CdnFox

Frequently. BUT i listen. I could be wrong. They could have a point. They could have a perspective that i didn't consider, and even if i walk away STILL thinking they're out to lunch i might just have a better understanding and appreciation of their point of view. Hogwash. You block them because you don't like their opinion and you don't enjoy listening to opinions that are not ones you agree with, You yourself have Made comments about entire groups of people many times. This has nothing to do with how 'precious your time is'. If your time was that precious and it was such a waste of it you wouldn't reply at all. instead you take this passive aggressive approach. " I can't offer a good reply and it's your fault". And this is hardly The first time you've pulled the whole "I only read a line and then couldn't carry on emotionally" routine. It seems more likely that it's a line you use when you don't have a good rebuttal to their point, and you want to turn it back on the writer. You should read people's posts if you're going to discuss them at all, and if you feel they're garbage then you can say "i read it it's garbage". But this "you are beneath my consideration and that's on you" routine is dishonest. And i did promise to point out when you're being dishonest. Ask your parents

True as far as it goes, but I don't even think it's relevant. In Canada we choose the number of MPS we have based on population rather than land mass. For every approximately 100,000 people (I can't remember the exact number) we have an MP. That's in our constitution The premise is that this is the number of people that a single MP and his staff can reasonably service and be available to. Thats as many people as you can have and still have the time to meet with the ones who want to meet, have staff read the emails, meet with businesses or other groups that have concerns etc. So in order to say "thats too many", you'd have to demonstrate why or how if we expanded that to 150 or 200 thousand people per mp that people would still be adequately served. You can't just say 'because Australia!" And the us is a disaster right now and obviosuly a republic is different than a westminster democracy so it's not even a sane comparison.

I told you to go to bed and get some sleep before typing any more. You're a mess. You are wrong. You provided the wording. No confusion on our part. That has nothing to do with guaranteeing the rights to an abortion. Who pays for it is a completely different issue. That does not in any way protect the right to it. If they pass a law saying congress does not have to buy you a gun, that does not in any way impact your 5th amendment right to keep and bear arms. No. You're an !diot. And worse - you're the kind of !diot that doubles down when he's shown he's being an !diot. Abortion was never protected as a right by federal law. It was protected constitutionally. Now they've determined it isn't and the states are addressing it. End of story. All you're doing is signalling the intelligent world that 'blink blink, i'm stupid as hell!!!"

So the immigrants can't get work. We've seen how this plays out in other countries. They become frustrated, resentful, and then we get social unrest one way or another. And this is the beginning.

Nearly half a million Canadians accessing EI as unemployment surges: StatsCan | True North (tnc.news) The number of Canadians receiving Employment Insurance benefits has risen over 10% since the same time last year, according to new data released by Statistics Canada. According to new data released on Thursday, 474,000 Canadians are receiving Employment Insurance benefits, rising 6,000, or 1.3%, since the previous month, marking the second consecutive monthly increase. Statistics Canada attributed the rise in unemployment to “more people search(ing) for work, while overall employment held steady.” However, the more people searching for work were new immigrants to the country. The stagnant availability of jobs drove the rise in unemployment. At the same time, Canada’s population grew by nearly 100,000 between May and June 2024.

Why would they only hire gen x . You realize that the millenials are entering their 40's now. There are no gen X "Kids", Gen X is in its late 40s and early 50s for the most part Honestly you never miss a chance to be weird. Most of the new hires since 2015 would likely be millennials.

Awww.... do we need to get you to a safe space Weren't you the one who JUST said "If you're not willing to engage in politics because you reject values that aren't identical to yours, then there's no point. "? I guess what you're saying is ... you're kinda pointless. Do better.

