CdnFox
-
Posts
16,474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
165
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CdnFox
-
-
3 hours ago, Deluge said:
The woke mind virus has made its way into America's school system.
This was from a year ago, and apparently it's still going on.
Florida schools move to ban ‘furries’ items to curb ‘barking and meowing’
https://nypost.com/2023/05/12/fla-district-moves-to-ban-furry-items-to-curb-barking-and-meowing/
"A tense Brevard County School Board meeting turned feral this week after members raised concerns"
LOL - i see what they did there
So anyway - the fact that this is enough of a problem that it requires special rules is just insane. I was raised (as were my friends) to pay attention in class or pay the price. Screwing around like that and 'mewing' and grunting at each other like animals in class would not have been tolerated WITHOUT any extra rules by the teachers OR the parents.
What a world we've come to that this is actually a problem.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Rebound said:
Oh, the hand-wringing! Someone doing something disgusting is bothersome to you?
ROFLMAO - what a freaking hypocrite you are
QuoteAre you an expert at telling us what is disgusting?
Yep.
QuoteIs sex with a porn star while your wife is pregnant disgusting enough for you?
Sorry are you talking about clinton or trump? Oh - sorry clinton was the rapist who paid the hush money, trump was the porn star who got paid. Hard to keep them straight some times.
Both are far less disgusting than litearally inviting people to kill your political rivals. Murder is worse than adultry. Glad i was here to sort that out for you.
QuoteHow about parading around in public with your pregnant mistress while you're still married? Disgusting enough?
Compared to trying to get a political rival killed? It's not even close.
QuoteEvading the draft and making fun of a war hero because his fighter jet was shot down in combat? Disgusting enough?
Compared to calling half of the US "Deporable' people? Not really. And certainly not compared to murder.
Look - even for your teeny tiny little tribally obsessed brain you HAVE to realize that this is over a line.
WHataboutism does NOT change that. This is horribly wrong - like, BEYOND wrong. Get a grip.
-
7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:
That's from April 30, 2020, you absolute clown.
And? Do you think any of those dead people got better since then?
It very clearly shows the impact of population density. And it mentions what experts thought about that and why it was a factor.
I've posted data AFTER covid. I've now posted data DURING covid.
Sigh. The only clown here is you kiddo. You're so stunningly desperate that no matter how much proof is given to you (and you provide none yourself)
lI'm sure if you go look around the interenet hard enough you can find an opinion piece somewhere that says it's because "REPUBLICANS" or aliens or whatever you want but the data suggests one of the bigger issues was population density.
Here - This is the top 150 cities for population density - and our cities population densities. Our top cities don't even reach the lowest of the 150 us ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_population_centres_in_Canada
You're an !diot.
-
8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
We can always build more homes but we're at a near record fit be builds.
Well we can't actually. There's a limit to how many we can build or more specifically the rate at which we can build them. We can't build a million new homes next year. That's beyond us. And yet we're bringing in a million new people. That means the demand for homes will be higher than the supply. And that drives up the price.
Quotethink by far the 2 biggest problems with the housing crisis is the huge increase in immigration and foreign audiences and students and the big increase in housing speculation by investors. You go to any big city and every other person seeks to have an investment property. That's a home that someone can't own and has to rent because they can't afford it.
Well, you started off okay but you kind of screwed it up at the end there.
It's not exactly that immigration is the problem per se. The actual problem is that our population is growing faster than our ability to provide homes and medical services for them. If we could build homes fast enough and increase our other infrastructure fast enough it wouldn't be a problem. But we can't, ,and all of our population growth right now is from immigration. So it's not crazy to say that immigration is sort of the problem. As long as immigration and population growth does not exceed our ability to provide for them it's not an issue.
Speculation by investors is largely meaningless. They're buying homes and renting them. Which means if someone bought that home and lived in it there would be less rental spaces for the people who couldn't afford homes and needed to rent. Renting is already severely unaffordable due to a lack of rental spaces. So if you cut that down even more you're still hurting people. Whether it's a foreign speculator or a local person who owns the property it doesn't make any difference, if there are not enough properties then the prices are unaffordable.
The only way to fix that is to build more homes or have slower population growth. Right now for a variety of reasons it's very hard to build more homes. Therefore reducing population growth to a number that we can accommodate makes sense. In the long term building more homes is the solution and the government will have to focus on that. But those two factors under control for an investment no longer becomes a problem and you don't get speculation buying.
