Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Moonbox

  1. 9 hours ago, Nationalist said:

    Except you ignore the entire quote. That's not like you but..."So you warmongering know what it is to doom thousands to their death..."

    The entire quote is there.  That bolded part makes absolutely no difference, and it's weird that you somehow think it does. 

    If you hadn't feverishly spent the last two years promoting Putin's nonsense propaganda and doing everything you can to undermine Ukraine's struggle to remain free, someone might give you the benefit of the doubt.  

    You said literally said you're hoping for the destruction of Ukraine, and everything you've done and said on the topic since has demonstrated that's what you actually want to see.    

    That you think you're fooling anyone here is a joke, but it speaks loudly of your cowardly character.  




  2. So many of the "facts" you list...that just aren't facts. 🤣

    I can certainly grant you that the war will end with some sort of peace treaty, and that NATO troops aren't going in, but you're stating the obvious.  

    Everything else you've said is just your regular rootin' for Putin, rife with your regular contradictions and cluelessness.  

    If you think Ukraine is rapidly ceding territory, you might want to compare a map of the frontlines in late 2022 to one today.




  3. 3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

    You made stoopid predictions...you were wrong.

    What predictions were those, precisely?  That Ukraine had no hope in fending off Russia, and that they'd have to accept their status as a neutral buffer state?  That Putin was going to end the war by May 9th, 2022, with "Mission Accomplished?" That the Ukrainians and Europe was going to freeze in winter 2022/2023?  

    Oh wait...those were your predictions.  🙄

    The one thing I'll admit I underestimated was the servility and stupidity of the average Russian peasant - willing to die like rats in the mud in their tens of thousands for absolutely nothing.  

  4. 11 minutes ago, herbie said:

    Like I said before, PP's difference is he does not even mention alternatives or plans. while Trump will no matter how stupid, foul or counter-productive they are.

    There's that, but there are lots of other differences too.  My point was that you can draw similarities easily amongst politicians, but saying Trudeau = the Left's Trump, or Poilievre = Canada's Trump are just lazy heuristics.  All you're really saying is so and so is BAD, and just like this OTHER bad person we don't like.  

  5. I just think it's funny how important these polling numbers are...the mediocre support for campus protests, but the fact that the Freedumb Convoy had something like 70% of people opposed to it was irrelevant and not worth discussing for...certain types.  😆

    For the record, I think these campus protests (especially in Canada) are useless and incoherent, protesting everything and nothing at the same time.  

    • Like 2
  6. 4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

    Ahh - so you can't refute the points so you freak out as usual .  Or is it you just feel that disagreeing with your nonsense is 'derailing' things. 

    It's a pretty weird claim that someone is derailing a thread by commenting on the very points the thread is about and in fact points you yourself made.  "HE COMMENTED ON EXACTLY WHAT I SAID SO HE"S DERAILING THE THREAD".  Weird. 

    So that'd be you derailing the thread :)  

    If you can't defend your argument maybe don't post it on a forum.  Don't while about people 'derailing' your faulty talking points. 

    But hey - you could always pretend you didn't say it i guess :)  


    • Like 1
  7. 46 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    No, you couldn't The narcissism of Trudeau and Trump goes well beyond what normal politicians exhibit.

    Yes, I very easily can.  No two politicians are exactly alike, and though you have drawn some very good comparisons (particularly the narcissism, the silver spoon, the incompetence and incuriousness), there also very large differences. 

    I can, like I said, draw comparisons between Trump and Poilievre.  They're both deceitful and manipulative populists, focusing on simple-minded slogans and language to mobilize their base.  They're both prone to exaggerated (sometimes wild) rhetoric and they both enable and encourage conspiracy theories.  They both belittle and erode trust in experts, the government and media, and they're both highly divisive and polarizing. 

