CdnFox

Or just 'male'. Worked for the last 3000 years or so. And if you really need to tag it how bout 'straght' male. We've been using that one for decades too. The only reason you want "Cis" is that you can use it as a pejorative.

Nope. Not even close. And in fact even the budget officers have had to admit that some of those numbers aren't available. And it doesn't account for the money built into the markups that I mentioned. I've explained this very simply and easily before and showing you examples and content and cites which backs that up. If person a has to charge more to cover the tax to person b so that person b can build something, then person b will build that into his pricing and mark it up when he sells it to person c for distribution, who will mark it up and sell it to the store who marks it up and sells it to the customer and NONE of that is returned. Only 90 percent of what the customer paid, but not the huge increase in price that he had to pay on top of the actual tax. And it doesn't include the GST you pay on that tax. etc etc. This is been done to death and there's absolutely no doubt about it. When everything is taken into account the cost of the consumer is significant, and businesses are leaving as a result. As I have noted many times for the first time in Canadian history more business is leaving Canada than coming to it. High operating taxes like this, combined with high business taxes and so on have made the environment toxic for business investment and it is going away The first step to fixing prices and restoring business confidence is scrapping the carbon tax which has done not a single thing for the environment. You guys had 10 years of unfettered freedom to do something about the environment and you have utterly blown it and on top of it all you've hurt Canada in the meantime. So that's going to come to a screeching halt.

That's nothing like what he said. If you can't be honest about it why even comment? A hierarchy is not might makes right. And in fact he said there are multiple hierarchies in most circumstances certainly more than that in human circumstances. His whole point was that throughout the animal kingdom long before humans came along hierarchies existed and are a natural occurring phenomenon that is ingrained into the majority of animals even down to lobsters who are observed to have hierarchies today . Therefore, any system that you try to put in place that doesn't account for that is almost certain to fail because you will be fighting against human nature. And that point is observably true. You've been listening to your echo chamber again. He has never proposed that might makes right.

Worse, he would rather see them dead than try and stop the killers. A whole bunch of solutions to help catch killers before they become murderers was proposed in this thread and he blew them all off. I provided tons of proof, some only days old, of children being killed in schools and elsewhere by things that weren't guns and showed that it's actually fairly common. So banning guns would not help. But he ignores this. He is absolutely fine with dead people and dead children provided he can speak against guns. The children themselves mean nothing to him. He would be very sad if people stopped killing children with guns because he'd have less chance to rail against them.

And often it has not. And when it has there's no indication there was less crime or that there was doing any better of a job. But one thing is certain, there is no doubt that every society that had capital punishment killed innocent people. That is unacceptable. That's just the way it is. Unless you're prepared to put your own family on the chopping block first you can't suggest a system that will do it to someone else

This really isn't complicated. I understand that they don't teach a lot about how parliament works in school these days so I'll go through it but he does actually have a great deal of control over that. In order to bring the government down, there must be a vote of no confidence. In other words there has to be a vote and more than 50% of the votes must say that the parliament has no confidence in the government. Without that vote nothing changes. The house can only vote on things when it's in session. To about 99% the prime minister controls when the house is going to be in session. Justin can choose to prorogue parliament and then it's not in session even when it was supposed to be. Which means there can be no vote. Additionally, votes can't just happen whenever anyone feels like it. There are specific days and times when emotion of confidence can be put forward. There are laws about how many such days per session must be included, but setting them tends to be at the discretion of the government. So he can delay those a long time. Again no vote nothing changes. About the biggest stumbling Blocked he would have would be the budget. He can delay the budget a while, but eventually the government would run out of money. The budget is always a confidence vote so if the parties showed up and voted down the budget there would be an immediate election. Challenge is he may delay that till into may if he wants. And there's other tricks too So as you can see justin does have a number of tools to delay an election even as far as the fall if he really wanted to. Ceranly it would be simple to go to march or april.

