Moonbox
-
Posts
9,019 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:
ROFLMAO - that's all you've got? I typed 2020 instead of 2021 and you feel all proud of yourself now? LOLOL!!!
You typed it on purpose:
The frankly shocking stupidity behind this is not that you typed 2020 instead of 2021, it's that intended to do just that, insisting that a PM "term" is 5 years by your completely made up and unbelievably dumb "legal definition".
It's your foolishness on perfect display. We can skip the multi-page song and dance where you bullshit and clown around about all of the reasons you can't or won't source this "legal definition". This one is so painfully and obviously wrong on its face that it doesn't even matter. 🤣
That you don't have the emotional maturity to admit you were wrong is a given. The real question now is what your inevitable meltdown is going to look like. Which previous butthurt are you going to try to dredge up? How many emojis and caps will you ROFLMAO pound out on your keyboard in your upcoming performance?
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
19 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Translation - "Crap, he's right and i can't refute it! Gotta say SOMETHING!!!" LOLOL
Sorry that your stupidity didn't work out for you again kiddo
After just telling us that the last election was in 2020, I understand why you'd have to say SOMETHING!!!!
🤡🤡🤡
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
Sorry moonbox it does not work that way, Arty can be on target and not cause any casualties, That's what trench's and fox holes are for, arty kills those above ground, it takes a direct hit or very close round kill or wound anyone in a trench....but sooner or later everyone has to go above ground that's when the start getting killed...Arty is the king of the battle field, it kills the most of any weapon system...
Sorry but that's not what you said. You said 75% of it was landing on Ukrainian troops, which obviously isn't true. Whether it's "on target" or not is probably a matter of perspective, given that Russia seems to be spraying and praying more than anything. "On target" for them probably means anything within a couple of miles. 🤣
Artillery may be king, but there's obviously a lot more to it than number of shells fired, else Russia wouldn't constantly be losing artillery duels, whining about their lack of artillery radar systems, and suffering 2:1 casualty ratios, correct?
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:You would have a point if NATO economy moved into war capacity, but it is not...most are producing military materials during a 8 hour work day, 5 days a week ...there is not rush....so while they have the potential to out produce Russia that's not the case right now, and won't be any time soon...NATO increases to production are happening at a snail paces, and for now and the near future, Russia with the help of NK are out producing NATO in war materials...
NATO doesn't need a war economy to outproduce Russia and North Korea. The US's peacetime military budget alone is bigger than Russia and North Korea's wartime economies combined. There is literally no contest there. A wartime economy is also something that's hard to sustain, and requires massive deficit and reserve spending. Russia and North Korea may be outproducing artillery shells, but this is obviously not a war-ending advantage.
Producing 20,000 shells for an artillery unit doesn't count for much if your artillery radar gets knocked out by HIMARs, your shells trajectories are being tracked by enemy radar, and you take accurate return fire from out of your range, does it?
4 hours ago, Army Guy said:I have stated very clearly that currently Russia and NK are out producing NATO in all war materials, for many different reasons...I have provide clear reliable sources that back those points up..
You haven't though. You've shown that their making more artillery shells.
-
28 minutes ago, Matthew said:
It's not a disaster. Democrats had no advantage going into the debate and an already narrow path to election victory in November. So it would have been worse for democrats if biden's performance was just mediocre and maintained the status quo. However, bombing so hard creates a rare game changing development for democrats, in the unlikely event that they choose to strategically take advantage of it.
I think it would have been better if Joe showed up with some energy and with a functioning brain. The only way this gets turned into lemonade is if they very quickly find a replacement.
-
1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:
I caught most of the debate and agree with the overwhelming consensus that the debate wasn’t as much a Trump win as it was a massive Biden loss.
Yeah I don't see how anyone can view this as anything but an absolute disaster for the democrats. I turned it off after Biden's opening statement. What Trump did during the debate never really mattered. Everyone knew he was just going to rant through his regular slogans and lying BS. What everyone wanted to see was whether Biden still functioned, but he did his best impression of a vegetable.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Blah blah blah "I DON'T UNDERSTAND POLITICS BUT I"LL LASH OUT BECAUSE CDNFOX KEEPS MAKING ME LOOK STUPID!!!"
Kiddo you're embarrasing yourself.
