CdnFox

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?

You voted for him. That's about as strong an endorsement as you can give.

That's actually pretty massive. Pledging contracts to buy doses even before it's developed frees up billions of dollars in investment and allows a company to dedicate it's people to the research risk free. And they even offered direct funding if needed. There can be little doubt that without lightspeed the vaccines would have arrived much much slower. I didn't realize he'd held campaign event in Wuhan Sounds like you need your script tweaked a little there robo-bot

So you're an !diot with nothing to contribute? Oh - wait we knew that. Why don't you at least TRY to actually read what was written and make some sort of meaningful comment?

You have absolutely no sense of humour do you. Sigh.

If you think Eyeball has a soul you may be setting yourself up for disappointment

Sorry kid. It's there in black and white. You claimed you didn't say something - you did. People can read it. I get why you're ashamed of what you said. You obvoiusly don't want to admit you support the libs and everytime someone says something negative about them you go into a big rant about how you never said you voted for them when nobody asked. So you probably did and are feeling guilty. But lying won't help. Just don't vote liberal in the future. they're bad people and you're bad for voting in favour of corruption.

So you are of the belief that round objects can't have borders for some reason? I don't think you understand how 'round' works.

nope. Anonymous sources have been around forever. There's a problem when a media outlet makes a substantial claim based on 'anonymous sources' and the source hasn't produced any evidence. Or there's evidence they're wrong but the outlet keeps insisting it's true For example - recently the cbc claimed Smith's people sent emails to the justice department accordng to an 'anonymous source'. But - cbc never saw the emails. And when an independant audit showed there WERE no emails cbc didn't back down. Well in that case it's not even that the source was anonymous that was the problem - it's that the cbc is asserting something is 'most likely true" without any evidence at all. This is similar to their 'the us republicans are funding the convoy' claim that turned out to be false. On the other thand, global's posting of the CSIS papers proving justin knew about the chinese interference was backed up by documents they'd actually obtained. So while we don't know the source, we do know the information is accurate. So complaints have more to do with the proof than the source I don't think so - i think it's illegal to leak and that's a different thing Yeah - so this is actually canada..... And here it's the libs doing it. It's always the answer for justin

of course you do. I just posted it. You claimed you didn't say such things - i've proven you have. It's all there for people to see. You want a hankie now? You seem like you're pouting.

Well if that's what we're calling facts and truth these days, sure sorry it didn't mesh with your echo chamber bias Justin will probably lose the election and then he'll be forced to stand down. And then we'll see won't we

I wish you were joking. I'm pretty sure you actually think it'll work this way and you're glad.