CdnFox

Well you can bring that up with whoever puts them in prison. He can go from the prison to the hospital until he gets better but in the meantime he has to stay in prison It's not a rabid dogs fault that it got rabies. It's probably the masters fault for letting it run around at night. But that does not change the fact that the dog has rabies and it's dumb to let it play with the children You think she does. You think it was right for him to be released so that he could do that to her. We knew he was going to do it to somebody he's done it to other people in the past. He's out on the streets right this moment and will almost certainly do it to someone else because of people like you who insist that that is the right thing to do. So you absolutely believe she deserves that. In order to protect his rights Yes, because we didn't lock him up. That was our failure

Your books then must be "The Chronicles of Narnia" Because in the real world that is how it works They won't see it that way. You need to understand the risk and the challenges involved with building. They're not there to gamble their money. They want to see real return on their dollar and they won't if prices are at risk. It takes two to three years to complete a housing project if you know for a fact that there will be less demand at that time why in god's name would you build? I've told you so what. So the economy crashes. And not just because of the home building but for other factors as well but it would be very very bad Yes that's true. But that's like saying it's only because we jumped off the building that we're traveling so fast. All very accurate but you don't want to come to a sudden stop because that would be fatal. What you want is to slow down and come to a soft landing We didn't actually build that many fewer homes back then. But we had a lot more growth from natural sources. Have a look Canada: fertility rate 1860-2020| Statista And remember it's those kids born in the 50's and 60's that were buying homes in the 80's and such. But the biggest problem is the growth in bureaucracy. I remember that houses and apartment type structures built in the 70s and 80s would be completed within a year year and a half of getting the go ahead. And the cost to do it was next to nothing as far as the bureaucracy went. Nowadays it takes about 3 years to complete a decent townhouse project. Sometimes more. And because of how they have changed things the Developer won't be able to get the money from the bank to build it until they have pre-sold about 70% of the project which delays things further. On top of it all they have to pay taxes on every home they build until they sell it, so they can't afford to build a home and then sell it afterwards they can only build when they know that somebody is going to buy that home day one so they don't have to pay taxes on an empty space. All that means Is that they have to guess what housing prices are going to be 3 to 4 years down the road or at least two years down the road when they begin the pre-sales to see whether or not they're going to make a profit now About 60% of the cost of a home is in the cost of various levels of bureaucracy and reports and engineering surveys and legal fees and so on. And the time to complete is enormous When you look at all the factors the way that everything is designed currently developers cannot possibly build enough homes to satisfy population growth because they can only build to the population needs as it is in the immediate future, they cannot build in advance or in speculation of what the population is going to be So if they know the population isn't going to grow at all they aren't going to be interested in building. If they are stuck with homes they can't sell the entire project may fall apart, they may not get funding for it to complete it, they will probably go bankrupt and they will owe tax money on all of the homes that are finished but not sold You have to address all of that if you want to build enough homes. The only other choice is to have negative population growth and reduce the size of our population and that is absolutely devastating to the economy right now and very bad for a country like Canada that has so few people in it to begin with. You exercise power in this world by being a significant market size and our entire market size is only that of California. We can't afford to be going the opposite direction

He needs to be in prison until someone gets him a doctor in a hospital. Or do you feel that for some reason that innocent woman he beat near to death deserve that and had it coming? Considering how often you support violence against innocence it wouldn't surprise me, but I think you'll find most people would disagree

That might seem like an easy answer but unfortunately it would actually make the problem worse. The moment you said that every developer everywhere would pack up their bags and stop building anything that wasn't already in progress. Housing starts would come to an almost dead stop. Developers aren't stupid, they would know exactly what that would mean. There would be nobody to buy their homes. Which would mean skyrocketing unemployment, a loss of Trades and Technical people and a general worsening of the situation as people held on to their homes and no new homes were coming on to the market. It would stabilize housing prices but it would probably significantly reduce the average wage. It's like driving in a car, if you're going way too fast and are about to lose control you need to slow down but you don't want to slam on the brakes or else you just go into an uncontrolled skid You need to reduce immigration while at the same time making it easier and more profitable for builders to make new homes so that a small reduction in price isn't going to scare them away. There's a number of ways to do this but it does take a delicate hand That's why we need someone skilled who understands how government works and Poilievre is the best choice for that

No, I am accusing you. You said that one thing is important to you and yet you're voting for another thing. Other people may think that there's no problem with allowing people loose on the streets and they're voting for a liberals for that reason. That's their choice. But you specifically made claims as to what you think should happen and yet you're voting the opposite. That is because of hatred and bigotry I vote conservative because they represent my values. You vote liberal because you hate conservatives and have said so. They don't represent your values, you literally just said that but you don't like conservatives My choices based on ethics. Your choice is based on hatred and bigotry. You are condemned by your own words

