navy, especially destroyers, earlier on. It would have been very difficult by the time hitler realized britian wasn't going to cave

    33 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

    A little more thought and prep.  So easy. 

    but it really wasn't.  We can talk about all sorts of hypotheticals, but they require hindsight for things like the Fall of France being as "easy" as it turned out to be, and for Germany's enemies to both allow and not adjust for Germany's preparations. 

    The problems were far from unsolvable. They just didn't try. They knew if they went to war with poland that france would declare war and fight, and they planned accordingly. Voila - victory. They knew that england would declare war - but BELIEVED they would make peace. So they didn't try to plan. And that was a problem.

    But they absolutely could have.

    33 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

    Regardless, that part is off topic and you're touching on what we're really focused on here anyways:

    Yeah... fun topic tho (and back on ground i have a little expertise in :) ) we should do that as a thread one of these days - the 3 or 4 pivotal points in the war and could they have reasonably gone differently and why they didn't. Or something. :P

    33 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

    Exactly.  These dictators get so bewitched by the delusions of their own superiority (both personal and racial) that they assume nobody can or will stand up to them.  Hitler was probably the best example, but even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was pure and farcical hubris.  

    I think the musical chairs Sad Vlad is playing with his army command tells us what's going on there.  The problem he has now is that he can't afford to lose.  Totalitarian dictators usually struggle to survive failed wars of choice, so he needs this war to succeed but doesn't have the tools to do so.  When his generals try to tell him this, he replaces them.  "NO EXCUSES!  ONLY VICTORY!"

    Well if history is true to form here, then one of three things will happen:

    1 - somehow his forces gain successes that they can then reasonably declare as a win and he saves face and this ends.

    2-  This stays in stalemate forever considering the ukrainians don't seem willing to ever back down and eventually the strain on the russian economy and people becomes serious

    3 - There's a successful counter offensive and at some point he starts to lose.

    For two and three there  historically comes a point where it's just not possible to hide the fact you're not winning.

    So how does putin react in that case? When it gets harder and harder to convince him there's any victory, and worse the people are getting upset or his forces in the field are being pushed back and may actually be driven out? Start shooting commanders? What do you think we'd be able to see to suggest he's reaching that point.

  14. 2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

    Is that any different than things were when we were younger?

    Perhaps simply closing or at least tightening our immigration and foreign investment policies would help that?

    You would think that intuitively but unfortunately no.  It would help prevent it from getting worse in the SHORT term but wouldn't resolve it and the benefits would only last a few years.

    The reason for this is the way our systems are currently set up and operating the real estate construction will ALWAYS lag need. So if we slow population growth there will be a natural slowing of building which will happen a short time later.

    There are a number of things which will need to change before the problem can be solved, and every year we wait we get further behind, meaning it'll take longer to get back to sanity.

  15. 48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

    And yet you talk about job training for children, as if photocopying and using a punch machine are more important than understanding our world, social issues and the like.

    You don't want an educated public, you want workbots.

    Your posts on here are wildly inconsistent, and imprecise.  When called out you double down by reposting contradictory statements then you move on.

    Oh look. Another lefty who has to redefine what other people say before he can make an argument. Yawn. 

  16. 4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

    So the various governments are inefficient...go figure.

    The Canadian government has invested almost a trillion dollars in "green" projects. Some...like sewage upgrades and roads...are good investments. Some are not. For instance, that stupid LRT across Eglinton. What a lark. 

    Couple this with the revenues lost by "green" policies, eh voila. More than enough to manage the needed institutions. 

    If your argument is that 'if gov't wasn't so stupid then it would be less stupid", then yes :)

    • Like 1
  17. 17 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

    Do you have any evidence that Antifa is an organization as opposed to a movement? Any evidence at all?

    Do you think  it makes any difference? Supporting a violent terrorist movement is somehow better than supporting a violent terrorist organization?

