CdnFox

If you're buying it, then you're ready to admit that you've got a problem

No there isn't, it's based on GDP. If the economy is better GDP is up and we have to pay more, if the economy is in the tank the GDP is down but we still have to pay our percent. This problem literally scales with us. And it's 2025 the end of this decade is only 5 years away, which means you're talking in very short time it will have a major impact In other words you're hoping that they'll cancel it at some point in the future and he won't have to keep his word. I will admit that the liberals are famous for canceling and breaking their words but if you take him at face value this is a problem. And in either case you're answering the question by basically saying I'm perfectly fine with it as long as something changes and we don't have to do it. Well it's a shame that we haven't taken the time to sit down and write out a plan where we could consider our likely revenues and look over our expenses and start having a conversation about how we're going to achieve that. What do they call that again? Oh yeah, a budget. And no, carney was elected to fight trump. I don't have a big problem with increasing spending on the military, And I don't even have a big problem with slashing the hell out of a lot of the government unnecessary services and spending. The so-called lesbian dance theory subsidies. But my belief is that through political pressure he's going to be as successful achieving this as the liberals were achieving the Kyoto Accords or the paris agreement. And when that becomes apparent and all of these other countries are looking at us saying are we talking about your spending yet again? It could be bad for us. I mean you know he's not going to deliver. There's zero chance he's going to deliver. So this is going to be another embarrassment

You understand this has to mean radical slashing to social programs right? I mean we currently spend somewhere in the neighborhood of around 30 billion a year of defense, Even playing certain accounting games like rolling our infrastructure spending into it a little and such we would still need to slash around about 100 billion in spending. And that's based on today's GDP which is going to be going up every year quite likely or at least most years. I find it hard to believe the left is going to accept massive slashing to social programming and their favorite special interest groups

That's true. You were wrong before he got here

As we often see, the pendulum swings too far one way and it tends to swing pretty far back to correct. I suspect most people would agree that too many asylum claims were being allowed and too many people were cutting under what really weren't asylum claims and remaining in the country. On the other hand this is pretty Draconian. Basically it almost entirely eliminates the asylum process. How many will argue that it is not the job of the US to provide asylum and there is certainly a certain truth to that. But it does go against tradition. It seems to me that a middle ground where there is an expedited asylum adjudicator process or something that very quickly assesses whether or not somebody is likely to qualify for asylum And tosses them back would be a little bit more rounded of a solution At the end of the day though all of this stuff is going to certainly discourage people from attempting to illegally enter America in the first place

That's not what the study says at all. It says kids MAY reach that level by 16. Not that they do on average. Further it notes that it's incomplete and not fully matured, which is in keeping with the study i posted showing that on average reaches MATURITY at 18. So while some 16 year olds may be starting to think at an adult level they have not reached maturity yet. Further it notes that they're still very immature in some circumstances. from your study: " Importantly, whereas cognitive capacity reached adult levels around age 16, psychosocial maturity reached adult levels beyond age 18, creating a “maturity gap” between cognitive and psychosocial development. Juveniles may be capable of deliberative decision making by age 16, but even young adults may demonstrate “immature” decision making in arousing situations" Politics is very often a passionate area. So you have posted a study that proves that 16 is too young. Congratulations you have joined the ranks of many left-wingers on this board who have managed to post-proof that they are wrong LOLOLOL As your study says they are getting close but they are not fully mature at 16. That is in keeping with the study I posted which shows on average they reach a maturity at 18 So no voting till 18

You must be happy, i know you like it when whitey knows his place

Everybody trust Israel not to use their bombs. Nobody trusts Iran. So absolutely, if they have enriched uranium it should be taken away. And it was. There you go