    That said, I do not think Poilievre is the same as Trump.  I think he's ultimately much smarter, less narcissistic, has more empathy, an actual moral compass, and that he believes in democracy.  Saying he's like Trump would be a narrow-minded, lazy criticism.  

    I think it's worth drawing the similarities between Trump and Trudeau, and pointing out that some of the things we mock the MAGA asshats for can often be pointed back at our Dear Leader, but saying Trudeau is the Left's Donald Trump is a poor argument, IMO.  



  8. 9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

    You specifically said that the statcan work was not 'research' in your opinon. 

    That's not what we're disputing, you donkey.

    I asked you to to prove where I "literally said Statscan was a blog", as you've repeated multiple times.   Once again (and not for the first time in this thread), we've proven you're absolutely full of shit.  🙃

    LETS RECAP your journey of humiliation on this thread:

    "All of the research says remote work improves productivity" (aside from the numerous academic papers published within the last year suggesting otherwise) 

    "bu-bu-but that's all old research!  That's from 2023!  Here are some blog articles from 2024....and a statscan page referencing employees surveys from 2021 !"  

    "You literally said statscan was a blog!"  (see above)

    Keep up the good work.  Clown Academy is very proud of you.  


    • Haha 1
  9. 2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

    I did.  And replied with that snip specifically addressing it. Now you want me to do it again, and then you'll want me to do it again and again and again, 


    Is that so?  Here's your reply, you absolute clown.  

    Where is it?  Where did I say statscan was a blog?  

    That's what's so great about the quote function.  I can prove you're completely full of shit with the press of the button, while you spiral out and puke all over yourself trying to gaslight...yourself I guess? 


  10. 39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Trump is a reflection of his supporters - they're what's really different.

    It’s the same folk who’ve supported other presidents.  Trump’s unique in that he’s a psychopath - no remorse, no shame, no introspection for anything he does or says.  The man has literally no decency and lacks a moral compass, but he does have the cunning needed to understand the dumbest apes, and make loud ape noises back at them.

  11. 2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

    I just don't understand you. I can see what you wrote.

    If you can see what I wrote,  you'd just snip the quote instead of limply ranting and insisting on it for paragraphs and paragraphs over multiple posts, convincing yourself that somehow, this is magically more convincing.  

    Beyond that, you're literally trying to argue that I claimed Statscan is a blog.  I would have never imagined someone pushing such a frivolous, ridiculous line of reasoning before, but the one thing you've proven here is that CdnFox can always lower the bar further.  👌

    • Like 1
  12. 14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    You are a typical semi-conscious bobblehead who's reality is planted in his empty skull by not possessing the capacity to question the stoopid proclamations made by known liars.

    I always get a good laugh of seeing you parse through reality with that smooth-brain of yours.  You're complaining about people listening to liars while parroting direct-from-the-Kremlin propaganda and MAGA donkey-logic. 

    Election was stolen!  Election was stolen!  Bioweapon labs!  Joe Biden's laptop! 🤡🤣🤡


    • Thanks 1
  13. 4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    Indeed. And only now does the li'l Tweenkie realize the futility of his death-mongering.

    Indeed what?  You admit you've been rootin' for Pootin' the whole time?  

    The only person who's done any death mongering here is the smooth-brain who said he's hoping to see Ukraine utterly destroyed.  🤡


  14. 2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

    Well then you think what you like...and if you can show/prove I "supported" Putin or Russia...or Ukraine for that matter...produce it.

    We can just go through every thread on this forum relating to Putin and Ukraine, and your hundreds and hundreds of posts parroting his propaganda, arguing on his behalf and against his opponents. 

    Short of finally admitting you jerk off to him in the shower, I don't think you could show your support more clearly.  

    We will always have this as well:



  15. 25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

    You literally called it a blog above and claimed it wasn't research.

    No I didn't.  That's why you can't quote it.  🤡

    I called the two obscure blogs you cited...blogs.

    Having humiliated yourself again, the only tool you have left in your box is to make something up to argue against, and then spiral out ranting in frustration about points nobody made. 

