Queenmandy85

You accuse people of lying when you cannot back up what you say. It is a practice that does not encourage respectful discourse. You still have not provided any studies that prove your statement that all anti-semites are left wing. You may want to consult the library's Political Science section for some references that may help you make your case. I hope that is helpful.

While the Nazis (not all or exclusively Germans) were mainly responsible for the holocaust, Canada has many anti-semites. It wasn't the CCF who instituted restricted restaurants clubs, golf courses etc. in Canada. Anti-semitism is not confined to any political group. There are anti-semites everywhere. While the activists in Hamas who perpetrated the horrific massacre in Israel, is totally evil, the average Palistinian just wants to live and feed his family and put a roof over their head. The problem is in 1948, the UN had the stupid idea of plunking Israel down in the middle of Palistice. Thousands of people lost their homes and that is going to create conflict. I proposed that Oregon would be a better place due to climate. Part of the problem is there are members of the current Israeli government who some how believe God gave Palistine to the Israel. An entity that is managing a universe consisting of over 28 trillion stars just in what we can see, gives a tinker's curse about who owns any particular bit of land or whether I am a human or a squirrel.

Prove it. I don't recall you ever working in our department.

When I was working, we had two guys who we nicknamed "Just about Everybody" and "Most People." When Just About Everybody were saying (place whining point here) he actually meant the person we called Most People, and vice versa. I won't ask you for a lot of studies saying anti-semitism is an exclusively left wing thing. Just give me a couple of reputable studies that prove that.

In 1948, the UN should have put Israel in Oregon. What possessed them to put it down in the middle east?

What is your source for that? As far as I know, anti-semitism is a multi-partisan problem. It is not accurate to paint a community with one label. When my late father -in-law was approached to run for the Social Credit Party in BC, he was told it was to get rid of the jews. The Liberal minister of immigration before the war had a policy about allowing jews into Canada, "One is too many." The NDP is split between supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestine. When we ascrible certain negative values on a community, we are pre-judging them based on the values or actions of some members. Hence, the word "prejudice." Some people are full of hate. Their political or religious persuasion has nothing to do with that. There is no excuse for hate or bad behaviour.

That pretty much covers it. Thanks.

This is two lies in one. The guy found going through someone's desk. "I'm just waiting for a friend. (That is the universal code for "I'm here to steal stuff.") The second lie...Thieves don't have any friends.

I read posts that speak of all the great things President Trump accomplished. I can only think of two. He didn't start any new military engagements, and he expedited the Covid vaccines. However, I am not an American so it is not my place to tell Americans whom to vote for.

It is inappropriate for Canadians to tell Americans how to vote. That being said, whether President Trump or President Biden is elected in 2024, nobody can say they didn't know who they were voting for. They are going to get the government they want. The rest of the world will have to deal with that. It might be a good idea for Canada to start laying the ground work to ensure good relations with the next Administration. In other words, be careful what you say.

How about Toronto to Calgary? Although, the way feelings in Alberta and Ontario are, People in one city may not want to travel to the other right now.

The LGBTQ community is not a monolith. It encompasses socialists, liberals, conservatives, marxist, moslems, jews, catholics, atheists, hindus, buddhists, quakers, electricians, MP's, law enforcement, US Navy SEALs. A few intellectually challenged students think it is appropriate to make light of tragedy while cross dressing, is only that. It does not mean this kind of behaviour is indicative of anyone else but themselves. It is no different than the claim that the LGBTQ is somehow tied to the Democratic Party.

You might want to attend to your auto-correct spell checker. It is causing you to mis-spell defence. Cheers

