CdnFox

She put alberta ahead of anything else. Which is correct. She's hired by alberta. And alberta survives by selling oil. That's the way it is.

Well and there's a bigger problem here. Lets take an example. The federal gov't who's responsible for the jasper forest for example was told that unless they removed the dead beetle kill wood and cleaned up the forest and took other actions the forest was at risk of a major fire. They ignored that entirely, did none of the recommended work, there was a major fire. So... what's the "cause" there? The lefties argue its "Climate change" becuase maybe it lead to more beetles (unconfirmed) or the like. But we KNEW there was a problem and did nothing. I think most sane people would say that WE are the problem, not climate change. (well. the federal gov't at any rate). If you know there's a cliff, and you walk off the cliff anyway, it's a little rich to blame gravity for your problems.

Only republican ones

It doesn't go against Canada's interest as a whole. As is usually the case when you on the left find someone disagreeing with you you must cast them as an evil person with ill intent . This is about a difference of opinion as to how to proceed. Smith believes one way is best, the other premieres are interested in another way, and frankly given the federal treatment of alberta combined with justin's complete lack of action on this front so far it's not unreasonable that she might have a different take on how to handle it. She wants her people to have jobs and have an income and make money and have a good life. She is hired to protect that. That does not make her an evil person no matter what you claim

That's what happens when there's a lack of federal leadership. It's inevitable.

It's been pointed out to you a billion times the Canada could stop every single drop of pollution and greenhouse gas emission in its entirety and it wouldn't make any difference. And you haven't provided any actual evidence that it's f*cking things up. At least not to a point where we should consider it some sort of Crisis we're throwing our economy over Hey. You had 10 years to fix the problem. You told us the carbon tax would do it. I paid my tax. So you're either a liar or you're retarded and either way why should we listen to what you have to say on the subject moving forward?

Which is a secure border. Of course you took it out of context and tried to pretend it was some sort of general statement of capitulation. As dishonest as the day is long as usual

Ahhhh my misunderstanding then. He says they are, honestly i don't believe tarrifs are his end goal. I had hoped that he'd come forward with his actual goals by this point but he hasn't. so he may well be serious about putting them on for now. I still kind of doubt it though. I could easily see him saying "i've signed the order, they go in force may 1 to give companies time to get their accounting ready.." then at the last minute pull them after getting agreements on whatever it turns out he does want. But you never know with trump, that's the point.

That's awesome now i get to laugh at you after the upcoming election AND the next one

I don't know, i've never seen them. Nor would i be able to authieticate them if i could. That's why we have judges and courts, they can determine the validity of relevant evidence. I get that you've got a little 'stalin worship' going on where we just convict people and throw them in a gulag without the benefit of a trial if they're your political enemies. But it's hard to take you seriously when you're trying to cry about a threat to the democracy while at the same time demanding that due process isn't a thing. It's fine if you want to say that based on the balance of probabilities (a low bar for evidence) that you perosnally believe trump was guilty of something. Useful if you're trying to decide who to vote for i suppose. It's also fine to say you feel there's enough evidence at first look (prima facia) to warrant a full trial to examine it. But that's about it. Trump argues that what he did was technically correct based on the wording of the law, and further claims that the law is not offended if he does something as part of his powers as president (which he was at the time). Those are complicated issues and would require going through the proper legal process to answer. Probably to the supreme court. Sorry that jurisprudence is so inconvenient for you But it's one of the most critical parts of a free society. Has it been tested in a court? How can we prove they're facts otherwise. The left hasn't moved much beyond Stalin these days has it.

Awwww - butt hurt again are you? All you've got left is to mimick me? Congrats, you're as smart as a parrot now It must be hard being a loser in the presence of intelligent people.

LOL - sounds like you were the one one who got bullied and now you're trying to cope with it by pretending you're the bully for a change That's probably not the healthiest way to deal with it. In any case, you're welcome to provide a link to the whole thread (i noticed you dodged that last time i mentioned it) and people can read for themselves. You said that for most of Canada's history only europeans were allowed. I said you were wrong. Turned out you were wrong. Now you're butthurt about it. This is how you behave every single time - you say something stupid, you get proven wrong and despite being clearly wrong you try to continue to argue lying your ass of and trying to reframe the issue. You were wrong. FOr most of canada's history non whites were allowed in just fine. You lose.

Looks like justin won't be running at all in the next election (1) Justin Trudeau won’t run for re-election as MP in next federal election | Globalnews.ca

LOL well fair enough. I knew he was adopted to a french family in Calgary but i thought he was originally born somewhere else. I have no data on the skiing.

Mark Carney is the Liberal frontrunner to replace Trudeau, but most Canadians don’t recognize him | Canada | The Guardian Polling this month by Abacus Data found that when shown a picture of Carney, 76% of Canadians could not identify him. Chrystia Freeland, the former finance minister, who is seen as Carney’s main competitor, fared much better: 51% recognized her when shown a photo. This is going to be a major problem for him. They keep referring to him as a "Rockstar banker "but the reality is absolutely nobody knows who he is and most people don't think of bankers as being rock stars in their world. In fact it will take all of 6 seconds to portray this guy as someone who represents the wealth and interests of the elite rich. Which means people will either not know about him or if they do know about him it will be for the wrong reasons. Given time he might be able to change that, but he's going to get a one month leadership race followed immediately by an electric with no time to really introduce himself to Canadians.

