Leaderboard

Just curious but...can Canada defend itself? Not really eh? And...why should Canada be trusted, if we dont live up to our agreements? NATO is falling apart. Something that should have happened decades ago. The biggest threat to Canastan is Libbie immigration and over-regulation.

A lot.of judges in this country are ideological trash.

One thing I've noticed is the lefties have ZERO sense of humor. Post anything that puts the left in a humorous light and they all go into "attack mode" immediately.

Rewriting history is very marxist.

Man, the bigots and atheists hate it when you start talking about the clear Christian roots our nation was founded on. The topic presented here wasn’t that the Constitution says God, mentions the Bible, or that the legal framework clearly says anything about Jesus… or any of the other strawman arguments being made by the usual suspects.

It's not hedonic freedom that people need, it's a purpose. A frame work of moral and ethical constraint in which to organize their beliefs and action. There is nothing about sexual freedom that isn't hedonic. Sex without the responsibililty of bringing forth another life is no different than narcotics. Liberal society have fallen into the worship of the golden calf through peddling rights as if rights alone are inherently valued. The civil rights movement was fundamentally based on christian belief against tyranny but not against worship. It's not let my people go. Let my people go, so that they may worship in the wilderness. Liberal society devolve without the foundational faith that created it.

Why the MAGA Cult is Obsessed with Obama tldw: Obama destroys their bigotry of pretending blacks are inferior. Like one of my black frat brothers who got straight As at Illinois Tech.

It can't come soon enough.

Everything you wrote there was stupid.

The joowish space lazers would probably burn it up, right Gaetan?

Someone that takes no personal responsibility for having no life at all. Carney and the Liberals won't let me out of this basement....

Planting the trans flag on top of Washington DC is also a huge no-no. The adage "Give an inch and they take a mile" has definitely applied to the pride cult. Acknowledging the same rights we have is all they deserve - nothing more - of course that applies to marriage. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex because marriage between a man and a woman is vital to a successful society. Trans and homosexuals should have the exact same right as we heteros have.

Clickbait for starving trappersnappers.

1. I dont care, PeeWee. Nor do I know if that's even true. So I'll check... OOPS... "In God We Trust" is the official motto of the United States and was first added to coins in 1864. It became mandatory on all U.S. currency following a law passed in 1955." Id1ot... 2. See point #1.

You don't even know that phrase was adopted in the '50s to help fight the Cold War. LMAO You just can't help demonstrating your ^lDIOCY, dropout.

You already proved nicely you have no idea what science is (other than what google can teach you in 2 minutes). And you also have shown you're unable to produce any actual science on the subect. But we all appreciate you showing up, it's nice to start the week with a laugh

Well, that's a weird take. In the post to which you are replying I rather definitively refuted your comically absurd claim that (non-president) Washington issued a proclamation for a national day of prayer (before there was a nation) in May of 1776. I'm glad you've caught up to the correct decade for a Washington proclamation (you're welcome) but you'd have to actually make a cogent point to expect a refutation. WTF is your point? That the US is a Christian nation? It isn't, and was rendered deliberately so in the language of the constitution. Virtually every other government up to that point been predicated on divine right to rule. This was a government by and for the people. Yes, some of the founders were religious. But they deliberately restrained themselves from creating a religious government, because the endorsement of one is the exclusion of the others. It's secular for a reason, and to the benefit of every free person under the flag.

I think they do because they're liars. Bald-faced liars spew their messages in spite of the truth. The Left knows they bring trash to the table. They're disease carriers and they know it.

It doesn't really work in the current age though. It's either inflammatory anti-woke, or anti-trump. I don't laugh at any of it. To add: there's too much entertainment and not enough serious thought in the public sphere.

It helps if you bothered to stay on topic here.

I can see that now. My apologies. Carry on then. 🙂

I'd argue the opposite. Comedy and satire should focus heavily on politics, and people should learn to stop being such fragile little buttercups over it.

The Premier of Quebec should not obtain a war bank for the province, because in the event of a conflict our adversaries would target it with a nuclear strike to burn the vaults full of money — and the population of Montreal would be wiped out. She should promote peace instead of trying to profit from wars like Mark Carney.

