Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by CdnFox

  1. https://thepostmillennial.com/canadian-muslims-to-stage-million-person-march-to-protest-against-trudeau-liberals-push-for-lgbtq-indoctrination-in-schools "You know Canada's built of Christians and Muslims and and all denominations, why not celebrate that?" "I am optimistic – absolutely. You know, if [there's] one thing that's going to inspire Canadians from coast to coast to go down and protest it's the kids and their innocence and it's families," he said. El-Cheikh says LGBTQ ideology is being preached to children and has shared photographs with The Post Millennial of school pamphlets that specifically target Muslim children. One such form asks the question, "Can I still be Muslim if I am queer?" The literature assures the reader that there is no conflict between Islam and homosexuality, a contention that El-Cheikh called "blasphemy." He said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's insistence that Muslims accept his views on LGBTQ ideology amounts to a "fatwa," or an edict on faith and morals.
  2. There's no conflict in the slightest there. It's like saying someone who worked for the prosecution should never be allowed to practice law if they leave that office. It's crazy. This is the way it is with every office - city planning people go to work as consultants for developers (along with retired mayors). The PM very often works for a law firm to advise how to deal with the gov't. etc etc What precisely is the "conflict" you feel is 'obvious'? You should be able to articulate it clearly if it's that obvious. Then you literally DID think that. The taxpayer is who an accounting firm works for. They do the taxes. Why else would they hire a CRA official? and why would there be a conflict if he WASN"T involved with taxes? Who? Which tactics? When was this? I follow politics pretty closely and i've not seen that. Closest i've seen is people being mad that the gov't hired kpmg while they still work for oil companies. That's right - the gov't uses them and has for decades. Can't be TOO mad about them
  3. Except no, i didn't. I actually said we could in "a few short years' The "one year " was you, not me ROTFLMAO But even then the two programs i mentioned will be completed this year. Started and finished in the same year - imagine that. And it solved a serious issue. Adapting takes very little time. As i actually said - a few short years and we could have air conditioning solutions deployed for all vunerable groups such as the homeless and elderly. WE could have massively improved forest management and wildfire fighting teams and hardware like serious bombers. WE could adapt in all kind of other ways. It's pretty simple. And it doesn't mean we can't take meaningful steps towards developing tech that really will make a difference in teh world and cutting down our own emissions where we can. But we've got too many 'tards like you who would rather virtue signal than to something Imagine claiming that adaptation takes longer than climate change LOLOL I do love how you're making your own stuff up and pretending i said it and arguing against it now tho, that's hilarious
  4. Sure. A flat tax eliminates the value of a tax expert from the cra, The rest of it basically said if they can find a CRA expert who can help them save money because he used to work there and knows the system then that's something they should be able to do. As long as that person doesn't break any laws helping out then it's entirely fair game to do whatever you can to avoid taxes. I'm sure it does and it absolutely SHOULD be legal. It's amusing that you think the person trying to keep their own money they lawfully earned is the 'poacher' here. Whatever they can do to lawfully avoid taxes they should do. Don't like it - go with a flat tax. It solves the problem entirely. How much did you make? send 20 percent of that in. No loopholes, no need for accounting advice, very simple. And of course nobody's advocating for it - no serious politician thinks there's a problem with people trying to avoid taxes within the law as you've suggested there is.
  5. Oh - and I know you HATE this because it's really just rubbing your nose in your mistakes, but hopefully now you can see that the fact that 80 percent of all taxes are paid by 20 percent of the people shows nicely that the rich already pay more than their fair share by any reasonable metric. I assume you have come to the same conclusion given your rather desperate attempts to try to change the subject. Sorry that didnt' work out for ya.
  6. Yes, it was a stupid thing to say. Not because of the question of perspective, but rather for the reason i specifically noted. Did you not understand that point? Did you need me to explain it to you more slowly? ROFLMAO !!!! No, i said i point out that you have a hissy fit after you lose. I didn't say i needed to point out you lost, it's obvious you know you lost LOLOL Awww poor little guy You just can't get ANYTHING right today can you? So i have to ask - do you just keep a bunch of things i say downloaded to your computer on the off chance you'll need them to try to deflect in a discussion? Or did you actually take the time to search and search for SOMETHING i said that might be close enough that people wouldn't notice it was wrong and finally give up and go with that?I'm trying to figure out which would be more pathetic. LOL - and you wonder why people claim you're obsessed?
