CdnFox

Of course you can't. If you try, then inflation goes up and then interest rates have to go up and then you wind up into a spiral that quickly gets out of control. Gee - if only there was a modern canadian example of that happening. Anyway - if you want to find out how that ends ask greece. You cannot keep borrowing and spending without severe consequence.

Well for most it's only starting to hit really hard now. During the last election neither side was talking that much about it and inflation hadn't run away like a scared rabbit yet. It hadn't affected their lives. Don't expect massive change in the polling in between terms. Until people see a campaign and decide someone has a better idea they just tend to stay where they are. BUt - that changes when an election starts and they're looking for something. to be different. Many are. And others start to get worried that while they're not sinking yet the water is up to their chins. And they'll want change before it goes over their nose.

Yeah, but that's got to seriously limit where he can go in the world now even if the conflict ends

Pretty much - he said they screwed up, badly miscalculated and interest went higher as a result. And claiming that working for the gov't isn't a real job is about as thick as it gets. So - teachers aren't doing 'real jobs'? for example? lawmakers and such aren't doing real jobs? What a dumb thing to say. Not only is working in gov't a real job, it's the job that prepares you to be a PM. The fact you'd have to resort to such ad hominem nonsense shows you know you're wrong to begin with. No, they admitted that they made a mistake. Period. THat's not a 'hindsight' issue or 'best we could do' issue - they screwed it up and a number of prominent economists were saying that at the time. Sure he was. Like i said - point out a critisim that doesn't also apply to the stock market. You don't think having a stock market is stupid do you? So you're saying there's nothing wrong with 9 percent inflation? That's your argument? we're just 'frothing' over it? How do you do it, making yourself look even more dumb than before again and again? As to bit coin, sure. Historically it HAD hedged nicely, and it failed this time. Know what else did? The stock market. It CRASHED. So - is anyone who says the stock market is a good thing equally nuts? Actually most of the stock market value is on speculation. Not production. Which is why it just crashed into the ground. SO no - its value is NOT based on wealth generating companies. The vast vast vast majority of it is a vehicle for zero sum speculation. But if you'd prefer we could talk commodities trading. gold doesn't 'do' anything. It's valuable because people perceive it is and it's in limited supply. Just like bitcoin Sorry - 90 percent of that whole thing was media hype and liberal lies. Bitcoin is absolutely a valid investment provided you know what your'e doing and undersatnd the risks just like the stock market and commodities.

Stay the eff out. The un is there to govern how nations deal with each other, it's not some sort of universal gov't police force. Close the doors, lock 'em in and let them fight till they get it sorted out someday.

IT's what everyone wants right until the consequences affect their lives Then half of them start caring about fixing it and the other half thinks the gov't should borrow more money to help them through these difficult times. And hopefully the first half shows up at the polls and we get a conservative gov't who focuses on fixing that.

that's racist.

And you're wrong. An intelligent person weights the evidence all the time and considers their opinon rather blindly following. I may have preferences in general for a party but not blind loyalty. Ask the federal PC party about that. Good voters are prepared to turn on their party if it goes sideways But that's the thing - evidence. I keep asking, and you ain't coming up with much of anything. So the only person i see with blind devotion to their belief right now would be you, and i have to ask why? That's not pragmatic, that's just lazy. Seriously, and i don't mean that as some random insult. There might have been a little more truth to that back in the 80's, but especially these days there is a great deal of difference between parties and politicians. Hell there's even a difference in a specific party depending who the leader is, parties are much more malleable. Are you telling me Jack layton's ndp and jagmeets are the same thing? But claiming they're 'all the same' allows you to not really focus on the differences, it's a wonderful excuse to not get involved, it makes it easy to throw up your hands and say 'oh well, no point i guess i don't have to think about it." Now you don't have to work to build better parties, now you don't have to spend time doing your democratic duty and participating - i mean what's the point? They're all the same, no point. You might even convince yourself not to waste time on voting day. No point. they're the same. They're not the same and i would strongly encourage you to actually pay attention and dig into it. A democracy REQUIRES the people's honest participation or else it becomes a dictatorship very fast.

