kraychik

I shattered the lie that BubberMiley is trying to parrot in my opening post. He's just digging his own hole ever deeper as he continues with his one-liner posts. I just looked at the previous ten posts from BubberMiley to confirm his pattern of content-free posts. His past ten posts have been ten words or less. He just sits on the sidelines and makes irrelevant comments in threads. It reminds me of children at the dinner table when adults are having a discussion, and the child feels left out because he or she can't participate meaningfully in the discussion about mortgages and interest rates. So what does the child do in order to get attention? Well, he or she starts ju,ping up and down and shouting, of course! That is what BubberMiley is on Mapleleafweb, the child at the edge of the table proudly proclaiming that he can tie his own shoes and begging for an adult to witness this magnificent feat. There are a few of these types on every discussion forum.

From factcheck.org: "...no basis for the Obama campaign’s claim that Romney committed a felony." "None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said. It should not surprise anyone that Romney retained certain titles while he was working out the final disposition of his ownership, for example. We see nothing to contradict the statement that a Bain spokesman issued in response to the Globe article: Bain Capital, July 12: Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period." I remember earlier in this thread when you embarrassed yourself by stating that being a CEO of an organisation necessarily requires an active role in the management of the organisation, despite me knowing people personally who are executives of various organisation with which they have no practical involvement. http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/ I'm not sure why you would invoke an organisation that shatters the lie you're trying to parrot from the Obama campaign about Romney's time with Bain Capital. I guess it's easier to chase after these phantoms than it is to actually discussing Obama abysmal presidency. Lastly, Romney's record with Bain Capital is one to be proud of, and he should tout it more and more.

The government doesn't have the ability, and more importantly doesn't have the incentives or disincentives, to trusted with risking money on investments in the same way that private enterprise does. The entire narrative of "economic stimulus" is completely false, anyways. The government doesn't have the ability to do such a thing. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. The government can destroy an economy through intervention and centralisation. I'm glad that you're here, and I'm thankful for all the leftists of Mapleleafweb for exposing their economic illiteracy. We need more of you leftists to talk, so that Canadians can see for themselves how you view economics. You exposed your own hypocrisy in asking me for more context when that request should've been directed towards cybercoma, and now you're exposing your lack of concern of fiscal responsibility by talking about "a little more debt" and pretending that the government has the expertise and incentive to "invest" in "the economy".

Here it is, the future generation of leftist drones singing the praises of the dear leader with the Obama campaign symbol in the background. It's sick. But hey, that's the left. Here's a sample of North Korean children being indoctrinated with more cult of personality worship of their respective dear leader.

Oh yeah, that was completely dictator-like. They do that kinda thing in North Korea, and they did it in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It's frightening. It's important to remember that the left is far more vulnerable to this social disease than the right, because they're just so much more comfortable with relinquishing their freedoms and responsibilities to the leviathan.

Here is a hilarious video of Charlie Rose, a leftist Obama supporter, having a conversation with other leftists immediately after Obama's electoral success in November of 2008. Towards the end of the video they talk about Obama's "creepy cult of personality". Like I always say, the best thing we can do is simply get the left to talk openly and honestly about how they see things. They expose their own worship of the benevolent one known as Barack Hussein Obama. The smartest guy in the room, as it were. Charlie Rose - A conversation with Jon Meacham & Evan Thomas

{i]This[/i] is a beautiful example of how the left makes gods (and goddesses, in this instance) of its leadership. Look how Beyonce is about the faint simply thinking about the First Lady, who is now proud of her country for the first time in her life because it elected her husband as the President. Remember, the left needs to believe that its leadership are of god-like status, otherwise they wouldn't be able to justify supporting increasing their scope of power. Only a god among men can be trusted with being a mastermind of our economies and societies, which is why the left is so much more vulnerable to this cult-of-personality phenomenon. It's funny at sad all at once.

How is a slogan such as "the death of evidence" a legitimate point of discussion? This whole protest has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with leftists who want the government to remain an employment agency to provide jobs of little to no value. Governing is about prioritisation, and the government cannot take on more and more responsibilities that it cannot afford to fulfil. Beyond that, many of these "responsibilities" are not only unaffordable, but counterproductive. In other words, many government interventions exacerbate the very problems they claim to address (for example, "the war on poverty"). There is also the matter of principle, of which a good example if the long-form census. We know why the left wants to use it, and on principle (as well as pragmatically) it's good that it was removed.

Clearly. Of you you're not worried about "a little more debt", you're a leftist. It's not your money, so who cares right?

Thank you for exposing the ignorance of the left is asserting that sleep deprivation is now an "international crime" and tantamount to torture.

So his lawyer described him as a "good kid", what do you expect? How does that support your original absurd comment about "...involved in his incarceration says he's "A GOOD KID".

Watch Son of Al-Qaeda, it was a documentary series released through PBS Frontline quite a few years ago. Omar Khadr's brother, Adburahman, talks about it. I'm not responsible if you haven't informed yourself about the story.

