Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. He still overvalued his property which means he's a piece of shit liar. What's so laughable with you cultists is that fat ass decided that the banks were too stupid to do their own due diligence with Trump, so she declared them victims even though they transacted with him and still made money. lol
  3. Those who oppose the current Ministry are not ignored. The official opposition speaks eloquently on their behalf. We are Canadian. We are not Americans. That means we elect Members of the House of Commons to make decisions on issues on our behalf. They are not elected to "represent" us. We follow the princple of "responsible" government. You bang on about "An entire generation is going to hate the libs and the dips for what's been done to them." Well, lets look at what they have done. They assembled a multipartisan team to prevent a hostile American congress from wrecking NAFTA. They again built a team that included all premiers representing all parties to mitigate the deadly Covid-19 plague.
  4. Boys...Boys... Libbies...and Mike...don't care about mundane crap like the economy. They're saving the whole world from a climate crisis...that doesn't exist. Taxation is the Libbie way folks. In a time when the nation needs to recover from the damage the Libbies inflicted on Canada with their draconian Rona shutdowns. Their answer to creating this recovery is to tax the Hell outta those who can't afford it. Pixie-Dust already knows he's history. So he's going to punish Canada by dumping as many piles of raw shit on the public as he can before its all over. There is no climate crisis. There is a crisis of fear, hatred and wanton destruction.
  5. New York is a democrat stronghold, therefore, New York is allergic to legitimate business. Aggressive taxation and crime has done wonders to turn that city into a democrat dream world, but there's still a lot more damage to be done. I think introducing illegal aliens into the mix will help them close that gap.
  6. I remember debating with someone feeling sex was disgusting, and that women should adapt to them. That if a woman wanted to be intimate, they should accommodate him. If insemination was the purpose, he could use a turkey baster, get her to bend over, and get the job done. To him, this was purely logical. He couldn't understand why people were laughing, as he hadn't considered the woman's feelings. Imagine me pulling out a turkey baster and telling my wife to bend over. I would be missing teeth. The logic you're using, is similarly devoid of the reality and writings between the lines that kind of gets in the way.
  7. Liz Cheney is one of you: braindead and morally bankrupt.
  8. You should offer your living room being an open borders slut, and all. I'll keep MY living room for family and friends. Criminal invaders are not welcome there.
  9. He who controls the past controls the future. - George Orwell

  10. It illustrates that the theory that increasing debt would grow the economy and maintain the same debt to GDP ratio has been totally debunked. The budget will NOT balance itself. What’s more, this massively increased debt load under the Liberals has put us in a position where our debt payments have increased significantly and we have much less room for spending on the social programs that the NDP and Liberals love. The old adage, “Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg”, is very apt right now. Kill economic activity and individual discretionary spending and all government spending has to be cut. This will be a very hard situation for a government that only knows how to bribe citizens with taxpayer money and borrowed money. It’s 1993 all over again, except now it’s the Liberals and NDP who have dug a deep debt hole. Hopefully the Conservatives will find a way to cut spending AND red tape AND taxes at the same time. Maybe it means we won’t be funding Liberal eugenics programs like abortions in Africa or assisted suicide for the mentally ill. The problem is that you have an overpaid political class who are so disconnected from the way ordinary people live. This group of Laurentian elites don’t understand or care about the bread and butter struggles average working Canadians face. They are too busy booking itinerary to overseas conferences where they sincerely think they can solve the world’s problems with other out of touch elites. They think that by adding to citizens’ costs with regulations and carbon taxes that they are helping them. After all, what do these rough ignorant workers know? I fly by private jet and stay in spa boutique hotels. I must be doing something right. Of course it’s all at public expense. That’s the current regime.
  11. Today
  12. Yup, more rights for renters = less rental units will be built. Bottom line is if landlords cannot recover costs then why bother building.
  13. Fck, you are such a loser. Your topic headline is not what the link headline is.. You even admit it. You even use the real statement and admit it is true but your topic is misleading. All you ever do is twist and lie about things. What a friggen loser and getting worse every post. even a computer AI has figured out what a loser you really are LOL Regardless, as normal, it is a non story posted by cdnfux.
  14. We're actually on our way to 1.2m this year. Yes, canadian immigration levels are actually this suicidal.
  15. Depends what you mean by 'drastically' i guess but he's said he will "match it to housing construction' and infrastructure - in other words keep it in line with how much housing we're producing. While he's not going to give a specific number (and in fact doesn't even use the word "reduce") for political reasons, given everything else he's said and number's he's pointed to he's pretty clearly looking to reduce it back to more like 250 - 300 k per year. Which is about half what it is this year. So that's pretty substantial.
  16. The Pareto principle states that for many outcomes, roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes (the "vital few"). Immigration is causing 80% of the consequences on the housing market. It has to be reduced immediately or else nothing is going to happen.
  17. I actually agree with the CDN Fox except on the legal fund, which I just see as a big nothing that won't do anything. I don't think Poilievre has said he'll drastically lower immigration either by the way. The thing I see from this is that they're aware that there's a big problem. To fix it, though, they have to impact the revenue of a significant part of the economy.
