CdnFox

yeah - that's more about what words mean then how they're spelled I'd rather use a word correctly and misspell it than spell it correctly and misuse it Food for thought when you have a minute to yourself. Oh - it gets worse. I write a lot of minutes for a lot of meetings and i frequently type the word so i've REALLY got no excuse Occasionally the dyslexia kicks in But - hey, i'm just happy we finally found something you could be right about LOL!! Nobody said anybody DID say that. I just pointed out that it's a legitimate thing and it's purpose is for when you don't agree with any of the choices. (or if you feel you're not qualified to make a decision - it does have that purpose as well). Nope. If you vote for someone or their party - you vote FOR them. That's literally built into our language - "who did you vote FOR", not who did you vote against. When you voted for trudeau - you endorsed his mandate and his policies and accepted his track record. That doesn't always mean you agree with EVERYTHNG but it DOES mean you agree more than you disagree and you are prepared to accept him. That's all it means. You voted in favor of corruption, bribery, interfering with the justice system, handing out single sourced contracts to his buddies, as well as policies such as censorship and debt levels that will cripple at LEAST the next generation. That's what you voted for. Oh lets not kid ourselves - you're FAR from qualified to be able to say if something is thoughtful or well informed

Meh. I dont' see that catching on

This seems an odd place to bring that up - what would you change or reinterpret?

Interesting fact - only the DNC and hillary's campaign was directly have been found to have hired Steele and they got in major crap and paid big dough for hiding the funding. Sorry but the story is bullshit. The money has been long since traced. Steele was commissioned by the dems. And ONLY the dems tried to peddle it as a legit document and tried to use it as an excuse to get an fbi investigation going. Please. Do better than that with your trolling. That was extemely low effort.

ROFLMAO - oh look - you learned a new word to not use properly Ok. Well fair enough, if you say you don't support restricting ownership without cause and you don't support banning or restricting any firearms then i'll take you at your word for now. But your friends sure do.

Sure. Everyone in the movement disavows them and turns them over to the police. Point out that they are complete scumbags who don't represent your views publically and if they show up at any events throw them out or record their activities and turn them over to the cops. Let it be known that no such "Fringe" will be tolerated. There. Took me 5 seconds. If you put 1/100th of the energy you do into defending them into turfing them they'd be gone. BLM embraces the violence - just like you do. MLK did not. He spoke against it, he tossed people who were violent - show me a single instance where he excused the violence and tolerated it. He was accused early on in his career as using 'violent rhertoric' but he completely changed that - and while the FBI and Kennedy (not "people like me" - pretty sure Kennedy was a dem) still wanted to brand him (quoting here ) "public negro number one" the fact is there were no further violent protests This is part of what King had to say about violence “Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. In a real sense nonviolence seeks to redeem the spiritual and moral lag that I spoke of earlier as the chief dilemma of modern man. It seeks to secure moral ends through moral means. Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. I believe in this method because I think it is the only way to reestablish a broken community. It is the method which seeks to implement the just law by appealing to the conscience of the great decent majority who through blindness, fear, pride, and irrationality have allowed their consciences to sleep. Doesn't leave much room for doubt. Here's what AOC had to say when SHE was asked by a reporter about violent protest making people feel unsafe: “The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes…To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable…that’s the point.” She also said, “The thing that critics of activists don’t get is that they tried playing the “polite language” policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore. It wasn’t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn’t their full demands.” So. Bit of a different take. AOC says violence is the point. MLK refused to accept it and kicked them out of his org. Swing and a miss kiddo Exactly the same as antifa. And BLM seeing as you brought it up. Trump did NOTHING that Antifa hasn't done and then some. You mean like Kamala Harris? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kamala-harris-pushed-bail-fund-that-helped-murder-and-rape-suspects-get-out-of-jail-while-awaiting-trial You promote and encourage it by supporting an org that accepts it In fact those were your words - you ACCEPT there's going to be a violent element. So you DO defend it. Sorry. You are by choice part of a terrorist movement that willfully and knowingly accepts violence.

Pierre Pollivre is still slowly but surely climbing in the polls and seat counts. They would now be in a position to maintain gov't without the lib and ndp support provided they had the bloc on board. the slow steady build up of PP and the slow steady demise of Justin should be very very concerning for the libs. This kind of thing tends to have more staying power. By the beginning of next year PP could be close to threatening a majority. And campaigns do matter and he's likely to enter the next election with momentum. https://338canada.com/

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.