Well after that spurious remark... here's the gist... The Operation: Individuals known for vigorously defending Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, and for questioning established residential school narratives were contacted by a fictitious company (using names like "Heritage Figures Canada" or "Forge Media"). The targets were initially told they were participating in a documentary or commercial shoot meant to "reclaim the legacy" of Macdonald. The "Gotcha": After an initial, seemingly friendly interview about Macdonald, the production team conducted a second filmed session where they revealed the premise was fake and openly mocked or challenged the interviewees' views in a Borat-style sting operation. The Targets: High-profile targets targeted by the pranksters included author and commentator Lindsay Shepherd, former professor Frances Widdowson, and Conservative MP Aaron Gunn. The Backlash: The use of a public broadcaster (alongside APTN) to conduct these sting operations sparked intense outrage and debate. Conservative MPs publicly condemned the use of taxpayer dollars to mock and humiliate private citizens. Current Status: The CBC has confirmed its involvement in the entertainment project, with spokespeople defending it as a long-established television format and satirical prank show. However, Conservative politicians have actively demanded formal investigations and accountability from the CBC regarding the ethics of the program. Now you pick a topic title that doesn't offend the fairy feelings.

So what? Christianity is not mentioned in the US Constitution. The document contains no references to Jesus, the Bible, or God, and it is considered a strictly secular framework for government. [1, 2] The only references to religion in the text are found in two specific provisions designed to protect freedom of conscience: Article VI, Clause 3: Prohibits any "religious Test" as a qualification for holding any public office or public trust in the United States. The First Amendment: Ensures religious freedom through the Establishment Clause (which prevents the government from establishing a state religion) and the Free Exercise Clause (which prevents the government from interfering with religious practice). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Historically, this intentional separation of church and state was formalized in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which explicitly stated that the United States government "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." [1]

You don't know the difference between a good joke and a dumb statement.

The only one pushing evil as if they are a follower of Satan around here is you.

Boys! Boys! Is this turd @robosmith has taken on the site, worth addressing? I mean really now. Isn't he and his effeminate Libbie hoard simply lamenting their own lack of manliness? Ignore the little twerp.

........... the degree of hate, resentment, racism and corruption demonstrated by the U.S. is truly revealing. The U.S. global power was literally designed, post WWII, by giants; FDR, Truman and Ike. Their genius imagined a World revolving around the emerging superpower, the U.S. It's designed strength was built on alliances, trade and ideology. They realized that although the U.S. might be the most powerful in terms of military, GDP, it was not as strong as the combined strength of it's allies. Can the U.S. remain 'great' and be alone? ah, no. Hormuz is a great example ............... alone.

Yeah Muslim governments are the great humanitarians. LOL you're so naive. No Muslims attacked any Jews right?. The 1- sided narratives you shovel are a joke. Muslim leaders took away their homeland, Jews moved to Europe, Europe were exterminating them, so they took half of their homeland back. Good for them.

