CdnFox

Nobody has ever suggested that. The notwithstanding clause, or more accurately the real claws that this refers to, gives the provinces the right to tell the charter of rights and freedoms to go pee up a rope. It doesn't give a provinces the right to tell the feds anything. Sadly you're not as smart as the kitten. Or the laser dot. This really isn't complex. A charter of rights and freedoms applies to both federal and provincial governments. Both the federal and provincial governments can set the charter of rights and freedoms aside by using the somewhat misnamed notwithstanding clause. But that does not grant the provinces the power of the federal government, or the federal government the power of the provinces. I warned you that sniffing glue that often would wind up catching up to you one of these days. Now look at your brain

It's always fascinating to watch you try and lie your way around things. You can't make an intelligent argument so you just make shit up at random. Criminal laws the federal government's responsibility. It would be their responsibility to make any changes to the criminal law to allow for executions, which they have done in the past. Are you suggesting that the federal government has never allowed executions? You seem very confused. Why do I have to explain grade 5 level understandings of how the government works to you every time we talk?

you "this is what you said"/ Me "that is not what i said. I would agree with that if i were asked now but i didn't say it" you "HA HA - that means you said it before!!!" everyone else"???????" well it's nice to see you kept up with the liar and retarded part of your personality as well

One point FIVE Billion she raised?!?! Not just one billion like we heard? and STILL went over 20 million? Jesus tap dancing Christ. That's like something somewhere around $100 per voter. She spent that much, went over that by 20 million, and still somehow managed to get her ass kicked with every demographic group everywhere? If I were the Democrats I'd be wanting to see where that money was spent and if it actually made it on to advertising or if it's hiding in a slush fund somewhere to be given to her when she leaves politics. This is going to be a bit of an issue for the democrats for a while. Their donors stepped up in a big way and donated a crap ton of money And you can bet they're going to be feeling that right now. Now she's trying to ring the last few nickels out of them and basically rifling through their sofa looking for change. And after all that they were brutally disappointed So fundraising for the next year or so is probably going to be a little less successful than they would normally like. They may find that until they win again it's going to be a little hard to get the same level of donations.

LOL!

It doesn't feel like you know what either of those two words actually means. Your posts are far far more belligerent than mine. I've actually asked you on his questions and attempted to engage you in real conversation. You post bizarre weird rambling attacks complete with memes and can't seem to even explain why you're doing this when asked. And belligerence can't overtake your demeanor, belligerence would be part of your demeanor. You're not using that word correctly. And given your attacks here and relentless bizarre behavior not to mention your odd sexual fantasies i'd have to say that between us you're de meaner of da two AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!! Dad joke level 1000 for the win LOLOL Heh! whoo! Anyway as you know i'm just here to make fun of your mental health issues, so 'belligerence' isn't on the table.

That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying. The government absolutely could pass a law making murder legal. That is true. In fact for quite a while in Canada that absolutely was the case where the government was allowed to execute people. And they executed quite a few. But that has nothing to do with the discussion that we're having. And I can't help but laugh at the fact that you've grown so afraid of me because I tend to blow you out of the water with facts that you can't even address me directly and have to do so by making up arguments that I never made to someone else You've always been a liar, you've always been a bit of a ******. It's sad to see you add cowardice to the list

There's no restrictions on its use other than it must apply to the charter. Please, show me where in the charter of rights and freedoms which is the document that creates the notwithstanding clause that it lists the so-called Very clear circumstances when it can be used

Well I haven't looked at these numbers too terribly closely but I used to watch the Canada versus US numbers quite closely for a time. And I should in full disclosure note that unless something has radically changed how the US calculates what violent crime is is very different than how Canada does it and it is very difficult to actually compare them apples to apples without doing a lot of math. For example one country includes statutory rape that was consensual but still illegal whereas the other does not. Some types of vehicle theft crimes are counted in one country but not the other as violent crimes. There are a number of examples like that so you actually have to really dig through the numbers to get something that's an actual comparable and I don't know that they actually did because I didn't look at their calculations However the numbers were never radically different and we were always still lower. The trends that we're seeing are extremely disturbing. I haven't seen any numbers that back up your theory with regards to homelessness, but I have to admit it has the ring of truth. It makes sense on a common sense basis.

