CdnFox

Well of course he hasn't responded. I'll have to stop laughing first 😆 Whether she likes it or not caitlin is not a female biologically and sex refers to biological sex not gender. Putting false information on a passport so that you can feel better is not only inappropriate it's dangerous I would be in favor of adding a designation such as tF or tM to stand for trans female and trans male. Even though sex is biological I feel that's not an inappropriate because it indicates that the person may be transitioning and there may be some physical and medical issues associated with that. Seems like a reasonable compromise. I think trans females are going to have to realize that they are trans females and we can call them trans females and it's perfectly legit but they're not really females nor are they really males either arguably. Especially if they've begun transition But to date the trans community hasn't really been that interested in reasonable compromise. They insist you do what they want or you're a terrible person who deserves to die. Or at least spend life in jail. So if they're not getting as much sympathy as they might like right at the moment that's probably on them. My advice would be to take a break and come back at it from a point of view of being extremely reasonable and fair. Demanding the people lie is not a reasonable or fair position. Demanding that international documents be falsified is not a real or fair position. Indicating that somebody is a transgender person and is a transgender female if not a biological one is a reasonable and fair position and what's everybody treat the person appropriately without lying or providing false information

Dude you are obviously not only disappointed but emotionally upset, and it's obvious that you care tremendously considering you spend all morning going to my feed and goddesses To post dozens of little down arrows because you're so sad and crying that we're mean to you I'm sure it upsets you to hear that. I KNOW! MAYBE IF YOU SAY "LOSER" AGAIN IT"LL ALL BE BETTER!!!!! Give that a try LOL!!

LOOOOZER LOOOOOOOOOZER!!! (Mommie come change my diapers!!!) ROFLMAO!!! You just never miss an opportunity to look like a twat do you

If that's the case I provided more than you did. But you've already accepted that what I said was true, which isn't surprising it's fairly common knowledge and certainly easy to find with a quick search Nothing. I never brought up right wing Christianity or any kind of Christianity. In fact I never even mentioned a religion. Let me guess, we're at the point where you are about to try and lie your way past the fact that you're looking stupid again, Start a fake argument about something I never said, and then try and argue against that Lol well as i said You created a fake thing that I've never said and now you're trying to make that the argument Kid. If your brains that dull, it sounds like you need to pray more

Sure, but it's also a fact the sun rises in the east in canada. That doesn't mean the cost of living was high in 2015, and it's about as relevant as what you posted. Life isn't "unaffordable" just because you can't afford a mansion in the british props which was your argument. The fact, and i've proved this several times, is that a person or couple earning an average wage could comfortably have purchased a home suitable for raising two kids with lots of space. Life was affordable. You could buy a home for 30 percent of your pre tax income or less, food was cheaper, so was most other thingis. Very affordable. And you were never "arguing", you were whining and pooping your pants every post after the one where i showed you the facts. One thing that ISN"T argued is that after 11 years of liberals that isn't true any more. Life today is Not affordable for the average person earning an average wage. Even two people earning better than average wages will have to overextend to get by. 25 percent of Canadians will use the food banks (in 2025, probably 2026). Life was good under harper. IT's a disaster under the libs.

Some more fallout from "Liberal sound fiscal management" Posthaste: Canada faces an entrepreneurial ‘drought’ as more businesses close than open More small businesses closed than opened in Canada for the sixth consecutive quarter, according to research by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB). Small-business exit rates hit 5.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2025, while the entry rate fell to 4.8 per cent in the fourth quarter. The ratio between business starts and closures is among the worst since the COVID-19 pandemic, CFIB said in a report. Nor only was it affordable to live in 2015, you could open a business and keep it open if you worked hard'

Justin? No, the best he ever did was just under 40 2015 Canadian federal election - Wikipedia LOL dude everyone right now is laughing at you I'm not the one who needs to be embarrassed You made an ass of yourself and you clearly know it Kid. The facts say that in 2015 a person with an average income could still buy a home affordably and have a family. Life was affordable in 2015. It is not today. That is the fact. Your ability to self delude is military grade.