  7. LOL - remember kiddo i've told you a million times - i f you have to lie to make a point you haven't got a very good point Closest i've come to 'denying' it is to say to those who question it that in the end it doesnt' matter what they believe, the climate is changing and we have to look at how to handle that. Poor kid I can hear your brain overheating from here LOL Maybe - common sense is common sense and everyone except you loonie liberals know that I think the idea will catch on pretty fast considering we've had 7 years of "fix the climate" from justin and you and nothing has changed. Yep one year. In fact - it took less than one year in bc for them to begin. Seniors who can't afford air conditioners are being provided with one to make sure they don't die during extreme heat events. Announced a month or so ago - they're startnig already. They're also prioviding Nearly free heat pumps to a lot of low income people. This was announced a month ago and i know one person who's got them coming to check out the place and prepare for the install in a week or so, That only took a few months. LOL - imagine insisting we coudln't begin to adapt in a year when we've been doing just that in months! LOL - you look stupid, desperate and foolish. Honestly it's a good look for you, it just seems to fit
  8. Nope. No stumbling and not an important point. It was obvious you wanted to try to make it a point , that's why you claimed that it would "better" represent the issue. But it isn't. Sigh. Back to your old game of trying to find some minute detail to harp on when you realize you've lost the original point. Well that's a stupid thing to say. If it's a matter of perspective then NOTHING is unfair and EVERYTHING is - depending on your perspective, so you can't say lots of things are unfair. You could only say that all things are both fair and unfair depending on the observer. Very shrodinger of you At any rate the perspective in question is traditional values in north america, and traditionally everyone being treated equally is what is perceived as fair. LOL - pointing out your hissy fits AFTER you lose a discussion is not projecting anything Although i do note the lefties LOVE the term projecting Sorry kiddo. Your faults are your own and your mental insecurities are not my doing. You'll have to find something else to blame
  9. Not really. The country as a whole will be inherited by future generations but if we were to take your logic at heart we could never harvest the wealth because we'd be selling 'future generations' property. If trudaeu can pass on a debt the size of a small moon to future generations and demand they pay for his excess today, then they really have no 'rights' to anything. It never was. BC had already proven it didn't work and economists had already explained why it won't. The initial models looked promising but energy consumtion didn't prove to be anywhere near as 'elastic' as they'd hoped. And the liberals knew that It's a tax, plain and simple. The liberals needed more money and the carbon tax puts a lot of that right into their pockets. No, people are willing to pay for what they need for the most part. The problem is that trudeau promises to give them more than they pay for for free using liberal money magic. So people say Oh - well that's great, we'll take it then even tho it's not services we need. I think the gov't SHOULD pay for lesbian dance theory Seeing as the money is free according to Justin". . But there is no free money. And at the end of the day guess who's going to get clobbered the worst = the poor, the disabled, the elderly, all the vunerable people that the left supposedly cares about but really doesn't. Which is why it's so infuriating to watch. If we stuck to only the services that gov't SHOULD provide and did so efficiently we could pay less tax AND run a surplus. Excluding the debt payments we're going to have of course. It's been close to a decade. Pollution and GHG's are up. Quality of life is down. Debt is cripplingly high. Inflation is up. Interest rates are up. Crime is up. National division and distrust is up. Is that the 'extra services' you think we should be paying taxes for? Reduce tax, reduce "Services" to what matters, cut the civil service, scrap the "carbon tax" and then we can talk about what we want to do and what we should be paying for.
  10. Aside from the fact you're wrong (that was trudeau's thinking in the 70's and he destroyed the industry trying to milk it dry), all that would do is force the fuel companies to raise their prices to consumers. Which you would then biatch about. Remember - carbon tax is applied to EVERYTHING and unlike most taxes it's cumulative, not just applied to the end user. So if he raises it two cents - there's a lot more two cents's in there than you think,
  11. Seems to be the most common response to this pretty much everywhere
  12. You're referring to me? I've never even suggested or hinted it's a hoax. But you ARE an !diot for yet again having to lie to make your point That would be your job. My plan was to adapt not try to solve the problem . So - that would be on YOU to come up with a plan. You're INSISTANT we can do something meaninful - so lets hear it - whatcha got? But you're so funny to watch - like a puppy chasing it's own tail and then crapping on itself
  13. Well i don't think we use the word 'profit' when talking about tax savings But it would be accurate to say they don't derrive enough of a benefit to bother. No, it's very different. Well... that might be the case or at least you could make that argument that some tax breaks shoudln't be there for anyone, but if you wanted to eliminate them then you'd have to lower the taxes on the rich so they were paying the same amount as they do now, one way or another. Eliminating them without adjustment would represent a rate increase for the very wealthy and they're already paying 80 percent of the tax revenues. Everyone has the right to do what they can to avoid (not evade) taxes. And if that means hirnig a pro then so be it. If you want to eliminate all the bullcrap then you go with a flat tax system which is more fair and simple - everyone pays 20 percent of everything they earn, no loopholes. But people don't want to do that. So - we git what we git and don't have a fit And the advantage should go to the taxpayer.