Why? There is absolutely no doubt about his guilt. Although his own statements are irrelevant, he did plead guilty. He was arrested on the battlefield and was witness to have thrown the grenade that murdered an American medic. There are videos of him easily viewable on the internet of him engaging in terrorism (building and assembling IEDs, for instance). One of his brothers operated as a double-agent in Guantanamo Bay and told us all about his terrorist family. The fact that you add "if" as a preface to his guilt, as if you are sincerely unsure of Khadr's guilt, really tells us everything we need to know about you when it comes to this story, doesn't it? Oh, so maybe he's innocent, right? I'm gonna guess that you don't know the first things about military tribunals and what distinguishes them from regular trials. So Canadians are now immune to being justice by virtue of their citizenship? And Khadr was fifteen years old the entire time he in detention? Thank you for exposing the left's support for Khadr, and by extension, for mass murdering terrorists like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

If you were honest you would've made this exact same comment towards cybercoma, as cybercoma was the one who initially brought this up by implying that federal debt wasn't that high when looking at past figures. Aside from what I even chose to ignore, because cybercoma stated that federal debt is around 4% of GDP, when in fact it's around 35%. Why didn't you go after him for stating this out-of-context statement? You and I both know why that is. What's great about forums like this is that leftists speak openly and expose themselves. What cybercoma is doing is fantastic, as he reveals how little concern the left has for fiscal responsibility. He essentially stated that he wants to see more federal debt, which is what I wish we could get all leftists to say all the time.

How high should Canada's federal debt be, then? Nevermind the provincial and municipal debts, of course.

I already posted it in this thread. It's becoming apparent that you don't read posts in threads and jump in with no sense of context, whatsoever. If you want to be relevant around here, I suggest reconsidering this posting strategy of yours.

Here's a video from the "scientist protest". I would bet serious money that less than 10% of those participants have a real degree in science. Notice the anti-Harper signage, as well as the union-placards. This protest is about 100% partisan, and 0% honest. Naturally, the CBC carried water for this fake controversy with this sympathetic article. This entire protest is an attempt to portray cost-cutting from Harper towards the federal government as somehow being "anti-science". And guess what, socialist and communists in this forum are going right along with it. Scientists rally on Parliament Hill to mourn 'death of evidence' 'It definitely seems to us these cuts are not just part of fighting the deficit.' - Katie Gibbs (apparently a Ph.D student in an unnamed discipline at the University of Ottawa) Wow Katie, thanks for speaking truth to power! Here's another nugget of wisdom from an ecology (probably the easiest science degree out there) professor from the same leftist U of O. "Scientists are generally not agitators, but this continuous set of decisions has got very many scientists hot under the collar". Scott Findlay has apparently nominated himself as the spokesperson for "the scientific community".

What scientific assessments? The long-form census? If they have value, allow the market to provide them with lucrative employment. Go invent the next iPhone, and stop asking people whether they self-identify with this or that ethnicity while pretending to be worth whatever paycheque they receive from the taxpayer.

If they're not economically viable in the private sector, why should the government become an employment agency for these "scientists"?

So a bunch of leftists, most of them without any real science or technical education, are now being portrayed by the leftist Guardian and its followers like yourself as being representative of "Canadian scientists"? Hilariously, most of the fake scientists on Parliament Hill actually donned white labcoats that they must've ordered from some online retailed in order to look the part. Obama did the same thing when he invited people who looked like doctors to join him for some pro-Obamacare photo ops. This is so obviously a leftist-orchestrated fake controversy, coordinated with the NDP and/or Liberal Party, with this nonsencial "death of evidence" slogan. Canadians will, unfortunately for socialists like bleeding heart, sleep through this artificial and non-existent controversy.

I guess the wars waged against Israel intent on destroying it, and the subsequent decades of mass murder and terrorism in and around Israel, as well as targeting Jewish interests around the world, was imagined. This attempt to describe today's Israeli Jews as today's Nazis reveals your own anti-Semitism, as it's obvious that the Jews of Europe were incomparable to the "Palestinians" and other Arabs and Muslims of today. The enemies of Israel are very real threats, whereas the Jewish enemy the Nazis went after were not real threats.

Israel and the Jewish people are inextricably linked. This isn't news. It is the anti-Semites who think they can hide their hatred of Jews by describing themselves as "anti-Zionists", which is totally a la mode these days among the left.

You realise these two things are reconcilable, right? A non-communist (yourself, presumably) can take ideas from Marxism without swallowing the entirety of the ideology and its false historical analysis and economic suggestions. That communists don't compromise, according to you, is not relevant. What halfway is there with you? You're willing to allow 25% of the economy to be in the hands of private ownership? The last sentence of yours is something I've heard since primary school. It was untrue then, and it's untrue now. I guess there'll be no "real communism" until you're named dictator for life. In the real world, communism has existed and continues to exist today. And it was and remains very, very, very real.

Well said.

Translation - You're greatly distressed that your little leftist echo-chamber known as Mapleleafweb is now disturbed by my presence. I'm the best thing to have occurred to this forum in years. I've been here a short time and I've already smashed quite a few leftist illusions and fantasies in here. My ongoing reward is when leftists call for me to be censored and banned.