CdnFox

I don't think it's a question of if anymore. Monday he'll have his majority and there may yet be one or two more floor crossers to stiffen it up Which means he'll act like a tyrant and not give a crap about Canada for 3 years and then try and come up with something to win the favor of Canadians back after 4 years just before the next election which he will call early despite the laws saying otherwise if he gets even a hint that he's ahead in the polls

LOL that's my line you root vegetable!

That's always a sure sign you know you're losing LOLOL Yeah it is To replace trade that we lost with us Major projects just like china can be a replacement for exterior trade. Unfortunately you are quite correct that the one that they have chosen is utterly useless I'm sure they don't teach it in elementary school Economies are dependent on either internal trade, sometimes known as localized trade or domestic trade, or external trade, sometimes known as foreign trade If the foreign trade is suffering and going down it can be offset in many cases by expanding internal trade. More Canadians buying more things made by Canadians. Major projects that benefit the economy and use Canadian sourced materials and labor. That kind of thing You really can't have an adult conversation about how to deal with our reduction in American Trade without discussing our internal trade If you take an apple to your kindergarten teacher tomorrow maybe she'll explain it in more detail LOL so i see We have already seen a substantial reduction in our trade with the us and that is likely to continue. We will certainly still do some business with them but considering how much of our trade and our economy is tied up with trade to the united states specifically we simply can't afford to lose that trade without replacing it with something I know that involves math and therefore is confusing to you, but you just going to have to trust me So what do we replace that trade with? Well carney has proposed china as one option, and said that there may be other opportunities around the world for expanded trade. However as I have pointed out already that's not really possible. Well it's never bad to expand our relationships with other countries and trade there's no universe where we're going to replace what we've lost with America and unfortunately without that our country's kind of sunk One way we could replace it is focusing on improving our own internal trade within our country. But he's not doing that, he's picked a project that is utterly useless, will bankrupt the country, I only provides money and employment for liberals Is that clear now? I can go buy some crayons if you need it more simple I think the reality is you understand what I was saying perfectly but you know that I'm 100% right and rather than simply admit that or enter into a discussion you're having a weird little freak out by pretending you don't understand or that what I'm saying isn't comprehensible to you

Yeah I still don't watch any of the weird links you post I suspect is probably a link to something that basically shows you having a hissy fit because you've been exposed for what you are You think you're growing up but you're actually standing on your head

Are you asking him to be honest? BWAAAAAAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!! that was great, now try asking robosmith to make sense

well i didn't quite say that but power plants DO in fact run on oil and gas, and they are stored in tanks That was the conversation where i pointed out it was easier to store petro chemicals than electricity and solar power woudn't be able to replace conventional power till we had a way to store it that was as cheap and effective as we store petro chemcials which is true, and you cried like a baby when i proved it at the time. I have no doubt that you spent all night that night re writing it in your head till it seemed like you won ROFLMAO!! But it's still hilarious to see Sorry kiddo from the very get go i've specifically said its "Not new military spending". Go back and look, i said it like 100 times. And you lost that argument so you're trying to pretend we were discussing something else. RCMP is. Neither was the coast guard till like 5 minutes ago And if they put it under "defense' then it won't be new military spending. That is not what i said. Go back and re read it. Once again you have to lie to try to salvage your failed argument. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF it was already announced and the contract signed then it woudlnt' be new 'military' spending. It would just be spending previously committed to that is being relabeled. If it wasn't a contract then maybe you'd have a point. but if they signed a contract and now they're going to reallocate that money to the military budget? Sorry, not new spending. So why doesn't it go on the health care spending? DOn't know? Can't figure it out? Because it wasn't health care. And if you decide to CALL it health care now, it wouldn't be new healthcare spending, it would be military spending that was renamed. Get it? Then why didn't they count before? Why have we never applied the coast guard to military defense spending? If it's always counted and nothing changed then why not? Simple answer is you're wrong and a liar. It wasn't defense spending. We decided to rename it as defense spending but it wasn't. Which is fine. But - that means it's not new military spending. Very very simple.