  14. No it wouldn't. People look at those people as the uber-elites. These numbers demonstrate that even if you include someone who earns a quarter million a year - not billions - then they STILL pay almost all of the taxes. 80 percent. It is the case entirely. First off as you're aware may offer enough ways to avoid taxes that it brings it back closer to fairness. There was a time when the us taxes on the rich were insane - close to 90 percent as i recall. But there were so many tax breaks nobody paid anything like that. And secondly - The fact an unfairness is commonly accepted doesn't make it fair. It just makes it tolerated. For many many years most countries had laws about gays. Didn't make the laws fair. Women coudln't vote in many countries. Wasn't fair. First off you're misusing the word "irony" and secondly the only thing that's similar there is how you cry when you're wrong
  15. IT is absolutely NOT "long term decline" that they're fighting. They're staving off short term disaster. Long term this is very clearly a nightmare. And we're already seeing the start of that. Justin is just praying this doesn't blow up completely before the next election - and i don't know if he's got that long,
  16. https://financialpost.com/news/economy/canada-immigration-target-could-rise-despite-housing-crunch Marc Miller to announce new targets on Nov. 1 In one of his first interviews a week into his new cabinet role, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said the government will have to either keep — or raise — its annual targets for permanent residents of about half a million. That’s because of the diminishing number of working-age people relative to the number of retirees and the risk it poses to public service funding, he said. But while immigration for some countries is a divisive issue that can polarize voters and even topple a government, Canada has comfortably relied on public support to open its doors more widely for working-age newcomers. Miller’s comments suggest the government is still counting on that backing to grow its population rapidly to stave off long-term economic decline. Trudeau’s government has consistently raised its target for permanent residents. Last year, foreign students, temporary workers and refugees made up another group that’s even larger, bringing total arrivals to a record one million
  17. Do you force others to celebrate it with you or face social osterization? With a dull osterizer? No? Amateur.
  18. You're being deliberately obtuse. Clearly if a very small group is paying the vast majority of the taxes, they are already paying their 'fair share'. "Fair" by most moral codes would be if everyone pays the same percent. The rich would still pay more actual cash but they earn more so it's fair. instead - it's NOT fair to them already. If you're going to make the claim that despite paying almost all the taxes they somehow still aren't paying their fair share then its up to YOU to demonstrate why that's the case. As it is, the number is entirely relevant as it demonstrates clearly that by any reasonable standard the wealthy already pay more than their fair share in taxes. I know you live in fear of me and being made a fool of, but do you really need to insist that i live rent free in your head like that? And you very clearly have a problem with the data and what it suggests.
  19. Hey m0ron - not in human lives - and not compared to adaption which can happen in a few short years. IF we used your stupid logic then we'd say "what's the problem - historically in no time at all it should start cooling again, give it a few thousand years before you worry about it. God you're an !diot. Yeah - you think your support of the libs is worth laughing over. But - don't complain that nothing's been done about climate change then. It's not conservatives that prevent something happening about climate change, it's people like you who prefer promises to action and keep giving the libs a free ride.
  20. What's up with you? The last few days you sound more and more like Miata and Herbie had a love child and he's pissed. Lots of people like you were concerned about pollution and climate change for decades - most people in fact had it on their top ten priorities list. But UNFORTUNATELY- people like you kept voting liberal. The liberals would promise to do something about it and NEVER EVER DID. Not ONE thing. But you and yours kept rewarding them with gov'ts. Cretien actually said "Sure, you go and you promise but you never do anything" (talking about climate conventions like kyoto and paris). So sorry kiddo - it's still on you. If you do nothing and sit back while it happens you're no better than those who didn't say something and also sat back.
  21. Uhhh oohhhh - triggered Commiunist is triggered!!
  22. Just when i think you can't say something more ridiculous. Man made climate change takes many decades. Adaption can happen next year.
  23. You are VERY naive if you think soldiers are supposed to blindly follow orders. Ask germany about that. I mean seriously - think about it. If we took what you just said at face value Then "Kill this baby" is a perfectly valid thing for them to order. Not to mention - "lay down and get raped". I mean - it's an order right? gotta follow it. It has long since been recognized that soldiers are NOT expected to follow ANY order - and an order is not lawful if it violates the soldier's rights. You can't just medically experiment on soldiers and expect them to accept that for example.
  24. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-covid-19-vaccine-policy-charter-1.6924862 A tribunal that is part of the military grievance process has found that the Canadian Armed Forces' COVID-19 vaccine policy violated its members' Charter rights. The Military Grievances External Review Committee reviews grievances that are referred to it by the chief of defence staff, and provides the chief with non-binding findings and recommendations. Pretty pathetic. In completely unrelated news: Military sounds alarm over recruiting problems as Canadians steer clear https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-sounds-alarm-over-recruiting-problems-as-canadians-steer-clear-1.6083496 When you throw your own people under the bus and destroy their careers - what the hell do you expect? People are going to line up and join an org where not only will they stab you in the back but make you pay for the knife?
  • Create New...