Erin O'Toole = Patrick Brown

[taxme]

6 hours ago, Boges said:

Patrick Brown would have been a much better Premiere than DoFo. 

Being beholden to the fringe Right-Wing will always keep the CPC down. Stephen Harper "mostly" kept the crazies in his party at bay. 

Well, it certainly looks to me like the leftist liberal party is beholden to left wing socialists and communists. There must be plenty of Canadians out there in Canuckistan who like and believe in socialism and communism and of course liberal corruption. Why else would the corrupt leftist liberals still be around. The lieberals should have been sent off to never never land by now along with the buffoons who vote for them. 

[taxme]

4 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

It's not a 'blame thing' anymore . . . . . they are Canadians in a foreign prison. They should be here.

Ask punk Trudeau if he really gives a crap about the two Michael's. A real leader like Trump would have had them home shortly after they were kidnapped. Maybe if they were french from Quebec they would be home by now. Hey, we never know, eh? 

[taxme]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Following the Law has gotten two Canadians citizens detained. 

I'm under no illusions that China is in the wrong here. But why is the US dragging their feet on this? 

Canadians would be wise not to go on a holiday to China. They could end up as next door neighbor or cell mates with the two Michael's. Why is Canada having anything to do with a communist country anyway when we all should know by now that communism has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people. But ask most people if they really give a chit? NOPE. 

[Army Guy]

It looks like the request to have her detained may be against inter national law...if so why is she still here, and how advised the government it was ok to detain her in the first place.... this could be another example of liberal screw ups...and it has cost 2 men a portion of their lives... i hope they get paid out as well, or do we only pay terrorists.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

It looks like the request to have her detained may be against inter national law...if so why is she still here, and how advised the government it was ok to detain her in the first place....

Not likely. The due process was followed, which is the "honeytrap" that has Canada found itself caught in During the US-China Mexican standoff.

 

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Aristides said:

I guess the Americans still want her. Maybe our snail like judicial system should get on with it.

I heard tell them Chinamen have hired some really good lawyers. The best lawyers Chinese money can buy.

That's why this shit is dragging on and on. It's the good old two-horses stuck in the mud technique. if you know what I mean?  

[Aristides]

If the CPC can't do such a simple thing as acknowledge climate change being real, they will never form a government in Canada. 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

If the CPC can't do such a simple thing as acknowledge climate change being real, they will never form a government in Canada. 

One reason I don't support Erin O'toole is because he said he believes climate change (man-made) is real and the debate is over.  The debate is far from over.   There are countless people who don't believe in the hoax.  If you want a party that believes in man-made climate change, you already have the other four parties, Liberal, NDP, Green, and Bloc.  Canadians should have a party to vote for who don't believe in this scam.  O'Toole has turned off a lot of conservative supporters.

[Argus]

On 3/30/2021 at 9:37 AM, Boges said:

Patrick Brown would have been a much better Premiere than DoFo. 

Being beholden to the fringe Right-Wing will always keep the CPC down. Stephen Harper "mostly" kept the crazies in his party at bay. 

What exactly is 'right wing' about DoFo's government?

[Argus]

35 minutes ago, blackbird said:

One reason I don't support Erin O'toole is because he said he believes climate change (man-made) is real and the debate is over.  The debate is far from over. 

Climate change is unquestionably true. The only debate is what to do about it.

[Argus]

On 3/30/2021 at 1:20 PM, Boges said:

Following the Law has gotten two Canadians citizens detained. 

I'm under no illusions that China is in the wrong here. But why is the US dragging their feet on this? 

What do you want them to do?

[Argus]

On 3/30/2021 at 11:33 AM, Boges said:

You could blame the whole 2 Micheal's think on the US actually. 

China bullies countries it perceives to be weak. It obviously considers Trudeau and his government 'weak', as do I, as does almost everyone. This is not the first nor will it be the last time they seize Canadian hostages. They did it a few years back, too.

[Argus]

On 3/30/2021 at 1:13 PM, Boges said:

I would blame China, first and foremost.

But that was petty retaliation for the US forcing us to keep her under House Arrest. Why can't we just let her go, in exchange for the Micheals release? 