So at the end of the day it always comes back to the same thing: We need to build more homes and reduce our population growth to match what we can build. Absolutely nothing else matters. Fix those two issues and the problem goes away, fail to fix those issues and nothing else you do will help.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:
The actual number? Maybe it 65%, maybe it’s 55%, it’s a slim but decisive majority. 60% “feels right” to describe GOP Putin supporters, Putin-curious, and Ukraine-skeptics, which are the main different flavours of Putin stooge.
So you're making it up. So there's no actual basis for that, it's just your opinion about the GOP in general. It could just as well be none. Or all of them for that matter.
I think you should be shooting to do a little better than that when you're arriving at your conclusions.
-
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:
Nope. That's just you making shit up, and arguing with yourself...again, LOL!
Ahhh yes - your usual "Moonbox say something stupid and then blame someone else for it" routine. Yawn.
QuoteI have no problem with the research you posted. The problem is in the buff conclusions you drew from it.
You literally said you have a problem with the research I posted.
And further - The researche's Conclusion: Density affects mortality. Me: Density affects mortality.
You: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RESERCH"S CONCLUSIONS, IT'S YOURS I DISAGREE WITH!!!!!
Hoooo kaaaaayy there little guy
1) Most of the lower density states performed better. And the high density states did the worst. Why did Oregon do so much better than bc, the vast majority of the two populations live closely. together
There's other factors that come into play of course. Access to health care for example, you might not be as quick to go to the hospital in the states if you have to pay, whereas in Canada someone sneeezes and they're in the emerg ward so they're less likely to die. BUT - population density plays a big role.
Here's some more if you need it - because the US's biggest city got hit hard first and because everyone is packed into that city like sardines, New York managed to skew the entire scale. If you take out the new york deaths and just show the rest of the US then they're almost the same as canada.
New York has a very dense population (and Cuomo sent the sick old people back to the hospitals.)
New York has no rival in Canada when it comes to population density, which epidemiologists identify as a contributing risk. It has twice the density of Vancouver, Canada's most-crowded city.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/covid-19-us-canada-death-rates-1.5553168
Here's what the chart looks like if you take new york new jersey and conneticut out of the mix,
Remove the most dense populations and we're practically the same.
Bottom line is that a) - you and Eyeball were wrong, b) - you lied as usually when you tried to pretend i hadn't presented any data NUMEROUS times, and c) You can't even keep your story straight for one whole post without flip flopping
Soooo - you're doing a lot of whining about data - and not presenting any yourself
Now - this is where you fall back on claiming i'm wrong because my posts are too long
LOLOLOLOL!!!!
You're such an !diot
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Moonbox said:
For reals? Diseases are more deadly in places with higher population density? Might as well tell us the sky is blue.
You literally just denied this when you claimed the research i presented that proved it was flawed
You JUST claimed that if i'd looked it up i never would have made that claim
Anyone who flip flops as much as you do should be legally required to own a pancake house
QuoteLike...Alaska, with 2000 deaths per 100,000 (higher than Canada's ~1500) despite having 1/8th Canada's population density?
Like...Wyoming, with half Canada's population density, but double the COVID deaths per 100,000?
Once again, you've been caught cluelessly bullshitting. Way to humiliate yourself again.
ROFLMAO!!!! OH MY GOD - so now you're trying to DENY that density has anything to do with it!?!?!?! After JUST CLAIMING it was so obvious??!?
HOLY SHIT - that is HILARIOUS!!!!!!! You can't even keep it together for ONE POST!!!!
I posted EVERY SINGLE STATE - the vast majority with lower population densities have lower death rates and that's what the research says as well
However it's wroth noting you're confusing population with population density
Which is odd - because with a brain as thick as yours you've obviously got lots of experience being dense
LOLOL
PS - im still lactually physically aughing - i just can't get over how you manage to contradict yourself in the same post like that
On 4/20/2024 at 2:16 PM, Moonbox said:Wastecanman has been on ignore since probably 2020. He's a complete clown and has nothing of value to say, but he presumably has a life outside this forum and doesn't need to make himself the centre of attention and derail +80% of its threads. Put him on ignore, and you forget he exists.
