CdnFox

I know i know.... you think that the idea of voters holding gov'ts to account in a democracy is hilarious Everyone's entitled to an opinion i guess, right comrade?

The trial starts at the next election. Same as the last ones. That's where gov'ts get punished. I mean the aga khan was an actionable crime, this is hardly new. So we'll see if FINALLY after a decade of liberal criminal activity you and your friends are finally willing to at least PRETEND to do something to get rid of the criminals.

They? So you feel that the police and the gov't planned specifically to kill floyd? That's what you're suggesting. George floyd was not a planned event. Not properly cleaning the forest is a decision. That is policy, not an accident or the like. It's not like the forests were jacked up on fenynal. So comparing the two is nuts.

Ummm.... he isn't in power yet. Nobody expected him to even start that stuff. There would be no point or need in distracting from those yet. It would be like PP 'distracting' people away from the carbon tax. Sigh. Your hatred bigotry and inability to marry your delusions with reality really strain those last few remaining braincells of yours don't they.

He's blaming harper. Now I point out that harper actually did put a bunch of measures in place and in fact that's how the snc lavalin scandal happened because Trudeau ran a foul of one of harper's new laws. He will then freak out and claim that despite the fact that it worked and despite the fact that Justin was caught the law was still a failure because it might not have worked maybe possibly under different circumstances. I will point out that it did work and even still despite the fact that everyone knew that Justin was guilty of some horrible things the liberal voters and left-wing supporters like @eyeball STILL voted him back into power. So there's really not much point in adding more laws because even when the liberals get caught losers like this guy will still support them anyway.

They didn't. It wasn't hidden, it was found. But many liberal voters still want to vote for them anyway because 'me liberal'.

And yet he was still a better choice than Kamala as confirmed by America Trump is a democrat creation. You kept him in the news cycle for the last 4 years instead of ignoring him by endless mostly false prosecutions and committee hearings ad nauseam, then you tried to run a dead candidate against him and when that didn't work you went with a Dei hire. All the way along people like me (and there were many of us) told you that you were going to get him reelected if you didn't stop with that crap and quit calling him Hitler every other day. You didn't listen. So, enjoy the next 4 years. This is the result of your hard work.

It absolutely is. That's how the taxes work now. The vast majority of the taxes and the social benefits that they pay for come from the mega rich (depending how you define that). In fact federally in the us the one percent alone pay about 40 percent of the taxes. 76 percent are paid by the top 10 percent. So all the benefits and programs offered by the US gov't including all military, all social programs, all welfare or medical, etc etc are all paid for by hand outs from the mega rich for the most part. WIthout them the USA would have nothing.

He doesn't confuse anything with anything. Read his book, the art of the deal. What he's doing right now is absolutely textbook for him. He creates a great deal of confusion, he gets people out of their pre-planned strategies, he sows kaos And confusion and it puts him in a much better bargaining position for what he really wants. This is how he thinks, this is how he works, this is trump.

Freeland and Carney are probably the top runners with Carney in the lead slightly. But freeland would be a disaster for them. To be honest.... carney will be too. It's possible he might turn out to be worse, but there's just no way to say. Freeland is polling higher than him right now as first choice for leader, but that's probably because nobody knows who he is. But with only a month to campaign and then right into an election with no time to sell himself to the nation.... It's really really hard. I don't know why the hell he's going now. If he gets mauled the libs will toss him for sure. Clark would have been a very interesting choice but she just completely shot herself in the foot Friday and will probably not be in the running anymore.

yes, the only difference between a riot and a forest fire is the price tag 🙄 Which makes them understandable in your mind. Same diff. "of course it happened because 1948". Which is just an excuse for terrorists. People today make their own choices. 1948 doesn't choose for them

