From the people who brought you covid lockdowns, All people banned from wilderness (now with snitch line!)

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I'm talking AG in particular has come back non-stop saying the same thing you are now...  Yes it's a discussion board and yes, Ive said what Ive said til I'm blue in the face.  I don't see this as a big deal in any shape or form and honestly, find it comical and sad that people are sitting around complaining about it when people have lost their homes and livelihoods.

 

No one in NB has lost their home, or lifes or livelihoods, except those that work in forrest industrys, due to the ban.

[LinkSoul60]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

No one in NB has lost their home, or lifes or livelihoods, except those that work in forrest industrys, due to the ban.

They did in NS, so obviously NB has fared better.  Proof that your government has your back 😂

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

I get it stay out of the bush,or face 25,k fine which is excessive...., and somehow it is not excessive to you...so why are we not fining everyone 25 k for serious offenses...

It's only excessive if you break the law. 25k is peanuts compared to fighting a forest fire. BC spent $1 billion fighting wildfires in 2023 and almost a $1.1 billion  in 2024.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You can't be anything other than an *sshole...can you, *sshole.

You say that to everyone who's right when you're wrong 

Apperently pointing out facts and using reason and logic makes someone an *sshole in your books. 

And once again, couldn't refute a single thing, just the usual crying ' SNIF! MEAN LOGICAL FACT MAN MEAN TO ME AGAIN!! HE BAD! HE BAD MAN!! SNIF!!"

Pathetic. 

 

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

STFU, idjit. 

If you still believe in CBC polling data

Quote where I said CBC or STFU, idjit.

[Legato]

12 hours ago, Aristides said:

It's only excessive if you break the law. 25k is peanuts compared to fighting a forest fire. BC spent $1 billion fighting wildfires in 2023 and almost a $1.1 billion  in 2024.

So $2.2 Billion fighting fires, after they started, but $0.0 on fire prevention before they started

Now the overreach to cover for inept forestry management.

Do you wish to carry on defending this stupidity?

[Aristides]

41 minutes ago, Legato said:

So $2.2 Billion fighting fires, after they started, but $0.0 on fire prevention before they started

Now the overreach to cover for inept forestry management.

Do you wish to carry on defending this stupidity?

What kind of forest management are you suggesting?

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Now the overreach to cover for inept forestry management.

Of course you'd say this.... it's part of the right wing mantra

Cite where BC has been 'inept' in forestry management. 

[User]

10 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Of course you'd say this.... it's part of the right wing mantra

Cite where BC has been 'inept' in forestry management. 

OK

‘A tipping point’: how poor forestry fuels floods and fires in western Canada
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/16/canada-floods-fires-logging-british-columbia?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[LinkSoul60]

6 minutes ago, User said:

OK

‘A tipping point’: how poor forestry fuels floods and fires in western Canada
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/16/canada-floods-fires-logging-british-columbia?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Cite something from recent times, not 4 years ago.  BC had a new government elected in 2022, after his article.

[User]

8 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Cite something from recent times, not 4 years ago.  BC had a new government elected in 2022, after his article.

Explain how something 4 years ago is not relevant now, or what the new government did in 2022 to address what was in this article. 

You cannot dismiss this outright. 

 

[LinkSoul60]

1 minute ago, User said:

Explain how something 4 years ago is not relevant now, or what the new government did in 2022 to address what was in this article. 

You cannot dismiss this outright. 

 

I can't, but you can't talk to what the new (3 years in) government has or hasn't done with forestry management.  

Also....I need to figure out why the 'ignore users' isn't working.....

[Aristides]

8 minutes ago, User said:

OK

‘A tipping point’: how poor forestry fuels floods and fires in western Canada
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/16/canada-floods-fires-logging-british-columbia?utm_source=chatgpt.com

You realize that BC is almost 50% bigger than Texas, most of it mountains and much of that either inaccessible or difficult to get to. The 2021 flooding was mostly caused by  record rainfalls, over 6 inches in 3 days. The Abbotsford flooding had nothing to do with logging. Sumas Prairie usually floods when the Nooksack River in Washington breaks its banks and flows north over the border, also flooding the towns of Sumas, Nooksack and Everson in WA. Some of the Coquihalla flooding could have  been aggravated by logging practices but a lot of it was due to the way the highway was constructed in a rush to be ready for Expo 86. Merritt is built on low land next to a river. Flooding has been an issue there for decades. Selective logging would help where there is logging but clearcuts are not just a Canadian thing. I used to regularly fly between Vancouver and California and you can see extensive clearcutting in Washington, Oregon and Northern California.

