Moonbox

Because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is against them. You cherry-pick dissenters and then elevate them to the only voices that matter, because that suits your narrative. Rather than accept the positions of the sweeping majority of the most prestigious and esteemed scientists/doctors around the world, you think that a "Department Head" from a university (with probably a staff of 1 or 2) is the most authoritative voice. It's absurd. I'll ask directly this time: If having data/research on the long-term side effects of each new vaccine that came out was the standard for deeming them safe, how would we ever combat the next viral outbreak? If we end up facing an airborne Marlburg virus or something, are you going to sit here and complain that we don't have 15 years of data for long term side effects of the MRNA vaccine they use to save everyone? Come on...

Because you're asking superstitious questions about the unprovable unknown. You may as well ask me if we should be concerned that aliens have been abducting Canadians and using them for science experiments and that Justin Trudeau knows about them. They have decades of MRNA vaccine research and testing to show there are no long-term vaccine side-effects for this type of vaccine, nor for the others that we've been using for 100 years. Your fear is unsound. If having long-term data on each new vaccine was the threshold we had to meet for approval, we'd never get new vaccines out in useful time frames. How to we get 15 years of testing on a COVID vaccine, or a the next smallpox? It's foolish reasoning.

Brian Peckford makes the same complaints many others have, and his will fail for the same reasons. There will come a time where the weight of those complaints will outweigh the severity of the public health situation, but until then he's just yelling like everyone else. As for the gravitas he carries regarding the Charter, he was a bit-player from a small province with absolutely no background in Law. He was a highschool teacher before getting into politics, so his understanding of Constitutional Law is about as strong as Justin Trudeau's. What's really interesting is how you'll exalt him and his opinions.

I answered your questions, twice. They were dumb questions too. If you consider that to be ad hominem I think you should review your sterling record here. If I didn't know better I'd think you were doing stand-up or something.

I have no problem with the Charter and how it's applied. If you have a legitimate complaint then explain it. Be specific. Just yelling CHARTER VIOLATION like a dope is meaningless.

You don't know anything about the Charter. You refer to it but you may as well be talking about quantum physics for all your understanding of it.

Stupid questions don't get good answers. You weren't actually asking questions, you were just phrasing your opinions as questions. Nobody can tell you what's going to happen when the things that aren't going to happen, happen, nor can we give you long-term safety data for a new vaccine for a new virus. As I said, if the safety standards were set by you, we'd literally never have vaccines to treat new and dangerous viruses, because apparently we'd need 10-20 years of results to rule out your vapid superstitions. The doctors and scientists know how vaccines work and how they affect people long-term. That you choose to listen to the handful of outspoken dissenters over all the rest is based entirely on your desperate need for something to validate your politics.

What do you figure long-term is, genius? How many years is that? If that's the threshold you must pass for safety testing, then we'll never have a timely vaccine to stop a serious health crisis, whether that's COVID, the next smallpox or some airborne ebola or super-measles. We have decades of research on how all vaccines affect people long term and that's shown there's little/nothing to worry about, but that won't stop you from grasping at whatever you can vaguely grasp at to pretend you're making an even remotely objective argument. What if the "censored" scientists are actually just loud-mouthed idiots who you're clinging to desperately to provide any sort of legitimacy to your viewpoints? Common sense would lead most people to trust the overwhelming majority of everyday doctors and scientists who are on board and promoting the vaccines, but not you. For you, it's instead far easier to twist your brain into knots trying to convince yourself that millions of doctors and researchers around the world are all either duped or in on some conspiracy so that they can achieve...something...that benefits them how? Don't bother answering, because there's no good answer.

Diseases like COVID, okay. The fact that we don't have decades of research on a specific vaccine is irrelevant because if that was the benchmark for measuring safety we'd never have a vaccine for practical use. Your pseudo-science, half-baked theories and rabid hyperbole aside, can you not see the irony and hypocrisy of complaining about pejorative terms like anti-vaxxers when in the same breath you are calling people vax-Nazis? The level of obliviousness on that is mind-boggling.

