CouchPotato

I don't actually buy that Trudeau was all that charismatic, anyway. I think a great deal of Trudeau's star appeal was manufactured by the media. And Carney has all the personality of a wet-blanket. Pierre is a really good speaker. He smiles a lot and is very warm. He is also bright and quick on his feet. The reason Pierre is disliked by so many is that they are told he is all these awful things. Angry, divisive, Trumpy.. and once again this is manufactured by Canadian media.

Going back to this statement... As I pointed out before, there are all kinds of horrible things people can get away with in situations where they cannot be easily monitored. All you need is a certain amount of privacy. Even your own home affords a certain amount of privacy to commit crimes. Should we do more to mitigate risk by restricting people from situations where it would not be realistic to catch them doing something?

Absolutely. End of.

And would that include private land as well?

I disagree entirely. Most of the fires here are in areas where no one would ever be hiking. But I am asking you, do you think entry to the woods should be restricted whenever there are dry conditions? There is hardly a year where there is no period of high fire risk. All you need is a lack of rain for a little while and very hot weather. And people could conceivably be careless with fire at any time. Do you propose banning the forest every year?

All kinds of terrible acts can be commited in situations where it's not realistic to catch people. Maybe people shouldn't be allowed anywhere they cannot be continually monitored?? Here in NB the forest was dangerously dry most of the summer. It wasn't until there were all these fires that all of sudden hiking became a crime worthy of a 25 grand fine. Before that, and in spite of the dry conditions people were hiking freely. But the risk was always there and was a huge topic of conversation here. Especially in a rural area like where I live. "We really need some rain. We are lucky we haven't had any fires yet." Do you think it would have been reasonable to ban hiking all summer? Should we ban it during dry weeks?

What about the Royal Nova Scotia International Tattoo?

Opposing the Liberals who have consistently led us into failure for a decade now is helping Canada. Furthermore, that is his job as opposition leader, and exactly what the Liberals would be doing had Poilievre won. Pierre is the reason the Liberals were ultimately forced to drop the carbon tax.

Also, Ana is back....

Pierre's speech was really, really good. I love the part where he said that when you care about something you don't give up on it. He then went on to tell the story of a woman undergoing cancer treatments showed up at his rally to tell him to keep going and how he told her, "You don't give up, so I don't give up." That's the kind of fellow we need leading this country!

Mhmm. That's right, bud. You keep trying. Eventually you'll believe yourself.

Mhmm. And now he won another. I am sure even you are aware you are really reaching here with this hypocrisy argument, but you can continue trying to convince yourself.

No it isn't. Conservatives oppose waste. 2 million is not waste to have a real leader. The people of Battle River Crowfoot deserve full props for knowing what one looks like. Meanwhile..... That's just 4 months in. And just so you know there are a whole lot of 2 million dollarses in 63 billion dollars. And that's just one small example of Liberal failure. 2 million bucks to have competent leadership in this country is wise spending. Liberals have been making this stupid argument for months. It is like a serial killer calling someone a hypocrite for pointing out that he is extremely violent after the serial killer finds out that his critic once flicked someone's ear.

No, hypocrisy is talking about 'wasting' 2 million when the Liberals have wasted billions and have tanked the country for a decade.

Relatively small price to pay to have at least one competent party leader in the House of Commons, especially when you consider the Liberals blow billions.

Can't wait to see Pierre back in the house this fall.

It's important to hold government to account whenever they commit overreach. That is how you maintain a free society. I can survive without hiking for a month. That's not the point. You can survive without a lot of things, that doesn't mean the government should be able to restrict you from doing those things without a really good reason. Entering the woods in and of itself is not a fire risk. The fire risk is other things you can potentially do in there. You realize that the fire risk was incredibly high here all summer. People were hiking and entering the woods all the time up until this point. There was no ban until there were fires. But the danger level was always there. Should we have been banned all summer from entering the woods?

What are you talking about? We aren't complaining about you personally. You didn't implement the draconian rules, did you? This is a discussion board. We discuss things. You made a post saying people would be complaining if they didn't get an emergency response on time, and I explained why it's BS that this is even an issue. No. It's not that we would likely do that. It's that you bet we would. If emergency services are actually strained right now and people cannot get services in time when they get injured hiking, then the same would occur for people doing several other activities. If that is happening, no one is complaining about it. Or maybe we guys/gals only complain when services are slow when we get injured hiking.

Sure they have. But people are injured doing tons of other activities. Hiking is nowhere near the most dangerous. So if the government is really concerned about the drain on emergency services right now, why would it matter whether it is someone hiking in the woods? Why not someone playing sports or cycling or skateboarding where injury is far more likely? Not that I am arguing in favor of those things. But Susan Holt's comments on why hiking is banned are pure BS.

That's true. Neither is hiking. Hiking is harmless. Going into the woods in and of itself is not dangerous. It is doing certain other things while hiking which are dangerous. To fine someone 25 grand because they could conceivably do something dangerous while doing something harmless is draconian. We don't fine people who we definitively know are making dangerous choices 25 grand. You don't fine people 25 grand for speeding or drunk driving. Those are examples of actual risky behavior. How ludicrous it is to fine people absurdly more based on nothing more than the fact that they could possibly engage in risky behavior.

Absolutely, it does. The government is enacting a ridiculous fine for engaging in an activity which is not dangerous. Going in the woods is not a fire risk. There are things you can do in there which are. But to ban people from doing something on the presumption that they could is something society should steer away from. The more government gets away with things like this without backlash the more it is bound to do so. Mistrust of government is one of the major things that makes society free. You do realize what a ridiculous position this is. I mean what we are arguing about here is the so-called law itself. It is not a defense of the law to say well you don't have to worry about the ridiculous punishment if you don't break it. You know this is stupid. You could argue that it's very easy not to break this law. But that is not really a defense of it. If the government put a 25 grand fine on saying 'bloodmary' three times, anyone could easily avoid breaking that law. People would survive without saying 'bloodymary', but that doesn't make it justifiable. Draconian overreach is draconian overreach.

But that does not make it defensible. Far worse things happening does not make fining people to the tune of 25 grand for doing something that is harmless acceptable. If I get overcharged ten bucks for a shirt tomorrow, it won't be as bad World War 2 or thalidomide babies or the Titanic sinking, but I would still go get my money back. And yeah when the government sees fit to charge someone 25 grand for walking in the woods there ought to be push back against that kind of ridiculous heavy handedness. This stuff matters.

Here in NB most of the fires are in central/northern NB in the middle of nowhere. I don't know anyone who is going out there to hike. The province has been really dry the entire summer. It was the topic of discussion for weeks now that we are lucky there hasn't been a fire. No one was banned from hiking until last week. Somehow people managed to go on hiking trails all this time without setting the forest alight. Yup, Canada is so backasswards when it comes to justice.