CdnFox

Then why build them? If it's not for the population then it must be as a base to launch terrorist attacks from. How do you explain that

Mommie still refusing to breast feed you any more big guy? LOL

Still pooping your pants i see keep spamming big guy !!

This is what people talk about when they say you're being dishonest. People refer to having a weak perception of something all the time. Just like they refer to having weak eyesight, or a weak vision.

So your comment is that if someone dares to reply to a post in an open forum then that's disrespectful? On top of which I wasn't even replying to you I replied to eyeball to advise him that you were correct. Do you have any idea how big of a douche you look like right now

As was pointed out already you're a filthy liar. If anything I was quite cordial to you, but as always you begin to attack other people when you don't like that they say and then you immediately go to spamming the hell out of the forum I'm using lee it is always me that tells you you'll get the respect you deserve. Then you immediately act like a disrespectful ass and get treated as such. Then whine. And you do it everyday. As I previously noted you woke up this morning and the very first thing you did was run around and find all my posts and put little down errors on them. And it's not like you disagree with them all I know, some of them have been posts like how I said it was wrong to let old people die alone and you still downvoted it . We all give each other a hard time from time to time but you act like a complete 12-year-old tard constantly. It's not like everyone hasn't told you this before

LOL didn't you already post this a dozen times today on different threads? ROFLMAO, you have to be the heir to the kingdom of losers to complain about someone whining by spending your day running around and whining LOLOL What's the matter, your mom not have any 'customers' last night and couldn't afford to buy you the cookies you like?

Yeah. If @eyeball was running the states apparently, he'd recommend just letting la burn and not requiring it because it's cheaper that way

But the government does have massive anti-smoking programs, health programs and a host of other things to discourage the bad behavior that can lead to cancer So I take it you'll be in full support of an anti-gay sex program that the government pays for? No? Not at all? What a hypocrite

That's true. Also there are certain problems with how they're defining resident right now. Bottom line is that we're still looking at adding about 400,000 residents per year. And chances are not all of the expiring visas which number into the millions actually did leave. But the problem Carney's going to face is that if immigration starts to ramp up again no matter how he juggles the numbers the problems will still be there.

Uh oh @taxme. Looks like you broke him and created an emotional crisis. And it wasn't even dawn yet He accepts your admission of defeat

You LITERALLY woke up this morning, jumped out of bed and spent your morning running around looking for all my posts to put little down arrows on them because i don't see things your way ROFLMAO!! Thanks! I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning! LOLOL Honestly kid you're your own worst enemy

And what you people need to understand is that it is actually quite true that some foreigners are more likely to commit some crimes. Or in fact have other traits which may be positive. Generally speaking an American who moves to Canada is more likely to want to have the right to own guns than a person moving here from Japan. Well you can't translate that to the individual you absolutely can make that statement about the group. It's not even racial, it's cultural more or less Groups from certain parts of the world are vastly more likely to participate in honor killings then the average natural canadian. That's simply true. groups coming here from certain parts of the world right at the moment are more likely to be accepting a violence and hostility towards Jews. Prove me wrong. So in fact that does have to be taken into account when you're looking at immigration. The problem with you and your type is that you make statements based on ideology but simply don't hold up with real-world experience. And in the real world we do decrease the likelihood of violence and crime by limiting immigration from certain locations.

HA! Joke's on you, canada post loses stuff constantly and frequently strikes! We will never be yours! LOL even I can't argue with that

So the number is made up and has no basis in reality. That's kind of pathetic

IT's just an idea. Neither side owns it and both sides have practiced it and spoke against it at one point or another. Ronald Regan had a mdel that worked for him. I tend to prefer his model but it's just one model, that doesn't mean another way won't work as well. And you still haven't done anything but wine like a baby. You haven't made a case, there's no evidence to support your claims, you're only suggestion is to go read newspapers until I find something that supports your argument. You need set aside your hatred for 30 seconds you might actually let your brain engage and say something intelligent about it. And if you were paying attention you'd realize I've said for the fifth time but I don't particularly like that model and I think trump is wrong. But the fact is I can't prove that right now. The evidence does not support that conclusion at this point. At this point the messaging is a little mixed. Some elements of the economy are up substantially, others I would have expected to be up i it were working entirely aren't. It's probably going to take a little bit of time to see how it shakes out. About the most you can say is that it's going through a transition and it's not entirely stable so we can't tell whether or not it's actually working or isn't You have to learn to start to begin with a question and find a solution, not start with a solution and try to retcon a question.

