CdnFox

It's not even remotely close to a new thing. Remember soldiers in our streets we're not making this up? Hidden agenda? Calling sheer a white supremacist or calling O'Toole an anti-vaxxer? How bout trudeau calling a jewish conservative a nazi? or claiming that all the people who didn't agree about the vax were misogynists and bigots? And that they shouldn't be tolerated? There is NOTHING new about this kind of attack style nonsense and the liberals were the ones who brought it on to the scene and have been the worst perpetrators by far. By far. You set the tone. now you're mad others follow your lead.

And leave his damned cufflinks alone. He's also falling into kamala's trap of talking so much that he winds up saying nothing. Also quit snarling at reporters. Polivre has to do what he does well and just speak to people without trying to get a tag line in every 2 minutes

Well they're going to run into a problem because even carney is turning around and making it about Canada being independent and if he goes down that road poilievre might very well scoop him. A good campaign here on Poilievre's Part and still very easily bury Kearney and reduce the liberals to a fraction of their current standing. But that's not guaranteed. We'll have to see how it goes

I love that you're now having fantasies about what i might say to a fictional research paper that never existed LOL Tell me i live rent free in your head without telling me Its' pretty hard for even ME to say what i'd say to something that doesn't exist. At the end of the day you're the one claiming it's a crisis. So it would be up to you to demonstrate that the paper in question clearly demonstrated that it was a crisis by a reasonable definition of the word. And don't forget the other one, the one that shows canada can do something that would actually have a meaningful impact on climate change. Those are the magic questions, "is there a climate crisis and if so is there anything that canada can actually do that would have a significant impact". Alas, we will never know. It would appear that no such papers exist and i find it absolutely hilarious that you're desperately trying to defend them even tho they're not real and you can't provide one LOLOLOL

That might not be not untrue

1- so what? 2 - that's absolutely not true. There's a great deal of unrest in Russia, only his iron fist prevents a serious uprising against him. Many are seriously unhappy. 3 - russia's economy is smashed. They've proven they can't replace their gear without western access to chips and tech that they cannot produce themselves. They've to cold war era tanks riding into battle because they have nothing else. They've lost a sizable hunk of their navy and they can't even replace their drones and cruise missiles fast enough for sustained attacks. Their troops are often going to battle on foot instead of in apc's or afv's. They've taken a massive blow to their reputation. They've got unbelievable numbers of dead and wounded and that's going to impact their economy for a generation. Their military strength is badly depleted. There's no way to spin this as being any kind of positive thing. 4 trump divided Europe. and america. Trump will be gone in less than 4 years. And Europe itself has actually bonded even tighter and will now be increasing it's military production. And they're the ones close to russia. This war has been a disaster for Russia. There's simply no arguing that. No matter what you might feel about the start of the war or whether the war was necessary or anything like that nobody can deny that is gone badly for Russia. They hoped they would win it in 10 days and it has turned into a tar baby nightmare for them. They will be ages recovering from this conflict. Which suits us nicely of course.

They're actually pushing hard on a bunch of really serious lies. They're flat out line about things that poilievre has said, they are flat out lying about carney's history and cV, they're just making it up as they go. He's definitely not an economist. And they're trying to pass them off as a businessman but he's not really that either. It's not like the Bank of Canada could go broke or something. He keeps talking about how Poilievre doesn't know what it's like to have to make payroll but neither does he. I think he's going to start smelling to people fairly quickly if he does a lot of interviews. If he only does prepared speeches he'll be better off but honestly if he's in front of a reporter he's in trouble. I don't think the debates are going to go terribly well for him either. The thing is most of his strength right now is coming from NDP voters who don't like him but hate PP even more. And they think carney can win If Carney's numbers start slipping even a little bit, they will lose faith and start to go back to the NDP and drovesthe CPC will once again gain a little bit more of that vote. And then he's going to have one hell of a voter turnout problem To be perfectly honest I'm still thinking 50 seats. Now he could over perform and maybe he manages to turn the momentum into something legitimate and walks away with a near loss or even theoretically a win, But i suspect we'll see it go the other way and his support will go down over the next few weeks. It should stay more or less level till just about the debates, maybe a slight drop or bump, then i think around the debates it'll start to sink and once it starts it'll nose dive.