I have always advocated for a viable defence policy. I have yet to hear you say anything that indicates you agree. Cutting the CBC and putting $1.2 billion into the Canadian Armed Forces will hardly make a dent into the funding of defence required.. I have always campaigned for a meaningful contribution to NATO. 2% is woefully inadequate. But our NATO commitment must be on top of the need to defend our borders. It must be the surplus, over and above our own defence.That is why we need our own nuclear deterrence. Any war with Russia, the US and China will be nuclear. If Russia or China attack a NATO country, it will lead to an all out nuclear exchange. Conventional forces would be irrelavant. If the military is so important to Canadians, why is nobody, including the CPC, willing to pay for it? Why are the Canadian Forces 10,000 below authorized strength? The reason is people don't want to join. The members we do have are exceptional people who find a way to get remarkable results with what little resources they have. But, in a major conventional war, they do not have air superiority, Naval capability, armored strength, or infantry in sufficient numbers to last very long. Our population is triple what it was in 1945 when we had close to a million people in the military. In 1980, Switzerland had a populatin one fifth the size of Canada but could mobilize the second largest military force in Europe on 72 hours notice. Canada has the population, we can create the industrial base, but there is no desire to have anything but what exists now. We can blame the goveernment, but governments can only do so much without public support, and that support has not been there for decades. Even in the Second World War, we had the zombies. (Conscripts mostly from Saskatchewan and Quebec). If you didn't want to go into combat, you were conscripted, but you were not forced to go overseas. That changed in the last few months of the war when Ralston was fired and the Generals threatened revolt. Suddenly, the zombies found out they were off to fight Hitler and Tojo. So, the soldiers (zombies) from Saskatchewan garrisoned in Terrace, BC, mutinied, took over the city and placed artillery on the hills to cover the highway. They held out for a week. Then they surrendered. The ring leaders were court-martialled. The point is, even in the middle of a war, many Canadians are unenthusiastic about the military. The primary function of the military is to be able to defend Canada. We either rebuild the conventional forces to a level where they can carry out that task independently, or we build a nuclear arsenal capable of turning any and all enemies into a glass plate. Voters are unwilling to make the commitment to do that. The F-35 is more of an issue for me because if we get into a conflict the US does not approve of, it is so easy for them to embed a kill-switch in the aircraft. Unlikely I know, but if I were a pilot, it is not something I would want as a distraction in the back of my mind. Israeli tanks are designed by the people who use them. We need to design and build our own equipment. I've argued this since Paul Helyer wrecked the armed forces. After over half a century, you get tired. There comes a point when sitting in front of the TV to watch Gerry Dee is more worth while, because no matter what we say on this forum, the government is going to buy those F-35's and they will never be of any use in the next 40 years and the Canadian Forces will be under funded.

That would be all well and good, except we don't have a military capable of performing its basic task. Canadians are not willing to support a viable defence force. The operations we do engage in are small and don't require the F-35. There are cheaper alternatives built in France, or we could build our own. Drones are becoming a viable ground attack system. Russia would have a challenge crossing the Arctic Ocean in force. If they did, we invoke Article 5. If, as was speculated, we leave NATO, we build our own nuclear weapons. We probably should have a nuclear deterrence anyway. It would fulfill our NATO commitment. The only country that can logistically invade Canada is the United States. That is a distinctly remote possibility. If they did, then a conventional response is out of the question. We could make them bleed out over the next twenty-five years, but I don't see that happening. As in all my posts, I defer to Army Guy and Doug to correct me.

And all of us are paying for the hangar queen useless F-35. How about we pretend my taxes go to pay for the CBC which 23 million Canadians use regularly, and your taxes go to pay for the F-35 that will never be of use to anyone.

It's in the name..."PUBLIC Broadcasting Service." Then there is NRK. If Eric Trump trips on the stairs, NRK will be reporting it before he hits the ground. Do CTV or Global have progams like the Nature of Things or Coronation Street? Even their news on foreign events use American reporters. Can you see any difference in bias in their news casts from the CBC. When the Socreds call the CBC left wing and the NDP call it right wing, it tells me they are hitting that centre spot. With sky high polling numbers, Mr. Poilievre can hardly say he is being held back by "biased" CBC reporting. The Canadian population generally straddles the political centre. The CBC News organization strives for objectivity. Just because they don't have an irrational hatred of our politicians doesn't make them biased. We are not like the Americans. I remember being gob-smacked at the biased reporting in the 2016 election night reporting. There was no objectivity there.

