All Activity

I never said it did. You do this a lot. You take my words, apply some off the wall interpretation, and try to make me defend the interpretation you invented. You mad bro?

Since when did any of you leftist give a sh!t about Canadian war graves, you did not even know of its existence until this media report, and it is a multi national grave site with 1/2 dozens western nations present.....Not to mention it was a combat operation....think grave sites get a free pass...And ya lets give Hama another free pass for building tunnels underneath you guys should start up your own fan club....

No, I had a big problem with Trudeau.

It's one small town....so what. Tree's have rights too, unless of course you pay the city for removal permits, then those trees and their rights are gone.

Yet you have no problem with the Liberals doing WORSE.

So its not the same is it, Carney is buying condos with tax money at inflated prices bailing them out..... Thats how the free market works....It has already been said they will buy at today prices, so contractors and bankers don't risk anything...again you don't understand it is tax payers money....how much do you affordable housing is worth.... I purchased my home for 375, 6 years ago sold it for 810.....it is like this in most of the Maritimes, unless you want to live in buck fu@k no where.... I'm pretty sure they are not conservative contractors or conservative banks.. what makes you think they are not liberal ? it has been discovered that many have donated to the liberal party, sorry conservatives don't do that...

🙄 1. I don't have to "make" myself correct because I correctly stated the facts. 2. No, nothing in Kavanaugh's opinion carries the weight of law. There were five signees on the majority opinion. The case was decided AND the precedent was established without Kavanaugh. Legally, it doesn't matter a bit what he thinks about it. 3. You claiming to be right in this situation is just more trolling from a perpetual loser. There is no mystery or question. You simply have no clue how the SCOTUS works and you tried to be smarmy pr1ck about it while also being decidedly wrong. Kind of your M.O. actually.

1. Governments and companies implement safety policies for the protection of their employees, associates and customers. Employees had a choice... get vaccinated or find another job. Because a person chooses not to get vaccinated doesn't make it okay that they get to interact with those that did, or be in contact with those that were vulnerable. 2. Something that has a ~0.0010% percentage chance of serious side effects doesn't sound too dangerous to me. Being a fool is a personal choice... which you can obviously relate to.

First, Kavanaugh's opinion is affirming the majority opinion. You are parsing hairs trying to make yourself correct. Second, the why does not carry the weight of law. The what does. The what is that the EO was not valid. However, Kavanaugh's opinion does outline how to properly comply with the opinion AND end birthright citizenship for aliens and foreigners, as was the intent of the 14th. Your irrational anger makes you look bad. Does it make you mad that I am right?

Do you really believe that... You can't be this ignorant to think that man isn't the main cause of climate change, are you?

Jonathan Turley agrees with you if you go to the 3 minute mark. He's an actual constitutional lawyer, unlike Hodad the blithering idlot.

Being ignorant is not a crime. You're not the only person in America who doesn't understand how the SCOTUS works. But to be such an a-hole while being totally ignorant is a rare gift. Ignorance can be cured. The a-holishness seems to be permanent. Go fark yourself, loser. Hodad - this sums you up perfectly. The lack of self-awareness is amazing!

No. And if you have no idea how the SCOTUS works, why the fark are you going to argue about it? Get educated. The majority opinion is the official opinion of the court. It's authored by one justice and then co-signed by others. With 5 justices signing on, it has the force of law. Each justice has the option to write another opinion (there are three main types) that expand on their thinking. These are separate opinions that have no holding power and set no precedent--no force of law. A concurring opinion (yes, and) expanding on their thinking. A dissenting opinion--the majority got the decision wrong, and here's why A mixed opinion--the decision on the case is correct, but I disagree with the reasoning in the opinion Kavanaugh wrote the third option. It is explicitly NOT part of the majority opinion and has no force of law. Here is the literal wording copied and pasted from the syllabus of the SCOTUS opinion: ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to the introduction and Part I. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting opinions. Being ignorant is not a crime. You're not the only person in America who doesn't understand how the SCOTUS works. But to be such an a-hole while being totally ignorant is a rare gift. Ignorance can be cured. The a-holishness seems to be permanent. Go fark yourself, loser.