LOL well at least you admit there wasn't any And that you thought it would take 'two years' to sift through Just post up a research paper and lets look at it. You can explain it to me LOL There isn't one and that's just the way it is. Dozens of people here have asked dozens of posters including yourself to present ANY scientific research that shows it's a crisis or that canada can do anything practical about it and not one of you lefties can produce a single thing, Very 'flat earth' of you

There's literally no damage, and that will be forgotten in about 5 minutes. That is also true of the comment trump made that he prefers the liberals. Carney got off to a decent start with his speech today and then immediately crashed into the rocks with his questions from the press Gallery. If that's a sign of things to come he's going to be in real trouble. Not only that but he actually quoted Poilievre a number of times word for word and that's going to make it hard for him moving forward as he tries to claim that poilievre is wrong or pro trump or anything like that because more and more people are going to compare the two because what he says is so close to what Poilievre says. The difference is Poilievre has been saying most of that stuff for quite some time and carney is going to look like he's just trying to ride on Poilievre's coattails. Early days, we won't really see how things are sitting for a few more days till the first real polling numbers start coming in.

Congratulations, you've just graduated to 4th grade humour! Here's your gold star

Oh hell, i doubt he'll even follow them. He'll promise and then fail to deliver just as justin did, Oh give it up. I think it will show the more they see him. His speech today was quite good, but his interview was horrible. like really horrible. And that's one of several now. As the media questions him and he has to respond ,and in the debates, he's not going to perform well.

He just promised a tax break for the middle classes. The exact same tax break that Justin promised for the middle class when he ran in 2015. Seems like they're about the same

There was no science on that website. You mean I would have to travel to other websites and look and dig and try and find something maybe that might exist possibly. That's your definition of a 'cite' So if you are saying that somewhere in there there happens to be a research paper or three that shows why this is a crisis What we could do that would actually make a difference Then point them out But you can't because there isn't. Even admitted you provided something would take two years to go through, so obviously your goal wasn't to provide any information but rather was to say that you don't have any and that you wish I would go away and stop pointing that out. Well there you go. I guess that's your way of admitting that there is no science. That certainly would explain why nobody's able to produce any despite supposedly caring about climate change.

But it kind of goes hand and glove. Our successes in the past did rely heavily on the fact that immigrants could come here and there were the resources for them to build a life for themselves. That causes people to tend to adapt to the circumstances they find themselves in and blend in, their kids even moreso. But when there isn't enough money and there isn't enough jobs and there isn't even enough homes to live in then the social, Cultural and racial tensions become overwhelming and you see explosions of violence and anger. We have seen this in France, most of the European countries, england, you name it We absolutely have to reduce immigration to a level that's equal to our ability to absorb them

HA! You leftist fool, you forgot..... oh wait. You're right. Never mind, i owe you one free foolish leftist comment unscolded in the future It just caught me off guard The way our system is currently that is correct, and i have written about this in the past on this forum. We would enjoy a short term benefit of a few years as projects already in the works came off the line and then developers would have compensated and we'd be back to where we started having caught up a little ( a very little) but falling behind again. However it is possible to change that and it was in fact different in the past. Right now there's a number of disincentives to build ahead of or even matching need, but they're all resolvable fairly easy. Most of them are tax related at various levels and if you kill that then you only need to do a few things to make it worth a developer's time to at least match certain production levels happily ahead of or matching expected demand. That simply isn't accurate or even close to the truth. At first this looks like a bc spreadsheet but you'll notice it has a 'canada' figure as its first line in each section, Check out the total number of single family housing starts. Now the row (town) houses, and apartments. (multi unit) The latter two combined grossly exceed the number of detached single family by a mile. With apartments being the big winner. Its not even remotely close. AND - apartments and rowhomes BOTH are increasing year over year about DOUBLE the rate that singles are. The absolute king of real estate development is still the 4-6 story wood frame apartment building. And townhomes are also quite popular. Single family dwelling builds are more popular in smaller areas or cities or in small towns. And the trend is for single familly to fall further and further behind.

Do you mean gobbledygook? There is a very real chance he meant gobbly gook and honestly afraid of what he might think that means.

Because i say so. Disagree? Come try and take it

Jeezuz dude.... who the hell have you been dating?

It could legalize slavery and sell all the black people for that matter, or round up all the jews and slaughter them and pocket all their money and property to fund the military. But there's just some things that would be morally wrong. Taxing inheritance would be completely morally corrupt and about on par with those two things. Someone worked all their lives and already paid their taxes to acquire that stuff, the gov't already got its' share. And now that the person wants to pass their hard work on to people or orgs of their choice (and it's their money so why not) ) they're going to steal some of it? It would be a horrible thing to do.

LOL theres's no tangent here, you're just wrong and now you want it to be my fault somehow So what you're saying is you've realized you were wrong and are trying to expand it to other protests In ottawa nobody blocked a border. They did block roads of course and honked horns. You claimed or strongly implied earlier that was illegal. If it was illegal then why not get an unjunction. If it WAS legal, why harass them? It's a very simple question, spare me your attempts to distract and either answer it or admit you can't. They weren't used at all. When it comes to the truckers protest and freedom convoy which arrived in ottawa not a single injuction was filed or even attempted by any gov't body at all. Not one. So are you saying everything they did was legal? If so why were they attacked like that? and if it wasn't why was their no injunction.

