CdnFox

THiS OpInIOn Is USeLEss WITHoUT FACTs?!!!??!?!?!?!?

No, that's just your poor comprehension skills talking again. And here's a hint in life - if you have to use phrases like "so what you're saying is" and then rewrite what they're saying... you're probably on the wrong side of the argument. It is if that's all they have to eat. And it's coupled with 'assiging' housing. And controlling their medical services. etc etc Get it? ROFLMAO! Sorry kid - you're obviously too stupid for this particular conversation. Try again when we're talking about lego or comics or something It's a simple fact - when you provide for a man's every need you enslave them. Has that ever happened? yes. But more to the point the degree to which you attempt to do so is the degree you're trying to control people You'll understand when you grow up.

1 - sure, they made out like bandits. Couldn't have gone better for them 2 - Well you send them your paycheque to make up for it then little guy 3 - Nope - the vast majority of canada is covered by treaty. Swing and a miss 4 - oh dear - i forgot about your complete lack of education. 5 6 8 - well that's due more to bad liberal policy than anything in those ares. Ask justin about that. 7 - no, that was the liberals. Wow - you struck out on ALL of those. 100 percent! Well done!

So it's MY fault you answer dishonestly and that makes me a bad faith poster Sure kid.

I've never made that claim. So. You admit you lied. How very liberal of you. Why does every liberal on this board lean into lying SO heavily? You lied about something i said to cover up your lying about something you said. Sigh. Cite? Exactly what percent of or hard number of those who have performed drag have at some point been convicted of pedophillia, and compare that to the number of preists convicted. Might shock you to learn the answer - but in any case you can't make the claim until you do. Where did i say all i was concerned about was protecting the children? And i'm quite fine to go after any pedophile in a church or any church that hides them. I've been very supportive of penalties for the catholic church when it was shown they were shuffling offenders around Same with the teachers - a percent will be predators and for a while the school system had a habit of shuffling them around instead of dealing with them. I was against that and spoke out at the time. Soooooooo the real question is why are you trying to deflect so hard?

But it isn't - that's what we've learned with the whole Trans movement demanding that they be allowed to share different sex's personal space against their wishes.

So that'd be a no, you don't Fair enough Free trade with the states, the railroad, Confederation, the funding of 'shovel ready' projects to get through a recession, the bank act, gst, a bunch of things, Letting the provinces run themselves worked great too - tension and separation sentiment nosedived. Now it's back up again and rising. TSA's , RRSP's, other economic tools. Lots and lots of stuff.

His actions are even more explicit. All words require interpretation and they fact that you - an otherwise learned and reasoned individual - would even say that should tell you that you've lost your objectivity here. then you're a fool. People say things they don't believe all the time. And further they change their minds all the time - and from the time he was imprisoned and wrote his book to the time he took power he very well could have revised his beliefs. But as i've said - your version of what he expressed in the book IS NOT AT ODDS AT ALL with modern socialism. So - not matter what your'e wrong. But it's like your'e desperately holding on to this like the belief itself was important to you but it just doesn't stand up to logic. Not socialsm you just threw that in now And as we've established many socialist hated marx. You can hate marx, you can hate economic theory, and you can still be a socialist. Entirely. there were tonnes. There were many. there absolutely was. I can because you're wrong. But it doesn't' stop there - he exercised MASSIVE and socialistic control over industry. He decided that the purpose of the state was to obtain lands and goods for the country by war and conquest and thats what the means of production went to. He literally invaded other countries to redistribute their wealth to his people. I'm sorry but your position is completely indefensible. Even as you describe his writings he's socialistic, he joined the national socialist party, and then once in power he ran a socialist govt. He focused on gov't creating employment, strong state control of industry and agriculture ( the means of production), controlled social behavior.... seriously what more do you want? The fact that his focus was racially based is irrelevant. Many socialists to day base their thinking on race as well.