    You're literally too dumb to argue with anyone but yourself.  🤣

    • Like 1
  16. 15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

    Well seeing  as you define statcan as a 'blog' - sure :)    I mean you cliam statscan is a blog and that surveying target demographics is not research so i guess anything means anything in your world :)  

     I never said statscan was a blog, nor did I say that the surveys they quoted weren't research. You're just lying and making shit up now to argue against....AGAIN!  🤣

    I said that statscan didn't provide any productivity data.  Surveying employees on how much better/harder they feel they perform working from home is the same thing as asking them if they prefer to work from home.  

    15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

    The evidence is quite clear - working from home is as productive or more and where they did find weakness they noted it can easily be corrected and expect it will be.

    I love when you try to wrap everything up like this: 

    "Having pissed and shit all over myself, the evidence is quite clear. I declare myself the winner of this debate.  The smell speaks for itself."  


    • Like 1
  17. 2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

    Your 'research' is literally a blog article. It's a guy offering his opinion. 

    So Forbes and LA Times are blogs now, and their citing National Bureau of Economic Research's, Stanford University's and the German Institute of Labour Economics' actual academic study conclusions is...a guy offering his opinion



    • Like 1
  18. 12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

    LOL - NOOOOOO!!!  Go check the dates!!! The later 'research' is mine, not yours, and it shows that it's actually more efficient!!! You can read the dates!!!   Yours was mid 2023 and mine is from 2024!  Why are you LIKE this?!?!

    So your reasoning here is that the obscure 2024 blog articles you posted negate academic research from 2023!?   🤣

    Hilariously, you say this shortly after citing academic research from...2021.  

    You just went full-tard.  Never do that.  


    • Like 1
  19. I think this is one of the sillier things you've posted in awhile. 

    Trump and Trudeau are both very bad, and both couldn't go away sooner.  They are bad for very, very different reasons, however, and are diametrically opposed on almost everything.  

    The similarities you draw between them are shared by most politicians - the lying, the performances, the narcissism, the grudges etc...You could say the exact same things about Poilievre, but like Trudeau I wouldn't say he's like Trump.

    Trump is something very, very different.  


  20. 14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

    I posted evidence that it was more productive.  You claimed as per above that LATER research showed that it wasn't so great. 

    Yes, the later research is disputing that it's increased productivity.  By research, I don't mean the blog articles you scraped off the interwebs, or surveys of employees who want to stay working at home telling everyone how much harder they work at home.  🤡


  21. 23 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    I use the same term as everyone else does. How would you define higher-skilled individuals? Dime a dozen coders?

    I would define them as the people who aren't easily replaceable.  Considering the near-zero vacancy for federal public service positions we've seen over the last decade, this generally doesn't apply to them.   

    23 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    The point is that people have workloads and are required to complete them. If they don't, they'll have to explain why and rectify the situation.

    They have workloads they've negotiated via CBA through a militant public sector union, and anything but the bare minimum is wasted effort.  High performers are stifled by seniority mandates and rigid compensation, and thus the best and brightest move on.  What's left is the mediocre to bad, and it's almost statistically impossible fire the bad ones.  🤷‍♂️

    It's no wonder we waste so much money on private consultants.

    • Like 1
  22. 13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

    All I provided was part of an article.  There were no links.  Inane.

    Evidently there were, because I clicked on it, read it, and cited it.  🤡

    20 hours ago, User said:

    Yes, you found the technical loophole that I addressed in my response to you that he should have clarified with STRAIGHT white males. 


    It's a matter of tone and repetition for angry babies like him.  Would you have read that article and come here, like him to rant about how disgusting and racist Canada is, or do you think maybe you would have offered a bit more nuance and thoughtfulness?  

    For the record, I'm firmly opposed to affirmative action as it's been implemented, and think it's only got worse over time.  

  • Create New...