CdnFox

Sigh. You KNOW i'm going to make you look silly if you don't read up BEFORE you speak. Why? Why look dumb to the whole world like that? First - the usa is not a net exporter of food. The United States is currently a net food importer, having shifted away from being a long-term net exporter in recent years. While the U.S. is a major producer of goods like corn, soybeans, and beef, it now imports more in total value than it exports, with agricultural trade deficits widening to over $40 billion. Second, even back when it was, there are many food types it consumes in large amounts that it imports from other places so while beef may not go up, coffee and other staples do which still strains the average person's budget. Thirdly, all the american food producers are going to look at the fact that OTHER places are paying more and sell to them, or demand higher prices at home. So even tho prices COULD stay down in the USA they WON"T if global prices go up because the value of those goods goes up with it. So it has a huge impact on the states. And finally, the states relies on fertilizer from Canada AND from the gulf region, that fertilizer is NOT getting out right now. And without it crop yeilds go way down. We already did. Go fill up your tank. Sure like you did with Afghanistan? You'll suffer yet more humiliating defeats and those guys WIN when they get smashed but not wiped out. They prance around pointing at how impotent the US is and how strong they are to survive the attacks and rebuild and everyone joins them. "failure" is not a good look. When you kick over the ant hill the ant's build a better hill. You have to kill them all or you get more ants. So far the us is just kicking at the hill and not killing the ants. Some days you don't think at all. Read a little history. Trump's realized he's in trouble. he's got two fists and a foot into the tar baby and he's got midterms in half a year. He needs to go in on the ground and sort this out but he CAN'T. That would turn this into a long protracted war and blow tends if not hundreds of billions he doesn't have and seriously hurt the economy. So he's got to find a negotiated solution but he CAN'T. They've got all the 'trump' cards right now and he knows he'll have to take a bad deal and they'll declare victory. Complicating things he blew up a significant part of their chain of command and now it's not even clear who has authority to negotiate, or who will wind up in power if there's an internal power struggle. So even if you negotiate something there's no guarantee it'll last more than a week because you don't know who the government's going to wind up being She needed to have a clear exit strategy before he entered this and it's very obvious that that didn't happen. Now he's got very limited options and i'm not sure how he's going to get out of this. Clearly he has no idea, so hopefully he's got some advisers who can come up with a brilliant strategy to get him out. I just don't know what that even looks like . Maybe they can get some moderate portion of the current gov't to take control? But there's no guarantee there won't be a coup the next day.

Well it's often been said that there's two personalities to the ndp. One is the 'working man's' ndp, which focuses on making life "better" for the blue collar union worker and their families and people they care about etc. That's Jack and Tom. Then there's the "activist" ndp , the social justice warriors and wokescolds who only care about shaking their fist at the 'injustices' and 'nazis' of the world, which is basically everyone to the right of stalin. When the ndp is running on a mixture of about 80 percent of the first and 20 percent of the second, they tend to do very well. Right now with this guy they're probably 90 percent the second nad maybe 10 percent of the first, and that's death for them

The idea of DEI is that it will somehow 'level the playing field' But it does not. It drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

That's fine, you're allowed to be wrong to more than one person at a time I am FULLY qualified to speak on budgeting and spending. Sorry kiddo but that's absolutely my wheel house. And i also have a solid understanding of history, both military AND political. So i'm a hell of a lot more qualified to speak on this than YOU, who isn't even old enough to join yet (maybe the cadets?) First off, i believe that is the CURRENT pay scale, AFTER the raise. so if you think that's adequate pay now then arguably they weren't getting "quite well" pay previous to that raise. Secondly, that's not much money. I mean 4 years in and you're getting 88 k pre tax? For a GOV'T job? Go look at how much a teacher makes, it's WAY more than that. And they're not going to be called up to go to some foreign country and get shot at. Now i realize there's things like bonuses for deployments and such but this isn't exactly luxury pay. I'm sure it seems like a lot to a kid like you but seriously that's peanuts in this day and age, a living wage but your wife better have a job too. Sorry kid,, that's just wishful thinking on your part You really need to get some help with that, whatever happened to you seems to have left some permanent damage

