CdnFox

I got the point dead on, you realize what you said was stupid, now you're embarrassed and trying to retcon a new meaning to what you said. Like I've said before I'm sure you slay them on the elementary school playgrounds at recess I have known many, some well, but anybody can learn their track record and their job performance. It's not radically complicated What you're saying is it's not difficult to know people. My god you're useless Twat

Once again more than you. In fact i continued to read to the point where you said it doesn't matter to you. So again i was right, you don't care about accountability. Especially when it's liberal. You don't want transparency. Producing a budget and having the watchdog comment on it at the end of the year is transparency. It's one of the most important of all the transparancies - seeing whether the spending of public taxpayer money was done within accordance of a plan and whether it was successful. It's always fun pointing out what a hypocritical liar you are You literally just admitted transparancy "Doesn't affect your life" and you don't care about it. Ahhh ... you mean because all the left wing supporters voted for the liberals. Otherwise it would have been a cpc majority. Sure. You kept the liberals in this time, well done. But we knew you supported them all along.

Your neighbor won't be setting your tax rate next week. Your neighbor won't be deciding whether or not to come seize your firearms. Your neighbor won't be restricting your freedoms on the internet with new speech laws. Your neighbor won't be burdening your grandchildren with new deficit spending which will once again double the national debt in a few years So it doesn't really matter that you don't know your neighbor. It does matter a lot that you don't know carney

And getting treated like a kid in grade 3 is pretty much what you called for

Impossible to say until he tables it. What if he's planning on increasing taxes 50%? that will have an impact on your life, assuming that you are not on pogey And of course there's something you can do about it. The public frequently applies political pressure to political parties when they do things that the people don't approve of. Happens all the time He's got a minority government. He cannot afford to be pissing people off to the point where they hold a grudge. If there were spending or cuts that you didn't approve of and other people agreed with you he would have to take that into account and reconsider his actions Once again we see that you actually don't care about accountability in the slightest, especially liberal accountability

Well for heaven's sake even governments with a majority put out a budget Again, a stupid thing to say. Especially for a guy who supposedly all about accountability. A budget is a plan of the fiscal responsibility and targets of a government over the next year and allows people to measure whether or not they met it told him to account if they don't Oh but it's a liberal government so you don't believe in holding them to account. I forgot. You'd only be angry about this if it was a conservative government

You've been spending too much time with Myata The law is what the law is, and realistically speaking deportation should happen when people who are in the country cannot prove that they have a right to be there to the authorities. Dragging the issue to court is an effort to delay things unreasonably. Either you're here legally and you can produce documentation which says so or you're not. If they're not in the country legally then they should be out of the country. And too many illegals make use of the court systems to drag out their illegal stay in the country If the bad guys know they will be kicked out the moment they're found in the country and they know that there are going to be more problems getting into the country to begin with then fewer bad guys will try And that appears to be the goal of the trump government. A lot of Americans are completely on board with that goal and why wouldn't they be? So if this is the way to achieve it then so be it. If left-leaning people and democrats wanted it differently than they should have friday and effective rules when they were in charge. And they didn't. Even the ones they proposed wouldn't have solved any problems. They refused to solve the problem, so now trump is doing it the way he thinks is best. There's a lesson in there

It wasn't possible Decades ago. Which you would have known if you were intelligent well that's your liberal friends that prevented that from happening. In any case, now is all we've got to work with. And now we should be getting more pipelines built, and getting our products to as many markets as possible.

Awwww look at you.... making your granddad proud like that LOLOL He seemed to take pride in stupidity after all I'm sure all the kids in grade three are terribly impressed with your wit and insult skills LOLOL

Amusingly your statement appears to be untrue.

Sure he did. Your comprehension issues are not my problem You're being retarded by the way Oh look, you've realized you're wrong and you wanted to be my fault So you don't believe that a government has a responsibility to publish a budget What, repeating what you've said? The more interesting thing is it always makes you feel bad when I do That is one of the stupidest things you have ever said on this forum. And it was up against some pretty healthy competition

Actually she did. Or to be more precise she said that the government is well within its rights to do that legally speaking. Should her statements indicate that there is nothing preventing the government from choosing to have policies which allow for more time for someone to make a possible habeas argument, but that the law doesn't require it and it doesn't require that they be given time to make that argument before they are deported I think you'll find that's an inaccurate statement I can get a white board out if you need further clarification There's no interpretation. As I said this is plain English. You are feeling a deep compulsion to twist the words out of shape to try and fit a narrative. I on the other hand I'm simply reading out loud. Yes. The current law is thus and trump is following the current law. If they want the law changed the people will have to speak out in one fashion or another No, it will be a moral discussion as to whether or not habeas corpus applies in this specific circumstance which by tradition and law it does not. Habeus Corpus does not apply in every single legal circumstance, nor should it. The country will have to have a discussion as to whether or not it should apply here or whether it's preferable to deport those who are in the country without lawful reason first and let them seek redress from outside of the country if they feel they should be allowed in. This isn't a question of keeping habeas corpus in general as you appear to be pretending. Yes, but Hains is also clearly saying there is no legal requirement to do so. Your claim this means that trump had to is just absolutely unsupported 100 percent. The judge is clear, they do not allow enough time for a possible habius claim, they are not required to do so under current law, if people don't like that then they'll have to use their democratic options to pressure the current gov't to change it's policy or the law or elect those who will. Period full stop. That's what the judge says. No where at all does the judge say there's a requirement or that a law or the person's rights were violated or anything remotely close to that. "this is how the law is, they acted within the law, their current policy does not allow for habeus in these cases and if you want to change that the people will have to exercise their options to bring about change. "

Why would that be funny? Herbie said that there had been no change in prime minister since the last budget. The last budget was presented in 2024. there has been a change of prime minister since then. What part of that is untrue or in conflict with the idea that carney is like justin? Nobody said anything about there being or not being a difference. But there's no doubt that his statement that there's been no change in prime minister is wrong. Justin was the previous prime minister, Carney is the current one. How is this remotely confusing for you? They may act similar but nobody has ever said they're actually the same person And just to be clear, if justin HAD remained prime minister i would have expected him to put out a 2025 budget at some point as well. So what are you saying, you just don't believe in the idea of gov'ts putting out budgets any more?