And nobody said anything about 'a parliament'. LOOK!!!! HERE"S A DEFINITION OF SOMETHING YOU DIDN"T SAY TO PROVE SOEMTHNIG ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID!!!! LOLOL
Also you - "TERM DOESN"T EXIST, THAT"S JUST A WORD YOU INVENTED! YOU MADE IT UP! IT"S NOT REAL!! ALSO HERE'S WHAT A TERM IS"
ROFLMAO!!! Honestly comedy writers look at you and wonder "how does he come up with this stuff?"
PP will likely serve three terms. That means about 12-15 years.
But carry on - i'm loving watching you cry your salty leftist tears
Another useless wall of text, saying nothing. This is what you do when you've humiliated yourself - you just try to spam through and try to move the thread to the next page. 🤣
-
20 hours ago, Army Guy said:
The fact that 80% of all Ukrainian casualties are caused by Russia arty, rocket fire tells a much different story, Ukrainian soldiers are telling a much different story...Russian arty is deadly and plentiful...
No, it really doesn't. We're doing simple math here. If Russia is firing 600,000 shells a month, as you say, and hitting Ukrainians 75% of the time as you suggest, then that's 450,000 casualties a month. The war would be over in a month or two if that were true, which it obviously isn't.
They still hit stuff, and they still cause lots of casualties, but if we accept they're firing 600,000 shells per month (highly dubious), then they're not even hitting targets 5% of the time.
20 hours ago, Army Guy said:NATO's production capacity does not dwarf anything...it's been on peacetime production for decades, and will take years to even match Russia and NK capacity as it sits right now...
NATO's economy (and therefore capacity to produce) outscales Russia and North Korea probably 50:1. The fact that surplus equipment and peacetime production has been enough to stall out and hold off Russian and North Korean war economies for 2 years tells you everything you need to know. Even a modest, real commitment to armament production would tip the scales. 2% of NATO's GDP towards the military would dwarf 50% of Russia's GDP towards theirs. North Korea would barely even factor into that equation.
20 hours ago, Army Guy said:As for raw materials, they must be getting it from somewhere becasue western intel sources have quoted the fact that NK is producing arty ammo at full production rates...
No, this is what you're referring to:
"While North Korea's arms factories operate at 30 percent capacity due to shortages of raw materials and power, certain factories are operating at full capacity, which primarily produce weapons and shells for Russia," Shin said in a meeting with reporters Monday.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/06/103_369559.html
All this is telling you is that North Korea has prioritized supporting Russia as much as they can.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Literally posted the legal definition above.
LOL!! 🤣
Let's review:
Everything about this comment is retarded.
First, you're saying Justin won three elections, but not three terms - which makes no sense whatsoever.
Second, you're offering what you call a "legal definition" for the word "term", when anyone can do a 2 second google search and see you made it up:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/our-procedure/ParliamentaryCycle/c_g_parliamentarycycle-e.html
The "term" of any Parliament is not fixed, and the only mention of 5 years is that this is the Constitutional maximum limit.
The best part of all of this though, is that you can't even get basic facts right:
Our last election was in 2021. The next one is 2025. That's four years, you absolute assclown. Harper introduced a bill in 2007 (which has since become law) that there has to be an election 4 years after the last one. By your made-up "legal definition", "winning a term" is therefore impossible.
🤡🤡🤡
-
45 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
Catherine Mckenna, remember her speech or should i say drunken slur it was reported on most media outlets..."if you say it loud enough , often enough Canadians will believe you"
I don't even really know who she is, but she's absolutely right. Repeat a slogan enough, and the dumb and incurious will eventually believe it.
-
3 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Ahhh no - no i was correct. They didnt' serve three terms
any of them You were wrong but you just keep doubling down on the stupid
No, you were not. You made a complete assclown out of yourself, again, and conjured up your own retarded definition for what "term" means out of nowhere.
5 years is/was the Constitutional maximum term limit to a parliament, and that's since been limited to 4 years. That doesn't mean you didn't serve a term if you don't go to max. That's nothing but the standard mental gymnastics you do to assuage your ego after humiliating yourself with your clueless bullshitting.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Army Guy said:
Well according to climate Barbie , she says canadians respond to screaching something loud and often enough it becomes fact...maybe he is a liberal...