Your words kiddo - Those were your words. Not mine. I'm not the one saying the bill declared anything at all. I was the one who asked how a bill could declare something constitutionally protected. As you literally said. Sigh. Go back to your lego kid, this will make sense when you grow up. Sorry kiddo you're wrong again. And getting slightly incoherent i might add - go to bed it's a school night. First, nothing guaranteed access to abortion. What roe vs wade said was that the gov'ts could not pass a law blocking it, but that does not mean the state must guarantee someone provides it. There's no law in canada blocking it but by choice canada's medical providers choose not to offer it after a certain point in almost all cases. So no it didn't guarantee it, it just prevented the gov't from interfering. and secondly the bill did nothing in that regard. The feds helped out by coming up with a framework that states could rely on to ensure they didn't run afoul of the constitution. That did nothing to protect rights, it just gave guidance to states with regards to the charter rights. It is deeply concerning that you don't know the difference between a constitution and a federal law.

Sure but that's not what he's talking about. He's specifically citing the number of mp's and senators, the mp seats being issued based on population in a formula set down ages ago and the senate being non elected and set at a fixed number for ages. So - for him to make his claim he would have to argue why canadians deserved to have less representation under the party system we have. The last time he brought up this exact same issue all he could say was "I dunno - me kno have answer as to how many are best, just think too much now". Well that's not a logical or reasonable position. IF you think we should have less per capita then you have to make an argument as to why less representation would serve Canadians the same or better. Right now i can pretty easily see my MP when he's back from ottawa. Increase the size of the riding and that gets harder. and it gets harder to focus on the specific concerns of my local area. So how is that better? If he can't answer - he can't say we should have less. What? That doesn't even make sense. Don't be weird.

Not just stupid, i think we all agree you're a little "slow" mentally and i think most posters here try to keep that in mind when replying to you. Nobody wants to be the guy who picks on the kid waiting for the short bus. But c'mon, you've got to help us a little. sigh. No. No it wasn't. The constitution isn't 'federal law'. I mean you're right that it isn't complicated and yet you just can't understand it. Disappointing.

This is the problem with you on the left. The idea that just because your parents were woke lefties that somehow you have an obligation to vote for the same party they did is morally bankrupt. It is nothing short of anti democratic. Parties change, people change, nations change - and when you go to the polls you're SUPPOSED to give honest thought as to who's the best choice - NOT WHO YOUR GRANDPAPPY VOTED FOR. I get it that you'd prefer it if we just had a socialist state and did away with democracy altogether but couldn't you PRETENED that you've got SOME sort of understanding of the concept?

Look kid. If you could be so kind as to keep your story straight for at least 2 posts in a row i think it would make it a lot easier to NOT think of you as a complete tard. So what happened there? You realized you were wrong, then tried to go back and rewrite it in a way that was less wrong hoping we wouldn't notice? Your entire premise that i replied to and so did @CouchPotato was that there was federal law protecting abortions. There was not. Your claims that there was were wrong, there was no bill that 'declared' anything constitutionally protected. Next time just pay attention. Everyone gets something wrong from time to time, if you do just own it and try not to double down on the stupid.

Absolute truth. Sorry. I know you on the left absolutely hate the idea because for whatever reason you think it reflects badly on all socialists and also it means you have less reason to feel justified in your hatred of others. But - he was a textbook socialist. Your own source shows you're not correct. Again. Lets look That term has nothing to do with conservatism as we know it today. Conservatives today are not the ruling elite. That would be the liberals. Conservatives today want less gov't, not more. So right off the bat we can see you're not talking about 'conservatives'. You're talking about the old gov't model. Nothing to do with 'right wing'. Swing and a miss kiddo Like who. Which jews fought for hitler. Name me some jews in the german military. Sort of true i guess. Both disliked the communists and the maxist-socialists. You could call those the far political left. But hitler was still a socialist. Remember we defined socialist as somoni who believes the state should own/control the means of production? He had complete control over the economy, including the private sector, especially after the Minister of Economics, Hjalmar Schacht, had begun to lose favour with Hitler for opposing the growing military expenditures at the expense of civilian economic growth. During the following years, the state, under the industrial conglomerate Reichswerke, began building refineries, aluminium plants, and factories for the development of synthetic materials.[13] Four Year Plan - Wikipedia Hitler was not an 'economist' and as long as industries did what they were told and followed his rules he was happy, but there was a VERY large amount of state control. He also had tonnes of social programs. social spending, public works etc etc. His model was almost identical to what we now refer to as democratic socialists, essentially a form of market socialist. He needed to control industry so that he could Sorry kid. I know those on the left try to dodge it as hard as they can but hitler was a socialist.

