CdnFox

It makes it as truthful as your 'ridiculous' makes it not truthful Oh and did i make a typo? Oh dear. what a shame your arguments have reduced you to being a grammar nazi Oh good - glad you're learning. (oh ... should have been 'if there is' i believe ,) He won a majority. But it was noted at the time turn out was very low and it was considered a caution that people were not giving him a license to do everything. And he did hold back on a number of issues. That's how it works. If you get strong voter turn out with strong percent of the vote you know people will support you. But if you get a crappy turn out with a crappy percent... well, you better be careful. Winning a majority of a very small turn out means something - as the left was very vocally noting at the time Always a pleasure to watch you crash and burn when you think you've made a point and it turns out you screwed it up entirely Sure - weak voter turn out benefitted him, But - he has to be very careful, he doesn't have a mandate to do anything he wants that's for sure. If he annoys the people they could show up in force at the next election and vote him out. Don't think he's unaware that it wasn't that he was popular, it's that the other guys sucked. Apparently not - they came back with more of the same bull that they tried in the past and people said "nopers" and they got slaughtered. Same with the ndp this time, So maybe they'll learn - no more of that hyper left wing spend spend spend crap. We'll see. But you can't deny - they got told the hell off this election. ALL their supporters said "we'll stay home thanks", and that won't go unnoticed. Abstaining is a legit move, always has been, built right into roberts rules and our parliamentary systems. When you vote for someone you're giving them a mandate and you're saying you support their vision.

I know a great deal about this subject. So - never read keynes, just a comparison. Thought so. As for your education - see if you can get your money back, it looks like you got ripped off. Yeah - no Sorry kiddo but not only is that an inappropriate use of the term overton window a leader can pretty much do as they please as long as they get results. As many other gov'ts have proved. bob rae had a number of choices. The choices he made made the recession deeper and longer. And hospitals for the sake of hospitals etc etc are not actually a good thing. You have to plan. Nope there were TONNES of projects that provinces and such WANTED to do but he was adamant. He could have gotten stuff out the door just as fast. But - 'shovel ready' meant that the provinces already really believed the projects were necessary and beneficial in the short term. they weren't "fake" projects just to get people working which we saw more of in the states for example - and with much worse results there. The idea was not to spend a dime that wouldn't have been spent anyway by the provinces over the next three years - basically moving the projects forward as a bridge over the downtimes while taking some pressure off the provinces during the recovery as they now didn't have to spend as much money to get needed projects done. And it kicked ass - it wasnt the only 'infrastructure' trick he pulled of course but it worked very well. Great - our investors should buy them from other countries and bring the interest payments back here! And gov'ts are never without debt (well - excpet alberta). As i said, but you can't comprehend, sometimes you run a deficit. During economic recessions or the like for example. So there'll always be a little debt. But - a small amount is one thing, a huge amount like we have now is insane. So you admit the new deal didnt' get it done. What were there - three of them? Four? Well that's just a lie i'm afraid. The economy grows strong when there's no borrowing. Has many many times in our history. Hell - harper balanced the books and the economy was doing fine - it did worse when justin started borrowing excessively. The economy does not need borrowing to grow. So i didn't miss your point - it was just wrong, So - you figured they borrowed massive amounts of money but the net debt didn't increase. You're an !diot I tell you what - you tell me which of those pre war years they borrowed massive amounts of cash like you suggested LOL Ahhh yes - must be that racist math. The chart clearly shows that gov'ts weren't borrowing money in any significant amounts at all prior to the wars - and then not much. we got by just fine till Pierre trudeau got in. So now you admit that there wasn't any borrowing You'd fit right in. But at the end of the day we're not talking about spending are we. We're talking about deficits. Chretien ran close to zero deficits for years thanks to mulroney's gst and free trade deal. Sure - all his surpluses he stole from the ui fund but even accounting for that he was at least very CLOSE to balanced. And we still spent. Harper was balanced for his first two (three?) years before the recession hit - and then within a short time had us back to balance - didn't stop spending. He actually increased transfers. So you're wrong on the face of it. In summary - virtually everything you said was wrong and demonstrably so with modern examples to look at. You failed to understand that chart, you failed to undrestand economics and your claim that the economy cannot grow with zero spending is proven false by both liberal and conservative govt's. Was that course you took from the institute of facebook by any chance ?

Sure kiddo. Was it your terrorist friends you were encouraging so they could shoot the police instead of defunding them ? Lets do a quick check - so you're stating unequiviably right now that you DO NOT believe in stronger gun laws or that any guns should be restricted or banned?