There is truth in there for sure, but even if he wanted to he would likely have managed far less change than he'd have liked. Like i said, that rot goes deep.

If it were only that it would be bad enough. But - it's not just that. They also drive us into insane debt and taxes by inflating the bureaucracy. Both trudeaus Radically increased the public service and number of civil servants and put their people in a number of key positions . That means when they're out of power for a while they will STILL have huge control over the gov't and can slow up or stall a lot of inititives and do some effective lobbying work. It takes many years for the conservatives to reverse that when they get in as a rule and by then the libs are ready to be elected again. Meanwhile the bloated bureaucracy costs us billions of dollars.

The bank actually agreed with him there. And so have many other banks at this point and most eocnomists. THere's no doubt that trudeau's policies have made inflation significantly worse than it should be. Do you have ANY evidence that they haven't had that effect? I've got boatloads that they do so if you can provide anything now's the time. The bank of canada agreed with him there too. They've admitted they screwed up badly and should have put the breaks on sooner and they screwed up. He was quite right there. And to be blunt, he was right on bitcoin as well, other than the single 'hedge on inflation' comment. The thing is - virtually every single 'issue' people pretended to have with bitcoin is true of the stock market as well. And the crypto's have been solid performers for years and likely will be again. Sooooo - no lies. No deceptions. He was correct. So not exactly like truduea's 'the budget will balance itself' was it

The devil is always in the details, but i'm sure regardless they'd try to make it sound less ominous. They're not going to call it a 'free speech removal provision' or the like LOL We'll have to see what the actual language of any bill or order that gets put forward looks like.

Historically the UN avoids interfering in internal politics of a country if it can be avoided, unless one side or the other asks for help. They'll move to stop a war between two countries but to just randomly jump into a country's internal fighting without any lawful request for aid? That's called invading And even with a request for military aid it's very dicey, you jusr don't want to enter an armed conflict inside another nation as a general rule.

Where are you seeing that he blocked people from entering a bathroom and held protests inside the school?

It's pretty obvious you don't understand anything perfectly Or much at all.

Soooo -you didn't understand what was said to you. Sigh. It's also true that you're not traumatized because you're an dolt apparently. If you can't understand, next time just ask and i can explain it to you again. Now you just look dense. As to the rest.... ROFLMAO - holy butthurt batman Man, you're just raving now - look, neither me nor blackbird intended to get you so worked up you'd become incoherent I get this is upsetting for you - i know how you get when you realize you can't defend your point of view and start freaking out. But it's just the internet. You said something less intelligent - you got called on it - tomorrow's another day. Go have a glass of warm milk or something and try to cope.

Darn - I KNEW i forgot something. We were SUPPOSED to get a permission slip from OftenWrong before discussing issues around censorship!! ROTFLMAO !!!! - Well thanks for showing up and demonstrating that a) the left wing is pretty anti-free speech to the point where they come in and yap like a chihuahua if people are having 'unauthorized' conversations they dont' approve of so the story about the mayor certainly has the ring of truth and b) the left doesn't even realize when they're making our point for us LOLOLOL!!!!!

Sure, just like they invaded the us when they gave them weapons. Oh wait...... I doubt they'll be doing much invading of anyone for a while, thanks to the pounding they're taking in ukraine. Good thing we're helping there to grind them down. You go back to burying your head in the sand little guy - the adults will handle this and we'll tell you when it's safe to come out