Except she didn't say it. Sure, most judges are afraid to give clear judgements. 🙄 (smak!) what's wrong with you? There is no such thing as 'legal with a caveate'. something is lawful or it is not. What she said as you point out is: "Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will,” Haines wrote. That is plain English. What she says in no unequivocal terms is that currently his actions are allowed by law. They are not guaranteed the right to challenge deportation before being deported and they can challenge it after they've been deported and nothing prevents that. She goes on to say that the voters will have to decide whether or not this law is acceptable or they want to change in the laws or the people who make them. In other words this is legal, and if you don't like it you're going to have to hire someone else who will change the law or enact policy that reflects something different. Because currently this is the way the law is And fair enough, that is an accurate statement. If people don't like the law then the solution is to change the law and that may involve changing the lawmakers or at least convincing the current ones to do things differently But right now the people can still challenge the deportation outside of the country and can apply for permission to be in the country from outside the country. We can discuss if the law should change, but we can't really say that the current law isn't the current law .

This cannot be argued. History shows it to be true again and again. This is the basic premise behind the age old phrase "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Having ties to people that you disagree with significantly increases your chances of working with them to resolve issues. This is something the democrats should have learned in the last election when they called everybody that disagreed with them Hitler and then were shocked that those people didn't vote for them My concern with regards to this is that trump is taking allies who have financial connections to them now and turning them into enemies. It will likely be more than a decade before Canada ever looks at the US the same way. And regardless of what trump says canada actually does quite a bit for America and America's wealth comes in no small part but it's relationship with Canada. So while what you said is true, it is equally true that trump is going off the rails by ruining relationships where the USA already had strength

LOL i see that @ExFlyer lied about hiding out in the land of the cod and came back to do a bunch of his little passive aggressive down arrows LOLOL Couldn't even stop thinking about me for a day or two

You never have to worry about that if you never have a budget ! He's a frikkin' genus, now we never have to worry about balanced budgets ever again!!!!

Read more than you apparently. What the judge said was that trump was justified in removing them, but that the method didn't give them time to exercise POSSIBLE legal remedy BEFORE they were deported. It did not say that it HAD to, and it allows entirely for them to challenge it AFTER they're deported. The judge did NOT say that deporting them ended their ability to conduct a legal challenge. So the judge did not say they had a right to do that BEFORE they left, he only noted that the method probably didn't allow for it. It was your confirmation bias that caused you to believe that what it says is that he was SUPPOSED To give them the time or that they couldn't complain from outside the country. What he did was legal, they can exercise their recourse outside of the country, the method he's chosen would not reasonably allow for them to exercise it inside the country. Maybe don't lecture other people on their reading skills until you learn to read yourself

You mean the one minor error about his university? That's inconsequential to the point. Virtually every book winds up containing an error or two, and there are often corrections in later versions published. So what i'm talking about is actual meaningful errors that change the nature of what the book says. I take it by your attempt at deflection that would be a 'no' So you can't refute the contents of the book, so you're going to attack the book itself. A cheap trick. As i said. That WAS an intelligent point. I'm not surprised you couldn't tell the difference And look at you, learning how to copy your betters

So which part of the books did you think were wrong? This is an old game of yours. You say the books aren't valid, point to the sections that are wrong. If you can't do that then the only person who is full of shit here and subject to propaganda is you

No, a tyrannical gov't that doesn't follow the wishes of the people is the reason they used to justify the need for guns. "One person" was never mentioned. It's "the gov't". And right now as far as they're concerned the gov't IS doing EXACTLY what the people wanted. They were voted in to get rid of illegals, they said they'd use tariffs to bring companies back to the USA, they said they'd cut the gov't size, nothing that's happening is new, it was all discussed during the election. So the only one full of shit here would be you. You created a Fake 'thing' that gun owners never claimed, and then call them out for not following that fake thing that you made up. For better or worse this is what America voted for. You may believe that they're going to come to regret it but currently as far as their concerned he's following the will of the people. Which is why the only people that have shot at him so far are democrats

He's a longstanding minister and his opinion matters quite a bit. People but will be swayed by what he says. The very fact that he would speak in contradiction to the government leader is quite telling And no the feds have not built and paid for 10 Pipelines, and they've killed more pipelines than they've ever built. Remember winter said there is absolutely no business case for natural gas? And running a pipeline east sells many problems and allows them to sell to the Atlantic countries All you're doing is coming up with every reason why alberta should be abused further. And it's bullshit. Let them build the pipelines they want, get out of the way, let them sell the product abroad, pocket the money. If you don't then they have a perfectly legitimate beef

There was no budget in 2025. The last one was presented last March, 2024 and there has absolutely been a change in prime minister since then. And budgets have nothing to do with changes in prime ministers. I absolutely cannot believe you even said that. I keep thinking you've reached peak stupidity and you keep proving me wrong.