Truthful again. I get that you're desperate to defend your bad actions of the past but that doesn't make what i said any less true. that's why our system has 'obstain' built right into it. Hell your buddies the libs have used that many times in the past when harper was around. Nope. It sends the message that these people are not acceptable and they DON'T have a mandate. that's why voter turn out is always published. Look at the ontario lesson - voters sent a brutally clear message to the ndp and the libs that what they were putting forward was utterly unacceptable. They didn't vote for ford - they just didn't vote for the libs or ndp. And we saw that federally in the past when the PC fell apart - conservatives just did not vote for them. Period. IT's not like they went over to the libs. They just didn't vote PC. (some did go to the bloc who formed opposition). That's how it works You DO NOT give a mandate to someone who's unacceptable. There is no more bad than corruption and selling the country out to the chinese. That's what you voted FOR. NEITHER of the other candidates were THAT bad. SO what you said is "This IS acceptable. I WILL support justin and give him a mandate because i believe he is a reasonable choice". That is what you did. Our system is NOT decide to just vote blindly like that - if it was voting would be mandatory. You have the RIGHT to NOT give your blessings to anyone on the ballot. You had a choice and you chose to give your support to justin. NOw your'e ashamed and trying to justify it - but there IS NONE.

DEFLECTION! STRAWMEN! SLIPPERY SLOPE! AD HOMINEM! GET BACK HERE WITH THOSE GOALPOSTS No deflection kiddo. And everyone knows when you break that crap out you're admitting you're wrong and you're one emotional break down away from posting memes. There's no strawmen there at all. It's simple truth. We know you're anti gun - Just like we know you're fascst. You always deny what you are and accuse others of it. It's your bread and butter. You support a domestic terrorst group and daily attack jews and anyone who thinks different. we're suppose to pretend you're in some way 'credible'? You've got to be kidding

Almost no legit orgs have a 'violent fringe' and when someone is violent in their name they track them down and kick them out or have them arrested. What's amnesty internationals violent fringe? Or hell - where's the NRA's? They're a right wing gun org - no violent wing. How about the black legal action center? Did martin luthor tolerate his people to be violent? No? Hmmm There IS NO EXCUSE TO ASSOCIATE WITH A TERRORIST MOVEMENT. Period. There's tonnnes of groups that advocate only for peaceful solutions. Otherwise how are you any better than trump - who didn't stand up when a "fringe element" of his support attacked the capital? You're NO DIFFERENT.

So don't associate with that movement. Pick another movement. Start a movement. Nobody is forcing you to sign up with a domestic terrorist 'movement'. You can leave a movement just as easily as you leave a group. So leave. Denounce the terrorist scumbags and state you will no longer associate yourself with domestic terrorists.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/426034/Penticton-s-Ooknakane-Friendship-Centre-facing-mounting-lawsuits-from-former-employees-feeling-pushed-out-due-to-being-Caucasian Her suit follows multiple others in recent months. Former employees have begun stacking up legal claims against the Friendship Centre, alleging they were pushed out for not being Indigenous. Lyons' lawsuit was filed May 5 in Penticton. The suit claims Shauna Fox, the centre's executive director hired in November 2022, started weeding out non-Indigenous employees. Lyons, although of Indigenous origin, "felt similarly targeted by Ms. Fox, based on her Caucasian appearance, at this time and lumped her together with the others," reads the suit. Previous pending lawsuits have alleged similar discrimination based on Caucasian heritage. This is kind of interesting. IF they win - then it's going to create problems nationally for programs that are designed to exclude white people entirely. The current one is the most interesting because she's suing for LOOKING white - but is actually a native. We'll see what happens but if the courts determine you can't be fired for being white, they'll have a tough time defending the idea you can't be hired because you're white.

Yeah - that's got more to do with gov't expenditures which are part of gdp. See the blip around 1939? And it takes off again at the end of teh 60's (trudeau) and after that it just doesn't stop , just short little blips when conservatives get in.

You're wrong. Sorry. I mean - that was the democrat argument back in the day when the KKK was their strong arm group but it doesn't fly. You are part of a terrorist group. Get rid of the violent extremists and then you won't be, But otherwise YOU DON"T GET TO "ACCEPT" TERRORISM AND NOT BE A TERRORIST.

Is your user name "americana tea party"? Then not relevant. Antifa IS a domestic terrorist group/org/association/co-delusional-RPG-league. So YOU are at least

You're lucky they didn't try to confiscate your 'evil assault rifles'. "Austerity" is a word that the left loves to use because it sounds scary - but they use it inappropriately. It just refers to attempting to balance a deficit budget with spending cuts primarily instead of other methods. Which may or may not be appropriate depending on the circumstance but having a balanced budget is not 'austerity'. the fact is that budgets should be balanced the majority of the time. When times are good you balance or even possibly put some into savings or debt reduction, and when times are bad you borrow if necessary to get through it and turn things around, keeping it to what's needed and not creating a false economy. Trudeau racked up huge debts during our good times, insane never before seen debts during our bad times, and now we're likely going into a recession and guess what - more borrowing while at the same time spending which drives up inflation and drags out recessions.