Not enough apperently, i keep having to dumb things down for you. They...are...being....considered...as .....replacements....for ....the... trade ....we ...lost Slow enough this time? And you brought up china, now you're mad at yourself? I pointed to simple facts and of course that ALWAYS upsets you. We cannot replace what we lost with the us with deals with china and other nations. Period. We COULD put a dent into it if we focused on interior trade instead, but the libs are totally ignoring that (Despite running on it) and what they ARE doing is a disastrous train project that will bury us with debt. IF we're losing the US as a tradiing partner then 'what do we do about that' is a pretty valid question. As your kindergarten teacher about it tomorrow

Sure ,i'll add it to my collection

The sentiment is there, but buried. Which is much like quebec. The question is can it be whipped into a flame. That's very hard to predict. Honestly if sask knew alberta was leaving and alberta knew sask was leaving i think both would vote strongly for it. As it is, the 'leave' campaign would have an up hill battle, but not an insurmountable one. The campaign matters. If it starts getting momentum that can build very quickly.

holy pot meet kettle batman And YOU say OTHERS have no sense of self awareness ALL you do on this forum is whine about other people.

Sooooo... posting pictures of ass porn for a week is a reasonable response to people you disagree with in your opinon Ya know, every time i think you can't make yourself look any more stupid you prove that i've underestimated you That would mean he'd have to be able to come up with intelligent arguments. That's not really an option for him.

Trudeau spent hundreds of billions on "investing" in "infrastructure". Let me share a secret with you that those who follow politics and economies know. Very TARGETED infrastructure spending that is based on a larger plan and sound economic models can be worth it's weight in gold, but the vast majority of such gov't 'investments" are based on neither. They're instead based on popularity and how the electorate in very specific areas will react. And in such cases they are anchors that hold back the economy. This is not based on a larger plan, this is not grounded in sound economical growth, this is a vanity project that appeals to quebec and ontario ridings that will get voted on this Monday. This is every bit as bad as any of trudeaus' Dubious programs". And at a hundred billion or more it will do more harm to canada than any of his overspending has to date. THINK about it Not that it matters i guess. Carney will get his majority Monday and he'll spend the next 4 years blowing billions on this while lining his pockets and you still won't have a train but our economy will be that much worse off. Well done

No, but the fact you think it is certainly does provide confirmation that the American educational system is as bad as they say

Oh but we are. Energy is an export (did you forget?) China is a country we trade with and we're talking about trade. And YOU were the one who brought up that we need to address the loss of trade with the states by getting other partners, to which i pointed out correctly that we can't and we'd be better off trying to improve our INTERNAL trade. So when you say "stay focused" what you REALLY mean is "For gods' sake quit bringing up all the crap that proves me wrong!!!!" LOL oh dear, i see we're reviving your old habit of chasing me around the forum yapping like an irate Chihuahua every time you lose an argument with me LOL You are one damaged little man

Because YOU say so. Its pretty obvious from your posts. And for some reason you seem to need my approval and attention. There there.... you're a good boy, i'll put the picture you made on the fridge

Every time you say that I turn out to be right But I don't mind making fun of you again, let's take a look So in other words when I said it was non-military I was correct. So in this case I showed my ignorance by... being absolutely right. Uh huh well that was predictable. If you take a broader look at things sure, coast guard is "defense" in the sense that it protects people. So we should count the fire departments and police too right? That WOULD help our nato spending but... it's not new military spending is it. Could you point to where i said they were claiming past fiscal years? Nope? So again you're making something fake and arguing against it. They ARE however including amounts that were announced and budgeted before these programs became part of the military. So to claim now that they're "Military" spending would be stupid. So in THIS case i showed my ignorance by.... you making something up that i never said and arguing against it. LOL gotcha Well don't you look like a twat now. So I was correct and it's not new military spending, and I was correct that program spending that was announced originally as part of a different program which is now being included in the military spending is not new military spending.