For god's sake they're too young whether they're conservative or not. Children should not be electing the lawmakers of the country. And you haven't made any kind of cases to why they should. Our political system allows them to be involved and to participate as is and when they're old enough they'll get a chance to vote as well. But children should not be voting in a democratic system to pick the lawmakers. It's that simple. And as I posted previously the medical research shows quite clearly that on average they have not reached cognitive maturity before 18 Your argument that somehow we need their idealism rather than cold rational intelligent thought based on reason intellect and fact is beyond nonsense. Absolutely nothing whatsoever stops them from presenting ideas, exercising political power or advocating for things outside of an election. And they do frequently. But the decision about who is going to make the laws and run the country should be left to adults and not idealism. Idealism gave us communist Russia. Idealism gave us Nazi Germany. The last thing we need is idealism when it comes to selecting the actual leaders. Idealism comes later

In 2003 they said there was a nuclear program when there wasn't a nuclear program. They said that uranium had been obtained when there was no uranium Are you claiming that the Iranians did not have uranium? Are you suggesting that they're actually was no enrichment facility? Unless you're making those claims there's no comparison. I ran definitely had the capacity and was moving towards a state where they could produce a nuclear weapon. They were continuing to enrich uranium and increasing the amount despite the fact they don't even have a reactor. So in the united states has said close enough, whether you are actually building a bomb or not you're at the point where you could and we're not okay with that. There's nothing hidden or surprising here, this isn't anything remotely like 2003. Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and that means not having the capacity to make them. This is not the kind of thing you get to just trust people on, and nobody is disputing the fact that they had the facilities and that whether or not the program was intended for peaceful use they were moving towards a state where they would be able to produce a Bomb if they wanted to

I can see why it may seem odd at a glance but any leader elected still has to win a seat in a general election and that's the "circuit breaker' on that. These little gaps are left more or less intentionally to allow people who are not normally eligible to vote to at least have some Form of impact on the representation of the country. For example Non-citizens can become members of the party and elect a leader as well even though they can't vote in an election. People not eligible to vote can also donate money which can impact a political parties fortunes. They can also donate time and be scrutineers and help win the election by getting out the vote. There's all these little ways that a non -voting person can still have an impact so that they can feel like they're participating as well. But actually voting for individual Representatives is left to citizens who have an adult age and capable of making decisions on behalf of the country with at least a reasonable expectation that they are old enough to make those decisions. Oh well if it's good enough for Cuba and Nicaragua.....🙄🙄🙄 Kids are not ready to be making those kind of decisions earlier than 18 on average. We already have enough problems with our democracy without making things worse

If it takes nuclear war to make trump look bad, then that's how it goes in his mind. You don't make omelets without breaking a few eggs, every communist knows that

LOLOL! That's not true. He's not playing.

Irrelevant. While the number may change the US still has laws as to what is and it is not an adult. Those laws will be based on the best information available at the time. Pretty simple.

Because the entire question is a fallacy. The fact that one unit of measure is used within a law or is used to form a law in no way shape or form indicates one way or another whether or not it is the basis of law. It would be like saying if a knife law said that a knife couldn't be longer than 6 in does that mean length is now the basis of law or the basis of a law? It neither is nor isn't it's just a measurement that was used to describe something within a law Well first off the fact that a date changes over time doesn't change the fact that the date is still the basis of measurement. As per my previous example if the 6-in knife becomes a 7 inch knife doesn't change the fact that you're still using inches No, there is empirical research and evidence. There's nothing to do with how anyone felt. And a judge didn't step in and answer the question, a judge says that regardless he needs to be repatriated and that had nothing to do with his age This was your example, why are you fcuking it up Blah blah blah You very clearly don't know what you're asking. You flip flop back and forth and you're making no sense whatsoever. Your usual dribble is pretty stupid, but this is even subpar compared to that. So either you're having a really bad comprehension week and you just haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, or you're forgetting part way through. This is why @User Is getting frustrated, it's like talking to someone with the memory span of a goldfish. I never think of you as terribly smart but I do think of you is smarter than this. You really need to step it up, with your skills you're in no position to be able to afford backsliding

Sounds more like you're trying to obfuscate the issue because you know you're wrong.

