CdnFox

But they did. It was called the 'heritage fund' or rainy day fund. A fund completely 'funded' by the royalties paid by oil companies. This isn't theoretical, that thing you suggest could never happen happened and under a VERY conservative gov't of ralph klein. The thing is that it was funded from surplus, not deficit. As you previously noted that's a big difference compared to what's being proposed now.

You said something stupid, then i said something smart. You doubled down on the stupid, i stayed with the smart. That's like 90 percent of our conversations.

True, that's a valid point.

I'm not 100% sure what your point is here. I mean the munitions are nothing, America's industrial complex can replace those quite directly as they've been doing for several years now with the Ukraine's needs. I doubt anyone in the world thinks that now would be a great time to attack America or its allies based on the idea they're out of munitions Credibility may have taken a hit but I'm not sure how that benefits china directly with regards to Taiwan or South Korea or Japan. And realistically only I want is an immediate danger. There's no doubt that I think there's going to be a bit of a realignment away from the US but from a practical purpose it's not like people could write them out of the picture. They're still going to be a major player either way

It's pretty obvious you say that to make yourself feel better after you've lost a debate or discussion. I'm pretty sure you realize nobody takes you seriously. While I will at least credit you for trying to make an argument from time to time which is more than we can say for some of the more 'IQ challenged' around there, and you don't usually go into full meltdown mode like some of our more mental health challeged do, it's still pretty obvious you get butt hurt the moment you realize you're wrong and then it's insultsor this nonsense Hey, if it gets you through the night..... The "same group who...." Sorry, was 'that group' the immigrants? No? Hmmmmm. Kid... LOL honestly It's bad enough you say stupid things from time to time but you really have to stop doubling down on the stupid

You guys spend a lot of time whining that "the same people" Who are pointing out some flaw or problem with the liberal agenda would also complain if the exact opposite happened. It's not true of course, it's basically your way of admitting you can't actually address the issue or the police raised, you just want to attack the person. That's kind of bullshit . It's the thing that loser say when they can't admit that they're wrong but they know that they are. Why don't you address the points that were raised? Is it because you can't? Thought so

Not to mention that companies and projects that will benefit Carney's many holdings will likely get an edge over any other competition. Pretty soon it will be well known that if you want to do something in Canada you better have an in with Carney, otherwise don't bother. There's no way this is good for us.

This is just for airline food. Not his travel costs. This is just for him to eat while on the plane. Not even the costs of the flights or his stays Prime minister's in-flight meals cost taxpayers plenty | National News | winnipegsun.com When you add that up it's well into the billions. But i don't really begrudge some of that, you can't have a prime minister stay at a holiday in. Looks bad and there's security issues. And you have to send him with a security team, and sometimes even their own car for various reasons, it does cost money for a PM to travel. I could complain that the travelling was useless but that's different. But... there is NO reason in the universe for him to be guzzling down 500,000 dollars worth of meals and booze. Trudeau did the same, both of these guys are blowing throw what harper used to spend annually in a couple of days. Meanwhile 25 percent of canadians are visiting the food bank in that same year and everyone is having a hard time putting food on the table. So ... how do you justify that? I agree. That's the logical conclusion anyone observing his behavoir would come to. Only those in the liberal cult who will defend anything he does would say otherwise. Just like we told you justin was bad and yet you thought he was great and kept voting for him.... carney is bad . Open your eyes man. Your blind devotion to these people is pathetic.

This is exactly it. The more bureaucracy and more slush funds you got the harder it is to hold any of them accountable. And by creating this as a separate entity it doesn't look like the government itself is borrowing the 25 billion dollars exactly We're just getting screwed in other way. He's no different than Trudeau, he's just slightly more savvy about how to make things look

LOL well that's ONE way of admitting you were wrong and stupid Carney isn't here for Canada, he's here to set himself up to be insanely rich and to enjoy a massive taxpayer funded lifestyle in the meantime. Seriously half a million last year in airline food alone. Half a million. And that's his personal expense budget btw. Tell me the guy cares about Canadians while he's shovelling half a million in food into his gullet while people go hungry.