The nato charter huh. Doesn't look like the US is buying it either Canada military board: U.S. hitting pause WASHINGTON -- The U.S. undersecretary of defence said Monday that the United States is pausing a long-standing military board, claiming “Canada has failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments.” At the end of the day it doesn't matter what the NATO agreement says, or whether we're allowed to count tactical Chipmunks or not, is the money isn't going to actually improve the military it's meaningless. Yeah, and we make some of the best lavs in the world. The Americans model their strikers after ours. But we gave the ones we were making to the Ukraine and never replaced them so now our people have none but we can claim that we met our commitments for NATO spending and Ukraine. Meanwhile our combat troops are dependent on uber. This is what I'm talking about. We need to force the politicians to agree with us, not NATO, as to what represents a reasonable amount of military spending and hold them to it. As it is each government realizes that they're only in power for 4 years so all they have to do is make announcements that won't take effect for 4 - 8 years and they'll never have to worry about it. Not a single person is holding the Liberals to account for their years of mismanagement, carney is a 'new' gov't and he's doing the same crap but he's making a better show of it. Yeah it's frikkin' terrible. I get that. I've got a cousin in the military (career) and i hear stories. It's bad. And carney just gave them a raise,,,, then cancelled the foreign deployment bonus. So. The guys closest to harms way just got a massive pay cut. Canadian military personnel face cuts in overseas allowances | Ottawa Citizen for those who don't know what we're talking about. Canadians believe Carney when he says they're massively increasing spending. They believe you guys went from 1.6% of GDP all the way up to a full five and will soon be rolling in new tanks and submarines and planes etc. They have no idea of the shell game that's gone on Even the headlines like the ones above. When carney announces new military spending the headline is always liberals increase spending or Carney hits 5% spending target, But the headlines for the negative stuff never actually include mention of the government or Carney. Notice the headline above does not say that the government cut spending. And people often don't read the story they just skimmed the headlines. If we believe the news carney is personally pouring over pamphlets for new submarines and is just about to click place your order on the Amazon version of military hardware to upgrade all our gear. They have no idea that most of the money is going to things that we wouldn't normally consider to be military and that most of these purchases aren't happening or will happen in decades. I'm very frustrated, I'm sure you are too. I know exactly what's happening and I know why it's working. A significant portion of Canadians, not all but enough to keep the liberals in power, will believe any lie they are told and don't look past the announcements. Military spending will go up but only by a very small amount and I doubt we'll be seeing any substantial new gear anytime during this current administration. Even the stuff we make here

Are you saying that the US’s attack on Iran was sensible?

Oh good, about time Canada gets the memo. If you’re not even going to keep up the pretenses then we’ll absorb you.

The United States is led by the devil and acts under the orders of the great prostitute Israel.

He did. ANd if he were alive today he'd blame the palestinians for what they've done Sorry kid. You only mention einstein because you know people think you're stupid and you're hoping his name will make you sound smarter, it doesn't.

Oh please. You are just trying to make excuses to maintain a fantasy that Democrats are as pure as the wind driven snow. The problem is, you are blinded by a blizzard of lies. Nine MN employees said (under oath) Walz and Ellison were aware of the fraud: Oversight Committee Releases Explosive Testimony Revealing Minnesota Fraud Cover-Up by Governor Walz and Attorney General Ellison This woman is just number 10. Her statements match the statements of nine Minnesota government employees. In a court or law, this will hold up.

Please follow this link: https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/59912-canadian-economy-shows-resilience-returns-to-trade-surplus/page/2/#comment-1915482 It should take you to this thread which happens to be about... "Canadian Economy Shows Resilience, Returns To Trade Surplus" Started...interestingly enough...by YOU! Yet all you do is rail against Trump and Putin. Your "FACTS" are highly suspect. Yet you have the audacity to post this garbage... Beave...you're a twit. A Tweenkie. A liar. And you support the politics of other twits, Tweenkies and liars. Now...oh thou of questionable intellect...why don't you try staying on topic in the fcking thread YOU STARTED ABOUT CANADA? Flippin' jack-ass...

Lol...I think his corset is too tight.

China holds 389,571 out of over 520,000 AI patent applications globally over the past decade. This moment may now be at hand. American science has been the envy of the planet since the Second World War at least, but it has recently gone into decline. After President Trump took office last year, his administration started vandalizing the country’s scientific institutions, suspending research grants in bulk and putting entire lines of cutting-edge research on ice. In August, Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services canceled $500 million in mRNA-vaccine research, less than two years after Americans won a Nobel Prize for pioneering that technology. More than 10,000 science Ph.D.s have left the federal workforce, according to one group’s estimate, and the White House has been withholding money from frontline researchers in computer science, biomedicine, and hundreds of other fields that will define the human future. As one historian of science put it to me in July, “This is an unparalleled destruction from within.”