Your mother is not dead. You lie about it in order to try and get fake sympathy points. I mean hell once again you were the one that brought it up here, not me or anyone else and now you're getting all mad because I'm addressing your comments. Nobody said a thing about your mother and then you brought up your mother and now you're mad that people are talking about your mother. And pointing out that she's alive not dead is not insulting. Nobody buys your fake outrage kid Why would I do that, you're free comedy!!! It is the height of hilarious to watch you pee yourself and run around a little circles because the tactics that work so well for you and grade school aren't winning you any sympathy here And once again you're back to this weird thing where you need me to give you permission to behave properly. The correct response would be that you not reply to me if you don't like my responses. But as always you're afraid to take action unless I do it for you. Sorry kid. Your two choices in life are start posting like an adult and quit freaking out when people call you that brain theories into question, or to continue to post like Petulant ahole living in mommy's basement and be treated appropriately.

Oh look, literally everybody is laughing at you again

Nobody is ever claimed that the CBC is irrelevant that I recall. The claim is that they are biased and Fanboys for the liberals. And that conservative shouldn't have to pay their tax money to support an organization whose sole purpose is to try and keep conservative governments out of power But I think everybody has always agreed that the CBC does have an impact. That's the problem. They have an impact for the liberals only

Doesn't happen kid, unlike you i tend to tell the truth from the get go and explain my thinking so there's no need to backtrack. And he reads and replies to my posts all the time. You just make bizarre little cries for help and then reposted a hundred times. And you're wondering why people don't consider you to be relevant or worth paying attention to? The two type of people you're going to run into in life for the people that ignore you because you're a useless garbage piece of crap and people that find you hilarious and pay attention to you for that reason. If you want to be taken seriously you have to make serious posts, make reasonable and reasoned arguments, and not go on for seven pages just reposting the same stuff having a complete emotional breakdown that everyone can see is a sign of you struggling with severe insecurity issues. And I've told you that before.

well it is childish, but i do laugh at it. Now having caught him lying about his mother when he starts getting pissy and really gross i just ask how his mother is But i'm pretty convinced she's alive and well from his comments. He lies A LOT. Honestly i don't understand his whole '100 repetitive posts' thing. I think he thinks it upsets me or something or other people that he does it to but I don't see how it would.

You better hope that reason never becomes a major requirement for voting All the data points to 18 being a good example of an average age where people reach cognitive maturity. I know you don't like the word maturity and you don't believe in it, but it is an appropriate word when you're talking about people's cognitive abilities. The younger than that would not be advisable.

Exactly. We acknowledge this because it's cheaper than actually addressing any issues And because first nations are too thick to be able to actually look for things that will make their life better

Your question would not do that. However regardless it is something that we've acknowledged in Canadian American British and in fact most countries laws It absolutely would not. I don't know where you're getting that from but he could have done his actions whether he was a child who was convinced to make bad decisions because he had no ability to make good decisions or if he was an adult who made bad decisions on his own Ineligible. I mean are you basing this on feelings now? Any child who's feelings are hurt because they weren't allowed to vote should be allowed to vote because feelings? I assume you're not suggesting that anybody who wishes to vote must take some sort of maturity test or be denied. I guarantee that if the wrong people get their hands on that you won't like it It's no different than the 15 year old having to wait another week before they can take their driver's license or the 17 year old who can't go out to the bar drinking with their buddies for another week because they're not old enough etc etc Well that is what I have been offering so far. Taking the politics out of it makes sense to me. There is a wide body of research that suggests that cognitive maturity occurs around age 18 on average. Therefore using a date as an anchor for when people can or can't vote would suggest that using that one makes the most sense Well stop voting for people who keep trying to break the law then

The NDP is desperately trying to look relevant and keep itself in the news after it's shocking Decimation. They especially got clobbered by the youth vote leaving them so they are trying to appeal to young people, and they're trying to put forward things that are so controversial that it'll get them back in the news and get them interviews and AirTime. I expect we will see a little bit more of this kind of nonsense at the very least until a new leader is chosen