  18. I've run into this position with a few folks I'm acquainted with and even have a close relative with the same view. Personally, I see it as defining the line between opinion and narrative with opinion being subject to modification based on experience and narrative closer in texture to that of religion. For me it begs such questions as how much is enough and a what point do you start braking? In aviation there are crosswind component charts vs braking effectiveness (JBI) that help asses landing distance vs runway length. Even so, some are reluctant to overshoot or go to an alternate. Even when they find themselves fast and high on the glide path they accept a long landing / rollout instead of going around and trying again at Vref. We used to call that "strength of an idea" but it's the kissing cousin of narrative IMO. In any case, the results are usually just as predictable as those "what did you think was going to happen?" questions you'll be answering when the investigation team pitches up. Personally, I think we've done significant damage that will take a long time to repair and I see liberals in a similar vein as airline MBAs. There first reaction to the predictable accident (above) is to paint over company livery on the fuselage and tail. For me it's the rapidity with which disaster strikes that's concerning. Some would observe that we've been on course for many years but really, most major societal changes have a habit of occurring very quickly, the common refrain being "wow, how did we get here?" In my analogy above , the process of "getting there is a function of "normalization of deviation." A close relative of getting away with it over a long period of time. Throw in a bit of complacency and in the blink of an "eyeball" you're mowing grass at the end of the runway. IMO, the damage done in the US is even worse and will now take a generation to undo assuming they get off to a good start in November. So, can I assume from your position that you're actually happy with the status quo and/or the idea that Canada is fundamentally on the right track and anything that you take issue with only requires a bit of tweaking? The reason I ask is because I see the choices as stark, in a (largely) two party system, you either accept JT's trajectory or a conservative one. I find the idea of testing the orbital apex of JT's trajectory too horrifying to even contemplate. I've already refiled to that alternate... the amended clearance is coming in now. See ya in the crew lounge, I'll be the one drinking coffee with the flight attendants.
  19. "But whether variation is selected naturally by the environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that, ‘selection’ from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created." "Today’s Darwinists point to mutations as the mechanism which provides this novelty from which ‘Natural Selection’ selects. Evolutionists should then focus on mutations to defend their theory, instead of ‘Natural Selection’. When pressed for examples of novel genetic information or body organs created by mutation, they typically point to instances such as wingless beetles4 on islands, or the flightless cormorant on the Galapagos islands.5 The problem with these examples is obvious. While they may confer a benefit to the creatures in a specific, very unusual environment, nothing ‘new’ is added to the DNA or creatures’ body parts. They actually involve a loss or corruption of existing genetic information.6" Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)
  20. If you haven't studied it, then how do you know? Do you take the word of humanists who have no proof of anything? quote Natural Selection (≠) Evolution This is an important ‘equation’ that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution. Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it. The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same cards. You would not have created anything new—only re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another pack. If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists’ sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something ‘new’ out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new. This illustration applies equally to ‘selection’ in the biological context. The all-wise Creator knew the different environments that His creatures would have to adapt to after the Fall and Curse, and particularly after the Flood of Noah, in order to survive. He included in the genetic information of each ‘kind’ of creature He created a smorgasbord of variety in their makeup. This includes those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of His creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young. When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish different ‘species’. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never gained. unquote Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)
  21. We are not talking about "pollution". Some oppose the forest industry. The forest industry has brought good-paying jobs to tens of thousands of people and allowed them to live meaningful lives, raise families, own homes, vehicles, send their kids to be educated and have careers. It is what made life possible for much of the population of B.C. It has provided lumber to build millions of homes in Canada and other countries. I wouldn't call that "pollution". Shows complete ignorance or childish behavior. You don't respect human rights. What you say is drivel.
  22. For the short term that would significantly ease the problem. In time inventory would adjust and the problem would creep up again but during that time gov'ts can find ways to encourage developers to build more homes and for more landlords to return to the market to provide more spaces. And that also drops housing purchase prices (or holds them while salaries go up over time) so you get a win win - more people can buy, which frees up rentals and there's more places to buy and rent which keeps competition fair. But yes - they're just beating around the bush.
  23. Demand and thus rent and housing prices would drop with fewer immigrants and foreign residents annually. They keep beating around the root of the problem.
  24. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/trudeau-housing-renters-bill-of-rights Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his plan for a new Canadian Renters’ Bill of Rights Wednesday to help young people get a foothold in the housing market. His proposed plan contains three main items: Renters would know a unit’s rental price history to bargain appropriately Creating a federal legal aid fund to help renters right bad-faith evictions Making credit bureaus take rent payments into account when calculating someone’s credit score, in an effort to help them qualify for a mortgage Trudeau made the announcement ahead of the 2024 federal budget from East Vancouver, the most expensive city in the country for renters. So. This is how desperate and useless he is. THis is a provincial matter and all provinces already have their own residential tenanacy boards and laws to protect renters, and they are extensive. knowing what the last guy paid is USELESS. Creating a legal aid fund that landlords KNOW will be abused to attack them just reduces the number of rental units out there. Only the largest cutthroat rental companies with big legal budgets will bother - more of the smaller investors which until recently made up the majority of renters will get out of that market and rents will go even higher. People are not failing to get a mortgage because their credit scores are bad - they can't get a mortgage because the cost of a downpayment and a mortgage is through the roof. And I would bet that making your rent report any late payments to the credit bureau will hurt far more than it helps. I hope the ndp realizes what a disaster this is and smartens them up.
  25. All of our metrics have gone to hell. We had one of the best debt to gdp ratios out there even if you looked at total gov't debt not just federal - now it's in the crapper. We had about 25 billion dollars a year less in interest payments. we had a higher gdp per capita. We had a much lower cost of living to income ratio so people had more disposable income. Business investment increased substantially during harper's time, it nosedived during trudeau which leads to our current productivity problems. Inflation was under control at 2 percent or lower. Not to mention crime was MUCH lower. Healthcare was better and the percent of healthcare covered by the feds was higher. Immigration was much more successful and we didn't have refugees living on the streets.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...