You don't give a crap about dead school kids. We've already established that. That's cool kids aren't innocent people for you, the fresh bodies to be ground up in your echo chamber Hate Machine and turned into fertilizer for your delusions. Dozens and dozens of proofs and examples have been posted here that show you your 100% in the wrong. But you couldn't care less

So in other words you know you're wrong I can't make a coherent argument so you'll attack me and your stupidity becomes my fault. Pretty typical for your kind Nah they're broke and never made a penny. It's obvious. Capitalism is a fraud.🙄 So they're not making cars and making a profit? Here's the thing. If people believe that an idea or a company is going to be successful they are prepared to invest in it. That is not speculation the way you're using the word. If their investment produces results and they make money so much the better. Post lefties who have read a couple of pamphlets and don't understand finance think this way. Honestly it's tiring. You are completely misusing the word speculation and apply it to any venture. Anything that isn't guaranteed appears to be speculation in your mind. That is not what speculation is. Anyone with half a brain understands that. And literally every venture starts off exactly the same way and it's not speculation. I think my business is going to do well so I invest $100,000 to buy equipment and set it up and get it going. Lo and behold it does well and i make money. Was that speculation? The amount of money invested in it was significantly higher than the book value. But that is every business everywhere. And of course people invest money believing that it's going to produce a better rate of return. Again that's not speculation, that's just investing. It's obvious some left-wing Retarded socialist taught you what you believe you know about finance. And seems to have taught you that anytime someone invests in anything is speculation and therefore evil. Stay at home and play with your Lego and collect your welfare check. The adults are talking

The carbon tax is a very serious problem with our competitiveness and it does more than just the tax, it drives business away from the country. Right now and for the last year or two business investment in Canada has been leaving Canada faster than it's been coming and that is never happened before. The carbon tax plays a role on such thing so it's costing damage goes Way Beyond the simple extra money you pay at the pump. And we've been over this before with reports in the math. And his point was that the fact that it will be gone is one of the reasons that Poilievre is a good choice. I realized that having been a strong proponent of such things in the past you now don't want to see it go and are a little bitter about talking about it. But it's worth talking about. I know a lot of liberals are trying to pretend that they never ever supported it ever now that it's clear that it's useless. But that's not the truth either. As to the tariffs I don't think they're real thing. They're a threat. That's how trump negotiates he always negotiates by threat. As he was quoted as saying once the other guy only needs to believe there's a 5% chance I'll actually do it in order for me to win. If there are tariffs they will be extremely short lived. I bet they're gone before the GST is It's actually quite massive. As we've discussed this is also a cost to businesses and businesses past that on to the consumer. And it's not an end user tax which means it keeps getting added again and again and again up the supply chain. The cost of the carbon tax is vastly higher than the nickels and dimes per litre you pay per liter at the pump

You've hurt @Politics1990's feelings so badly he's had to break out his emotional support down arrows again just to cope LOL (gave you a like to offset it).

LOL i'm so stealing that That's because they're aware that biden's policies have already set conditions for a recession and they're trying to 'pre blame' it on trump So the bad news is they're going to be doing that with virtually every candidate and president the republicans put forward for the rest of time Trust me the next guy will be worse than trump as far as they say

This is it exactly and they will point to article after article that proves it. But they won't mention that those articles all came out afterwards. We already see this kind of behavior with the Biden notebook thing. Whaaaaaat? Repressed the story? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa!? we were all over it! "

He doesn't even see it, does he?

Even the dead people who voted for him last time said "nope"

I noticed you say lol a lot when you know you're on shakey logical ground Trump did pretty well in the pandemic. His big failing was his tendency to say stupid things, but there's little actual evidence that did anything one way or another. The inflation was totally Biden. Initially the first bit of rise was a result of global factors, but his spending and policies are why it continued to shoot up and stayed persistent for the rest of his term. Even justin trudeau managed to do better and he screwed things up royally. Sorry, everyone knows it was biden's fault and why. Cna't lie your way out of that.

A ton of people here said he was definitely guilty because they read the deposition. No trial necessary

Their job is to defend people. Including themselves. Killing people on occasion when they are a threat that can't be addressed any other way is their job. It is not the job of the government to have the power of life and death over its citizens We absolutely should. Innocent people will be killed by the state in our name. I tell you what, you go put a shotgun to your children and families heads and kill them and come back to me and I'll agree with you that we should risk killing innocent people for the sake of capital punishment. 🙄 No sane man would agree to that, they would not agree to having people they care about killed when they are innocent. Not even a little bit. It achieves nothing. If you want to lock them up for life with no chance of parole then fine, I'm happy to talk about that at least mistakes can be undone if they're discovered later. But we do not need to kill people at all. And like I said if you're willing to start killing innocent people let's start with your family You're not talking about a mistake, you're talking about deliberately killing people. We generally don't provide any unnecessary medical care at all, and it is not necessary in the slightest to kill criminals. We can lock them up for life just as easily and avoid the problems. We don't let people deliberately crash their cars into others who commit traffic offenses either. That would be extreme and stupid. Just like your proposal. Nor do we remove speed limits just because we know there's going to be some accidents so what the hell might as well make it a free-for-all You're drawing a false equivalency. Nobody is talking about shutting down the justice system which would be the comparison you made. But we're saying that excessive and unchangeable and unredeemable actions should be avoided because we know there will be problems. If you kill a person, there is no remedy. They are dead. If you find out the next day that they really were innocent they're still dead and there's no undoing that. Everything else you mentioned can be corrected or at least mitigated. And if somebody is locked up for life for 15 years and suddenly evidence appears to prove their innocent you can't get the 15 years back but you can at least give the rest of their life back and offer them compensation. So lock up drunk drivers longer. What has this got to do with anything? If you don't like the penalties for some of the crimes we have then fine, but that has nothing to do with capital punishment Argument here is completely devoid of any logic or reason. And it starts off with the false premise that somehow anything less than killing is 'letting them off'. I daresay 40 years of eating the same food, seeing the same walls and having no freedoms and knowing you will never get out while you think about what you've done is probably worse.