[User]

7 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I can't, but you can't talk to what the new (3 years in) government has or hasn't done with forestry management.  

Also....I need to figure out why the 'ignore users' isn't working.....

I don't need to do anything. I gave you the circumstances you asked for and you have nothing to discount them. 

 

[User]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Selective logging would help where there is logging but clearcuts are not just a Canadian thing.

I swear, you people will just say anything and not care one bit at all if it is true or not...

Clearcutting tied to 18-fold increase in flood risk: UBC study
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/clearcutting-tied-to-18-fold-increase-in-flood-risk-ubc-study-1.7594426

[LinkSoul60]

3 minutes ago, User said:

I swear, you people will just say anything and not care one bit at all if it is true or not...

Clearcutting tied to 18-fold increase in flood risk: UBC study
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/clearcutting-tied-to-18-fold-increase-in-flood-risk-ubc-study-1.7594426

We're talking about fires, not floods....  

 

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, User said:

I swear, you people will just say anything and not care one bit at all if it is true or not...

Clearcutting tied to 18-fold increase in flood risk: UBC study
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/clearcutting-tied-to-18-fold-increase-in-flood-risk-ubc-study-1.7594426

It's interesting that the flood risk only increases on north facing slopes. That would indicate clear cutting should only be allowed on south facing slopes. 

It also says

Quote

In a statement to CBC News, the B.C. Ministry of Forests said it "appreciates the research being done at UBC" and emphasized that the province continues to invest in water and forest management.

"Currently, through allowable cut determinations, the Chief Forester places limits on the rate of cut in each watershed to help provide balance to the many values our forested landscapes provide, including reducing flood risks," the statement reads.

The ministry says it's also moving beyond traditional modelling to better understand how changes to forests, water, and climate affect long-term sustainability. That includes promoting practices like selective thinning, fuel management and forest restoration.

The province has also introduced Forest Landscape Planning (FLP), which it describes as one of the most effective tools for reducing flood risk at a broader scale.

 

[User]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It's interesting that the flood risk only increases on north facing slopes. That would indicate clear cutting should only be allowed on south facing slopes. 

You: Clear cutting is not a Canadian thing!

Me: Yes it is, here is the proof. Why do you say things so incredibly wrong with no care?

You: Completely ignores that you said something incredibly false and wrong, hey, let's talk about why clear-cutting should only be allowed on south-facing slopes. 

 

12 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

We're talking about fires, not floods....  

 

No, we were talking about inept forestry management... but hey, try reading the article I gave you earlier, it talked about fires too. 

I specifically used this article because someone ignorantly said clear-cutting was not a Canadian thing... hence the article talking about clear-cutting. 

Does your mom still have to spoon-feed you?

 

[Aristides]

Just now, User said:

You: Clear cutting is not a Canadian thing!

Me: Yes it is, here is the proof. Why do you say things so incredibly wrong with no care?

You: Completely ignores that you said something incredibly false and wrong, hey, let's talk about why clear-cutting should only be allowed on south-facing slopes. 

 

I'm saying it is also used in the US Northwest. 

Quote

He says the north side receives less sunlight, which keeps the soil wetter year-round. When storms arrive, the ground is already moist and can't absorb much water, causing more rain to run off into streams and rivers, resulting in larger floods.

In contrast, the south-facing watershed, which loses more moisture due to greater sunlight exposure, saw almost no change in flooding after clear-cutting.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

20 hours ago, Aristides said:

You sure love to make shit up. It must suck to be that paranoid and ignorant of real history.

Just stay out of the bush. Fines are meant to be deterrents, not penalties.

What did I make up, Aristedes?

Stop shooting off your f'ing mouth with baseless accusations.

