No, I rent houses. That basement suite is the lower suite, the upper suite is a separate unit. My point is that they are far too big an investment for renters to actually be able to buy and many of my renters dont WANT to buy. Some do and several have done so but thats the minority.
And condos are a very bad investment. Condo fees and insurance, plus emergency repairs on them make them highly expensive. Would never touch one.
One is enough IF he was actually part of the protest. He wasnt. There were even people in the convoy protest who offered a cash reward for his identity and no one ever found out who he was. Maybe coincidence, maybe not, but he disappeared up the steps into the hotel that the RCMP were staying at. The protesters werent staying there. So who was he?
And no, ONE person in a protest does not mean you can paint the thousands of others there with the same brush. If that were true you would have noticed that there was a counter protest just a few blocks away where ONE person in the crowd was carrying a hammer and sickle flag. Does that mean that crowd support Communists? Hardly. Chrystia Freeland held up a symbol of the Nazi party and then quickly deleted it (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-nationalist-scarf-1.6372995) Does that mean the Liberals support Nazis? Hardly.
I’m telling you that your morals aren’t absolute and shouldn’t be forced on others. Follow them yourself. If others want to, they can choose to. Forcing them on people isn’t about morality; it’s about authority.
We agree on morals by majority. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong so we make laws stating that and we punish those who dont follow. Do you call that 'forcing morals on others'? No, because almost everyone agrees murder is wrong. But what about physical assault? Still bad. We make laws against that. What if its just slapping someone? Likely still harmful, so there are laws against that. What if its just spitting on their shoes? Might be assault might not be. What if its just calling them a name? Highly depends on what was said and in what context but obviously not everyone who calls someone a name is charged. What if its just giving them the finger? Not likely a charge. What if its just a sneer? Highly unlikely its chargeable offence.
My point is that we ALL decide at some point when harm is done and we make laws to support that and then we FORCE others to comply with it even if its not THEIR personal standard about whats considered harmful. Yes thats authority, thats how society works.
Its nice that you believe that you vote to protect OTHER people's rights, but when you are up against an issue that affects you directly, you definitely dont. If you were gay and the government wanted to bring in a bill to ban gay marriage you wouldn't vote to protect the rights of the people who have a religious objection to gay marriage, you would vote against it.
ALL morals are relative. With the argument you are giving you are LITERALLY telling me that YOUR morals are superior to mine. Guess what? They're just different and no better than mine.
We have a democratic system. Everyone votes the way they choose, majority wins. Welcome to the real world.
I think its budgetary issues that are going to be his Achilles heel. Trudeau went crazy with cash and the last budget was what, 40 billion higher than estimated? The one that he planned to throw Freeland under the bus with? But Carney shows no sign of letting up. He doesnt even want to present a budget, most likely because he doesnt want to be held to account for it.
So everything's going to look rosy as he taxes and spends but without fail, the day of reckoning is coming and thats going to fall on young people who aren't going to be thrilled with the legacy of debt they'll be carrying.
I was wondering the same thing when Trump said Bondi should release all "relevant" information from the Epstein file. Who determines whats "relevant"? Better not be Pedo Donnie.
Yes Im aware of the difference. I guess the issue is that I dont see the people who are not making it being the economies fault, primarily because I have 3 adult children and 3 adult step children between 25 and 39 and they are ALL doing ok financially. One is just getting by, the the other five are already making more money and living more comfortably than I did at their age and they're doing it on their own, with no help from us. So I have a hard time understanding why anyone cant make IF they want to bad enough in Canada. The opportunities are here (2 of my kids are self starting entrepreneurs) if you work hard enough. Yes, wages are stagnant if you're working retail at a mall, but no one's stopping anyone from upgrading their education and getting a better job. Our immigrants do it, Canadians can do it too.
The thing is the environment doesnt care WHERE the GHG's are coming from. So it makes sense to attack the problem where the problem is. And the problem is NOT in Canada. Our emissions are a margin of error in the global scale and Canada does very well because we have such a huge land mass and a lot of plants and trees to take up our carbon and GHG's.
So when people say we have to buy EVs, thats a pretty ridiculous statement for Canadians. If EVERY vehicle in Canada was an EV the global climate would not even notice the difference. Therefore forcing EVs in Canada is far more about performative actions and virtue signalling than it is about actually changing the environment.
What would actually make a difference is to change the way we do business with the two biggest polluters in the world - China and the USA. They are dumping GHGs into the atmosphere by the tonne. Its like a boat has hit a log that's punched a huge hole in the hull and water is pouring in but Canada is here putting a bandaid over a little crack at the back of the boat. We just dont matter til the big hole is fixed and even if the little crack is completely sealed the boat is still sinking fast.
It wouldn't be hard to say to both countries, we will limit our trade with you til you clean up your act. Put a limit on China's emissions in order for us to buy their goods.
But that won't happen. Because that eats into profits. And no corporation is going to support that. So instead they push Joe Average to buy an EV, as if parking his 20 yr old Corolla and buying an 60k EV is going to make a smidgen of difference in the worlds climate. It wont. But that doesnt matter, what matters is that no one looks too hard at whose doing the damage and forcing them to change because it will worsen their bottom line. The EV message is mostly smoke and mirrors to keep you from looking behind the curtain.
But there are some things about EVs that cannot be overcome because science. Like the fact that gasoline holds far more energy for its weight than batteries ever can. Which is why things like the Tesla semi is a flop. Because to get the range you get out of two saddle tanks of diesel the semi would have to carry much more weight in batteries than is practical and charge times and kW input would be astronomical.
The same goes for cars but to a lesser extent. We CAN make them go far (a Lucid EV just set a record at 1205 km on a single charge) but that car costs well over 150,000 because of the massive amount of batteries needed.
Then there's the electrical infrastructure issue. Most EV owners charge at home, but if EVERY household had an EV there will be a significant new draw on our electrical grid. If everyone charges at night thats not a huge deal but obviously if everyone had an EV there going to be a lot of people charging during the day too, especially on trips. We'd have to add a lot of power to our grid and EVERY power source requires some kind of environmental cost, the question is only how much.
Im dont disagree but Im curious why you included bidets? You still have to wipe and flush, so how does a bidet help climate change?
Being queer may not be a choice but having sex with the same gender most definitely is. Here's the thing, there's nothing in the Bible thats against same sex love. There are actually several same gender relationships mentioned and there is no mandate against them at all. So when queer people say 'love who you love' they're right. You can love who you love and no Christian can use the Bible to condemn that.
The problem comes with same gender sex. There are definitely several verses that condemn that without equivocation. So, what does that mean for a queer Christians. It means that in order to be true to your faith you can love the same gender but control yourself to not have sex with them. And for those who wish to mock that, its not much different that any other person, we all have to use self control. Just because you're straight doesnt mean you can have sex with whomever you wish either.
You can shoot the messenger if you want but, I didnt write the Bible. I just read it and studied exactly what it says. You're free to reject it just like any other belief, you just cant say you are a believer in Christianity and then openly reject what it very clearly says and say you are true to your faith.
You sure jump to conclusions. I didnt move neighborhoods. I lost a property in another country with two houses on it with ZERO insurance payout because the loss was due to a lava eruption. Total loss of property and my vehicles.
I dont need empathy for a "disaster" thats going to take 100 years to take place. Thats ridiculous. I had no warning, they have 100 years to make a move.