Wealth distribution isn't the thing at all. It's a phrase that those on the left tend to use to create a sense of wrongness about the fact that some people are wealthier than others. As far as your definition of wealth creation, it's not really inaccurate, but I think the problem that you're going to run into is how you're defining how people create or add value to a resource or service. I suspect your perspective is limited. Nonsense. Speculative gain requires a great deal of skill and information and talent to be able to accurately guess what things will be in greater demand to down the road and also to acquire them now in anticipation. You may not see that as value but it is in fact value. It's work being translated into a result which produces wealth And further in a capitalist model others can look at the needs of the future and produce additional resources to meet them. It's only inflationary if that fails. Sure, henry ford would neve have been successful if ww1 didn't happen. 🙄 In fact america's greatest times of prosperiy were outside of the wars and it's greatest technological advancements as well. Virtually none of this is true. And if you look at the richest people in the world today, they didn't get rich based on speculation. Must actually did things and created things to earn his money. Same with Bezos and gates and zuckerberg. You may argue that a portion of their wealth is based on speculation of value but to be honest the vast majority of it is based on actual real things. Tesla is a real thing, amazon is a real thing, windows is a real thing, and so on. The vast vast vast vast majority of wealth that persists in this world is created based on actual wealth creation. If that were not true then there would be nothing to actually speculate on And what happens is when the rich get richer everybody else benefits and is elevated as well. The rich made you better than anyone else but everyone else still does better than they would have. And capitalism has always been that way, which is why it is lifted more people out of abject poverty than anything else in the history of man.

Well that's what some Provinces are talking about doing.. Us buys a lot of electricity, oil, wood and other stuff from us. We will definitely be hurt more in a trade war but we can certainly do a lot of damage back and that would make Mr Trump unpopular. His popularity is very important to him. But this is how he negotiates, he threatens and he plays like a crazy person so you don't know whether he'll do it or not any generally gets what he wants. You have to be tough enough to stand up to him and also smart enough to give him enough but it doesn't hurt you at all but makes him look good enough that he can walk away. It's basically like managing a big child

I don't think you understand what interference means. If speaking in favor of one party or another is interference than Trudeau interfere with the American election to a great degree. If all you mean is that he intends to say that Trudeau is a lunatic and Poilievre would be better then I'm sure that's true considering he's already said that. Whether that swings people in favor of or against Poilievre is questionable. But i do love that you're working hard already to blame the loss on anyone but the liberals and their horrible track record

Yeah, that's what I was saying in my post above. Unless poilievre is successful in getting the GG to call back parliament to deal with this the NDP still won't be killing the govt till after jaggers gets his pension.

So that's THREE accounts you have here The fact you don't know how to post quotes is a giveaway btw. You're the only one who does that.

clinton was a disaster. He's the cause of the sub prime crash that would happen in 2008 that took the whole world down with them. He normalized sexual abuse and lying to the people, which is why those accusations have no negative impact on trump. There was nothing 'right' about clinton. Obama you might make a case for. I think he really stirred up racial divisions and that's a bad thing, and his foreign policy was horrid, but other than that he wasn't horrible.

All we have to do is convince the blacks, latios chinese and first nations that everything is whitey's fault, and then swoop in afterwards and arrest the handful of remaining survivors. SHould be able to wrap it up in a week if all goes well

The economy is poor, biden is involved directly in 2 wars (three really) as he's the primary arms supplier and whataboutism regarding Grenada (really dude?!?!) doesn't change that.