Because that would be stupid. It would encourage not only China but every other dictatorship around the world to simply grab a few Canadians whenever they want something from us. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians China can pick up any time it wants to. There are many more around the world in shitholes like Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, etc. Bowing to China because they grabbed a couple of Canadians would make every Canadian around the world vulnerable to the same type of hostage-taking.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Climate change is unquestionably true. The only debate is what to do about it.

Says who?  Erin O'Toole and Trudeau, neither of which know anything about the sciences around the issue.

Quote:

1.  The hypothesis is that the temperature increase is caused by the CO₂ that is being released into the atmosphere by human activity. However, it is not possible to design a repeatable experiment to test this hypothesis because of the size, complexity, and uniqueness of the ‘system’ (there is only one planet Earth and it is rather complicated). Consequently, we are left with conjectures and predictions. Applying statistical models (such as ARIMA or Hurst–Kolmogorov) to the past temperature data can generate a prediction for the future, but the confidence limits (95%) are so wide that the predictions are useless. And this approach cannot say that CO₂ is causing the change. Thus, the climate models that predict a temperature response to CO₂ have to be deterministic; that is, they assume that the inputs will determine the temperature. Hence the assertion based on these models that CO₂ causes global warming is circular reasoning. Worse, even as recently as a decade ago climate models could not deal with factors like cloud cover. Computers are getting faster, and climate models are getting more sophisticated, but significant areas of the climate are still beyond our modelling reach.
2. Science cannot prove theories to be true; only that they are false.²² Observing a result that is predicted by a hypothesis does not prove that the hypothesis is true (this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent). These same results might also be consistent with some other hypothesis. On the other hand, we can show a hypothesis to be false by finding evidence that contradicts it. Biblical creationists will be familiar with this truth since the evidence said to prove evolution (e.g. mutations, natural selection, speciation) is perfectly consistent with creation. Thus, while the existence of observations that are consistent with theoretical predictions is necessary for the survival of any theory, data that are inconsistent with these predictions are more important. Such data tell us that the hypothesis is incorrect. If there are no contrary data, despite myriad repeated experiments to test the hypothesis, as is the case with, say, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the theory is most probably valid. If the climate models used to predict the future temperature based on carbon dioxide levels fail to predict those temperatures, the models must be rejected or modified.
3. Correlation does not mean causation: That the temperature has been increasing along with the level of CO₂ does not mean that one caused the other. For example, between June and December of 2008 both the temperature in Calgary AB Canada and the Toronto Stock Exchange Index decreased dramatically. However, one did not cause the other. Thus, the observation that the atmospheric temperature and CO₂ concentration are both increasing does not mean that one is causing the other—either one may, indeed, be causing the other, or both could be being caused by something else, or they could be completely unrelated.
4. Science is often captured by a ‘ruling paradigm’: A paradigm is a framework used by default for the interpretation of data. It is just assumed to be true. Sometimes this is done explicitly when scientists do not have a better idea and so they just run with the best idea they have, anticipating that they could be wrong. At other times, the ruling paradigm is subliminal or is being hidden by certain players in the game. In the latter cases, data that are inconsistent with the paradigm are treated as errors by the researcher or dismissed because the researcher is judged not to have appropriate credentials, unacceptable political leanings, any sort of religious beliefs, or funding sources deemed inappropriate. Or, if none of these applies, the errors are accommodated within the ruling paradigm by introducing ancillary hypotheses. The Ptolemaic geostationary model of the solar system is a well-known (false) paradigm that ruled the interpretation of astronomical observations for about 1,500 years. The big bang and biological evolution are two modern ruling paradigms in cosmology and biology/paleontology respectively. Thus, it should not surprise us that climate science has been captured by the ruling paradigm that anthropogenic CO₂ will cause catastrophic climate change. Nothing else is considered.
5. Peer-review does not ensure truth: Peer review, especially when coupled with publication in ‘prestigious’ scientific journals, has come to be taken as the ‘gold standard’ of science. And the contents of scientific papers are often treated as beyond question. There are numerous examples of failure in the peer review process. A prominent incident prompted one academic to write a scathing critique of peer review that was published in The Guardian:²³ “At its worst, it [peer review] is merely window dressing that gives the unwarranted appearance of authority, a cursory process which confers no real value, enforces orthodoxy, and overlooks both obvious analytical problems and outright fraud entirely.” The Climategate emails (see later) showed that this problem afflicts climate science.    Unquote   - creation.com/climate-change

Edited March 31, 2021 by blackbird

[taxme]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Says who?  Erin O'Toole and Trudeau, neither of which know anything about the sciences around the issue.