Quite true, gener isn't a social construct. While external influences can play a role it's without a doubt also due to biology and other internal factors. You should read the link in my reply to him. It's got a very interesting point, "If gender is a social construct then it CANNOT be said to be inherent or unique to the individual, and therefore is a choice" essentially. That's why they argue it can't be that way and that really shoots that arguemnt down: if it's true it's a social construct then it's got nothing to do with the individual (so why would we treat it as an individual right)

That is most likely the case. About the NDP at any rate. This guy doesn't even want to run for a seat. If he's not in the house he's going to be utterly irrelevant. I mean he's basically following in the footsteps of Mad Max as far as that goes. He isn't going to be inspiring anybody He's also one of the most visited choices they could have made, even going so far as to engage in hate talk about Thomas More care just the night before. And that's what he's like, he's going to divide NDP groups more than bring them together. This is going to look an awful lot like when Elizabeth may try to step down from the green party and we saw the work nonsense that happened after which split the party in two and almost completely destroyed it I suspect they will go through 4 years of obscurity and then get wiped out after that, but Canada really does not do well as a two-party system and while I realized that block still represent a significant number of seats they're not really a Canadian party

You offered zero examples of science in your original post. You simply made statements and claims most of which aren't actually accurate. For example you state that With regards to gender studies, gender is a social construct That has been found to be false by numerous scientific studies and has been written about in a number of papers. While social or external factors can play a role there's no doubt it's not a 'social construct' Here's one for example, chosen just because it's got some interesting points but there's real science out there as well. Time to Move Beyond "Gender Is Socially Constructed" | Psychology Today Canada So. Right off the bat you've demonstrated that i WAS correct and you are NOT basing your opinions on science at all. Further, you are not even TRYING to present any science to back up your claims. You simply decide what you would LIKE to be true and then claim it as science. You then go on to climate change as your 'big example'. Yet you present NO science. Zero. Not even a scrap. what you do is an old debate trick where you ask questions in a manner that suggests anyone who answers no is automatically wrong. There's no actual attempt to seek information, there's no attempt at debate, and there is CERTAINLY no science involved. So it looks like you're kind of dishonest person that I suspected you were when I mde my original post and you offering your first post as an example simply demonstrates that fact nicely I will give you one chance to redeem yourself now that you've exposed yourself as being utterly the opposite of science driven. Going back to climate change, climate change is often presented as being both a crisis and something that we hear in Canada can do something substantial about. Assuming you agree with these statements please provide the scientific documentation that supports this kind of claim. And I do mean the science. Not just a website that claims that there's a science that exists somewhere. And you'll note that I very deliberately used language That was open enough that I won't be pinning you down on semantics. Last chance to prove that you have some interest in science before becoming yet another example of someone who leans left but absolutely does not allow science to impact their thinking at all

I wouldn't argue that point. I'm not sure it's a great idea but I'm certainly not sure it's a bad idea and a lot of other nations have chosen to go that route so it certainly not unprecedented. But that's not really the issue. The issue being discussed is does it represent new military spending. And that's a hell of a lot more clear. When you say that we got to 2% spending because you rolled existing spending into the military budget then what you're really saying is we didn't get anywhere near 2% spending. The coast guard and tree planting programs that had already been funded are not military spending the way most people would invision the term

We've seen his kind rise into a cult leader often enough. Stalin started pretty small, so you just never know! look at how driven the left is by hatred and bigotry and anger these days. And his time with the CBC would have helped work that into a frenzy.

That doesn't sound very true to be honest. But lets see. So - pick a subject that's been a political issue and give an example of 'science' as you've defined it that you care about and informs your decisions. I have a funny feeling you won't, but prove me wrong. It would be nice to experience something new

But as we have seen there is no real progress. Calling the coast guard military doesn't actually help the military But they aren't getting any new equipment and not much in the way of money. What new equipment have they received? Are there new subs on order? They haven't even finished the official review process of the aircraft never mind replaced our aging fleet. Any new armored personnel carriers that we are giving to Ukraine? Any air defense systems that we didn't give to Ukraine? The guys got a small raise which brings them closer to a reasonable pay scale for what they do but really isn't enough and they aren't getting any new gear at the moment What they got is some trees that were purchased under Trudeau's 4 billion dollar new tree program I realize you're not old enough to get this, but this is all an accounting scam. Which is what I predicted sometime ago and lo and behold yet again I'm right

Except that you didn't Private industry has said they won't put forward anything while those laws are in place. They've been extremely clear so what you're saying is the government is knowingly putting conditions in place that prevent any kind of deal. And even you, as slow and dull with it as you are, have to realize that that's the case. If they were really willing to set the side the laws they would set them aside now especially in light of the industry's comments I gave you two examples which you ignored. For starters I would ditch those two because while they are in place nobody is putting forward any plans You lied and pretended that somehow the magically vanish if people put forward plans knowing damn well that nobody is going to put forward plans while they're in place because they said so As always you're a liar and dishonest.