They did. He was forced to back off from the SNC lavalin interference that he was trying to pull. he was shamed and exposed for the corrumpt scumbag he is. Sadly, people like you were fine with his corruption and didn't feel the need to punish him and still voted for him next election. In the end it's the voters (such as yourself) who are the biggest weakness in the system.

Yeah, that's not what the saying means Congrats you've failed to grasp elementary school jargon I've never said anything about putting justin in jail. As usual you can't argue with what i said so you create fake things i didn't say and argue with yourself.

No, the opposite is said about Poilievre. He wasn't born in the west but is very much a Westerner having been raised and educated there. His wife could be called an easterner tho she wasn't born there either i believe. I'm pretty sure she immigrated with her family. Too lazy to look it up and double check but i'm pretty sure.

So you feel his end goal actually is to Annex Canada?

well that would be true if Pence was the final arbiter of what is and isn't allowed or appropriate under the law. He is not. His opinion is one thing. Others may have a different opinion. We don't decide things based on one person's opinion, we have a legal system that examines everything. Pence could entirely believe he had no such power and be wrong. Trump could entirely believe he did and be wrong. And both could wind up being correct or incorrect without a law being offended. It always amazes me how quickly those on the left are prepared to throw out the rule of law and just determine guilt based on someone's say so.

And the problem was the Full Employment was never full employment. A lot of it was McJobs that don't pay a living wage (and shouldn't, they're for kids to get work experience) and most of the rest were government jobs that just created that produce no revenue or taxable benefits to Canada. It's fake employment that will bankrupt us rather than help us And now we don't even have any of that. And business investment is falling and GDP per capita is going right along with it. These people just don't understand the depth of the damage that's been done

LOL so what you're saying is I easily baited YOU into another thin skinned response You're too easy Yep, taking the time to whine about it like a jealous 4 year old. Well done

Sounds like the voice of experience talking Get a lot of wedgies at school so it was on your mind i take it? Sorry kid but i was right. You claimed only whites were allowed for most of our history. i pointed out that for most of our history anyone was allowed with no restrictions. Turned out to be true Nonsense. If you read the hansard records it was not a restriction at all. The concern was that people who were coming here from china to work would have no vested interest in the country and would simply turn around and leave after making a certain amount of money even if they were naturalized. The tax was to make sure that people took it seriously when they were coming, but they could still come. It didn't restrict anyone. Literally anyone who was willing to pay the tax was welcome to come. No restriction. It's like claiming that the boat ticket to get over here was a restriction. These are just costs associated with the move, they're not restrictions by any reasonable sense of the word. Today we have actual restrictions in that we don't let everybody in. And we have a point system to help make sure the people we do let in are the best choice. But we didn't have anything like that then. So what's happened here is you lost and you lost badly and now you are so buthurt that you are trying to recreate the argument you've already lost in a way that you hope will allow you to win Your claim was that for most of Canada's history only white people were allowed. That was your claim. As to it being hyperbole, you've attempted to claim it's true all the way along. So clearly not hyperbole or you would just have said "You're right i was exaggerating. " That was absolutely not true. As i pointed out. For most of our history there was no restrictions and non whites have been welcome. You've spent pages now trying to deny that simple fact. Sorry kid, you lose.

But your insisting is not their fault and people shouldn't punish them. In fact you seem to feel they should be elected again because it's the conservatives fault in the end! Just like you were willing to support the liberal government even though trudeau committed many acts of corruption blaming Stephen Harper for not passing strong enough rules. Which was ridiculous considering that it was Stephen Harper's rules that actually caught Justin but that doesn't seem to slow you down. Hopefully the voters are smarter than you and will do the right thing in the next election and realize that if you vote woke you go up in smoke.

Another dishonest lie. If anything I think that society's acceptance of gender dysphoria is substantial. It's seen correctly as an illness that the person isn't responsible for. Just like Cancer or the like. So there's sympathy. but you're equating and conflating acceptance of an illness with acceptance of every single demand that the sick people make. It's one thing for a disabled person to reasonably require a request that a wheelchair ramp be installed to provide access to a building that they otherwise would not be able to access. It is not reasonable for the disabled person to expect everyone around them to drop what they're doing and carry them up the stairs. You have not addressed your own hypocrisy. A tiny fraction of the population wants to use terms like cis And you absolutely demand that this be accepted yet if a large percentage of the population does not want to play ball with allowing men to use women's bathrooms and there is wide acceptance of that then you freak out and demand that this is inappropriate Your entire argument is dishonesty and you don't address anyone's points ever. All you do is try and claim that they're wrong because you've tried to explain it before as if that makes any difference.