CdnFox

Sure - because it's the conservatives who demanded this Again - the left has to lie to make it's point. Well at least you're consistent.

Depends. IF the restaurant had to pay 100,000 dollars to renovate it that way then your meal would probably be more But it's very telling of the lefties here that they're pretending that the problem is the style of washroom rather than the cost and other issues. Once again the left has to lie in order to make or avoid the point - they can't just address it head on. I don't know why i'd expect different. Sure - hand over your credit card and i'm sure they'll be quite willing It's fine for new builds, but the costs of remodelling bathrooms such as this which exist is very high. But you knew that was the point. Just couldn't be honest enough to deal with it I guess. Well - that's the left for you.

The bathroom in their house probably didn't cost millions of taxpayer dollars

FIFY.

sounds reasonable. I'm sure there's a way. but i think that's what we're missing - a model and profiling combo that gives us an 'ideal' range and hard cap.

Well some of it is pretty empirical . X number of people will need Y amount of housing and Z amount of infrastructure, and those should be easy numbers. Create a cap using those. The rest you could probably address with advances to our flag system. That would make changes based on needs pretty easy.

Well it's true the dems to love themselves a good culture war. It's been that way for a few hundred years now. Once you divide people it's easy to promote fear and anger. And fear and anger is how snake oil peddlers sell their goods.

Honestly i've heard this for 6 years now. Wake me when he's in prison. Yawn! I'd put money on him winning the presidency again before i put money on prison.

A better question would be 'what's the right model for setting immigration limits in Canada'. I think that's what we need to work out. A formula that gives us a number based on several factors including how many homes are we building? How much infrastructure (Schools, hospitals etc ) are being built? And then factors like what's the job situation. We can't keep bringing in more than we can support with housing and services. If you want more immigration you have to start building more homes BEFORE you bring them in.

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/shared-all-gender-washrooms-the-future-for-burnaby-schools-school-district-7096340 So - this design obviously solves a problem. It's going to cost a lot of money but it'll end a debate. The question becomes Are we Done? We're going to spend hundreds of millions doing this across the land if it works out. We've already passed a bunch of laws. So much has been done to accomodate a TINY part of the population. Are we done yet? Or will they keep coming back demanding more money, more recogniztion, more special benefits and more reduced rights for the rest of us? Can we finally call it quits when we get this done? How many hundreds of millions more will it take?

A jeep cheroke has more native ancestry in it than lizzy has.

I don't believe the offensive has started yet. Sounds like at this point they're cutting supply lines and conducting some very limited actions in places like bakmuth to pin troops and draw resources.

I actually had to look up chicken fried steak. Sounds like schnitzel.

But not prime minister. Who is responsible for residential schools. My bad - i had it in my head he was part of that liberal-conservative coalition that was going on for a while but you're right, he's just a straight up liberal.

The liberal party still exist. Does the PC party? Nope https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-apologizes-for-swearing-at-kent-1.995992 Nope -you're still the liar And here's the thing - you liberals always double down on lies. You lie, you get caught, you get proven wrong, and then you double down on it. Like i said to start with - you'll just pretend i didn't Libearls lie and you're a liberal thanks for proving my point.

Total proof, and never denied by trudeau Sorry little guy - It was you who was the liar. And about all the other ones too which i notice you couldn't dispute And this is why everyone calls liberals liars. You whine and complain "Oh - why do you keep calling me a liar?" Its simple. You always lie ? Try telling the truth. And you still owe me nine. Unless you've realized how stupid that made you look. C"mon - i'll promise to make fun of you each time agian - you know you love that Well in fairness to tommy tho (who was a notorious racists actually) he wasn't in power. It wasn't his job to address that, so while i disapprove of what he did he kind of gets a bit of a walk. If he'd been PM then different story.

Clark? Joe clark won a minority gov't and then was defeated in an election forced by trudeau a few months later. That was no victory. He failed horribly. Petro-canada became massive. AND - clarke didn't want to privatize it, he wanted it dismantled. Fail. The guy wasn't even in power for a year as i recall. That's why he's now known as 'Joe Who?'. that's not a 'victory' we want to repeat.