LOL "I'M REALLY SUPER STUPID BECAUSE I WANT TO SUCK YOU IN BECAUSE... UHHH ... UMMMM...." -Exflyer You only say that because you don't have any This is why everyone knows you're still a teen.

You're assuming he has a heart.

This is a Chuck Norris Memorial threadl. Why don't you keep it that way you disrespectful twat.

What is Afghanistan showed if you don't build, somebody else will. And then you have to wear whatever they put together for better or worse. If All America winds up with is the same sort of dictators back in power after this conflict people will rightfully consider the war a complete failure and trump will wind up owning it

He's actually making the opposite point, US prices for gas are shooting up too. AI: Amid the Iran war, higher gas prices could offset bigger tax refunds from President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill," according to some analysts. The price of gasoline on Thursday was at a nationwide average of $3.98 a gallon, up by roughly 33% from one month ago, according to AAA. Higher inflation will be a problem for him if it persist into the midterms. Further the impact on the world economy and food supply will wind up causing him serious grief at home as well

" I think you're stupid, so i've decided to become even stupider to teach you a lesson!!!" Logic by exflyer. LOL And once again your lies and your bad behavior is our fault LOL you got into the habit because you're a partisan liberal hack who spends all his time here defending the liberal party that he loves.

That's literally what dei is. Hiring less qualified people under the premise that there is something called positive racism and not because they're qualified The whole premise is that nobody wants somebody who's qualified, people in businesses only hire people because they're white. This has been shown for many studies to be completely false but that is the premise. It's totally stupid and thoroughly racist

Two acts of parliament that comprise a massive number of laws as well as substantial separate regulations which are enabled by the acts. Yes Uh huh. I just named two laws. Why don't you address those? Did you just realize you were wrong and now you're desperately trying to change the channel? By the way regulations are different than laws. An act of parliament, sometimes casually referred to as a law, enables the regulations. So there you go. You can't even do what deal with the two I presented without freaking out I guess that's your little way of admitting defeat but kind of childish if you ask me

Funny Side Story, the hunting regulations do not speak of bucks and does but rather antlered and antlerless, because every now and then there is such a thing as a doe with antlers I don't want to blame you for making that mistake No word yet on whether or not the females with antlers are allowed to play in any reindeer games

Different better or different worse though I wonder. This war started without a clear understanding of what its end would look like if it went well it usually doesn't end too great

That's an outer lie and everybody's pointing that out to you over time. I've said it a million times others have said it now goddess is saying it. You're fooling no one You're not here saying the conservatives are no better. You are here saying that the liberals are great and the conservatives are terrible and you did that under Justin and you're doing it under Carney

no no no not possible!!! @BeaverFever has been screeching at me like a banshee for days about how that's a LIE LIE LIE and anyone who says different doesn't' know what they're talking about!!!! You must be "ONE OF THEEEEEMMMMM" I just don't even see how that's controversial. It seems so obvious to me That you can't refer to this as new military spending And yet again we've got at least two people here arguing February that it absolutely is I said the same thing as you, I can see why they might choose to do it and it's not the worst idea I've ever heard of but it's not new military spending. I got called names for saying that I just don't understand how somebody can be so blindly loyal to the liberals that these things which seem so obvious are so hard for them to accept

Trees and coast guard are? Are you really this stupid? Do I really have to hold your hand and walk through this yet again with you? Tens of billions of dollars of this spending had nothing to do with the military. The coast guard is not the military . And you keep insisting it is and that all this was military spending. 🙄🙄🙄🙄 A four year old can figure out if they spent 10 billion on the coast guard, then DECIDED to call that 'military spending and claimed that the military spending went up by 10 billion dollars, that in reality there's no new military spending there. FFS. you're getting dumber with each post. Its literally getting hard to believe this.