Quite a bit. Townhouses is what they were building at that time, along with apartments. They are far less expensive to build, and yet they offer an extremely comfortable living experience. And they're big enough to raise a family The idea of affordability is not that day one you can afford the best of the best. The idea of being affordable is that you can enjoy a high quality of life of a standard that's considered normal for the times and be able to afford it within a modest income As I've shown people at the time could buy a nice place to live that was plenty big enough for a family of four and the dog at a price that meets the official definition of affordable, being 30% of pre-tax income. I don't know why that's hard for you to understand To put it in perspective your argument is cars are unaffordable because some people couldn't afford a Bentley or high-end mercedes. That's true, but they could afford a ford focus or a toyota corolla. And really those are quite functional vehicles that would suit people's needs just fine Hopefully that makes it more clear. People were able to buy a good home right off the bat to start a family with fairly minimal savings, so in their twenties a young couple would still be able to buy a home with a yard and green space within their budget It's so easy. That's literally the definition of affordable. That was a tail end of harper. Things got worse in 2016, they got worse than 2017 and by the end of 2017 it was starting to get to the point where people were starting to say it's not affordable even for average Canadians. And of course it got worse from there as we well know Life was affordable under harper. Even in the middle of the worst recession in 100 years people were able to get by and did well. Cost for climbing but to a degree that's to be expected in the course of a recovery. But things were still affordable Trudeau ran on making sure that they would stay affordable and the people will be able to afford a home and then he completely abandoned that and now you have to be substantially above the average income to be able to reasonably afford a home unless you're gifted one by a parent

What does that even mean. Are you practicing for that interview at the fortune cookie shop? Governments since there were governments I've been expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate risk in a fashion that isn't excessive or authoritarian. This crossed that line And yes I'm well aware of the new 'Yellow snow" alerts we got this winter, and someone at the gov't needs to be punched in the nose. I think that might be more of a you thing rather than a general public would see it that way thing Very localized bands for very short periods of time and are very severe conditions. Or if there's an act of fire in the area and they're worried about people being trapped or that it might shift. But there has never been a summer long ban on all of the back roads in British Columbia and you're well aware of that

about 3 seconds, i realize it wasn't the Crest of my humour but in the grand Scope of things it still Aim'd to put a smile on your face, even if it was tongue in cheek (i'll take dad jokes for 500 Alex)

We know evidence to support that. It's what you would hope would happen, it's what you think might possibly happen but there's absolutely no actual business plan but says that's what's going to happen that's anything other than just conjured numbers with little bases, are you honestly saying that we couldn't possibly spend 100 billion dollars in other ways that would vastly MORE increase opportunity for people? You HAVE to know that's not true. You just keep saying 'this will make things better' as an argument but there's nothing behind that. Can you show me a report that shows that currently 100 billion dollars worth of business is being prevented from happening as a result of not having this? I mean we have those kinds of reports when we build a bridge, surely to god we have all kinds of studies if we're spending 100 bilion dollars (probably more like 300 billion) No? Nothing? Does that not TELL you something? This will be a cash cow for libs and the lib friendly companies and in the end it will not be worth it assuming it ever gets built in the first place.

OOooohh such an adult thing to say!! Watching your adulting in action sure makes me see the error of my ways! LOL And i'm still smarter than you, so ....

No it wasn't, and the problem with that whole line of thinking is that the governments have taken recently, especially left-wing ones but not exclusively, did you simply declaring any old situation in emergency and claiming that gives them license to commit any action As we see here that was not the case LOLahhh you. Always the totalitarian dictator you

For Sure!!! Pretty much all your posts resemble tooth decay, so it was natural!

hoooolllyyyy shit! 7 Year old thread revived! Anyway the correct answer as to why we still are allied is simple. Even tho our country is more newly confederated, ike an older brother looking at his younger and more problematic sibling, even tho we often find you outrangeously frustrating we still live in hope that someday you'll learn your lessons and fly right and stop worrying and embarrassing mom.