?????? How does a bill declare something constitutionally protected. Yeash kid.

None that i've noticed so far from either of them.

We already did this one with you. You brought this up before and wound up looking like an !diot Your question was already answered. This is literally exactly the same post from a few months ago. Let's see if you've gotten any smarter. Right now each MP services and listens to about 100,000 people and their offices are designed to be able to effectively communicate with that level of constituents. Explain to me why those people deserve less representation and less access to their government official? You couldn't then, I bet you can't now. The only thing worse than bringing up something stupid once is bringing it up a second time after you've already lost. I hope you've given it better thought in the meantime

I'm sure the voices in your head like to tell you that I'm all kinds of things. Anything to stop your crying after one of our talks I'm sure But no. It would mean it was constitutionally protected not federally protected at all. Just the opposite, it would mean that the federal law had no right to regulate it one way or another. The law is subservient to the constitution. I can see where you'd be confused about this, and I suppose there might be some who erroneously use the word legally protected in casual conversation but no. There would be no federal law, therefore it could not legally be protected federally. Because it is protected constitutionally federal law has absolutely no jurisdiction. Remember, The constitution isn't the law, the constitution is the document And agreement that grants the government the right to pass laws and constrains the government as far as what laws it can or cannot pass. And you might want to tell those voices in your head that before They make you look like a brain dead loser again they might want to do a few Google searches and make sure they understand what they're talking about.. lololol!!!! God you're a dumbass

There's no doubt. Well the system was in need of some tweaking and perfecting before, now it's just out and outbroken. Along with just about everything else in Canada.

And that's how a hearing disability created a nation! Good night kids, drink your Ovaltine.

No, that guy is joining the policy team so he can explain to them how Kamala thinks

That would do significant financial harm, we would have a shrinking population which has many negative effects, and our systems that have traditionally allowed us to successfully bring in immigratns in the past before trudeau overwhelmed them would basically decay to nothing and when the next liberal gov't gets in and quadruples immigration they will be even slower to integrate and the problem will get worse. Radical knee jerk plans are almost never good. The proper response is reduce immigration to effective and sustainable levels (perhaps slightly under to let us catch our breath and increase production of infrastrcture to catch up, improve and reinforce out integration tools including mentorships, and refine our points requirements. we benefit a great deal from a manageable stream of easy to integrate people who don't tax our infrastructure.

Hey stupid. If the name predates the country and the people used to the name before the country existed, then they did not name themselves after a country. They named the country after themselves In the immortal words of ford prefect,"I wish I had two heads like yours, I could have infinite fun banging them together"

Oh - and just for fun. canadian girl moves to florida 4 years ago and compares health systems. Seems like people who've experienced both think the US is better. And she can explain why in vivid detail. Enjoy.

LOL it's not sticking in the slightest Turns out you can't wear purple hair, demand that there's no biological difference between men and women, erect a 20 ft diaphram at your convention demanding that we 'free the unterus' and dress up like abortion pills and frolic in the streets and successfully get away with calling OTHER people 'weird' LOLOL!!

I'm sure that he's attempting to line up all kinds of people. I like the unity party approach, I think it's good politics with a good chance to win (obama used a variant) But I'm actually a little surprised that he's buying into it. It's not really his style. I imagine his election team has pointed out that it's a solid angle against kamala and her far left woke approach. We will see who he brings forth. But depending how he uses these assets it could be a very very valuable strategy