No there isn't. Not when it comes to surgeries and permanent chemical castration Sorry, but if anything the evidence is now strongly the other way And again what I posted was medical studies a clinical assessments. What you posted was two opinion pieces. Most of the European countries and America have recognized that transformative care and minors is a great mistake and a horrible idea vast majority of cases A couple of flat earthers who think differently is of no interest. The actual scientific studies prove otherwise and I've posted that already You are denying the science and accepting the idea of hurting children to support your ideology and that's disgusting The science is simple. The downsides are providing such care to children greatly outweigh the upsides So you, who were just railing how terrible people were were for not following the science and the experts just a couple of posts ago are now ignoring the science. What does that make you besides a hypocrite

Theoretically that's true, but of course as we have discussed elsewhere they're not actually doing that. They're taking existing spending and Relabeling it as "military". The coast guard? Now it's military. Trudeau's tree planting program? Totally military. Etc etc. In fact we barely increased military spending at all and somehow magically it are 2% 😛 A lot of things with the liberals are smoking mirrors and I suspect in the end this project will be the same. You will not get the happy ending you think you will and a crap ton of money will wind up in the hands of liberal friendly people Rolling stone gathers no moss, look before you leap, etc etc. There's no substance to what you're saying. Having a positive vision will not change our financial picture. Now if you could somehow provide actual reasonable evidence that suggests this will in the long run improve our economy more than it drains from our economy then that's a conversation we could have. But all indicators suggest the opposite. This will not make anyone's lives better. Or certainly so few people that it doesn't justify hundreds of billions of dollars. You want to make people's lives better? Reduce their taxes by $100 billion. Make everyone's lives better and actually do something for economy with more people having disposable income to buy things. Instead you want to raise taxes so that a small handful of people can use something that will not make their life substantially better for the most part. We have doom and gloom because we listen to the liberals and let them make this kind of decision for us. We have doom and gloom because people without a brain actually believed Trudeau when he said he was investing in infrastructure and that it would make us all kinds of money. All you're doing is guaranteeing more doom and gloom for the future. What people are really sick of is the failures that the liberals have brought to this country for the last decade and your proposing we continue You want things to be positive? Make positive proposals. All this does is rob children of their future for something that nobody's going to benefit from

That's not possible, carney said we got "The best deal in the world" on our tariffs And it doesn't matter. Mexico was able to find ways to address the issues and reduce the tariff burdens on their industries and negotiate something that worked for them reasonably well. And we were not. And now we're falling behind and becoming less relevant. Mexico had their version of that. But at the end of the day, the 'buy Canadian' thing should have HELPED our trade deficit with the US. If we buy less from them and they buy the same from us, our picture actually gets better. But the fact is we're selling less and less. At the end of the day this hurts us badly especially going into cusma negotiations.

Because it's true And it obviously hurts your feelings that it's true Sorry iittle guy, but to everyone else you just look like a weak little person who yaps at his betters. Nobody cares about 'post count' but you.

I don't think so. Although I'm sure you'll be saying the same thing a few years from now when carney turns out to be just as much of a disaster. "huuuuh, i never liked THAT guy you're confused! I only like the NEW leader we just elected who's bound to be just what this country needs!" Uh huh.

Absoutely nobody other than you thinks about how much anyone else is posting. And frankly they think less of you for whining about it. I posted the statistics for you before. This is actually not that much, it's just that I don't post anywhere else. But the average person between all their social media actually posts more than me. But let's face it. Intellectually I make you look stupid every single time you post. You can't form an argument, and when you try you wind up proving yourself wrong 90% of the time we're screwing up the math so bad you look like a complete twat So all you've got is my postcount LOLOL how utterly pathetic is that

And true! Unfortunately both him and you are restricted and how much you can post by the fact that you have to mouth each word as you're typing

In other words it's not military. And it looks like it was ordered long before the coast guard became part of the military But despite the fact that the money was spent before the coast guard became military and it was ordered before the coast guard became military and will be performing non-military functions, you will insist it's new military spending that has never been there before Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things.

This from the guy who said that Justin Trudeau was an awesome leader who would lead us to prosperity and kept voting for him Sure kid.