I know, Robosmith actually paid a heap for it and that helped but there's only so much mental therapy you can buy with root vegetables! Their fund doesn't really invest in norway as i understand it, it invests elsewhere

Don't confuse that man with facts! We've already blown through all the GoFundMe money for his therapist.... You have to be 34 different levels of stupid To think that someone pointing and laughing at you because you've been a complete dolt is an emotional meltdown But typical you, can't make a rebuttal so you cry like a baby and accuse others of what you're doing yourself

No he wasn't. He took over when The president, Hindenburg, died. No one elected him to that position. It's like if trump died in JD Vance took over you wouldn't say Katie Vance was elected to be president. Not really. As usual these are like half truths that are deliberately rewritten to sound more sinister than they are. My policy is always been if you can't make your point with the whole truth then you have to examine whether or not you got a good point

And guns are? Wow none of mine have killed anybody! And I use them fairly regular! I should take them back and demand a refund considering they're obviously defective Guns are designed to shoot bullets. You shoot bullets to hunt, you shoot bullets to have fun because it is an extremely entertaining sport. I'm once in a blue moon people shoot bullets to stop bad guys who intend to hurt them The gun does not dictate the intent of the shooter

Nope. Which is why you couldn't come up with any .Shootings where somebody just goes out and starts shooting people, which is what most people think of when they're talking about mass shootings, are called 'rampage' shootings and represent only about 2% of the national databases mass shooting numbers Here's some actual research Comparison of rampage and non-rampage mass shootings in the U.S.: A 5-year demographic analysis - ScienceDirect And mass shootings only represent something like one percent of shooting deaths. So obviously people on guns for more than one reason, and seeing as yours is broken down by specific reason it's reasonable to assume that most of the rest are primarily for entertainment instead of hunting. I have no doubt that many people who own guns either for hunting or for entertainment also would say that they would use them for home defense should they need arise but that's not why they bought them. And? It's not even so much that I disagree with you, I mean obviously in Canada we have say storage laws and I generally approve of that. But the problem is that you're getting to this conclusion through just honesty. You haven't demonstrated that there is any such need, you've been slightly dishonest about the facts and figures that you've given to say that there's a problem, nor have you offered any indication as to how any changes would actually impact the bottom line. And the problem that gun owners in the states legitimately have is that they watch things like that and they think you've got motives that aren't being driven by logic or reason but rather by ideology. And they're not interested in your ideology. I wouldn't be either That's not actually irony. I believe that people should have the right to drive a car with the proper training and licensing, that doesn't mean that if I get run over tomorrow it's irony. People accept that with freedoms, certain level of risk. We could catch more bad guys if Cops were allowed to search us or listen to our conversations or walk into our house at any time without warrant. But there's problems with that. Freedom it means that there is a certain level of risk. They would be less car accidents if nobody was allowed to own a car and everybody was forced to take public transportation. But is that a world you want to live in. What comes next? Safe storage laws tend to prevent accidents, they don't actually do much for Crime. I still think they're worth it for that and don't see why guns shouldn't be locked up if they're not in use or in your possession. If you want to carry one for self-defense put it on your belt where you can get at it and deny it to others in a proper holster. But everybody knows that people like you and the democrats will never be satisfied with reasonable laws. You're not coming at this from a point of view of being fair and reasonable you just don't like guns. So why on earth would republicans in the states listen to democrats or come to the table to discuss these so-called reasonable regulations knowing damn well that they're just one step closer to losing their firearms?

The nuber of booze related deaths each year in the us is close to 200k Number of alcohol-related deaths in the united states - Google Search But the number of non suicide related gun deaths is only about 19000 according to copilot (16000 to 19000 specifically). Sooo based on your logic why are you not demanding that all booze be locked up when not in use? U one of those so-called "ass of the donkey" dudes when it comes to double stanards?