Quote:

1.  The hypothesis is that the temperature increase is caused by the CO₂ that is being released into the atmosphere by human activity. However, it is not possible to design a repeatable experiment to test this hypothesis because of the size, complexity, and uniqueness of the ‘system’ (there is only one planet Earth and it is rather complicated). Consequently, we are left with conjectures and predictions. Applying statistical models (such as ARIMA or Hurst–Kolmogorov) to the past temperature data can generate a prediction for the future, but the confidence limits (95%) are so wide that the predictions are useless. And this approach cannot say that CO₂ is causing the change. Thus, the climate models that predict a temperature response to CO₂ have to be deterministic; that is, they assume that the inputs will determine the temperature. Hence the assertion based on these models that CO₂ causes global warming is circular reasoning. Worse, even as recently as a decade ago climate models could not deal with factors like cloud cover. Computers are getting faster, and climate models are getting more sophisticated, but significant areas of the climate are still beyond our modelling reach.
2. Science cannot prove theories to be true; only that they are false.²² Observing a result that is predicted by a hypothesis does not prove that the hypothesis is true (this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent). These same results might also be consistent with some other hypothesis. On the other hand, we can show a hypothesis to be false by finding evidence that contradicts it. Biblical creationists will be familiar with this truth since the evidence said to prove evolution (e.g. mutations, natural selection, speciation) is perfectly consistent with creation. Thus, while the existence of observations that are consistent with theoretical predictions is necessary for the survival of any theory, data that are inconsistent with these predictions are more important. Such data tell us that the hypothesis is incorrect. If there are no contrary data, despite myriad repeated experiments to test the hypothesis, as is the case with, say, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the theory is most probably valid. If the climate models used to predict the future temperature based on carbon dioxide levels fail to predict those temperatures, the models must be rejected or modified.
3. Correlation does not mean causation: That the temperature has been increasing along with the level of CO₂ does not mean that one caused the other. For example, between June and December of 2008 both the temperature in Calgary AB Canada and the Toronto Stock Exchange Index decreased dramatically. However, one did not cause the other. Thus, the observation that the atmospheric temperature and CO₂ concentration are both increasing does not mean that one is causing the other—either one may, indeed, be causing the other, or both could be being caused by something else, or they could be completely unrelated.
4. Science is often captured by a ‘ruling paradigm’: A paradigm is a framework used by default for the interpretation of data. It is just assumed to be true. Sometimes this is done explicitly when scientists do not have a better idea and so they just run with the best idea they have, anticipating that they could be wrong. At other times, the ruling paradigm is subliminal or is being hidden by certain players in the game. In the latter cases, data that are inconsistent with the paradigm are treated as errors by the researcher or dismissed because the researcher is judged not to have appropriate credentials, unacceptable political leanings, any sort of religious beliefs, or funding sources deemed inappropriate. Or, if none of these applies, the errors are accommodated within the ruling paradigm by introducing ancillary hypotheses. The Ptolemaic geostationary model of the solar system is a well-known (false) paradigm that ruled the interpretation of astronomical observations for about 1,500 years. The big bang and biological evolution are two modern ruling paradigms in cosmology and biology/paleontology respectively. Thus, it should not surprise us that climate science has been captured by the ruling paradigm that anthropogenic CO₂ will cause catastrophic climate change. Nothing else is considered.
5. Peer-review does not ensure truth: Peer review, especially when coupled with publication in ‘prestigious’ scientific journals, has come to be taken as the ‘gold standard’ of science. And the contents of scientific papers are often treated as beyond question. There are numerous examples of failure in the peer review process. A prominent incident prompted one academic to write a scathing critique of peer review that was published in The Guardian:²³ “At its worst, it [peer review] is merely window dressing that gives the unwarranted appearance of authority, a cursory process which confers no real value, enforces orthodoxy, and overlooks both obvious analytical problems and outright fraud entirely.” The Climategate emails (see later) showed that this problem afflicts climate science.    Unquote   - creation.com/climate-change

There once was a time when Canada was buried under hundreds of feet of ice and snow. Then along came some warming up of the planet and pretty much all of that ice and snow melted away. Did the whole world flood over with all that melting ice and snow? NOPE. Because if the earth did flood all over then there should be no land around at all and humans would probably not be here. Climate change is for people who enjoy their daily bull chit briefing.