Meanwhile, this other absolute no-life is drowning the forum in his fragile, belligerent performances. At any given time, he's derailing half a dozen or more threads and battling it out with at least as many different people.It's mildly entertaining, I guess, to trigger him. His complete lack of self-awareness and composure makes it easy, and you get some chuckles out of it. On the other hand, like everyone else in his life obviously feels, I'd prefer he wasn't here. 😆
Awww look - your stupidity is my post count's fault again
Called it
For someone so mentally unstable you sure are nicely predictable
Is WCM making you cry now too? Awww
life is so hard for you.
-
2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
So people can buy them to live in them. Homes don't need to sell for a million dollars to be profitable for developers.
well they do if that's what the land and labour costs to make them.
And we just hit upon a large hunk of the problem. .It takes ages to get land approved for development - and there's not enough workers to effectively stustain building at the rate necessary to support current immigration.
And the idea that you can bring in people to build more homes is as stupid as saying if you eat fast enough you'll get thin.
If we slow down immigration to a lower pace AND we make it easier for developers to build homes then we go a long way towards solving the problem. As demand goes down, the land sells for less. Which makes it cheaper to build homes. Which means you can sell them for less than a million and still make a profit.
-
6 hours ago, Rebound said:
There are established procedures which determine when a presidential candidate qualifies for Secret Service protection. RFK Jr. doesn’t qualify, period
Yes - rebound - there is. And what they are trying to do is CHANGE that proceedure so that trump will no longer have protection as an ex president.
That is nothing short of utterly disgusting. They are taking the established procedure and trying to change it with the intent of making it easier for someone to kill a former president. They mention him by name.
How the F*CK can you support that crap? I don't care WHAT party is doing it - that's HORRIBLE. They are literally inviting people to kill trump.
THis has NOTHING to do with kennedy.
-
12 minutes ago, herbie said:
What? You can't consider emigrating. Your grandparents did that! There's no more steerage and you have to pay double GST on airplane tickets... it's,, it's unthinkable....
Your brain melted i see. That can happen when there's a short circuit
-
20 hours ago, robosmith said:
What Worries Me Most About a Trump Presidency
It is obvious that is why Trump ever got involved in politics. He first wanted to sell out the nation for an opportunity to build a Trump Tower in Moscow rumored to represent $200M in profits to himself. AKA his most profitable project to date.
What worries ME most is that if he wins your head will explode violently and i won't be able to think of a single nice thing to say at the funeral.
-
1
-
-
On 4/20/2024 at 9:12 AM, Army Guy said:
The lack of US support along with some of it's allieds is being noticed on the battlefield , Russia has made steady gaines in the last 5 months most of it is due to lack of direct support in regards to Ammo and equipment such as air defenses...Ukraine is starting to panic as Russia is gearing up for a spring offensive...Ukraine's panic is not gone unnoticed with all the requests it is putting out for more equipment and supplies, i mean come on to ask anything from Canada in regards to military equipment is a little desperate..they also mention sending over what we consider junk , they would fix it and put it into service...
Ukraine knows first hand that any Russian gains means more Ukrainian lives will be lost to regain any territory...
Not sure why Canada is balking at sending more military aid, or vehicles, we have sent 8 Leo IIA4 tanks, which according to the liberals will be replaced, so if they are going to purchase 8 new or used tanks, what is the difference if they purchase 10, 20, 30, 40 tanks it is just a number...and lets face it they are old tanks, Put that into perspective they were built or upgraded in 1994... been driven hard and put away wet, we use them for training tanks as we did not buy all the extra armor or upgrades that goes with them...
The remaining 40 LeoIIA4M and LeoIIA6M are our operational tanks, ya thats right 40 tanks are combat ready, 20 of those were made in 1990, and the other 20 Leo IIA6M were made in 2004...These tanks most of them have already seen combat, some blown up by IED in Afghanistan, and rebuilt ...so these ones have been used hard, very hard....Germany is now producing the LeoIIA8, which is 4 models more advanced than our latest LEO IIA6M...Lessons learned from the Ukrainian conflict have not been address in a new model but it is coming as experimental tanks have already been built and shown to the world. Why not replace the whole fleet.
We also as mentioned in the article have older equipment that has been taken out of service which could be sent, not to mention some of the useless equipment we have that is newer, like the TPAV, or how about those F-18 we bought off the Aussies, or those AOP's that are just being built , you know the ones that have their own swimming pools built in....
