Rue

While I predominantly agree with you and Reefer and suggest fossil fuel technology has to be scrapped we still have a long way to go with solar, wind, tidal, and other alternative energy sources. The transition will be tricky as old financial networks try preserve their control as long as they can. Its human nature with change. Resistance is a form of behaviour those in power institutionalize to enforce their reign. Resistance to change is often implemented through institutions that impose the status quo and train us to believe change is dangerous. We resist change brought up to believe our world as we know it must get worse not better if we change and so we fear change. We fear change, the unknown, just as we fear death. Change requires education. It may be it's too late to expect certain people ever to accept they must change their lifestyles and in particular a lifestyle which creates disposable garbage that can not be recycled entails manufacturing processes that create toxic pollution and wastes energy in both it's creation process and then utilitarian process or user function. We can embrace change but it may have to come from the next generation and not the baby boomers and their children. I worry cell phones have been used to dumb the masses down and turn us all into brainless zombies who are conditioned to follow orders not inititiate. It starts with people adjusting their expectations of what the current norms are. It will mean a massive collective reductionist approach to lifestyle as we know it, i.e., a drastic scaling down of our rampant consumerism and addiction to unnecessary material goods. Adding to that problem are incoming Canadians attracted to our materialism and seeking to live the same selfish polluted lives we do because trendy leftists have taught them it is their human right to live that way since we Canadian citizens do.

Iran as well. But hey why be balanced with such comments.

Listen I run Hollywood, the banking system, control the White House, according to you. The thing about your selective leftist memory is how you define Globalism. It depends on your cause of the day. You know damn well what I refer to and my point is Globalism is neither a left or right wing political phenomena but quaint lefty stereotypes such as thou define it as a right wing phenomena.. Regards Comrade, Jewish World Conspirator, aka Zionist Rue faced Right Wing Colonial Imperialist Neo something and then some more of what ever you say or deny

Of course.....it's human nature to complain. You want happy people? I am not sure that is possible unless you put them on heavy medication or cut out a chunk from their brain. I was happy once when Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hitlon offered me a three-some. Then when they took their clothes off and I saw the skin rashes I ran. Happiness is a fleeting thing. Over-rated. P.s. Paris has a penis. Go figure.

Yah true but I bet you love it. They don't make them with those lines any more. Anyone who can restore a car is a great artist.

Well explained and look out you wrote more than two sentences that bothers some on this forum. You and Cano are covering both sides of the issue real darned good.

I am not sure what that means. Globalism means what? It was at one point called colonialism. At one point it was called discovering new lands and exploiting the natives or killing them off with syphilis. Globalism, or the movement of goods and transactions across borders has been around a long time. Its done good and bad things. To write it all off as bad is as pointless as saying its all been good, its of course a bit of both. You and I do not agree on much but we both are aware when mega-corporations get too big, say like Dow Chemical, their GDP's are far larger than most countries and they can use their extreme power and financial strength to move into countries and control their businesses in environments where they do not have to worry about environmental and labour laws like they would in Canada. However even in Canada Dow is so powerful it runs its own show in Sarnia. It is basically a self ruling nation. Those kind of huge Colgate-Palmolive, Coca-Cola, Dow, Dupont, type mega nationals control governments. They employ millions upon millions and they have vast networks of intelligence and influence. Is everything they do bad? Well I leave that to you. I think they do good and bad things. I am also concerned about organized crime syndicates who launder their money using legitimate businesses. Banks could not and would not survive without laundering the money of organized criminals and sheltering the money of corrupt politicians. I get that. I get all the conspiracy stories about the illuminati, Satanist bankers, new world orders, Bohemian Grove Members. Yah yah yah but global trade is a reality. We use it to help the poor or exploit the masses. The choice begins and ends at what you choose to buy. Its always been there.

Its not a science no. It can be quite subjective depending on who is explaining it yes. I guess its akin to a social science with lots of math? Some theories can be objectively proven others can not. No I would not call Marxist economic theory science nor would I call supply and demand theories infallible, no of course not. I do think we all need to improve our understanding of economics though to understand how its used to manipulate us especially as consumers.

