CdnFox

Well it's looking like Chow's pulling ahead. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/chow-continues-to-grow-commanding-lead-in-polls-three-weeks-before-mayoral-election-1.6427233 Hard to imagine that she'd lose at this point. Looks like we'll be calling the place Torontchow for a while I don't think she'll be a very good mayor. Her husbad was nothing short of amazing as a politician but she's just not. But - you get the gov't you deserve i guess.

That is demonstrably inaccurate. First a real problem didn't arise until covid, and second he would still have had many stimulus options available. they did not in fact. I know dems love to claim that but it's just verifiably not true. There's MANY things you can legit criticize the guy for, many of which are pretty serious, but trashing the economy simply wasn't one of them.

Both are quite stoppable. By all means, lets move on from your rust and shit references

That's because it's not a problem Truth and common sense often feel that way. That's not the question that was being asked tho. I've asked several times now and you just avoid it. Does it solve the issue for trans people and make them happy or are we going to hear that there's other issues that are going to cost money before they're happy? It's a waste of time if it's not solving the issue and the issue is trans people don't like to be reminded they have genitals that are different than their preferred sex. If we're not directly addressing tha then why are we spending the money. I get it fine - you're afraid of answering the actual question so your obfuscating. And that was never the question OR the problem.

Ok - shit isn't a chemical reaction its a .... you know what, sure. There's no stopping conservatism. We never sleep. We're unstoppable. You win It's been made more than clear that your statements are nonsense. You might fool the other elementary school kids but those kind of ridiculous arguments but they're demonstrably not accurate. SO - the question then becomes why do you choose to be dishonest? I don't think that it's that you're actually that dense - i think you're trying to dance around the issue. And the only reason i can think of is that you believe it's pointless and wasteful but just don't want to say so. And no - this isn't picking a fight. I think you've been pretty clear. At this point i'm just wrapping it up.

Honestly bud, using terms like 'nazi' weakens your otherwise strong argument. Don't be the Americana Antifa of the right THey're a far left state sure, but nazi is a bridge too far. Having said that - the underlying point is perfectly valid. It's fine and dandy for these states to claim they're "sanctuary" and don't want to stop the immigrants but when they have to pay to care for them.... uh oh. The problem is that the states use population to calculate certain political respresentation - not 'citizens', but total population. So cali and a few others don't mind having a bit of an inflated population some times. But right now that's lead to real problems and people are fleeing the state, and taking their tax dollars with them. Cali is hurting badly - and now they can't afford to pay for these people and they're worried more of them will make the situation worse. The left is ALL about hypocrisy.

So conservatism is like rust because what you touch with it turns to shit. I'm feeling like you had some sort of accident involving a can of WD-40 and toilet paper at some point and are blaming it on the right. I think you're just trying to say 'right wing bad' Which is kind of childish so i'm making fun of you But to get back to the more serious issue between your response to me and to @Nationalist it seems that you ARE saying that this solves nothing but costs a lot. Conservatives didn't ask for this as noted, and it's elementary recess level silliness to pretend they did. The average person was fine with how things were, so no - it's not for them as you claim. This is for one very very small group of people. And obviously you don't believe for a moment that it will make anything better for them or else you would say so - and you've avoided saying so like the plague. That tells me even the left believes this is pointless and we should be electing politicians who won't waste our money

Nonsense - you'll have another breakdown before the day is over. You can't help yourself. And to be honest you showing up again and again to tell me you won't do it is pretty much as funny as you doing it so either way i win

???? welllll.... i suppose it's sort of technically true that rust doesn't sleep. It's more of a chemical process than a life form. You're very weird sometimes. Ummm- how does rust cause other things to be treated. If i touch something with rust nothing happens. I don't really think you know how rust or similes work. In any case, everything public that gets any money spent on it is really being done with conservative money - we're the only ones who actually generate new wealth

ROFLMAO!!!! I see you've hit the point where you've lost the ability to speak in coherent sentences again You cracked early today! And we'll see. You always seem to roll over and do what you're told in the end so....

2016 called, it wants it's democrat delusions back For 8 years now every single day the dems say trump is JUST about to go to jail. Oh - any second they'll prove russian collusion!!! Then he's in jail! Ohhhh - the documents he took - he's going to jail. Ohhhh jan6 he's going to jail. Ohhhh contempt, ignoring a subpoena, obstructing justice, jaywalking with criminal intent - whatever. It's theoretically possible trump might go to jail, but that is the very least likely outcome. He probably won't. So when you say it like that it makes you look like a bit of a desperate loser.

My bad - read that wrong. Fair enough.

I was talking about your little "i surrender" character, so that counts just fine

there is no more effective way to enslave a man than to provide for his every need.

Good boy - 7 more and you're done for the day I assume you'll go back later when you think i'm not looking to say something else in the hopes i don't see it? what's it like to be scared of someone on the internet like that?