This will make it worse. This isn't going to solve the problems and then there will be no money to sell the problems Utterly irrelevant. There's no indication that a significant portion of those people are going to be remotely interested in using this system with any frequency or regularity. In fact the system's own numbers are posted above in this thread and they are a tiny tiny fraction of that So you still haven't made a business case, Your entire argument seems to be that there are people that live in Canada. That's true, but that doesn't have anything to do without many will actually need or use this rail system versus the infrastructure we could build if we put the same money to something else

pot meat kettle. Kettle pot I'm not saying I'm the smartest guy in the world. But I'm definitely considerably smarter than you He says in child mode. Wow you sure taught me LOLOL!!

A detached house is not a townhouse. DERP!!! UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD A MANSION YOU POOR!! DERP!!! LOL There is no law that says you have to live in a detached house But people could buy a nice townhouse in a nice community for 30 percent of their income or less and that was very affordable LOL dude you're looking more and more pathetic and desperate with each post, You're uttelry wrong here and that's been proven. Nobody has to have a detached home to be able to live affordably. They might well sell their 'starter home' and buy something bigger later and those who did would benefit from increased pricing. But a young person or family could COMFORTABLY afford a nice little home with bedrooms and space for all even in 2015. Townhomes in greater vancouver cost about 300 400 for a nice one and that would be very affordable. Housing in vancouver was ENTIRELY affordable under harper and you're blinded by your hatred and cultism.

Sweetie, don't assume that YOUR family dinners are the same as everyone else's

Cite? Also that doesn't' mean it's evil. Saying jesus wasn't the savior would also be un christian but it woudn't be evil. You suck at this. Considering you just proved me right i'll steal yours Not that it was really 'proof' but still,, Your point was that prayer is just simple repettion of a phrase and therefore meditation Yet... Your OWN STATEMENT says :Mantras are only part of some of them.: So by your own admission prayer is NOT mediation none of that says anywhere that prayer is meditation HARD fail kiddo You've just blown your own argument out of the water As suspected you were just making shit up out of your ass

Kid, Everyone is laughing at you, most are shaking their heads at how stupid you're being And you obviously care. Why do this to yourself?

You guys may recall the last year Nova Scotia enacted a travel ban into his backcountry because of fire risk. I said at the time that it was probably not constitutional and was a gross over reaction and severely inappropriate. Those on the left rushed to defend the action stating that we have no right to go on to public land or into the backcountry and the government could do what it's wants and if a bunch of rednecks had to stay home and stay out of the woods too damn bad. Well, as is off in the case it turns out I was quite correct and the courts agree that the reaction was grossly disproportional and unconstitutional We will see if they appeal but that behavior was never okay. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia struck down the province’s August 2025 "woods travel ban" on April 17, 2026. The court ruled that the government acted unreasonably and failed to consider the Charter rights of Nova Scotians when it prohibited entry into nearly 80% of the province’s land during a period of high wildfire risk. CTV News +2 Key Findings of the Ruling Lack of Charter Consideration: The court found no evidence that the Minister of Natural Resources considered Section 6 mobility rights or Section 7 liberty rights before issuing the blanket proclamation. Unconstitutional Process: While recognizing that governments can act in emergencies, the court held that the decision-making process was fundamentally flawed because it did not balance the ban’s impact on residents' rights with its public safety objectives. Arbitrary Nature: Evidence highlighted that the ban prohibited low-risk activities like hiking while allowing high-risk industrial activities (e.g., forestry and mining) to continue under permits, which the challengers argued was irrational and arbitrary. Canadian Constitution Foundation +4 Background of the Case The Proclamation: Issued on August 5, 2025, by Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton, the ban prohibited travel in all woods—including private land—to prevent wildfires during a historic drought. Heavy Fines: Violations carried a maximum penalty of up to $25,000 (plus fees) or six months in prison. The Challengers: The case was brought by Jeffrey Evely, a Canadian Armed Forces veteran with PTSD who deliberately walked into the woods to receive a fine ($28,872.50) so he could challenge the law. He was supported by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) and the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF).

Dude, i suspect he's a 'vet' in the same way robo is a "world renowned computer science expert who's travelled the globe solving computer problems" . With a doctorate in computer sciences. And also 6.4 and very hansome to the ladies according to him (or his mother, can't remember now).

LOOOZER!! DERP!!! Oh kid Your lack of self awareness is stunning