I have seen built in windmills in igloo/eg like self sustaining homes in the Negev desert that function excellently. They are not very big. They look like fans with small generators. No I am not talking about large wind mills you discuss. Those create havoc for birds, and the neurological systems of all life forms to name just two concerns. Not a fan of them. I agree about wind farms you talk of not being a great idea. Here's what I am referring to: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/installing-and-maintaining-small-wind-electric-system https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/buying-and-making-electricity/small-wind-electric-systems https://www.treehugger.com/wind-technology/how-make-small-backyard-wind-power-generator.html http://mason.gmu.edu/~rehrlich/sample.pdf

Very courteous of you but you don't. Sheeyat this is a discussion forum. We exchange ideas. I learn as much from you and others. Thanks though that was real nice of you to say.

To start with I disclose my biases. 1-I sent both my daughters to French immersion. One is the head of public relations of a very large international company making much more money than me and living in New York. She went to graduate school in France and undergrad in that horrid nation called the US. The second is has a graduate degree and also went to the horrible US for university. I could not stop them. Both were French immersion. I come from Montreal so I was bilingual although its true what some say, if you do not use French all the time you can lose it. It comes back when I have a Labatt Blue but I concede that. I also concede growing up in Quebec I felt speaking French was a necessity not because I was forced to but it was the respectful thing to do in a province where the majority were French. To me it was not a political issue but a common courtesy one. Most French Quebecers insisted on speaking English to me out of courtesy. I was only late in life on a vacation at Iles Aux Coudres, the hotel owner refused to speak English to his American customers that I went ballistic calling him an inbred ass and I translated and left the hotel. Idiot. That said I support French immersion as I support any parent who teachs their child to speak more than one language. Why? There are no shortage of sights that explain the benefits of learning more than one language such as: https://www.unb.ca/fredericton/second-language/_resources/pdf/FrenchImmersionresearchmythorrealityJan2015EECD.pdf I am not arguing it does not have issues but as the above article and many others that have researched education have shown: an ability to speak a second language enhances cognitive functioning, especially “executive control” – the decision-making centre of the brain 1 more students are schooled in their second language in the world than in their first language allophones (students who speak a language other than English or French) can be and are successful second language learners in various types of programs including French immersion, and often surpass native English-speaking students in Canada the vast majority of students in French immersion are from unilingual English families the program was designed for these parents. many anglophone parents have had success advocating for and supporting their students in French immersion. Promoting literacy in the first language (e.g., reading to your child) is an important way of supporting French language learning I would argue bilingualism is not a racket but a recognition of the two legal languages of Canada. Our laws were and are based on British and French legal and cultural systems as well as those of the nations of the aboriginals. We recognize all native languages as languages of Canada as they were the first languages of Canada and they are protected in the Charter. No one asks you speak those languages but legally they are nations of Canada. No one forces you to speak French or English either. You can choose to remain unilingual, illiterate, whatever. Its your choice. The law forces nothing on you but it has to remain neutral to the two legal languages of English and French and accommodate the aboriginal languages in court and government services as the government of Canada serves all three. I find Quebec's decision to not service English speakers in English outside the federal court system unfortunate but the reality is Canada allows this discrimination so the English provinces argue quid pro quo except Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick who are provincially bilingual. It was a well known Tory provincial Premier of Ontario who ushered in bilingualism for the province in 1967 during confederation and that Premier spoke little English and learned it in later life. Many Anglophone politicians have learned French in later life based on courtesy not because they had to. I don't find being courteous a racket myself. Merci. Les Glorieux sont la. Drouin, Price et Gallagher, Franco-Quebecois + aboriginal + Newfoundlander = Les Habs.

That I did not agree with and I will tell you why. Laurentian U in Sudbury, U of T, Ottawa U, are in fact bilingual universities teaching courses exclusively in French already. We also have College Boreal which is a community college. That one to me was a stupid idea. More to the point there are numerous universities in Quebec that are French only.