The supposed 5-year rule can be worse than nonsense in many cases. For example Consider the case in Ontario where doug ford was limiting the number of districts for the city of Toronto's council. They complain saying it was unconstitutional for him to do so because the way he was organizing it would mean that a lot of the left wing counselors would suddenly not have a ward anymore Be out on the streets. So he used the notwithstanding clause to push it through. Well even though that has to be reviewed in 5 years he's already won. The people he wanted to get rid of are gone and the number of wards has been downsized and there's nothing that can be done about it in 5 years realistically. It's not like the law becomes invalid in 5 years, anything that was done during those five years is still applicable. So you can pass a law violating people's charter rights, violate the hell out of them, and then let the five years lapse And you've achieved their your goals. Unfortunately it is necessary to have it to prevent the law of unexpected consequences from coming to bite you in the butt. But it does mean you have to be very careful about who you elect and you also have to be very careful about what president they set. Trudeau broke the law frequently to violate people's rights and while he didn't use the notwithstanding he certainly used the other big bludgeon the emergency act which sets aside people's rights for a time. Now that that line has been crossed, what might the next government do to limit rights? It's something that the people that supposedly were in favor of the ACT being used didn't think about

Canada now has higher property and violent crime rates than the US, and it’s rising | True North We're number one! Yay. This is a direct result of trudeau's law policies over the last 9 years. The catch and release laws that he brought in from 2017 to 2019 have helped to ensure that repeat offenders are back out on the streets the same day they were arrested and very frequently are rearrested for violent crimes almost immediately after. This is what soft on crime policy gives us. Walking bad guys up for life may not be a perfect answer but it's a hell of a lot better than letting them out

A number of us kept pointing that out since January of this year. I made dozens of posts personally that pointed out if they keep lying about trump and making up these ridiculous nonsense conspiracy theories and pursuing a billion and one ridiculous lawsuits, All they would be doing is driving people into trump's camp. Trump was behind Biden a little right up until he got arrested. And then it went downhill for them from there We have seen it said over and over and over again: If all you can do is make crap up then what you are saying is there's nothing legitimate about him to complain about so he's actually pretty good

He considers that an amateur league, he can brain damage for the Olympics

True. Because most of the other side will be going to jail LOL right?

LOL yeah that made a lot of sense I've upset you so bad you've taken to drinking while you're posting to me i see 🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

While I agree with that for the most part, his actions do not occur in a vacuum. I'm a firm subscriber to the theory that if a man is about to fall off a cliff and you can save him but choose not to then it's no different than if you pushed him. The united states was well aware that Russia Was preparing to go to war against the Ukraine for a very long time before it happened. Certainly there were strong indications that they knew were preparation for war and they even raised those concerns. Strong leadership at that point could very well have prevented that war. Imagine if biden had gone to putin 6 months before that conflict actually started and said stand down or I will flood that country with weapons and troops. Come to the negotiating table instead and let's talk about your concerns. Or just announced a training exercise with say 10,000 American troops etc etc to take place in the Ukraine for say 6 months just before the invasion was supposed to happen. It's not like the invasion was a big surprise. Even Canada advised all of its people to get the hell out of the embassies and such weeks before it happened. So yes, Putin is responsible for the fact that his force is cross the border and initiated a war. But Biden had the ability to stop that war had he provided good leadership and he chose not to. So he absolutely does have to bear responsibility for what happened as a result of his inaction.

LOL! I know. It's like that old Rice Krispies commercial where nobody can say what rice crispies are made of. It's RICE! What did you think? Same thing - "What did you THINK left wing/socialism was made of" I think that's the biggest problem with the left. They tend to start with an answer and try and work their way back to a question. For them, the answer is the world would be a much better place if everybody lived exactly the way I think they should. Then they work their way back to well that would happen if everybody had money. And everybody would have money if we took some of the money from the people that had lots and gave it to the people that didn't have much. And so on But it completely ignores the reality. It ignores human nature, it ignores the mechanisms that allowed those people to make that extra money in the first place, and it ignores the fact that even people with less money still have much more money than they would have without those other people getting rich and stimulating the economy to create jobs and investment They believe in their vision and they believe that anything that moves them towards that must be a good thing without realizing that it just doesn't make sense

I love this little game that they play, "we are absolutely entirely for free speech, provided its speech that we approve of and don't think is bad. Our belief in free speech does not extend to those that say things we don't approve of. But other than that we're entirely for free speech and don't you dare say otherwise"

You realize that the people are already born? If they don't live here they're living somewhere else and the environmental footprint remains exactly the same. Did you think we were allowing immigration from mars or another planet or something? Wait, which planet did you think you were on right now?

They were listening to people like you. One of your leftist heroes, Trudeau senior, was a primary architect. Canada is today largely built on leftist policy and propaganda. I can see why you think it's a mess, but if you want to know why go look in the mirror.

The really funny thing is it's also 16 in Canada and that's more recent, it used to be 14 not long ago. So it's not like he lives somewhere that 16 is the age of statutory rape or something?

Based on herbie's understanding of politics, i would guess he'd say a person who believes in your right to be personally oppressed by a central authority and is willing to fight to make sure you keep that right, and he expects you to pay him for it. (I dunno, kinda spitballing here, best i could come up with?)

Are you suggesting that America (the largest military and geopolitical force currently on the planet) and American foreign policy don't play a role in the conflicts we see around the globe? I think you'll have a tough time with that.

Words only have value to people who understand their meaning and to have an interest in communicating with others. You are too dumb to understand their meaning, and you have no interest in communicating with anyone outside of your echo chamber. So to you words have no value 🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

Now now. It's not fair to make him choose, two things can be true.