It's pretty common for rats to try and devour a large carcass as a mammal is dying Never has never will. Come take it kiddo

That's a silly answer. Protectionism has in fact been both a left-wing and right-wing policy over the years and countries tend to swing one way or another. I would remind you that it's not the case that Canada and America did not have any tariffs towards each other prior to trump or even prior to Biden or even Obama Etc Like I said you can make an argument that you feel it won't produce good results over time. And you can explain why you feel that way. I would tend to agree and I can articulate why. But you seem bound to determined to demand that orange man bad is an acceptable logical premise for your belief and it simply isn't.

America's in decline. Why would we join somebody who's probably not even going to be irrelevant country in the next 40 years?

This is the best thread ever! 😆😆😆😆😆

Which is more than we can say for yours How typical

You can severely reduce the odds

Yeah that's democracy kiddo I know you left these can't identify what a woman is or what an assault rifle is, Or what a child is, but I'm disappointed that you didn't know what democracy is It's not a shtick kiddo. It's the solution a number of oppressed people came up with to prevent their government from ever being able to oppress them again without their consent. That's why we fight for it So yes, it's not just me but the founding fathers of America the founding fathers of Canada and a lot of other nations, plus the millions of soldiers who died for it. It is not the only thing that could prevent corruption but it is the absolute number one tool and that's why democracy is a good thing And look at your reply Your furious that I'm right. You're angry as hell at the idea that voters should hold the government to account because you know it's the death of your the love of liberals. I can practically hear you gnashing your teeth from here in frustration and anger after thought Democracy works. I'm sorry that that's inconvenient for you. But you're the only one that doesn't get that

Sure Okay. So they're saying it's going to cost about $4 billion dollars to do the infrastructure necessary to pretty much guarantee no future floods. Or minor flooding at best. That infrastructure should last about 20 years. And that's being generously short-lived. So assuming an average interest rate of about 4% which is what inflation is right now in fact inflation is slightly higher, that's about 23 BILLION dollars in economic activity directly, plus all the secondary and tertiary activity. On top of which you don't have to pay any money to buy up the properties or redo the transcanada. So for a couple billion you get a massive amount of economic activity based on your figures I figure climate change will ultimately settle the issue, probably sooner rather than later and it'll likely cost everyone a shitwhack. Well that's pretty big. The global warming just shows that we need more and more viable arable land. Yeah, sure. I can't argue, that's pretty definitive proof that our food supply is a delicate thing which can be impacted by climate change substantially. But we still have to live with that because climate change isn't going away. So adaptation is obviously the direction we need to move it Plant food that we're emitting??? Are you talking about carbon? Or did your geraniums just fart. Looks that way. We're already seeing some areas that weren't entirely viable becoming more so, growing seasons appear to be getting a little longer. It would appear that we're already beginning to benefit. 2024 was a good year Canada's 2024 crop season saw strong production, especially in wheat (up 6.1% to 35M tonnes) and fruits (like blueberries/cranberries), with overall grains and oilseeds near 102M tonnes, despite some crop area shifts; it was a good year for quality, with high-grade wheat, though projections varied slightly by crop and province, showing resilient overall output from a diverse sector.

Yeah it does Same thing. If you run for office you're being elected. I understand that words are hard for you and you only have so much time to look dictionary definitions up but yeah, it's the same thing. Every now and then I read your stuff and I think "Man that guy can't get any more stupid". I apologize for underestimating you The point being it doesn't say you can't serve a third term as president. Just that you can't be elected to that office. Now there's some question that's been raised about whether or not one might say that the VP is also elected and because the vp's job is to be the pres if the pres goes bye bye it's the same as being elected pres. I think that would be a court battle and it'd be interesting. Now if you're done being slightly more stupid than a warm turd, lets get on with things