Give it a break comrade. He might steal your twinky or swiss roll if you leave it out but not the above. Wages are determined by global forces and supply and demand not the fat guy. Do they teach you any economics to go along with that Marxism?

Bush is not playing the game, the global economy is. Don't give Bush-C any more power than is necessary thank you.

Its always been unstable in France. In fact if you look at the history of labour strife in Paris, its been continuous since WW2. The country has been bankrupt since WW2. It would not exist as we know it without that huge infusion of money from the US post WW2. Then and I have nothing against unions per se, the union movement got to the point where the majority of French are in a union and its made work productivity very problematic. As it is the entire country takes the summer off. Let's be honest, Spain, France, Italy they all are collapsed economies at this point along with Greece. Portugal is an agrarian economy and so you have what in Europe...Germany basically carries the show. Britain and Holland have their own traditional way of doing things with their own deep problems of unemployment. Eire had a brief revolution of sorts with computer technology then went bust again. Denmark is having internal problems with tax rates as well. So? Scandinavia? Sweden and Norway have issues. Everyone in Europe does. Other than Germany who has an economy that works? You have conditions ripe for another Hitler or Hitlers across Europe. Sweden voted in very right wing people. So did Poland and Hungary. Its a powder keg similar to the Europe prior to WW2. It has complex regional issues fueled by centuries old ethnic and cultural divisions within countries let alone between countries-then add the influx of poor African, Asian and Middle Eastern migrants and its an explosive mix of anger, resentment. Could France implode. Its happened before. DeGaulles technically got elected a second time round as a reaction to a collapse over the Algerian war. In the 60's it had wide spread riots in reaction to DeGaulles, Pompideau, Valerie Discard Destang who actually was very similar to Macron. France is an interesting mix of right wing illuminati bankers so to speak and commies. Its a volatile mix. Corrupt as hell too.

I think all kidding aside we have gone that full circle and I have always argued as we call have I guess, that the extremes become become one and the same. Illuminati, Communist Party of China, whoever it is controlling us I wonder if it's too late. I say this and call me naive, I think the silent guy toiling out there overwhelmed by elites is capable of starting a revolution. It starts a with one act of kindness. It has as powerful an impact as any act of greed.Don't believe me just watch.

This is not a lefty righty issue. Its an issue as to whether you want government or large corporations to run your life. Either way has problems if the insitution is too large, is unaccountable and has too much control over our lives.

I defer to your expertise comrade.

I blame GM transmissions that crack at 150 k's and crap service and auto parts.

..and clearly your left leaning sphincter muscles. Funny how that works both ways

Tax me I left your latest response to me blank. It makes no sense. To start with third world economies would only want to bring immigrants in if they developed an economy that required them. The very nature of third and fourth world economies is that they can't sustain anyone. That clearly is something you can't understand as you have demonstrated twice now. You also do not understand that neither I or anyone else has responded to you saying all immigration is good for all countries. That is your assumption because you project your rigid understanding of life. For you everything is back or white, all or nothing. The economy does not work that way. Immigration can be beneficial or negative to a country or both, hard as it is for you to conceive that. Immigration is beneficial when it brings in people with required skills and education to build the economy. It can be negative if it brings in people who will not contribute but only burden the state. You actually prove why we need skilled immigrants. Clearly the education process failed you and someone has to pay taxes to assure there is welfare for you. The cold hard reality is immigration is necessary because people like you can not sustain Canada's economy. NEXT save the crap suggesting because I find your opinions idiotic I support Trudeau. In fact you remind me of Justin. I can't tell the difference between you 2. Uh uh uh uh uh.

A regulation amends the wording in a statute. A statute such as the Criminal Code can not force people to run a business at a loss. What you are suggesting makes no sense legally or otherwise.

Hate what Bush says but totally agree. Reality sucks.

First of all you allowed Qubecois to take over Florida. You did let my people take over a portion of Miami thank you. You have no one to blame for those g strings but yourselves.

People do not freeze in Buffalo, Green Bay, Bismark..they do just fine. That's why they get along with us. People from California have skin cancer or lung cancer anyways.