So you didn't say it was poorly written? I'm highlighting that ONCE AGAIN you are lying about what you said previously that everyone can read and pretending it's someone else's fault. Well just for fun i'll rise to the bait this time and quote you: "They were poorly written and poorly conceived laws that were expected to be challenged" Those are your words. Poorly Written. And you can't claim that you only meant that they werne't a very good idea because you ALSO said they were poorly conceived on TOP of that. So - you mean the laws were poorly written. There you go. Proof that you lie right from your own mouth. SIgh. Well at least people know the truth of what you are. Nope - went down under harper. It always fluctuates a little but it pretty much went down year after year during harper's terms. And it's gone steadily up under trudeau. And it is directly linked to his policies. It's no coincidence. He's relaxed bail conditions, hes required race to be a factor in sentencing, he's overseen the dismantling of the consecutive terms laws, he's fostered hatred between a large number of groups and ratcheted up tensions, the list goes on and is extensive. I"m not claiming commonality is causality here, it's not just a freak occurrence that it's gone up radically during his time. There's reasons

Soooooo... that's your proof? LoL? iiiiiisssss THAT your evidence? A blog of mostly made up 'i-don't-like-harper' crap with no evidence of accepting dirty money? Well i guess that's ONE way of saying "I'm a complete partisan hack with no idea what i'm talking about" without actually saying it. So - after all that you've got zero reason to think Harper solicited or encouraged illegal campaign donations. Well. How about that. Sounds like yet another liberal hack trying to excuse the actions of your fearless leader by trying to pretend that everyone else is just as corrupt. Yeah - they're not. It's you guys.

If they do it much they tend to get caught. We've caught the libs now twice with major scams = and pretty much back to back. Chretien/martin were the last libs before trudeau adn we had adscam. Now trudeau has chinagate. How many times have the CPC been caught doing that? (cricket cricket) If you want to make that claim - put some proof on the table. I just did. Show that the cpc or ndp has been accepting illegal donations of substance knowingly and we'll talk Otherwise it's just conspiracy crap that somehow because one politician does it they all must. That's not how logic works.

the evidence is that women are MORE violent than men, not less. They are MORE likely to instigate dometic violence for example. Men are just much better at it, and when men fight someone's more likely to get hurt. But i haven't' seen any research that shows women are significantly less violent. They're just not as likely to do damage. Men do commit more violent crime if it helps but that doesnt' mean they're more violent as people. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

Aww muffin - is it your nap time again? Go get your cookie and your blankie.... "Poorly written"? Are you trying to pretend now that they're not having been called on it? Yeah you did - go back and read your own comments. It would depend on what you mean by 'abused'. if you mean "could be used to pass somthing you personally don't agree with" then sure. But that's pretty much all laws. If you mean something else you'd have to define it. The law was intended to give the gov't the power to set aside charter rights where it felt there was a justifyable reason to do so. The public has to decide if the gov't was correct or overstepped. I don't know the public will think keeping a mass murderer in jail is wrong. I mean - it's not like we're talking about using something sweeping like the emergency act to shut down a protest we don't appove of is it In any case all such laws must be reviewed every 5 years. So consecutive gov'ts will have to agree to it, No no. Just 'you dumb". Because, y'know. You dumb. Nope. THe majority of the spike has happend and accelerated under Trudeau. The vast majority of harper's term saw falling rates. And we can point to laws justin's passed that have aided that. In fact there's huge pressure right now for him to recind some hes' passed because people are getting killed. But i love that you claim that the gov't of 7 years has nothing whatsoever to do with things like crime SUre - that's not a fed responsibility at all "It's all harper's fault!" - every liberal ever.

They tend to discourage illegal ones. These guys are encouraging illegal donations. There's a difference. Nobody would blame them if the donations were just chinese nationals who like the liberal party but they're documenting a money laundering scheme to funnel large amounts of donations illegally through proxies. Show me where the CPC or NDP ever did that. No, he wasn't. Harper didn't take money from corps or other gov'ts or outside the law. At least certainly not knowingly. This is a liberal thing and it's a recurring liberal thing.

That sounds a little tin hattish. But go ahead and show me where the CPC or the NDP encouraged foreign countries to donate to get them elected. This was not just a case of politicians cosying up to donors. this was a deliberate effort to money launder funds into the liberal party through proxy donors more akin to the sponsorship scandal. That's a little over and above