Dude, that was an absolutely embarrassing melt down on your part, all because @User asked you for a simple cite. So looking over your numbers, your initial post was quite wrong. You misunderstood what you were reading. What they have indicated is that if nothing else changes then there will be that much of a loss in REVENUES from taxation. IF nothing else changes. However, they do not even attempt to calculate the increased business and economic revenue that such tax cuts can produce. You MISTOOK that estimate for ACTUAL REVENUE REDUCTION. You claimed that amount would be added to the debt. But it's not actual revenue reduction, and it doesn't allow for any other factors like spending reductions. It is NOT the amount that will be added to the deficit AT ALL. They are saying that IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGED then that would be the cost, not that this would be the debt addition. It's just looking at the number that would need to be replaced by increased activity or spending cuts to maintain parity. It's not actually going to show up on the debt or deficit, it's to calculate how much will need to be recovered. First, revenue is not deficit. Any reduction in revenue can be offset with spending cuts or other factors. So right off the bat you got your statement wrong. Secondly, the tax cuts WILL affect economic activity The Case for Trump’s 15 Percent Corporate Tax Rate | Cato at Liberty Blog as noted in the above work, there will likley be NO actual reduction in revenues, or at least no substantial reduction. So revenue losses from reduced rates will likely be offset almost entirely by increases in business activity as a result of those reductions. Your claim that the calculated amount was what trump was adding to the debt was absolutely incorrect. No wonder that you didn't want to tell him where the number came from

How can you be sure? I'm pretty sure that you can't even tell when it's raining, it would certainly explain why you don't have the sense to come in out of it

Same threads. That's where i said terrorist attacks are bad and you said they're justified because 1948. No potty jokes pls (I'm giving you credt that was a play on words and you actually know what flux means) awww muffin You got your nose rubbed in the truth and now you big mad. This is canada. and you ARE our rat experiment

They absolutely have. And explain why. It turns out the original models which were used to determine whether or not it would be effective overestimated the elasticity (as they put it) of discretionary energy spending. The model works based on the principle that if it costs more to buy energy people will buy less energy, and will reorganize their lives to achieve that. But it's far less possible than originally believed. People still need to heat their homes when it's cold etc and the ability to reduce that is far more minimal than originally thought. There's only so many sweaters you can wear, etc. The only ones still promoting it work for the libs. I didn't bring up you voting for Trudeau at all. In fact I don't see how you could seeing as he will be supposedly stepping down before the next election. But it is interesting to note you couldn't refute what I said so you tried to distract. The evidence is overwhelming that you don't really care about this. If you did you'd be more honest . Which has nothing to do with what you pretended I said but never actually did I must have missed it, point me to the news show it was on. They're all online now so shouldn't be a problem. We knew about the green slush fund. We know about it now. We know that the liberals have been following money into their own pockets since shortly after Trudeau was first elected 9 years ago. And you still didn't do anything other than try to blame harper for it So what you're doing is lying. And it still has absolutely nothing to do with the point that was being made. If you didn't have dishonesty you would have no honesty So in other words you don't support it but you want to pretend like maybe you do. " I SUPPORT IT AS LONG AS WE DON"T DO IT!" lol! Considering that you keep voting for and supporting corrupt governments obviously we will never do it if your criteria has to be met Not at all. The fact that you can't provide proof of the claim that it's a crisis despite claiming you dealt with this heavily for years professionally is actually very freeing. It lets us know there probably isn't a crisis and adaptation is a more reasonable solution and we can vote in gov'ts to axe the tax etc.

Stephen harper was a westerner. Technically Kim campbell was too, if we're counting her as a prime minister. However it would be the first liberal party leader who was prime minister who was from the west. But really freeland and carney aren't westerners, even tho freeland was born there. Clark is but she just shot herself in the foot friday so we'll see if she even runs now

as in 'inevitably you show your true colours and cheer the deaths of people you personally don't like and pretend it's ok?" Yeah we knew that. I remember the israel threads. The "world order" is always in a state of flux. But it hardly is relevant to the issue at hand. Nice attempt at distraction tho The world order does not determine whether or not people cheer when others suffer misfortune because they dislike them be it the california situation or the trump assassination attempt or the medical exec. That's a cultural thing. What's happening is that more and more starting the the early 2000's and growing steadily worse there is an utter intolerance of others who are different, especially politically. It started with the culture war in the states and then 'cancel culture' and 'intersectional coalitions' and considering half the population to be the 'basket of deplorables' etc etc, where basically anyone who disagreed was dehumanized so that their points could be dismissed without consideration. In canada it was those who aren't vaxxed are 'bigots and misogynists' and wastes of space who should not be tolerated etc. And while it started with the left, the right has now picked up on it too. That's what's lead to this. A basic and fundamental lack of shared respect for other people's beliefs and opinions. Coupled with tribalism to the point where people defend their tribal talking points to the death.

