CdnFox

For sure you do. You starting to have a mental hissy fit about it even just bringing it up now. You care very much and that's obvious

Ummm yeah.. Not as his advisor Like i said, he worked for harper. He didn't advise harper. Says the guy famous for posting weeks of ass porn in his own meltdowns Sounds like you're projecting again

Not being over it doesn't mean that he's unhappy. And in the end they probably look at it as a success And that's what pisses you off the most And you very obviously care what everyone thinks of you. People that don't care don't mention it 15 or 20 times as you have. Know why? Because they don't care

But you do think that everybody who supported these guys should be upset that that happenedyou're horrified to see that if anything it raises these people in their eyes. You desperately want these people to suffer and those who support them to suffer with them and it's not happening and it's pretty obvious that that's upsetting you. So yeah. Does look like the truth hurts you a bit

The block won't be backing the liberals very easily, they are more closely aligned to the conservatives. As close as they align with anyone at any rate, they are still entirely focused on the benefits of Quebec and the rest of the world can go to hell Harper managed to get through a lot of stuff even into minority. Obviously you're not going to get through everything. I do believe that a liberal majority will cause a national unity crisis. I think a lot of young people will be very very angry. And I don't think there's any doubt that carney will be exactly the same as Trudeau was and nothing will get any better. Which means they still won't be able to afford food or a house, and they will have given up on the democratic process. Looking at the polls in the situation I think it's safe to say that once again most of the liberal success Comes from Ontario Quebec and The Maritime Provinces. People in the west are going to notice that and there is going to be a lot of anger. All we can do is hope that the conservatives either hold them to a minority or when a minority themselves

In some Industries you need to be Independent. You're right, America should be generating its own power. Quebec should be selling its power to Alberta not the united states. Canada protects its Telecom Industries for much the same reason, we don't need someone at AT&T being able to shut down our communications network But outside of some very core things protectionism is absolutely a horrible idea. In that regard Aristides is correct. What it really means is a much smaller, a much less efficient, and much less prosperous economy. You can't make Everything on your own and then also trade with the world. It just doesn't work that way. And every country that's tried it whether they're big or small has Done worse as a result. The idea of returning some Industries to America make some sense but a lot of what trump is talking about doesn't. Isolationism leads to poverty. Free trade generally leads to prosperity. Yes, both have some serious downsides and free trade is far from perfect as it does leave you vulnerable to being cut off from certain things if you only have one source of that trade. But it's advantages far outweigh the disadvantages

LOL i think we all see a meltdown coming It's already started, and it's what we expect from you. So here come the constant repetative posts with you crying like a baby and demanding others are losers because you can't cope with the fact that you are Please no ass porn tho. 🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

No. Carney was never harper's advisor. If anything Carney did what he was told by harper. Carney had absolutely nothing to do with conservative fiscal planning or governance. And he appreciated the job that carney did which was to do as he was told. Kearney was however absolutely deeply involved in Liberal policy and was actually an advisor in an official capacity to Justin Trudeau for almost 5 years. He played a substantial role in the formation of liberal policy and liberal financial strategies. Harper told carney what to do. Carney told Justin what to do. With Carney we will get more Justin because Justin came from Carney.

Carney was trudeau. He's even running on trudeau's platform, as confirmed by the liberal party on national television. And it's the same cabinet, the same people , the same party and the same policies. Nothing has changed, and if the libs win on monday you'll see that pretty quick. Want to make a bet that if that's the case carney is at least 50 percent higher on HIS deficits than promised as well?

338 is always a couple of days behind. As I showed in another thread the poles did move and show a tightening race, for some of the posters by a very significant amount However something close to half of the voters who are likely to vote have already voted so it's hard to say whether or not that will have much of an impact

So what you're saying is you wound up looking stupid again and you're mad at me for laughing at you and pointing it out. Sure kid

They edited it and put it back Even the liberals admitted it was down. They've made 'minor changes'. Vassey had a show discussing the platforms just yesterday i believe and noted that. Maybe liberals have to lie to win elections?