Nobody has done so. Not to mention that party doesn't exist any more. Asking me about something i've never done is pretty clear indications that you know i'm right and can't argue the point without introducing a new topic. Specificaly a topic that happened six decades ago with a dead guy. You mean interfering with our justice system to get donors off scott free for money? THat's actually pretty bad. So's taking bribes from the aga khan. So's giving single source contracts to people who pay his family money. I could go on of course - there's so many. Now - we can argue if all of that is worse than OTHER scandals if you like - i mean, is that as bad as taking envelopes of cash in brown envelopes under the table in payment for awarding contracts like Chretien's liberals did? You tell me. Or if you really do feel like going back in time - is it as bad as Laurier burying the report on residental schools to avoid costs and knowingly allowing abuses to continue? I suppose that's a fair question. Did you want to continue? Or are we ready to go back to discussing this century?

Funny story - i do South african. Absolutely great doctor, i'm lucky as hell to have her. Well this is the thing. They try to read headlines and then they HOPE that the data supports what they think the headline means. And that's why we can't have nice things any more. There can be no doubt this is true. I've had my share of run ins with very bad doctors. They were all white. I don't think being white made them bad.

No, the goal is to win. This isn't a 'game'. We're talking about people's lives, our freedoms, our future. Thats' not "For sport". That's something our people have fought and died to have. And which sport exactly can you name where only one team follows the rules? And now we've got a winner who is going to focus on winning, not "playing the game" or "being nice". And guess what's going to happen. Justin will be gone. Sounds like the losers are the ones who follow your rules.

Your profile says that but you're comments suggested otherwise. Kinda hard to say Yes - you lean more to the liberals and wish we had a liberal light leader. We get it No, that one is smart. it might be that he can't (although it is possible) but he definitely should. There's wide support for that. The CBC has become corrupt and a mouthpeice for the liberal party. Why should i pay for that? If you like coronation street then i'm sure some other channel will pick it up. That is not even remotely the most critical file. There is NOTHING we can do as a country about that. Even if we eliminated ALL emissions and just committed suicide, China is increasing it's emmissions by more than our entire amount currently every 2 years. We are utterly meaningless. If there was anything we could be doing it would be looking for harm reduction by making more cleaner fuels available in the short term and investing money in developing the next generation of tech that can actually solve problems like battery storage or nuclular/plasma power. It's important - it's not the most important. That much is true. Leaders win big by presenting a cohesive easy to understand vision of the future that can be quckly articulated and has some sort of path. releasing his plans now would prove he was an incompetent !diotvwith no right to lead. It's beyond a rookie mistake. The time to release his plans is during an election. Right now he can give the '10,000 ft view' of his plans but you'd have to be a political retard to actually give details. Even his 'jail not bail' stuff is premature.

LOL - well lets see about that shall we So i said he called an mp a piece of shit. You claim that's not true https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/justin-trudeau-allegedly-calls-peter-kent-a-piece-of-s-in-commons LOL - YOU LIED LIBERAL Big shock I said trudeau claimed the CPC leader was a white supremisist https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/conservative-politics-1.5099222 YOU LIED AGAIN LIBERAL - HE DID I said he used "f*ck' in the house - YOU Claim that was a lie - but he did https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-fuddle-duddle-1.6441824 YOU LIED AGAIN As to him saying a Jewish mp stood with the nazis: https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-accusing-jewish-mp-of-standing-with-swastika-new-low-for-pm Yup = you lied again You owe me 9 more biatch I notice you gave up early the other time. So as we can see - you lied. And what's worse you lied many times. And you're SHOCKED that people call you a liar Gotcha - now 9 more pls

Only the ones who lie So yeah - you get called it a lot. Why? If i do you'll pretend i didn't anyway. I tell you what - are you claiming NONE OF THOSE ARE TRUE? Lets see who the liar here really is

Well even THAT would have been half right - he could have thought all boats were a canoe. But his comment was just wrong

No, he didn't. At best he could be said to have implied that there was some inappropriate reason for trudeau's departure. That's what makes it subtle. And yes, people will hear that and recall the rumours about why justin had to leave, but that is not the same as an accusation at all. Mine is fairly dictionary. subtle adjective So slight as to be difficult to detect or describe; elusive. Difficult to understand; abstruse. Able to make fine distinctions. Operating in a hidden, usually injurious way; insidious. Characterized by skill or ingenuity; clever. Crafty or sly; devious. Of the 6 possible definitions it looks like it pretty solidly hits 4. Evidence of what? What precisely did Pierre accuse him of? I can't quite remember Again - Justin does the fake news thing ALL the time. Constanty. And he has been re-elected 3 times after scandal after scandal. So... can you explain how ONLY conservative leaders MUST take the high ground? Why the rules apply only to them? Why the public keeps rewarding the guy who doesn't play by those rules - the same guy who was the butt of the joke here?