Who is climate Barbie?
-
15 hours ago, Army Guy said:
Thats not my point, your claim is about NK ammo being to old, thats a myth, your claim about it being of inferior quality is right...that being said there is 4 times the amount of arty rounds falling from the sky, it does not matter if 25 % is duds becasue 75 % is still landing on Ukrainian troops...
If Russia is firing 600,000 rounds per month, and 75% of it is landing on Ukrainian troops, there wouldn't be any Ukrainian troops left alive, would there?
The certain, mathematical reality is that 95% of their rounds don't even scratch a Ukrainian soldier:
15 hours ago, Army Guy said:As for accuracy both sides are having issue with accuracy due to barrel wear...and not many spare barrels...it's not just a russian thing...
Perhaps, but Russian accuracy was shit to start, so barrel-ware is going to affect them worse. More importantly, if they're firing at 7-10x the rate the Ukrainians are, so who's dealing with more barrel-ware?
15 hours ago, Army Guy said:Again not my point you said NATO and its production capacity was going to,leave Russia's and NK in the dust, thats a myth.
NATO production capacity dwarfs Russian and NK's. North Korean factories don't operate at capacity because they are constantly lacking raw materials, and both nations are under critical components shortages on account of their being sanctioned and unable to make any of it on their own.
You can probably appreciate that there's more to military economics than the number of artillery shells you can theoretically produce, right?
Long-term, this is a question of economic scale. Russia's economy can be outmatched by Canada's. North Korea's can be matched by...Uganda. Those two countries can keep up with NATO in the longer term? That's what you really think?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:
1....Yes they do have massive stockpiles of ammunition, but it is not as old as you suggest, And the fact they have a high dud rate is a moot point Russians are still firing it at high rates of fire. You are discounting the fact that NK is manufacturing not just arty ammo for russia but small arms , RPG, grenades etc...with their manufacturing plants running at full capacity
If you're arguing the numerical advantage of Russia's munitions, how is it a moot point that a large portion of them miss their target and turn out to be duds even if they hit? That's the exact opposite of moot.
If # of artillery shells was the determining factor of the war, it would be over already. The reality is that Russian equipment has always been garbage. It was garbage during the Cold War, and they've only fallen further behind. Combine that with the fact that Russian training, leadership, C&C and intelligence is all dogshit. Look back at Summer 2023, when Russia was losing artillery systems at a 4:1 or worse ratio, despite firing 7x more shells per month.
3 hours ago, Army Guy said:You say it is all pennies, but if that was the case why have they not decided to donate in the tens of dollar range, and why has the rest of NATO atleast not meet the US in the middle with donations
A lot of it has to do with public perception and Vladimir Putin's info ops. The slow-roll nature of all of the equipment being donated has been a direct consequence of limp escalatory threats from the Kremlin, and prevaricating on it here. The Red Line has been feebly threatened by Putin, but continuously pushed by NATO, over and over. We call their bluffs, but it's an agonizingly slow process. First it was long range artillery, then it was tanks and AA systems, then it was cluster munitions, then fighter planes, then permission to strike within Russia...the piecemeal nature has been tortuous and costly.
Arguments like the ones you're making here, however, are actively making the situation worse. It's the narrative that Putin is pushing - and you're buying into it and the negative feedback loop it leads to. The situation is hopeless, so we might as well stop supplying aid, which makes to situation worse, making it seem more hopeless, and so on.
3 hours ago, Army Guy said:I have looked at the map and Russia is gaining far more ground than Ukrainian forces the maps i provided show that Ukraine is doing a out of this world job at stalling Russian advances, but the fact remain Russia is gaining ground daily
I'm not sure you really have:
Man, look at all that progress Russia's making...they're advancing daily...from one blade of grass to the next.
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, CdnFox said:
LOL where did i tell anyone they lost?
HAHAHAHA! Where?!?
Twice in the same thread, you dumb muppet.
3 hours ago, CdnFox said:But as predicted, once you got your ass handed to you yet again
I get that it's upsetting when people show how much of an assclown you are, but you do it so regularly, and so obviously, that the solution is to think before you post something stupid. Ranting emoji spam doesn't convince anyone of anything. 🤡
-
1
-
-
This is a funny matchup.
Inarticulate copy-paste poster VS Deluded Conspiracy clown.