  18. 8 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:


    This is where we're at, folks. The Right is so desperate to paint the Left a certain way, that when they're confronted with the truth, they'll just lie even when it doesn't make sense


    Wow - still hugging that mirror i see :) 

    Nobody believes you kiddo. Look around, everyone here makes fun of you and you radical bullcrap at one point or another. Sorry to see that caused you some emotional damage :)  But denial won't help.  Basically you're just a punching bag people here use for amusement. Nobody takes you seriously

    And why would they, You lie constantly about things that are easily verifiable, you constantly attack the jews, virtually all your arguments require you to rewrite what the person said.. you're a joke.

    You obviously don't even MEAN to be taken seriously - To the point where i genuinely do wonder if you're a false flag. account.  The 'stupid' is just so over the top.

  19. On 5/6/2023 at 10:28 AM, Aristides said:

    What benefits? Discrimination against FN was rampant in Canada, they couldn't even vote until 1951. 

     I specifically said they could do that now - so basically you feel the need to lie and be dishonest to try to make your point.

    And in fact they could vote before 1951. Not that they paerticularly wanted to or asked to.  But there were various rules (actually there were for everyone).  but there was never a time i'm aware of that first nations people could not vote at all. It was just very difficult in the beginning - you had to be a lawyer or the like Which some did become but obviously it was rare.

    And john a was going to make it legal for all first natiosn everywhere without condition till the uprising happened. THen it was legal for first nations in the east but not the rebellious west.

    And any first nations serving in the military during the wars could vote automatically.

    And it was a liberal - wilfried laurier (yes the same one who ignored the damning report about res schools and buried it) who set it back to the early conditions where you had to be a lawyer etc. He thought the first nations would vote conservative.

    Soo.. not exactly true.  A first nations person absolutely could walk off the reserves, become "enfranchised", and vote and have a business or go to school wherever he wanted etc.

    But even ON the reserves they got steel tools and weapons, they got advanced medicine they got textiles and gear that made their lives a thousand times better. You have no idea how something as simple as a copper pot makes ALL the flipping difference.

    So - once again you prove you don't really know the history here.

    On 5/6/2023 at 10:28 AM, Aristides said:

    Sorry kiddo, it was introduced to North America by Europeans. Who brought it to Mexico genius?

    I told you who.  Smallpox was first introduced into the americas by the Caribbeans. Not the europeans. 

    Waves of it would show up later from europeans and russians and chinese - it made it's way around.  But - if you think it was canadian settlers who introduced it you were wrong,.

    On 5/6/2023 at 10:28 AM, Aristides said:


    The plains native civilization was based on the buffalo, which the Europeans exterminated. The Pacific Coast native civilization was based on the salmon, which Europeans have largely destroyed through over fishing and habitat destruction

    Both of those are flat out lies in Canada.

    In canada most of the first nations followed the caribou and still do.  This isn't america.

    And the salmon on the west coast have been very strong for generations. More recently the stocks have suffered a small amount (first nations overfishing has been thoguth to be partly responsible along with climate change,) but the first nations still fish them plenty. I drive by a first nations fish processing plant regularly

    So  more lies.

    On 5/6/2023 at 10:28 AM, Aristides said:

    That's american.  This is C.A,N.A.D.A   Buy a freakin' map and read a book


    You've shown quite clearly you're an uneducated sack of shit who virtue signals pretending to stand up for first nations without having done a single drop of homework. NOTHING you've said has turned out to be true,

  20. 1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

    What topics have I been unwilling to discuss?

    Virtually all the ones raised. You refuse to address them and either dismiss them as somehow being nazi propaganda OR you do the "what you REALLY mean is" and then substitute your own discussion points and ignore what was raised.

    You think we don't notice?

    1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

    WTF? I said I like guns.

    Nobody believes you

    1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

    Ah, so you're just lying again. Alright, carry on.

    "what you REALLY mean is... "  Sigh - told ya :)

  • Create New...