1. Our MSM, Fauci, and all the other covidjits love to pretend that covid is lethal for anyone in any health category. Do you agree or disagree? 
2. Our MSM, Fauci, and all the other covidjits frequently said that some people can be asymptomatic carriers. Do you agree or disagree? 
3. Ontario MPP Randy Hiller said in the Ont legislature that there was a covid hospital being created in the Yukon Territory for covid patients before anyone else officially r even casually mentioned it to the public. Do you agree or disagree? 
4. Trudeau, our gov't, and our media initially denied the existence of said covid treatment facility, and Hillier was mocked by all of them. Do you agree or disagree?
5. Now or gov't acknowledges that a covid treatment facility actually was built in Yukon, but they say that it is a "voluntary self-isolation facility". Do you agree or disagree?
6. Our gov't (Trudeau) also said that they "couldn't foresee a future where there would be vax mandates", and then there were vax mandates within 3 months of that statement. Do you agree or disagree?
7. Our gov't was so dishonest (100%) about the existence of the aforementioned treatment facility, and the possibility of vax mandates (90%), that we have zero reason to believe their reason for that facility's existence. Do you agree or disagree?
8. Canadians who were showing no sign of infection were given no choice but take covid tests for many different reasons, including for work, to fly, to cross the border, to attend school, etc. Do you agree or disagree?
9. Many Canadians were told that they had covid, just as a result of those test results, despite the fact that they were asymptomatic, and never got sick with covid. Do you agree or disagree?
10. As a 100% believer in the CBC covid narrative yourself, you are never surprised when anyone, regardless of their health statues, dies of covid. Do you agree or disagree? 
11. Our PM said on TV that "anti-vaxers are very often racists and misogynists, and we have to ask ourselves IF WE SHOULD TOLERATE THEM". Do you agree or disagree?

If you agree with all of the above statements, which are all 100% true, then it follows that:

• our gov't isn't convinced that the unvaxed should be tolerated
• any Canadian could be forced to get tested, sick or not
• any person who gets tested could be told they have covid, or are carrying it, with enough of a viral load that they could spread the virus, regardless of how they feel when they're tested
• our gov't hasn't shown that they are above sending people to treatment facilities, like the one in Yukon, involuntarily
• you think that anyone who gets covid could die from it, just because they have covid. 

 

Aristedes... In Trudeau's perfect version of the future, from about 2020-2022, the guy sitting across from you right now could be forced to take a covid test tomorrow, be found to have asymptomatic covid, if he was unvaxed our ex-PM wouldn't feel very tolerant of him, theres a good chance that our gov't would force him to go to that camp, and if he died there, you wouldn't be surprised.  

All the pieces are 100% in place, Aristedes. If Hitler could get the German people to feel exactly the same way that you feel right now, then he had the ways and means at his disposal to send Jews to the Yukon covid facility where you would expect them to die. 

Is that not 100% correct, and if so, how is it not? 

[LinkSoul60]

7 minutes ago, User said:

You: Clear cutting is not a Canadian thing!

Me: Yes it is, here is the proof. Why do you say things so incredibly wrong with no care?

You: Completely ignores that you said something incredibly false and wrong, hey, let's talk about why clear-cutting should only be allowed on south-facing slopes. 

 

No, we were talking about inept forestry management... but hey, try reading the article I gave you earlier, it talked about fires too. 

I specifically used this article because someone ignorantly said clear-cutting was not a Canadian thing... hence the article talking about clear-cutting. 

Does your mom still have to spoon-feed you?

 

I don't care much about articles from 4 years ago....

Thanks for validating again why I put you on ignore, but obviously didn't do something right...

[LinkSoul60]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What did I make up, Aristedes?

Stop shooting off your f'ing mouth with baseless accusations.

