CdnFox

Yes. And that's not an unreasonable assumption. In fact that would be the point. Whether it would be successful or not would be another matter, but the whole point would be to remove Cuba from Russia's influence and bring it in line with the United States and its models in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine. Do things can be true. Job couldn't see this as an opportunity and he could still want to remove the Communist Regime. In fact you won't get the one without the other I suspect. That would be the purpose of military action Maybe but in a case like that there won't be an invasion.

I don't think you've ever said that before to me. But in any case it's absolutely false. If anything if I presented evidence of that to them they would rather give me jail time than an award. for oppression of any scientist that doesn't agree with him has been legendary not to mention them being caught deleting information from experts that they didn't like So no. That wouldn't happen. I mean look at you, you can't provide one single supporting piece of actual science, I supported my position with actual science and somehow you're still denying the obvious contrary to the facts and the science. Why would they be any better

Nope. Absolute lie. You went on for ages and ages about how anyone who's serious should take out iran as they're the REAL bad guy in the area. Otherwise it's just 'mowing the grass'. Nobody said iran had been taken out and the mission was accomplished. That would be you yet again creating a fake argument nobody made to argue against because you lost the argument we were having. Trump has said militarily they've pretty much crushed them, but nobody at all has suggested the war is over or that there isn't a lot more to do, never mind 'mission accomplished'. This is what you wanted. This is literally what you said HAD to happen if there was ever going to be peace in the area. But now that it's TRUMP doing it, the very thing you called for again and again is somehow 'bad' You're a perfect example of what i was talking about.

Why do the lefties here spend so much of their time having weird fantasies about the right and how they spend their day?

Pretty stupid thought. You can care about those other women a great deal, and still be of the opinion that killing more women is a bad thing. Only the left would think it was an either or situation. Why the hell wouldn't you be upset about both? But you can do something about the eight by removing the people doing the killing. So that's a good thing to do

I do know where it is - it's in your imagination along with the voices who told you about it It doesn't exist. You've never been able to post a single source. Neither has mike, or any of the other climate holocaust fanatics over the years. And the reason is simple, it doesn't exist. I've posted links in this very thread proving that the 'threat' has been grossly overhyped and is not supported by the evidence. But for some reason NOBODY on your side can provide any actual science. You just say "oh but there is, just trust me! Or you link to websites who have none but say "oh but there is, just trust me"

OOPs just some of them then

Sure but this is a LIBERAL free trade deal. That means their politicians get to steal our money and ours get to steal their people's money as well, so while it might not improve the trade imbalance it radically improves our corruption imbalance. Yay! That's like all the graft and twice the indebtedness of regular brand trade deals!

Not necessarily disagreeing but why do you say that? Presumably a democratic cuba off their coast is better than a communist aligned cuba that's still in russia's orbit

I don't think they know what they're for or against. I think that they base their ideology and their personal identity on hatred and bigotry. Trump is bad. We hate trump. We hate people who like trump. Trump is mean to the Ayatollah. Therefore we like the Ayatollah and we hate what trump is doing. I don't think the algorithm gets any more complex than that for them Look at eyeball, he spent like a year insisting that anyone who was serious about solving the middle east problems would take out Iran because they were the source of all of the problems and funding. Now that trump is actually doing that he's big mad that it's happening and doesn't want to even admit he suggested it in the first place 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Of course you're not interested in arguing with me. I always make you look like a fool. What I've said is absolutely the truth and easily verified so arguing with it would be silly. Not sure why you bothered to bring that up but figured I'd reply The great lakes are the possession of Canada. And in fact you will note that it is one of those rare cases where the border actually dips down below the 49th to encompass them. However many years ago for a variety of reasons we entered into an agreement with the Americans to jointly manage the waterway as it has benefits to both. So currently in practical terms it is jointly controlled, but that is by treaty and the terms of the treaty spell out the control each party has. There are other waterways that we have agreements on. We guarantee for example by treaty to allow a certain amount of water to pass from Canada into America on the Columbia River. We take a lot for our own use but we always leave enough by treaty for the us. But that is our water and the reason we allow it to go is because we have a treaty and an agreement that we considered mutually beneficial at the time. Waterways that are part of the Canadian maritime control which includes a certain distance beyond our shores our Canadian and at the end of the day we have absolute control and share over what happens in those waters. I'm sure you remember some of the fights we've had with other countries over fishing rights in those waters, where we basically had to run them off To give a comparable our airspace is our airspace and we own it, but we do allow a large number of countries to use it to Traverse distance or for other purposes. Common waterway. Waterways are either international or controlled by a country who may have entered into a treaty with other countries or groups for its use

First off he doesn't live in BC so do try not to be dumber than a dead squirrel if you can avoid it Secondly we absolutely do have conservative governments. Just because they're not called conservative doesn't mean they're not conservative. The social credit was very conservative Read a book

Why violent crime is surging in Canada: Dave Snow in The Hub | Macdonald-Laurier Institute The analysis shows the naysayers are wrong: Violent crime severity increased considerably in every province and nearly every major city over the last decade. In most provinces, the past few years have produced the highest levels of violent crime severity recorded at any point since the index began in 1998.Feb 23, 2026 The numbers don’t lie: Violent crime has surged across Canada - The Hub Violent crime in Canada’s cities has not only risen – it has become a growing threat affecting urban communities across the country. Urban-Violent-Crime-Report_Final.pdf Sorry kid. Violet crime is in fact radically up in Canada even in 2025 Yeah evidence is overwhelming. It's sad that you felt the need to lie to protect your beloved liberals

The liberal party are the ones who brought in the get out of jail free law. How is this any surprise to you?