We've had warnings for this for like 20 years. Maybe if people voted about stuff that actually mattered we'd be in a better position, but alas they care about whatever someone's screeching loudest about on any given day.

It is basically endemic now, but whether or not you're unvaccinated, you still chew up taxpayer dollars when you end up in the ICU and you endanger other people with other medical conditions if the ICU overflows. The other side of it is if you're more infectious and more likely to spread the virus, you still cause extra problems regardless of whether or not things are endemic. The funniest part about your comments is the thought that "we should have just got more ICU beds". YEah man...absolutely. You just go on Amazon and buy more beds. It has nothing to do with staff capacities, hospital space etc. Just buy some extra Futons for the ICU and everything is fine!

Yep, everyone else is anti-science - not the anti-vax crowd. Can't make this stuff up. ?

If you say stuff angrily enough and repeat it enough, fantasy becomes reality.

Rather than accurate description, what you're using is more like imbecilic and juvenile hyperbole.

Ultimately, what is housing for? It's for people to live in. When foreigners own too much of it and are speculating and/or playing slumlord with too much of it, that brings clear economic problems. The bigger problem is the cheap interest rates. The fact that prices spiked as they did through COVID downturns is lunacy. A 1.00% rate hike this year would mean people renewing in 2023 are probably looking at +35% increased interest cost on their mortgages. Considering something like 1/4 of rental condos in the GTA were in the red even back in 2018, there are some worrying signs of a reckoning.

This is just too rich coming from you.

With all due respect, you wrote a 6 paragraph wall of text that amounted to, "lots of things are bad and they're getting worse," followed by "please comment." That's not a troll, I just don't even know where to begin typing a response to all of that. It's too broad, too vague and has little/no objective information to work with. You see Canada breaking down systemically. I don't. I just see problems that we could focus down and discuss, but not like this.

I know what I said. What I deny is your unhinged interpretation of my words. Umm...Okay. You just got the high score on your alternate realty VR simulation. Well done.

but you can't even explain how the Constitution is being violated. That's just a provocative thing you can say to each other to rile one another up.

I did nothing even remotely like that. This is the sort of raving nonsense that undermines everything you say. It's hard to take you seriously if all you're going to do is rant hyperbole. I couldn't even make up quotes this foolish. Thanks for the laugh.

O'Toole was seen, just like Scheer, as a coward who stood for nothing. He lost the last election not because he promoted more modern/liberal policies. He lost because while promoting those policies, he refused over and over to disavow the more hardline conservative viewpoints from the "backbone" of the party. The Small-C conservatives he was courting therefore never trusted him, so he both failed to expand the party's reach whilst pissing off the hardliners.

I have said before I understand why people don't like Trudeau. I don't like him either and I agree with a bunch of your points. There's a reason he's not particularly popular and he gets mocked so much. It's when you get into the nonsense about the Law and the Constitution that your points start to crumble. The Law is reasoning-based and the Constitution codifies (not always precisely) some basic principles. You can't just keep referring to the Constitution as some sacred ideal you're trying to uphold. It doesn't work that way. Explain where you think the Law or the Constitution are being violated. It's not enough to just say, "Vaccine mandates are unconstitutional." How? What Section of the Constitution is being violated? Until you can articulate that, your appeals to Law and Constitution are just more sloganeering.

I've little to nothing good to say about Trudeau but I'm not so blinded by self-righteousness and identity politics to conclude by rote that everything he does is bad.

You completely missed the whole point of the reference, proving exactly what I was saying. You're whining that the freedom convoy is being unfairly painted due to agitators present in the protest, but then gleefully fall back into hyperbole and commit the same offenses when I brought up BLM. Your myopic hypocrisy was predictable and that's why I brought up BLM in the first place. I've never discussed this matter with you before, but I was 90% certain it would trigger a silly rant like the one quoted. The reason so few Canadians care about the freedom convoy and why it has so little broad support is because it's a giant tantrum and full of folks who communicate and reason like you do here.

You don't have much of an understanding of the Charter or how it works. You can't just refer to the Charter anytime you're not allowed to do something and complain about your "rights". I mean I guess you can complain about it, but nobody's going to take you seriously.