Apparently, demonrats like John Kerry Czar for the department of climate change in America owns 12 cars, 6 homes, 2 yachts, and one jet airplane. Ask him if he really believes in climate change. This buffoon wants the dummies who will listen to him to give up their vehicles and other motorized toys and take the bus to work and help save the climate. 

The problem with most of these climate change believers is that they know nothing at all about the liars who are pushing all this climate change foolishness. They will listen to their lies and the media lies and believe their lies without first fact checking things for themselves. Just like with Covid 1984 everybody believes the story told to them without first doing any research themselves. Most Canadians are dumb and will comply to anything their politicians demand of them. Obedient buffoons indeed. 

Edited April 1, 2021 by taxme

[Aristides]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

One reason I don't support Erin O'toole is because he said he believes climate change (man-made) is real and the debate is over.  The debate is far from over.   There are countless people who don't believe in the hoax.  If you want a party that believes in man-made climate change, you already have the other four parties, Liberal, NDP, Green, and Bloc.  Canadians should have a party to vote for who don't believe in this scam.  O'Toole has turned off a lot of conservative supporters.

That's why the CPC will sit in opposition forever. Too bad because Trudeau sucks.

[blackbird]

28 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That's why the CPC will sit in opposition forever. Too bad because Trudeau sucks.

Yes, many Canadians vote for Trudeau and Liberals and get what they deserve.

[blackbird]

The BC government is increasing taxes effective tomorrow, April 1.  This includes a 9.9 cent per litre for gas.  It also increases the cost of home heating for those who use oil or gas.  PST is also being applied to Netflix users which will push the annual price of Netflix up around $14 per year.  The carbon tax goes up from $40 to $45 per ton.  They claim this will help fight climate change, for those who believe in this scam and hoax.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The BC government is increasing taxes effective tomorrow, April 1.  This includes a 9.9 cent per litre for gas.  It also increases the cost of home heating for those who use oil or gas.  PST is also being applied to Netflix users which will push the annual price of Netflix up around $14 per year.  The carbon tax goes up from $40 to $45 per ton.  They claim this will help fight climate change, for those who believe in this scam and hoax.

Good for them.  I wish they'd do the same in Alberta.

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The BC government is increasing taxes effective tomorrow, April 1.  This includes a 9.9 cent per litre for gas.  It also increases the cost of home heating for those who use oil or gas.  PST is also being applied to Netflix users which will push the annual price of Netflix up around $14 per year.  The carbon tax goes up from $40 to $45 per ton.  They claim this will help fight climate change, for those who believe in this scam and hoax.

Governments are desperate for money, get ready for lots more taxes.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Good for them.  I wish they'd do the same in Alberta.

You can always start a Go Fund Me campaign and contribute yourself to fight climate change.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You can always start a Go Fund Me campaign and contribute yourself to fight climate change.

I already do my bit.  Enough for a few others too, as it happens.

I like taxes for more reasons than climate change though.  Potholes, for instance.

[Aristides]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

Yes, many Canadians vote for Trudeau and Liberals and get what they deserve.

People who make the CPC unelectable also get what they deserve.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

People who make the CPC unelectable also get what they deserve.

Those of us who have a conscience and oppose progressivism, liberalism, Marxism, may lose the election.  But that is because we live in a fallen, evil world where most people don't care and vote for decadent progressives.  We who oppose evil can rest in the fact that God is in control and even if evil governments are elected, that is not the end of the story.  There will be judgment and those who seek righteousness and honest leaders can rest in the fact we have done what we could do even if we lost the elections.  We won't sell out what is right for political gain.  Following God and his written word and standing for righteousness versus politics/political gain are two totally different things that most people do not understand.  Bible believers do not support evil for the sake of "winning" in the political world.  This is something non-believers know nothing about.

Edited April 1, 2021 by blackbird

[blackbird]

12 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I already do my bit.  Enough for a few others too, as it happens.

I like taxes for more reasons than climate change though.  Potholes, for instance.

Maybe your money is filling potholes in Namibia or Botswana, or China as the government funds the China Infrastructure Bank and sends our money all over the world for all kinds of things.