No, one of the reasons Harper was voted out was because many felt that housing was becoming more unaffordable and not possible during his term, which it was for many. His courting of Chinese investment is the reason LM and GTA housing prices went beyond stûpid in the early 2000's. He was a failure...

No proof of anything required these days. Hamas tunnels under graveyard because we said so Fishing boats we blew up in International waters were druf smugglers because we said so. Blowing up warships in the harbour of a country it's visiting is okay because we said so. Kidnapping foreign leaders to the US is ok because we said so.

That is treason (From the Justice Department of Canada: Under the Criminal Code of Canada, punishment for treason ranges from a maximum of 14 years in prison to a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years, depending on the severity and circumstances of the offense.) and if they are assisting with illegal invasion from within government that is called tyranny (the punishment for tyranny was execution of which when Canada abolished Capital Punishment, the punishment for tyranny was never replaced). Canadians need to rise and force a harsh punishment for tyranny and apply it immediately and all complicit with assisting tyrants with illegal invasion be charged with treason thus all of the liberals and their so called Canadian insiders complicit with them will pay the price as Canadians will then have a genuine reason to celebrate Canada day again. In the mean time for what it's worth, happy Canada day. love Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist David Jeffrey Spetch Ps. Be good, be strong! Ontario Canada

Fair point.

Narrative management sounds like orchestration and psy-op dudes. Without empirical studies, data and falsifiability, orchestration and psy-op dudes sounds bat-shit crazy.

He was a failure.... and why the 2015 election was beat down for the Con's. We were not as scathed because of our banking regulations and holding high risk mortgages and the fact our banks were/are well capitalized with no financial assistance needed there. Add in the booming price of oil at the time and a savvy Bank of Canada Governor setting monetary policy and we skated through it okay. Harper was a failure though...

For the record...according to google AI to my question; Did Stephan Harper sell 800 thousand low income housing units to developers Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not personally or directly sell 800,000 low-income housing units to developers.The figure of 800,000 affordable rental units stems from a highly criticized statistic used by political opponents—including the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Liberal Party—and labor unions like CUPE. Rather than a direct mass sale of public property, the figure refers to a broader structural decline in Canada's affordable housing stock. The Origin of the "800,000 Units" Claim The 800,000 figure points to affordable, lower-rent units in the private market that were "lost" or converted into high-rent, luxury, or condominium spaces during the Conservative government's tenure. This erosion occurred due to several distinct policy decisions and market trends: Expiration of Operating Agreements: For decades, the federal government funded social housing through long-term operating agreements with providers. Under the Harper administration, many of these 25-to-35-year agreements reached their end dates. The government opted not to renew the subsidies, which housing advocates argue led to the eventual privatization or increased rental costs of those units. The Private Financial Ecosystem: Critics point out that the federal regulatory environment at the time allowed corporate landlords and real estate investment trusts (REITs) to purchase older, lower-rent apartment buildings in bulk. These private buyers often initiated "renovictions" or "demo-evictions" to upscale the buildings and dramatically raise prices, effectively removing them from the affordable housing stock. Decades of Federal Disengagement: The decline of federally backed social housing in Canada did not start with Stephen Harper. It began in the early 1990s under Brian Mulroney's Conservative government and accelerated when Jean Chrétien's Liberal government completely withdrew federal funding for new social housing construction in 1993, downloading the responsibility to the provinces. The Fact-Checking Reality The accusation is frequently weaponized in modern political campaigns to target opposition leader Pierre Poilievre, who served briefly as Harper's Minister of Employment and Social Development (which oversaw housing policy at the time). While it is historically accurate that Canada lost an estimated 800,000 market-affordable rental units to private sector gentrification and financialization during the Harper era, it is false to state that the government held ownership of these units and directly sold them off to corporate developers.

Sure it did....they allowed 800k affordable rental units to be sold to corporations. I already showed you Kid, tons of times. Sound familiar?

You used empirical testing, observation, and falsification to determine this? I'm guessing you didn't have your conclusions peer reviewed but you have every opportunity to prove that as well. That would be a two-fer and an excellent demonstration of the scientific process in action - establishing the truth of something on the truth of something else that's been established. Just don't neglect to show your work. Sez who?