One of Mr. Poilievres promises is to stop funding for the CBC's English language TV network. Every western nation has a public broadcaster. The CBC provides quality programming not offered by the private broadcasters. It costs taxpayers $1.2 billion per year. Science, drama, comedy etc. The role of a public broadcaster is to ensure there is programming that will serve as many people as possible rather than just the common denominator. There are some who never watch the CBC and ask why should they pay for it. Canada is buying 88 F-35 combat aircraft at a total cost of $74 Billion. The CBC costs each Canadian taxpayer $48. That is 3 bottles of wine, or 2 packs of cigarettes, or a case of beer. The F-35 costs each Canadian Taxpayer $98 per year. It is a computerized flying brick that will never be used. 88 fighters do not constitute a deterrence. My friend CDNFox does not watch the CBC. Fair enough. My son is a pacifist, a member of the Society of Friends (Quaker). If my son has to pay for weapons of war, why should Cdn Fox not have to pay for the CBC? The CBC is of more benefit to Canadians than the F-35. I believe Mr. Poilievre is wrong to cut the CBC. Our taxes go to pay for many things we, as individuals, may never use. But the taxes go to provide services to those who do need them.

My MP said the plan is to maintain the French network and CBC radio, but they plan to reduce support for the English language TV network. We will be the only western nation without a publicly funded TV network. I don't understand why he would do it. Remember what happened when Mulroney just pre-empted 20 minutes of Coronation Street. Anyway, maybe those events MacMillain warned about will distract him. Have a good night.?

Are the Dams on the Columbia privately owned? BC Hydro is a Crown corporation. Yes, the dams on the Kootenay, between Nelson and Casltgar were built by West Kootenay Power and Light, but that was exceptional. The nuclear power plants are not profitable, but the economic spin-offs will produce a lot of revenue, particularly in the export sector. And, most importantly, how much value do you place on the lives of the unborn, those people who have not been born yet but will be impacted by our actions taken now?

That is why we should have been doing this 45 years ago. I am struggling to be optimistic. The problem is the failure of the education system to ensure people like me go out into the world with a solid grounding in Math, Chemistry, Physics, Biology and Geography. The fact that we can vote without a basic understanding of science is going to be our biggest obstacle.

Lord, no. I grew up in the Kootenays. Best skiing in the world. I did go to U-Vic and worked in Victoria for a few years. When I say "grew up," the jury is still out. Okay, yes you are right. Let's go with those pesky Income Trusts Mr. Harper wasn't going to tax and then he stood infront of us in Saskatchewan and promised that Saskatchewan's oil revenue would be excluded in the equalization calculations. I've been lied to many times in my job, but that one was as brazen and any slick grit promise. But, even Justin Trudeau kept a campaign promise. But out of all the possible promises to keep, legalizing pot was the dumbest. I'm fine with Prime Minster Poilievre cancelling the carbon tax if he comes up with a better plan.

With nuclear power, we can electrify and rebuild the rail network. Buildling and operating power plants around the country and exporting them to every place that needs them will easily replace the thousands of jobs in the oil related industries. Place SMR's in rural areas and several Candu's around each major city. Nuclear power is even cleaner burning than natural gas. Its main carbon footprint is in the construction phase. Thorium reactors are in developement and they have the advantage of no military application, no melt-downs and are even ten times more efficient than uranium. This is all academic however. Prime Minister Poilievre will do what he will do. We will be impressed sometimes and disappointed other times. Governing Canada is easy until you sit in the big chair in the cabinet room for the first time and discover the true meaning of Harold MacMillain's response, "Events, dear boy, events." At least we won't have the carbon tax much longer. ?

No, nuclear power. Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium.

What can we do to get people to stop burning coal, natural gas and oil? I will admit, Pierre Poilievre is a lot more intelligent than I initially gave him credit for. My experience growing up in BC is that a Socred with intelligence would have been a novelty if one actually existed. Mr. Poilievre appears to be the exception. Now, if he can survive the socreds in his caucus, he shows every sign of being a success. He has a bumpy road ahead and I wish him well. PS. As I said earlier, I remenber how the GST was a big issue in the election. The Tories brought it in and the Grits promised to get rid of it. Guess what. The grits won. Guess what else. We still have the GST. In BC, the NDP brought in Government insurance. The Socreds campaigned for a full year before the election against ICBC. I ran as a Tory in that election. The Socreds won. They didn't get rid of ICBC. They doubled the rates. Now, I am sure Mr. Poilievre will get rid of the carbon tax, but I wouldn't bet money on it.