Even Goddess knows you're nothing but lies and hissy fits like a four year old You posted a cross-eyed old degenerate far left loser as the source of your knowledge, i pointed out he was wrong and took a couple of his examples and proved it with gov't links and everything and you pooped in your pants We're supposed to believe you're NOT a 12 year old kid living in your mom's basement? You can't even hold a conversation.

Proven a dozen times over and you're still crying like a baby and having a melt down LOLOL I provided links, gov't data and a committee report, etc and you freaked out Facts are like your kryptonite 🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

Congratulations, once again you posted exactly what I've already said. That's an absolute fabrication. I'm sorry that you're not capable of understanding this and that it's too complicated for you but it would have been easy for them to have an injunction against the activities of the protest itself As has been the case a million times in Canadian history. They can ban protesters from being on those particular streets, they can do all kinds of things and there's dozens of examples in our history THere's no arguing this, it's been done in MOST protests that people want to clear away. What you were literally saying is there was nothing illegal about what they were doing other than the honking of horns late at night. You're cleaning that the protest and all of the other activities around it were perfectly legal because the active protesting is perfectly legal. Well if they were perfectly legal and there was nothing illegal about it and there was nothing they could have gotten an injunction on .... then why was it stopped in the first place. And pretending that you can't possibly get an injuction against it while pointing out another protest had an injunction against it isn't just childish, it's flat out dumb. Why did they not get an injunction to shut down the protest if they were protesting illegally? And if it wasnt' illegal why let it go on?

Injunction wasn't about the protest. The injunction was the use of horns after a certain time and before a certain time in the morning. The judge ruled that they could use their horns and Blair them and that this was legitimate protest, but that if they did it all night then it represented an infringement on the rights of Houston enjoyment of the people in the area and therefore offended their rights more than the offense to the right to protest if it was shut down. So he said they weren't allowed to honk their horns at night and they complied At no point did he rule that there was anything illegal going on in the slightest, he said that they had a right to protest and that the owner had the right to use and enjoyment of their property and that in order to balance the rights of the two individual groups honking would be limited to certain hours No, it was extended because the protest was extended beyond the original time given for the injuction. Don't make things up The article mentioned that it was complied with, but within a few days some were violating that so the judge warned there would be punishments and after that it seems to have worked again, And the point is that if someone DID break that injuction they would be found to be in contempt and arrested. Nothing to do with the ottawa protest. So you're not being honest. Sure, in OTHER protests in DIFFERENT places they did, but why not here if something illegal was going on. If anything the fact they did it elsewhere and not for this one makes the question even more important. SO. Back to the question you've been dodging. If what they were doing in ottawa was so illegal, why no injunction? The girl got it for excessive honking. Other protests had that, that IS hte traditional thing to do. Soooooo... why not?

I don't know that there really has been. But what this is about right now is more personality and posturing than anything to do with policy. People hated Justin Trudeau. Passionately. Regularly voted worst prime minister in history by a land slide Most people weren't fond of Poilievre as a person. But they did like his policies and they did like what he was saying was wrong with Canada and that he would fix it. And at the end of the day he was the only real choice other than justin Now there's a new flash in the pan, getting tons of hype from the media about what a great new choice this is and suddenly they don't have to choose between Justin or Poilievre. Remember that his popularity soared before he mentioned even a single policy. But it was quite clear from the polling that that support was a mild wide and a millimeter thin. Now as people actually pay attention things will change. It's already beginning to start because he's done poorly at a couple of interviews and said some stupid things, and if he doesn't run a very tight campaign every single ounce of his goodwill will evaporate and people will be disappointed which means he will have one hell of a time getting his vote out at all. Right now the lion's share of his support is coming from the NDP, not the conservatives. When you drill down the conservatives are still in the neighborhood of about 40 -42 percent. but the NDP have fallen to about 9%, possibly lower. , the NDP which had remained after many went to the CPC are now dogpiling on Kearney as the anti-conservative choice that could prevent a Poilievre government The millisecond that that falters support will bleed back to the NDP, the liberals will be seen to begin crashing in the polls, the shine will have worn off and the liberals will be doing fairly well to get 50 seats And as the Stark difference in policy preparedness comes into play it's going to hurt them even more. Carney went with a short election to try and become Prime Minister before people got a good look at him, and that was probably the right strategy, but probably not good enough