1. Our MSM, Fauci, and all the other covidjits love to pretend that covid is lethal for anyone in any health category. Do you agree or disagree? 
2. Our MSM, Fauci, and all the other covidjits frequently said that some people can be asymptomatic carriers. Do you agree or disagree? 
3. Ontario MPP Randy Hiller said in the Ont legislature that there was a covid hospital being created in the Yukon Territory for covid patients before anyone else officially r even casually mentioned it to the public. Do you agree or disagree? 
4. Trudeau, our gov't, and our media initially denied the existence of said covid treatment facility, and Hillier was mocked by all of them. Do you agree or disagree?
5. Now or gov't acknowledges that a covid treatment facility actually was built in Yukon, but they say that it is a "voluntary self-isolation facility". Do you agree or disagree?
6. Our gov't (Trudeau) also said that they "couldn't foresee a future where there would be vax mandates", and then there were vax mandates within 3 months of that statement. Do you agree or disagree?
7. Our gov't was so dishonest (100%) about the existence of the aforementioned treatment facility, and the possibility of vax mandates (90%), that we have zero reason to believe their reason for that facility's existence. Do you agree or disagree?
8. Canadians who were showing no sign of infection were given no choice but take covid tests for many different reasons, including for work, to fly, to cross the border, to attend school, etc. Do you agree or disagree?
9. Many Canadians were told that they had covid, just as a result of those test results, despite the fact that they were asymptomatic, and never got sick with covid. Do you agree or disagree?
10. As a 100% believer in the CBC covid narrative yourself, you are never surprised when anyone, regardless of their health statues, dies of covid. Do you agree or disagree? 
11. Our PM said on TV that "anti-vaxers are very often racists and misogynists, and we have to ask ourselves IF WE SHOULD TOLERATE THEM". Do you agree or disagree?

If you agree with all of the above statements, which are all 100% true, then it follows that:

• our gov't isn't convinced that the unvaxed should be tolerated
• any Canadian could be forced to get tested, sick or not
• any person who gets tested could be told they have covid, or are carrying it, with enough of a viral load that they could spread the virus, regardless of how they feel when they're tested
• our gov't hasn't shown that they are above sending people to treatment facilities, like the one in Yukon, involuntarily
• you think that anyone who gets covid could die from it, just because they have covid. 

 

Aristedes... In Trudeau's perfect version of the future, from about 2020-2022, the guy sitting across from you right now could be forced to take a covid test tomorrow, be found to have asymptomatic covid, if he was unvaxed our ex-PM wouldn't feel very tolerant of him, theres a good chance that our gov't would force him to go to that camp, and if he died there, you wouldn't be surprised.  

All the pieces are 100% in place, Aristedes. If Hitler could get the German people to feel exactly the same way that you feel right now, then he had the ways and means at his disposal to send Jews to the Yukon covid facility where you would expect them to die. 

Is that not 100% correct, and if so, how is it not? 

Holy f*ck....   How in the world can you possibly function each day???

Holy f*ck....  

[TreeBeard]

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

No one in NB has lost their home, or lifes or livelihoods, except those that work in forrest industrys, due to the ban.

You think they should still do logging in tinder dry forests?  I’m thinking you don’t leave the pavement much. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Quote where I said CBC or STFU, idjit.

Sorry dummy, but I mocked you for believing in Canadian poll results, prompting you to say that I needed to do some research so that I wouldn't look stupid. 

FYI polling results regarding anything of a political nature in Canada are all fabricated, and nothing is more political in nature than AGW.

There is no legitimacy whatsoever in Canadian polls, because it is statistically impossible that Canadians are always 5-8% more in favour of the LPOC for the last two months before the election, and then the gap always closes to 1.5%, for no apparent reason, in the last 2 days. It couldn't really happen once, that swing is so large, it could never happen several times in a row. 

Who do people provide polling data for in Canada? Where's the money at...? It's all in creating fake polling data for the CBC and CTV. If you're not creating fake polling data for the CBC and CTV, etc, then you're not in that business here. You're broke. 

Citing fake polling data is CBC's way of saying "Everyone loves Trudeau/Carney, etc. They don't believe there was a scandal."

They know that as "journalists" they're not allowed to outright say "vote for Trudeau" so they just say that "everyone thinks that Trudeau is better, even after this last thing", for each new story that they talk about. 

[WestCanMan]

11 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Holy f*ck....   How in the world can you possibly function each day???

Holy f*ck....  

Holy f*ck. What makes you think that anyone gives a shit what you think? 

Point me to your last attempt at stating a pertinent fact, cultist...

I know ya couldn't do it.

You're a snotty-insult-bot at best.