Every right wing resistance to eery social change worked well? Honestly - do you even think before you talk? In any case - a number of things the right wing introduced worked out very well, a number of the 'social changes' they coudn't stop have been disasters, and of course there's the in between where you had unintended consequence. Sure - that's what's happening. 'THat's one of your other 'tells' - and it's very common with liberals. If you feel you're losing the discussion you go to gross exaggeration to try to downplay serious issues and pretend even talking about it is silly ' So i know you believe you're wrong here.

That's exclusionary.

Just like all Ni@@ers are thieves? Any time you make such sweeping generalizations without something to back it up you pretty much concede defeat. Where is your evidence that it's been 'proven' that all or even most or even a large minority are pedophiles?

SIgh,. It's entirely socialist. You find the socialists spouting the same things today, just with different races and classes. I'm sorry that this doesn't fit with your ideology or mental image but hitler absolutely was a socialist - basically what we would call today a democratic socialist. And even if you believe (erroneously) that his book speaks against that, what he did proves it if nothing else does. The 'National Socialst Party" was.. perhaps unsurprisingly, socialist.

There's a lot more retired people in florida. So that's to be expected https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/median-age-by-state

Meh - avoid 'strategic' and just stick with the facts. Honestly they look worse for calling you one later, there's no point in trying to avoid it.

If you wish to claim it's just a claim - you would have to make some sort of argument refuting it. Otherwise it could be viewed as common knowledge or an observation. The fact many people say stupid stuff does not in any way support the idea that 'conservatives' call it 'Socialism' anytime someone gets helped. And seriously - that is blatantly and observably not true. The kindest thing you could say is it's a gross exaggeration attempting to make a point (not that it's clear what it is). Not relevant. Ahhh - so you're saying we shouldn't take you seriously? Well... fair enough.

Sure they have. ACTUAL slavery for example. That is literally someone providing for someoen else's every need. And certain period in communist russia attempted that. And many gov'ts have come close and used the principle to essentialy enslave the population. The USSR for most of it's history. Parts of china. Some of the modern day 'democratic socialist' countries. Basically the maritimes and the liberals for many years - the libs would wipe out the fish and then make those provinces dependent on gov't hand outs. IT's a common enough tactic - used a little or a lot as the case warrants. Read your history kid.

All YOU'VE proven IS that YOU know HOW to USE the CAPS key!!!!!! And IF you WERE pAYinG AttENtioN you'd HAVE SEEN that I did IN Fact PROVE my CLAIM

You mean like obama did? and like Biden did 1000 times worse than either of those two? And wanted to spend how much to pay off student debt? The deficit spending he inherited? That deficit spending? Honestly - i think you've got a bit of a point in that chronic deficit spending is bad and while trump DID say he would end it within 8 years that wasnt' going to happen no matter who was in charge with covid. Trump inherited a deficit and acknowledged he woudln't be able to make it go away in less than 8 years. I personally think that it should have been a more aggressive timeline and i think he started with a tax cut that produced a modest increase in activity but didn't seem to be following it up. Of course - in fairness there just wasn't much time before covid hit.

Seemed to work just fine for the last couple hundred years or so

I disagree. In history it's going to look like a decent presidency ending in covid. The economy was good, no major wars broke out, When you look at the actual numbers it was fine. History remembers that - it won't remember the tweets at 5 am that would send stock prices falling or the fights with the media or even the chronic (and false) claims of russion 'collusion' etc. Just like nobody remembers the Ford "falling down' issue.

Awwww - @eyeball , @ExFlyer and @Nefarious Banana - i realize i've traumatized all of you, did you need to form a support group? you do seem to huddle together and try to comfort each other already . And they think I'M the obsessed one rofl!!!!!!!

You're the one following me around making pointles "yup" comments and posting your "i surrender' icon And demanding that i've lost every now and then For me it's just entertainment

That's not funny because it's true.

LOL - it's funny because it's true

A famous american political figure once said "i don't need to run the country, i just need to control the selection process"