They didn't tho. They added like 1 seat. The best you could say is they didn't lose seats for the first time in a long time. Jaggers had way more seats when he took over

After i'd responded. Which is the kind of guy you are. Haven't got the balls to say it straight up, you have to wait till i've read and responded and then sneak it in hoping i don't notice. On the contrary - i'm happy for people to see what kind of loser you are i'm just pointing it out But i love that now you're begging me to put you on ignore so that i don't see you trying to sneak around like that I would never put you on ignore - you're the best free entertainment on the board short of Americana Antifa But i Will point out when you do cowardly stuff like that

it does. As i've noted. In his world the german people (REAL ones speifically) were the exploited group that needed to get the benefits of their economy - and that within that group everyone should share the financial success. This is very similar to today. We should eat the rich and give to the poor and we have to treat the black people better than others. Yes, but as noted you've interpreted that incorrectly when comparing it to modern day. I would disagree that hitler's writing contains an accurate record of what socialism is today. And that's largely where you went wrong. I'm not sure i'd call a tax credit 'socialism' Tax relief is where you DON"T take someone's money and give it to someone else. However i don't think we'll have to look far to see many groups calling for socialistic pollicies that are black focused. Tax credits are not redistribution. Tax credits are not taking money in the first place. TAXES are redistribution. ANd hitler did like taxes. Sorry - hitler was indeed a socialist and it's very easy to see that. His version is not absolutely identical in every way to our current version but they are substantially the same. Redistribution of wealth (free housing, work programs, health care) very strong gov't control and regulation of industry, most companies of any size had to have a gov't appointed nazi on the board and had to give up shares, Etc etc. The nazis were socialists (its' right in the name) and while they hated communism they obviously weren't fond of free markets or freedoms for the people either. With a VERY few tweaks they'd be indisginuishable from many so called democratic socialist countries today. He certainly didn't believe in the free market. Well - i would disagree with the 'socialism vs communism' part a little. Although some would argue that "socialistic" models are actually a spectrum running from democratic socialism on one hand to full on communism on the other.

Are you deliberately pretending you didn't know what i meant or is that accidental? i was pretty obviously referring to your position that race based socialism isn't socialism. I already noted that hitler was a socialist, not a communist. And the winners of the modern socialist economy should be the lower class and the intersectional people. Same thing.

Nonsense. There are many examples of the opposite being true. For god's sake man, read a book before making insane comments like that. If the economy is stimulated and more people are working at better paying jobs and the economy starts to heat up then gov't revenues skyrocket. It's like this - lets imagine tax cuts doubled the taxable economy for a moment. Lets also say the gov't was charging an average of 10 percent tax and the taxable income was 100 starting off. So gov't revenue is 10 dollars - 10 percent of 100. Now -lets say you cut taxes to 7 dollars. And the economy takes off and you go to 200 taxable income. Now you're making 14 dollars instead of ten. Neither of those statements are true. Again - not accurate. We can go through it if you like but you'll find that's just far too simplistic. Having said that there is a sweet point. You can't just cut taxes and make more money. There is a magic number where you have the most business stimulation reasonably possible and yet the highest income and going below that will do nothing for you. And generally tax cuts alone aren't going to do it - it has to be part of a larger plan. Trumps tax cuts did work initially and the economy was stimulated but there was no follow up and no other policies to capitalize that and so it wore off within a year and the economy was back to 'decent' but certainly nothing that was going to eliminate the deficit.

Is it? I would point to america and note that a lot of the proposed socialism based redistribution of wealth and 'equity balancing' is very heavily racially motivated I think if you look at it you're going to realize you aren't going to be able to defend this one It is actually. In fact it's the basic foundation of socialism AND communism - the idea that there is one group who has less and one group who has more and you want to take from one and give to the other to 'balance' things. Those different groups might be identified by Class (marx) or race (hitler) or other method but at the end of the day it's ENTIRELY about laying out who gets what. And as noted the socialists today are very much tied to race. They claim the blacks are exploited and marginalized and should recieve money, resources, opportunities to redress that imbalance. Yes - finally germans would have gotten their fair share instead of being exploited by the jews or those golddigging Gypsies who live off german hard work. Now - lets make a few substitutions. Finally blacks would have gotten their fairh share after being exploited by the whites or those gov't carpetbaggers who lived off the black man's work. See? Socialism is all about saying one group is being exploited by another and we have to make it fair to everyone by taking from some and giving to others. The specifics of how you identify the groups isn't entirely relevant

There is a strong difference between communism and socialism. Hitler was a strong socialist supporter but hated the idea of communism. Further - hitler's socialism is a lot closer to what we'd call democratic socialism today or market or liberal socialism. He believed in a market economy (whcih communism doesn't) but strong gov't control over and regulation of and significant gov't ownership of the companies that made up the market. So he was very socialist but firmly opposed to marx and communism.

uhhh - it was the american FN's who requested that change. They slapped themselves in the face?

Right? And hawaiian pizza was invented in Canada! Apparently there's a lot of people right now who think you're going straight to pizza hell for even suggesting it.

The problem is largely the 'soclalism' part of the equasion. Whether it's nazi, communist, democratic, whatever - those are just the toppings on the ice cream, not the cream itself. different flavours of the same thing. The problem with socialism is that in order to work it requires a pretty authortarian gov't. You can hardly control the economy or social safety nets without a strong centralized control. That will ALWAYS create an immediate instant power base for the dangerously ambitious to seize control of and take over with - and that's what inevitably happens. Socialistic models always start out looking great - "we will take the means of production away from the rich (or let them run it and just take the money) and then you will be paid fairly for your work finally honest", But they always end up with the guys near or at the top siphoning away the riches and passing laws limiting freedoms to keep that process going.