I would think there's a number of laws that would need altering or to be added. But at the end of the day they'll waive the 'misinformation' flag and their supporters will decide freedom of the press should take a back seat to allowing those nasty anti vaxxers to have a voice and support it

Says the guy who already proved he doesn't understand this stuff sorry to burst your bubble. Side question, have you even read Keynes? Entirely true. And not surprising. As i noted spending like that often does. The ndp found that out in bc AND of course bob rae is the more famous example. You have to have very specific targeted spending for it to work - if you create a 'false economy' by paying people for things that didn't REALLY need to happen you make it worse. That's why harper insisted on 'shovel ready' projects only when he did it, and did it for a limited time. Debt And they sold a SHIT TONNE of bonds. But ww2 is what did it - the "new deal' did not. And ww2 was not just random infrastructure spending. It also wasn't very healthy for the economy in the long run - massive debt, thousands of working men taken out of the economy (many permanently), it's not a great way to break a recession. But it is what did it. Well MANY university and people who started a business will tell you it did not pay for itself at all nor did it boost the economy (turns out those degrees in lesbian dance theory don't actually pay well). So its a risk. People are in the business of taking risks from time to time. Gov'ts really shouldn't be. As i did say there are occasionally times when you don't worry about the budget being balanced. Recessions for example, that kind of thing. But during normal or good times there's no need for it. IF you're spending more than taxes and income would allow for then you're either spending on things you shouldn't be or you're not taxing enough. In most cases its the former. There are many examples. Canada is one. For many many years we had balanced budgets most of the time, except for the wars. Here - take a look https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/a-really-quick-history-of-canada-s-federal-debt we did. Sorry sparky - you kind of blew that one

https://betterdwelling.com/a-canadian-immigration-slowdown-residency-applications-fall-sharply/ Canada’s ambitious plan to grow its population through immigration hit a roadblock—it’s running out of applicants. Government of Canada (GoC) data shows applications received for permanent residency fell sharply in February. Despite record population growth, a soaring cost of living and slowing economy has resulted in a trend of fewer applications since peaking in 2021. Good news in some respects but then again, not really, it will take years for that to trickle down into actual immigration numbers and meanwhile developers of homes and such will wind up slowing down as well. It kind of hurts that justin has turned the place into such a mess that even people from Afghanstan are saying "Meh - we'll stick it out here instead".

telling you to do better is racist? What race are you? HAHAHAHAA _ LOL, well i don't think my comments were racist - but isn't it racist to be calling the kettle black like that?? The guy who hasn't defended anything wants others to defend their point You're truly pathetic kid

Yeah - that's pretty much all bullshit. Keynesian economics did NOT end the great depression WW2 ended the depression. And the "New Deal" is said to have deepened and lengthened it. It made things worse. As trying to 'spend your way out of a recession' always does - ask bob rae about that. And what you call 'austerity" is just spending what you earn. And that has ALWAYS been a factor for gov'ts. Massive spending deficits are a new thing not an old thing. And balanced budgets are just fine for economies - it's !diotc to say otherwise. There are times when it's not wise to worry about it, but most of the time a balanced budget is exactly what you want. Tell me you don't know a THING about finance or economics without telling me.

Right - so in your mind voting for the guy to run the country and personally endorsing the party is a scathing indictment of them. That must be some pretty fresh glue you've got going on today No, that's just an excuse people use to justify why they're supporting corruption. People who GENUINELY don't feel there's a good choice just don't vote. Like it or not voting for a party and it's leader IS an endorsement. Thats why they say it's a 'Mandate'. You gave him his mandate - you can't claim at this point you don't see value in him. If you didn't then you would have abstained. That's how the system works.

Well could we create a new org, the LCMP? Liberal Compliant Media Police? (stop looking at me like that, i'm just trying to be helpful.... )

But such squaking shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. In the broadest terms we have two real choices with climate change - try to stop it or try to adapt to it. Those who wish us to stop it would have to demonstrate that their ideas actually would.

No i wasn't offended or anything - i thought it was a fair reply, i just think that giving it some thought we should probably be equally adverse to internal and external threats

Well not really. both are unacceptable. That's like arguing what kind of gun you want to be shot to death with. (who said that?) Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - franklin. And a wise man always controls what he can control and then worries about externalities. I can't fix what china intends but I CAN fix what our gov't intends to do about it. Giving away power to the gov't is always a questionable idea

So as long as i can brand someone's speech as being an incitement to lawlessness i can ban it?

We know. That's how you started this off. It's about what the community expects from you. I was just saying, maybe try doing better? See how that goes?

The challenge, as always, becomes who gets to decide what represents 'misinformation'. The potential for abuse there is insane. As we've seen with trudeau, having 'control' over 'misinformation' just leads to the gov't pushing it's own msiniformation. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?