Posters here who are known to be on the left for example. So yes there is evidence. I already mentioned black dog and there were others as well. And many communities around the Net or read it or any of the other popular social media sites. If you can find no evidence that the left felt that way then I'm afraid your research skills could best be described as subpar if we're being kind I clearly read the part where you tried to excuse the left as being acceptable for behaving this way and the right for not being acceptable for being this way. It's possible you tried to walk it back after that and I didn't read it but it really isn't relevant.

Yes you did, and continued to do so even after the economists admitted they were wrong. Bullshit. It's pretty obvious you don't care about any of this. Your frequent lack of knowledge also suggests you're not being honest. To you this is a game. Ahhh yes, once again you have to lie and pretend i said something i didn't. Again if you have to lie to make a point it's probably not a very good point. That it's a crisis. Climate change is real, but what is more of a question is whether it's a genuine crisis. You claim you believe it is...then you back a carbon tax you KNOW is doing nothing, the feds don't take any meaningful action on it, around the world we've got the same activists who are saying we have to stop using fossil fuels wanting to ban nuclear power, and none of the world's govts seem overly concerned about it, they just virtue signal. And people here keep asking for the scientific evidence that it's a crisis. ANd nobody ever produces any. You're going to monitor the effectiveness of the carbon tax.... with cameras. You have lost your teeny tiny little socialist mind. we can't deny that which you refuse to provide. If you actually had proof of any sort we could consider whether to deny it or not. Because it's a crisis! Trust me!! No no, don't think, don't worry about the truth, just trust me! It's a crisis. (the science says so probably!!!)

You might say the sun rises in the west but you'd be wrong then too What a load of nonsense. And your excuses that followed were pathetic. He was adored even before he was identified. People were praising the shooting like crazy before he was caught. And that's because he killed a medical insurance exec. It is EXACTLY the same thing. "we don't like medical executives so when bad things happen to them we say he had it coming". "we don't like left wing California or it's left wing governer so when bad things happen to them they had it coming." It is precisely the same in both cases. People are willing to accept unacceptable events as long as they happen to people they don't like. In fact we saw it with trump when he got shot. How many on the left were thrilled that someone tried to kill him and only angry at the fact that he missed. We saw that sentiment everywhere including on this forum. So you don't need to look around the web, you can find that sentiment right here. Black dog for example was ecstatic when trump was shot and also believe that the medical guy should deserved it. And once again you expose your own personal hypocrisy. It's clearly exactly the same thing but in your mind when the left wings does it it's perfectly acceptable and understandable but when the right wing does it it's terrible and evil. Spare me your crocodile tears. At least I'm consistent, I say it's bad when both do it. You're just a hypocrite

I don't play synthesis on government promises at all. Once again you have to lie about what other people do in order to justify your own bad choices Sure... things that the conservatives haven't even done yet are responsible for your bad actions. You've had 10 years of completely unfettered freedom to deal with climate change and you did NOTHING. You introduced a tax that filled liberal pockets but didn't do anything for the environment. And now you want to blame the conservatives for climate change? or pretend they're the ones ignoring it? If the conservatives do absolutely nothing about climate change, they'll still have done more than you.

They already destroyed the economy.

Doesn't seem to be true. I mean hell you thought the carbon tax would solve everybody's problems. Sounds like you spent seven years occasionally bringing the subject up and then demanding that all polluters wear body cameras 24/7 and wandered off to do something else. Who demand you actually present the science you claim exists which you and every other leftie on this board have refused to do despite multiple people asking? How annoying it must be for you to actually have to prove your assertions have validity. Hell the feds didn't even put in a target for what reductions there'd be with the carbon tax and didn't establish any way to monitor it and you were just fine with it. IF the big thing that tripped you up is you couldn't prove your claims.... well the problem MIGHT not have been the people asking for the proof.

The score stands at one because you're not arguing with anyone you're just blathering like a tard. The score is 1 becuase you're only playing with yourself. The score is 1 becuase you're only beating yourself. The score is 1 becuase you're the only one playing! (whew!)