As Russia presses forward, Ukraine pleads with Canada for armour, air defence (msn.com)
I heard from someone in the military directly that we do not have 40 servicable combat tanks.
We have nothing. We have nothing left to send that would be of any use. That's where the canadian military is at.
The best we can do is pay for someone else to send them anti-air systems,
We don't fund our own military - and you're wondering why he isn't putting more into someone else's military?
Anyway the us just signed off on a bunch - we'll see.
-
58 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:
Actually I was about to say the same thing about you
Of course. AI bots always parrot what they've heard, that's how they work
-
3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:
It’s a small but decisive majority
Ok but what are you basing that on. Or are you just kind of making it up because it sort of feels about right
QuoteNobody tells anyone to think that least of all me. It’s easily observed.
ROFLMAO!!!! Ok kid
-
3 hours ago, eyeball said:
A race to the bottom will not improve our quality of life, especially if we have to cut things like environmental regulations to make ourselves more competitive.
There's no 'race to the bottom'. You seem to think the beurocracy for the sake of beurocracy is somehow a good thing.
You can cut a HELL of a lot of red tape and proceedure and not 'race to the bottom'.
Hey - we tried it your way and the country is sinking fast. We're going to try it a different way.
QuoteIf it's okay for fish farms to pollute it'll be okay for oil refineries too, as well as anyone else who insists on enjoying the same loopholes.
They're not enforcing the rules we DO have. when you have thousands of rules with no teeth they get ignored daily.
Cut it back to the essential rules, demand gov'ts have fast timelines for doing their investigation into proposals, and then enforce the crap out of the rules you DO have. I guarantee there'd be a hell of a lot less pollution and damage.
-
3 hours ago, eyeball said:
Only if they have somewhere to go.
Conversely if corporations are free to roam the planet in search of better times human beings should be able to as well. We're people too after all.
Refugees certainly seem to have adopted the corporate attitude.
IF they don't have somewhere to go - they'll make somewhere to go. Or they backlash here and they elect a no-tax gov't.
Now - you were told the same thing about climate change. If you make it painful and people don't like it or see results that matter to them, there will be a strong backlash. You didn't listen - now it's going to the bottom of the pile and the carbon tax will be gone and people will not want to put a penny into climate change.
So this time - listen.
The current hatred for justin and the left in general is a result of believing you can just tax people forever and that if the rich leave and take their high paying jobs then the average person won't notice.
-
4 hours ago, eyeball said:
Ok, so just wait until we all hit bottom and then figure it out.
Oh no - we should absolutely do the wrong thing that won't wprk instead just so we can say we did something - like we did with climate change!!! That' worked out right ?
FFS. Is this how you lefties think?
No, we have to look at ways that can actually work, and there are a few depending on how you want to tackle it, but at the end of the day if its' cheaper to find a way around they will. so design your response with that in mind.
QuoteIt shouldn't take long the way things are going.
Things are going this badly because we have a left wing woke incompetent running the country, not because a handful of wealthy people are wealthy.
When he's gone - rhings can get better.
What's with that btw? The left constantly says they're against the fabulously wealthy - yet both justin and jaggers are beyond fithly rich and are getting richer every day and you twinkies keep voting for them. "We need someone to stand up to the rich - lets get those rich guys over there!!!! " yeash - how many foxes do you have guarding YOUR henhouse?
-
1 hour ago, Rebound said:
There are established procedures which determine when a presidential candidate qualifies for Secret Service protection. RFK Jr. doesn’t qualify, period
He's not a candidate. He's a former president. They ALWAYS qualify - period.
People go after former presidents. The whole deal is that if you're president, you KNOW you're going to honk people off if you do the right things no matter how hard you try otherwise, so you are granted protection so that you can make decisions freely and not fear being killed later.
IT's the same in all democracies. The system doesn't work without it - you protect your former leaders.
They are saying "It's all right to kill this former leader because we don't like him.
Get your head out of your ass - this is one of those rare subjects that should transcent even the left wing echo chambers- EVERYONE should be angry this was proposed and should say so loudly to their party reps.
22 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:Not "scummy"... safer....people who don't like the old draft dodger if he wins might take a few potshots at him and hit one of Trump's SS Officer's ....I mean " private militia" guards by mistake.