And finishes with the claim that the perfectly logical argument is invalid because it contains a "bad word" Yep, that's the right and the left these days. Factual statement vs appeal to emotion and 'muh feels'

And I'm sorry but someone's going to have to explain to me how large-scale planting of trees represents military spending.

But you can't provide a single scrap of it? Sounds like they have none but they told you they have lots and so you believe they have lots even though you've seen none. Go ahead and post a specific scientific paper that addresses what I have said and we can put this to bed Yeah they are. That's the law. We can work out agreements but the reality is our water is in fact our water

No I've been explicit as to why David Emerson is a unique case amongst all four crossers in history. And the only fool here is you. There have been ethical floor crossings in the past that were very obviously driven by ethical or moral reasons. And that goes both ways. But there's a lot of floor crossings where it was obviously just for the personal benefit of the person crossing the floor. Most of these recent floor crossings would fall into that category The only thing I will say in defense of the NDP girl is she got a hell of a lot of goods for her area doing this. I mean her constituents are going to get a new University and a bunch of extra spending if the liberals keep their promise so at least she could turn around and say she got bought off but she got bought off in benefits to her community. That's a little less disgusting than the other three. The fact is the liberals are doing something very scummy. They are trying to buy MPS to get a mandate they weren't given by the people. It's not necessarily illegal although it borders on it, but it is definitely slimy and it definitely erodes people's confidence and belief in our democratic system And you know that, but you're desperate as hell to once again come right into the defense of your beloved liberals as you have for years now to try and excuse their bad behavior. Oh I'm so sorry, was that too many words for you again, I know once we get over about 10 or 15 your head starts to hurt. Don't read it all at once, take a few breaks and maybe a nap or two in between paragraphs

Actually many argue that less fuel efficient vehicles force people to drive last due to the cost of fuel. So that's not obviously true the way you claim it is. If I can drive farther on a tank of gas chances are I'll drive farther and burn the same amount of gas But I'm sure you're right, so let's see the evidence. Here we are again with you making statements that you want everyone to accept us being gospel even though they don't actually necessarily make sense logically and you've got absolutely nothing to support your position I mean you must have something. Doesn't even have to necessarily be a scientific paper but you have to have something that at least we can talk about that supports your claim right? Or are you just making this up on the fly entirely as usual?

Actually you know that's true. It's telling that you have to try and lie about it David Emerson was perhaps the most Stark example of a floor crossing for relatively noble reasons He was not a politician. He ran for office because the liberals told them that they were going to win and he could do the softwood lumber deal if he was elected. His whole reason to get into politics was to do the softwood lumber deal and get the best deal for Canada. He was a software lumber guy, he was not a politician. And he was universally regarded as the best person to negotiate that deal Well the liberals lost. And harper went to him up front and honest and said everyone agrees you are still the best guy, will you come over to us if I let you handle those negotiations He said yes. That was the only reason he ever got into politics. He handled the negotiations and then left politics He literally got into politics and agreed to cross the floor strictly for the benefit of Canada to negotiate one specific deal and then he never entered politics again or even tried That is very different than the people that cross today. That NDP girl was saying just two weeks ago how terrible carney was and how she couldn't possibly represent her people if she was part of the Liberal party. Just a few days ago she was saying how heavy Lewis was the best choice to be PM in Canada And how she had total faith in him and stood up and got her picture taken then turn around and ran across to the liberals a couple days later Those two things are not the same thing and pretending they are as childish

No it's just a reality. It's a liberals are going to cheat and be scumbags and win and we have to prepare to do the same things if we want to win whether we like it or not. It's the bar you are setting

Yep. And they will continue profiting off of its breaking until there's literally nothing left.

Some more promises to spend money someday when he hasn't hit his current spending promises

Okay. Provide the science to back all that up. Show us how much of a factor climate change was in the five mass extinction events you're talking about, and the scientific studies you're relying on to say that 1.5 billion humans will move north by 2050 Let me guess. You don't have any evidence for either of those statements

Why are both a good idea? We have absolutely convincing science that says seat belts save lives, tonnes of crash tests massive real world experience, But there's ZERO evidence in the slightest that the milage requirements do anything at all. So is this more of your imagination talking? No science, just 'Muh feels'? Or do you have some sort of actual science that explains precisely why this is a 'good idea'? You certainly didn't have any for climate change