He is a coddled criminal. Of that there is no doubt, he's committed multiple crimes and been released by the system again and again The fact that he also needs help is irrelevant to that primary fact. It only explains why he's a criminal. If they'd kept him in jail, he'd still be untreated for his mental health issues same as now but this woman would not have been attacked. Treat the criminals like criminals. If you can find a way to treat them and they can demonstrate that they're not a threat anymore then great, release them. But in the meantime you hold them until that happens because Otherwise they go out and treat women like punching bags and I don't see why we would trade treating a criminal like a criminal for treating a woman like an animal

It's the unvarnished truth. I've posted economist reports here bank reports all kinds of Articles, there is absolutely no doubt that our particular problems are 100% Canadian made. Lie to yourself if you like but all it makes you is a liar

Absolutely wrong. And we have numerous reports from banks and other organizations showing exactly why it's their policies that have caused the vast majority of these issues. If you have to lie to make your point then you haven't got a very good point. Excessive spending, population growth through immigration that is higher than our ability to add capacity in the form of homes and medical services etc accounts for most of it. Justin's buffoonery on the world stage accounts for our destroyed reputation. Our severe 100% a result of Justin's efforts. Our crime problems can be absolutely directly traced to Justin's new crime laws and his other factors and policies. There's no arguing this. Every other country in the world certainly in the first world have seen their GDP per capita go up radically more than hours which is actually going down. We have the lowest housing per capita in any of the G7 by far and yet we're importing more people at a faster rate per capita than anyone in the G7. When there aren't enough homes the price of homes goes up The liberals are directly 100% responsible for the vast majority of the main problems that our countries facing at the moment. That will not change under Kearney. That will almost certainly change under poilievre. Get your head out of your echo chamber and look around. Shit is starting to get serious and if there isn't a course correction fairly quickly it's going to be multi-generational if not permanent damage You don't know anything. You're dumber than a stump. The conservatives are the ones proposing tougher laws that would keep people locked up instead of letting them on the street. The liberals pass laws that are putting people on the street The only reason you're voting liberal is because of hatred and bigotry towards conservatives. The conservatives are promising to do exactly what you propose and claim you want but you're voting liberal. Listen to yourself.

So he's right, you are running and hiding.

Absolutely none of which would address this issue. So you're kind of promoting the idea that you aren't worth listening to What needs to happen to address this particular issue is changes to the rules which grant automatic bail under every circumstance without considering history to any person arrested. Remember they haven't been convicted yet, they've only been arrested for a crime and currently the law says until they're convicted you have to let them go. What we need is a change to the laws that says if somebody has a history of violent crime or if any evidence is introduced suggesting There is a reasonable chance that they would offend again then they should not be granted bail until such time as they can prove that they are not a risk. That puts the owners back on them and they are not released until they can make it convincing argument as to why we shouldn't be concerned about them. That's not hard to do. The liberals could have done this at any time in the last 5 years since the problem became abundantly apparent after the change of laws that they did. But they have chosen not to

I said life without parole for repeat violent offenders so things would be exactly the same. But the current law requires that they be given parole until they are convicted. So no matter how you slice it violent offenders will still be released into the public to offend again under either of our systems. Thanks for playing.

It's such a childish thing to say. You can make a claim like that about the liberals because if you look at the last 10 years Canada is actually being destroyed. Our quality of life is nose diving, our international reputation is in tatters, people can't afford food or housing, poverty levels are increasing, etc etc But everything that the conservatives are proposing are basically just right of center economic policies and social policies that are time proven to be successful. There's no chance of them destroying anything Your entire political viewpoint is driven on hatred and bigotry. You need to think about how unhealthy that is

If we could use that meltdown to power a steam turbine we could generate approximately 1.3 megawatts of power! Robo! You're this close to being a renewable resource!

I literally just came to post that LOL

Even if we had capital punishment with the current loss this guy would be out on Bail. So all you're doing is showing that you actually have no clue what you're talking about which is a Highly Questionable exercise. We are not talking about punishment here. We are talking about the fact that after they are arrested for a violent crime they are immediately that minute released on bail even if they have multiple violent offenses until trial which may be many months down the road. Wait to be irrelevant in one post Is that both of our solutions, yours being capital punishment and mind being life imprisonment without the chance of parole, would have exactly the same result as far as whether or not the person is ever allowed back into public So did you have a comment that didn't make you look a little silly? We'd love to hear that one

Man who attacked female tourist in Vancouver had been released from custody for separate assault hours earlier Man who attacked female tourist in Vancouver had been released from custody for separate assault hours earlier Peterhans Jalo Nungu has since been released again. This is a direct result of liberal changes to the laws in 2017 and 2019. Police and provinces have been begging for the liberals to change the law since then because of the hundreds and hundreds of cases just like this where chronic repeat violent offenders are released the same day that they are captured and immediately offend again. This is the same liberals that Canadians are set to give a fourth term to apparently. Our criminal system is broken. The liberals are the ones who broke it. And they have refused again and again to fix it.