Scummy beyond words. I should have guessed a lying sack like yourself wouldn't have the morals to know that it's wrong to ecourage people to kill leaders of their country. How pathetic.
-
22 hours ago, I am Groot said:
What I suspect we need is someone who will make huge cuts in government programs and spending, not to mention slashing regulations of all kinds along with the regulators.
Well - probably not as much as you think.
The funny thing is - we don't really need to 'slash' all that much. Definitely there will have to be trimming - and things like the cbc will be on the chopping block - but a lot of it is just NOT being stupid about spending. We spent hundreds of millions on the arrive can app as an example. Just not doing that kind of dumb stuff actually reduces spending significantly.
There's a lot of absolute fat to trim. Trudeau and his buddies have been making money from a lot of it. If you just go back to be responsible in your spending then the buddget gets a lot close to balance.
And then you can "outgrow it" by making smart decisions and controlling the growth of gov't while the population and wages grow. I saw one projection that suggested that with very modest cuts the budget could be balanced in even 4 years.
A lot of regulations will need to be slashed to get businesses to invest and improve our quality of life but that's actually a different problem (tho related).
-
21 hours ago, eyeball said:
Someone who will unleash people like Black so they can pretty much do whatever they want?
Don't worry, nature will take care of regulations along with regulators soon enough and everyone will have the same opportunities.
Still smarter than "the budget will balance itself".
-
13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:
Trump and 60% of the GOP are Putin stoogesThat seems oddly specific. Did you take a poll or something?
Quoteand MAGA supporters are brainwashed cultists who will endorse anything Trump decrees on any given day no matter how bizarre or hypocritical or self contradictory.
Well of course the dems would tell you to think that....
QuoteWhy don’t you get a can of gas and a match and join your cultist brethren.
Easy guy. Lets not be wishing death on each other.
-
2 hours ago, eyeball said:
This is why advanced economies need to come together with similar enough rules and rates of taxation that there's nowhere to move to check this race to the bottom.
I understand why you might say that but it's not practical. It would just wind up being that all countries had the same loopholes for the rich. And it would mean that if we wanted to change tax policy to attract business or the like we'd have to ask permission from 100 other countries and get them to agree. And how do you address things like what's a tax break? A country that wanted to charge less actual tax could just allow more write offs. So what, you'd have every country have exactly the same tax code?
It just doesn't work. You'd just introduce MORE inefficiencies and the rich would STILL dodge it and the poor would still suffer.
QuoteA local corollary to this is underscored in the current backpeddling in Ottawa to force fish farms in BC to switch from open-net pens to closed-containment systems by next year. Farmers are threatening to move to a country that will let them do what they want which is to keep on getting rid of their pollution the easy way. Ottawa appears to be caving.
Sure. Like i said - they always find a way. And if they force it one way or another canada won't have fish farms.
You have to come at it another way. For example it may be possible to offer a tax break that was sufficient to entice the industry to do it. Etc etc.
People will follow the rules and pay their taxes - right up to the point where it's actually cheaper and easier to find a way around them. Then they find a way.
-
3 hours ago, Deluge said:
Looks like tike the democrat party is trying to communicate something without actually saying it. No doubt it's sinister as f*ck....
Well what they are saying is "trump is so evil he doesnt' deserve to live so we won't stop someone from killing him".
These are the SAME people who claim that trump should be punished for using 'excessive rhetoric' leading to Jan 6.
They are actively encouraging the murder of their political opponents with this.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Hodad said:
Lol. He's been credibly accused of rape many times, including by Ivana in a sworn deposition. And multiple other women, including quite credibly by E. Jean Carroll. And the judge in the case agreed with that description.
Your problem with Carroll is that she:
1. Is a talented, successful, independent woman.
2. She's rich, having just won $83.3 million of Trump's money.
3. Has been violated by Trump in ways you can only fantasize about.
Pretty much all of that is false .
IF he had been 'credibly accuased' he'd be on trial for it and the judge in the Carroll case did NOT claim trump raped her.
If you've got to lie to make your point you don't have a very good point.
85.7% of Covid Deaths in Canada Were Among the Multi-Vaxed from Aug to Sept of 2022. Jabbing 85% of the Population Didn't Reduce Deaths
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Hey - maybe it'll turn out to be one of those really positive and wonderful hidden medical side effects, because that happens! Like maybe the next generation of babies will be born with super powers.
- how the left hopes this works.