Pretty much all of that is untrue when you look at it. It's the kind of thing that people who want to hate guns but don't want to look into the issue state Mass shootings, being any shooting involving four or more people, have been going up mainly due to criminal violence. Gang members shooting gang members, that sort of thing. If you take the number of "crime-related" shootings out of the equations the US isn't actually that bad, and the increases are the same or lower than population growth. The problem isn't guns. The problem is there are a number of people usually with mental health issues who have decided it's okay for other people to get killed. They use guns in America because that's what gets the headlines, but lots of people don't use guns and some of the biggest mass killings around the world and America haven't involved any. What's the common denominator between the killings involving guns and the killings involving cars and the killings involving bombs? The killer. That's what needs to be focused on. And it's the citizens love of guns. The vast majority of guns are purchased either for hunting or other Wildlife Control or for fun. Only a small portion of guns are purchased for self protection and even then rarely out of fear. That's like saying that Automotive Insurance is bought by people that are afraid to drive. Maybe stop listening to anti-gun propaganda and actually learn about this stuff yourself a bit

LOL and not only can you not refute any of it, you're SOOOO butt hurt that all you have is to make fun of my nickname here LOL you are such a broken little man and obviously you know i' m right based on your response At least you didn't take the time to prove i'm right this time No the tax dollars are yours. The gov't does not "own" the taxes it collects, it's job it to manage them. Of course, i forgot for a moment you're an actual communist so i can see where you'd get confused LOL well you might want to save that criticism's for when you're right, and not wrong.

Which is what I've been saying all along. Glad you finally figured it out kiddo. That was pretty pathetic. you: " Y U NO UNDERSTAND PP CANT WIN NOT POPULAR!!!!" me: "Popularity is not deterministic, he can be unpopular and still win. That happens frequently." you " UHHH UHHH THAT"S WRONG BECAUSE POPULARITY ISN"T DETERMINISTIC YOU KNOW!!!!! DERP!" LOLOL. well. ya got me there kid Now that you've answered your own question with my answer, go try your math homework. Maybe you're on a roll LOL How popular or approved of that Poilievre is is not a tremendously relevant question. It's of interest and it's something that should be monitored but it is not deterministic when it comes to elections. There are other factors that are significantly more importance.

The problem is they don't. As noted in this one and has been commented before, all of the other studies are extremely unuseful. Very small subject groups over very small periods of time. You didn't read this did you. Let me guess, you figured it would say something you didn't want to hear so you ignored it in an effort to maintain your confirmation bias, and then accused others of confirmation bias .LOL seriously dude.

well, as i often said while being a world renowned neurosurgeon travelling the wilds of africa to save the rare and magestic fufu tribe from extinction by inventing the internet, Yes.

True. Also, HBO would like to talk to you about acquiring the rights to your diary.

Carney announces creation of Canada's first sovereign wealth fund | CBC News So here's the short version He's going to give $25 billion of your tax dollars into this fund. Then he's going to hope that other people like banks and so ones so forth and pension funds and individuals put money into their fund as well Then he will decide if a project, In his opinion, is in the national interest, whether it's windmills or a lesbian dance University or a battery Factory or A manufactured home facility owned by a Brookfield subsidy. if so he will 'invest' the money into that venture to make it "easier" for his buddies that private entity to proceed with that project, which means our money will fund projects that WOULD have been funded by the private sector entirely if only they got useless regulation and taxes out of the way in the first place This is basically a filter. This will guarantee that groups and projects he's not fond of don't happen while friendly organizations and projects he likes and can tap for money proceed

Two things can be true.

Except that i'm right Except as i pointed out, that's not what happened. Nor it it what happened for Carney either where many who said they approve of him didn't vote for him PP got 41.5 percent of the vote. I'm right, you're looking stupid again And yet they got about the same number of votes in the eleciton. HMMMMM,,,, so in other words popularity doesn't translate to votes! I wish i'd thought of that sooner. Oh ... wait..... So basically what you've proven is that despite the fact that Connie had a much higher approval rating than Poilievre, they got almost the same number of votes. Which is what I said. And once again, you up kept your long-standing tradition of taking the time to prove me right make yourself look like a complete ass clown LOL you're such a tard Favorability is an interesting indicator but in no way does it reflect the votes someone is going to get, or who's going to win. If it does it's more by accident and it's rare. Harper always had lower approval ratings than his results would indicate. LOL this would be more fun if you let ME beat you up instead of doing it yourself