I never commented on the piece at all. I didn't say anything about it. All I said was you can't refute my argument apparently Awww muffin... looks like the truth is what winds YOU up isn't it

ummm.... trudeau's economici's were a disaster, that's pretty much universally held. and harper says both carney and pp worked for him and pp is undoubtedly the more qualified choice Soooooo......

Which i do all the time, except those times you cite something that proves you wrong first I know how much you love to pretend otherwise but fact is i cite more than you. Except when you've provided one that proves you're wrong. Not really relevant is it. ( I'll spot you this one. No, that's not how it works. Sigh. I posted a detailed explanation of this. The number given to either party is the center of a range of likely probabilities based on the data. It is just as likely that the actual number is in the upper portion of that range, or the lower. if two ranges overlap then it is JUST as likely that one is at the top of the range and one at the bottom. Which is why we call it a 'statistical' tie, rather than an actual tie which is what we call it when they BOTH have the same probability numbers. So ALL that's required is that the ranges overlap. And this has been the convention for many many years. There is no 'assumption'. You still don't get how this works. As posted above, the margin of error applies to each number and is the range of possible outcomes based on the data. If those two overlap at all then it is a statistical tie. When the margin of error of two estimates overlaps, it suggests a statistical tie, meaning the difference between the two is not statistically significant. This is because the overlap indicates a possibility that the true values could be the same. Specifically, when the 95% confidence intervals of two means overlap, it suggests that the difference between those means is not statistically significant, TLDR: Moonbox, you're not only a loser, you're one of the most persistent and thorough losers I've ever met Well done Your comments boil down to one thing. You did not understand what you were talking about. And I did so I knew I was right. I would have thought that after all these times looking foolish you would have looked it up first but whatever. You can make an argument that technically speaking if you wanted to hire a lawyer the margins don't truly overlap they are just touching each other but for the purposes of the discussion and the point being made it would be utterly childish and pathetic to try and make that argument. Better luck next time, i'll probably see you in the next 10 threads where you try and jump in and salvage your ego by attacking me randomly

I'd have to go over and get into her basement to find out. But i'm sure if you're getting them in YOUR mom's basement then we could probably do that in hers. Great response by the way. i think it really captures your essence, your intellect, the wit, the magic, the man you are assuming you're a 15 year old shut in NEET

I'd have to look the dates up. he left the BOE sometime after brexit but i can't remember when

No no, he was governor of the bank of England at that point. He was governor of the Bank of Canada during harpers time and is now trying to take credit for harper's great handling of the financial crisis

I'll explain it. men vs women.mp4

Nobody is allowed to 'flood' anything, they have a number of invites. CBC for example had four invites and four of their journalists attended. They didnt' "flood" anything The way that the rebel is organized they were eligible for 11 invites. The commission negotiated them down to five, saying that if they promise not to sue for more the commission would not try to ban them from the event. It already lost twice and knew they would lose the third time Rebel media agreed to the reduced number of five rather than 11. The big difference is that they show up as soon as the doors open and they go and they stand by the mic. The others drift in and want to have drinks and socialize and stuff like that and don't want to stand up at the mic until closer till start time. As a result rebel tends to get included in the first series of questions. Other reporters are there with them, they don't get all the first spots but they get a lot of them because they are there early and willing to stand in line There's nothing complicated about it, they followed the rules and they did the work and they were enjoying the benefits

wimpy wimpy wiiimpy HEFTY HEFTY HEEEFTY!!!

If by a few weeks ago you mean a few months ago that might be accurate. A few weeks ago they had the liberals up. And frankly if you look back a few weeks ago I was saying the polls didn't seem accurate then either so that kind of shoots your whole theory down

And yet you're constantly here defending the liberals and trying to sell them. Not so much with the NDP. Funny how your actions don't fit your words

In what way? Are you suggesting that carney hasn't told any lies?

But we know that's wrong. It had nothing to do with integrity or ethics. Essentially they were lazy And what was the debate commission supposed to do? Twice they tried to keep them away but both times the judges said that rebel news was legitimate and had to be accommodated. As usual you just say any old random crap without any thought as to whether or not it's practical or real. All that dancing to avoid the obvious answer that rebel news was perfectly valid to be there and do what they did and the other media just simply didn't like it.