1. What is known with direct documentation: deaths tied to orders or agencies The clearest, directly documented fatality count linked to current Trump administration operations in the reporting is that ICE reported 46 people died while in ICE custody between January 2025 and March 18, 2026; reporters and researchers flag both the rising count and contested cause-of-death designations in specific cases [1]. 2. Short‑to‑medium term modeled domestic impacts: healthcare and regulatory rollbacks Peer‑reviewed and academic analyses model sizable domestic harms tied to Trump-era policies: one analysis of the administration’s proposed One Big Beautiful Bill estimated more than 16,000 additional U.S. deaths per year from Medicaid cuts and coverage losses under that bill [2], while The Lancet Commission’s comparative analysis attributes roughly 461,000 “unnecessary” U.S. deaths in 2018 to a spectrum of long‑running policy failures that were worsened during the Trump years—this is a counterfactual comparison to G7 death rates, not a headcount of individually attributed deaths [3]. 3. International and indirect effects: aid cuts and climate policy Two independent lines of modeling find very large international death tolls that would be indirectly linked to policy changes: a Center for Global Development update estimates lives lost from USAID cuts could plausibly be in the range of 500,000–1,000,000 based on outlays (and 670,000–1,600,000 based on obligations), while analysts of climate-policy rollbacks warn of cumulative millions of additional temperature‑related deaths globally tied to expanded fossil‑fuel trajectories associated with an “America First” agenda [4] [5]. Both are model outputs that depend on long chains of assumptions about budgets, global emissions pathways, and vulnerability in poorer countries. 4. How projections add up under three plausible scenarios (10‑year horizon) Using only direct, documented deaths produces a minimal 10‑year total of roughly 46 recorded ICE‑custody deaths [1]. A conservative policy‑impact scenario that counts the BMJ study’s healthcare‑bill estimate (16,000 excess U.S. deaths/year) yields about 160,000 excess U.S. deaths over ten years, plus the known ICE deaths [2] [1]. A higher‑impact domestic scenario that treats the Lancet Commission’s comparative figure (461,000 excess U.S. deaths in a single year attributable to systemic policy failures) as indicative of ongoing, annual excess mortality implies roughly 4.6 million excess U.S. deaths over ten years—this is a counterfactual estimate and controversial in method [3]. Adding international models—CGD’s 500,000–1,000,000 (or up to 1.6 million by obligations) and ProPublica/Guardian warnings of large climate‑related death tolls—produces aggregate multi‑million global death projections over a decade, but these are cumulative, model‑dependent projections rather than counted fatalities [4] [5]. 5. Caveats, competing perspectives and hidden agendas The estimates reflect different methods and implicit agendas: watchdog and humanitarian groups emphasize global lives lost (CGD, ProPublica) and may use worst‑case assumptions to motivate policy reversal [4] [5], commission reports like The Lancet use G7 counterfactuals to highlight systemic gaps but do not prove single‑cause attribution [3], and some advocacy pieces frame early‑term actions as producing “millions” of deaths to create political urgency [6]. Independent journalists and peer reviewers caution these model outputs rest on many assumptions; other sources (e.g., administration statements touting crime declines) offer a competing narrative about improving public safety but do not directly reconcile the mortality modeling [7]. 6. Bottom line for a ten‑year tally There is only one narrow, directly documented toll in these sources—46 ICE custody deaths [1]. Any larger ten‑year number depends entirely on which published models and counterfactuals one accepts: a focused policy effect (BMJ) implies ~160,000 excess U.S. deaths over ten years [2]; a broad counterfactual comparison (Lancet) implies millions over a decade if treated as ongoing [3]; international aid and climate models add hundreds of thousands to millions more globally [4] [5]. The reporting does not produce a single, authoritative 10‑year “Trump death count”; it produces competing, methodologically distinct estimates that must be read as scenarios, not precise tallies. I don't really give a shit about Trump, his family or his sycophants when they die. Just sayin.... let alone getting upset about a damn joke.

Example: site:https://repolitics.com Poilievre Now you've got no excuse to weasel out ( and you're welcome for me doing your work for you.) You people are all about lies and laziness these days.

Can you quote any instances of anyone doing that on here?

'The left is all about hatred and violence these days" haha .............. just cut to the chase - however, 😁repetition does nothing for u or ur arguments.