Settle down and go and change your diapers. He's like day 120 into a 4-year term. Frankly even many on the left have noted that is trashing of many of the government agencies was probably a good thing. It forces those agencies to really look at how they're going to build back better. That'll take a little time to pay off but it's definitely not a bad idea. The only thing he's really done wrong so far is his trade wore nonsense. The premise wasn't necessarily horrible but his execution has been a disaster. But he's got three and three quarters years to straighten that out and try to get it right. And his track record from the first term is actually pretty good right up to covid, so the claim that he hasn't had a single success is just plain stupid. Which is actually at least two grades higher a level of stupid than we're used to from you so well done

it's absolutely true. No matter how you slice it it comes to the same thing, what we're doing right now is not working well. In Canada we wind up with tent cities and Trudeau towns, in the states you wind up with higher incarceration rates. Neither of those is solving a problem and both of those create unnecessary strain on the public either by denying assets that should be public like a park or costing additional money in perpetuity for incarceration We have to accept that we need to look at different solutions and the one you proposed seems like a damn good place to start.

I would never vote for Carney "The last ten years under the liberals have seen Canada's reputation destroyed, it's middle class badly weakened, food become unaffordable, housing become unaffordable, no useful reduction in emissions and increased global warming. But - it's imperative you vote liberal again to fix these problems, just as they promised the last 2 times you elected them!!!" - Cougar, probably

There will be no spreading of wealth. Kearney and his cronies will suck wealth into private organizations that will reward him later. Meanwhile wealth in Canada will actually dry up. This is already happening And very soon what you will get is going back to the feudal days where some kids will be lucky enough to get an inheritance that involves real estate and homes and wealth and everyone else will be working to barely survive. The middle class is going to be all but destroyed and that's already well on its way. Carney will be the death of Canada, Canada is already pretty sick right now and carney will put the nail in the coffin

False across the board. The resources are easily allocated. The problem is that the liberals especially have spent the money elsewhere and to the point where they have to borrow additional money. They just don't consider this to be a priority. Are you telling me we have 10 billion a year to spend on consultants who achieve nothing and are basically duplicating work that we already have people on the government payroll for, but there's not a dime for corrections? And when did they even run on it? When did they run on putting more people behind bars if that's what Canadians want? They didn't. So pretending that Canadians have told them that they don't want criminals incarcerated is beyond ridiculous. And in fact the police chiefs, premieres, and pundits and people from across the entire country have been screaming for it for some time. The fact is the only reason it doesn't happen is because the liberals do not believe that criminals should be behind bars. They believe they should be out on the streets immediately even if they have a long history of violent crimes and they have made that abundantly clear. Don't try and blame this on the public. The public has been very clear that it does not want criminals let out to kill more people. And the money is definitely there

Well that's not going to solve the problem. You can only get so many people inside a tent

338 is usually a couple of days behind. And 338 aggregates sources such as Ekos whom we both agree is off, probably deliberately so. Nanos for example has much tigher numbers Canada election polls 2025: Liberals ahead by 3 points But the bottom line is you're not listening. If anyone is coping here it appears to be you. I'm not making a statement about who will or will not win. You seem desperate to defend that the liberals are going to win guaranteed absolutely oh my god how could it be anything else I'm so scared But I didn't say they were going to lose or the conservatives are going to win What I said is that the indicators that one would normally turn to are all over the map. Polling is all over the map and fluctuating in a way that doesn't make sense. Numerous other indicators directly seem to contradict each other. And it goes in both directions. Calm your little self down, trying to sort through the muck and smoke it still looks like a liberal minority gov't come tuesday morning. But that doesn't change anything about what i said. This election is beyond bizarre in that respect. And if the cpc did win or even took a majority, there are signs you could point to in retrospect that showed that was a strong possibility despite the large number that also show a possible liberal majority and you just normally never get that.

They absolutely do not have similar numbers. In fact I don't think I have ever seen such a wide variety of numbers in an election campaign in my entire life. At various points the pollsters were showing about a 15% spread in their numbers which is absolutely that crap crazy. Even if you take out the super highs like ecos the number spread is nuts, usually you talk about a three or four percent spread Now that doesn't mean they are deliberately putting a thumb on a scale. There has been speculation as to why various different methodologies may produce less than accurate results in the specific setting of this election.But there's no doubt it is insanely all over the map

Geez i think you broke him. You have to go easy dude, please remember that encountering truth is to Robo Smith as stepping on a piece of Lego in the middle of the night barefoot is to us