Round 2...
FIGHT!
-
On 6/24/2024 at 11:56 AM, CdnFox said:
It's what you do. You lose an argument and then you start begging and whining and crying and throwing a tantrum like a five-year-old.
I'll just leave that here again...LOL 🤡
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, PIK said:
Another elitist running the country, we have had enough of that. Lol But if Trudeau is still in power and Trump wins, We are in for a world of hurt.
What makes Mark Carney "elitist", by your estimation? That he's crazy smart and highly regarded around the world?
When I hear someone complain about "elitists" in a context like this, what you're really telling us is that three word slogans are the key to your heart. 🙄
For the record, I don't think Mark Carney should run in the next election.
-
5 hours ago, Army Guy said:
The fact that NK is still providing shipments of Arty ammo, and various other supplies means they must have Massive stockpiles of munitions, which is highly possible as they are still at war with the south, but stock piles this huge would be mind blowing....
...stockpiles built up over 50 years, significantly deteriorated, with high dud rates and reportedly often stripped of de-copper and prone to warp barrels or misfire.
5 hours ago, Army Guy said:Thats speculation on your part, on one side you say NK does not have the production capacity, and then say China is not supplying Ammo , so where is it almost 600,000 a month coming from...As you state you can only stock pile so much...
They're coming from stockpiles. I thought that was clear. Even if they are capable of producing 600,000 shells together, Russia and North Korea can't hope to compete when the West scales up production. This is a short-term advantage. In a year it will be greatly diminished. In two years it will be gone. South Korea is now considering supplying Ukraine, and that's one of the world's largest economies vs it's third-world shithole neighbour.
5 hours ago, Army Guy said:I have and there has been lots of movement slow but steady...i remember months ago the heavy fighting was around backmout , which is long in the rear view mirror...
The fighting around Bakhmut was over a year ago. The Ukrainians have since made some gains, and the Russians have made some of their own. Look at the map.
5 hours ago, Army Guy said:below is a source from this month, you compare it to last years and tell me the Russian are not making steady progress
Steady progress...measured in meters and tens of thousands of thousands of monthly casualties.
5 hours ago, Army Guy said:NATO contributions have petered out, have you heard of any new tanks, or arty pieces being sent...all i hear is limited amounts of arty ammo, and soon a few F-16s and some a/d systems...Ukraine have withdrawn it's abrams, leopard fleets of tanks due to parts and damage concerns...Challenger tanks are being used sparely...
I heard of +$60B recently being committed by US congress in the last month or so.
I also heard about +$300B in frozen Russian assets being used to finance a $50B loan worth of further military aid just for this year. This is all pennies to NATO in the West, and with it they're hobbling what's historically been its greatest adversary.
The point I'm trying to make here is that it's the delays or abandonment of aid to Ukraine that's causing their problems. Vladimir Putin's info-op is to to convince people like you that there's no hope - that Russia can pay the cost of blood and outlast the West, or that properly supporting Ukraine will escalate the conflict out of hand. Neither of these are true, but there are lots of people out there unwittingly arguing these points for him.
Ask yourself, is there any possible link between Russia's brutally costly foray into Kharkiv Oblast from April/May, and the fact this was when the Congress was debating the aid bill?
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
So your thinking is that a person who is politically unknown, and who has no current ties with the liberal party infrastructure which would allow them to put together a winning team, and who has never fought elections should go up against believer with literally no time to prepare and that's a good idea
I think a hamster would do better for the Liberals in an election than Justin Trudeau, or one of his cabinet members.
Folks could also reasonably expect that a hamster would do a better job running the country.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:
That just isn't guaranteed. Any of the brand name liberals that have any kind of recognition in Canada are completely tainted with Justin and it would take a lot of effort to get people to overlook that.
Why would you go with a name brand Liberal? That would defeat the purpose of dropping Justin.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Look at Poilievre. After he won the leadership, it took a solid year of him going out there and working like a dog to raise his profile and sell his message so that voters would vote for him. And he's still working on it.
This is more about the implosion of the Trudeau Liberal brand than Poilievre's efforts. He's still wildly disliked and mistrusted, though strongly preferred over the even more wildly disliked and mistrusted Justin.
7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:While it is technically possible it is practically impossible. Nobody's ever done it. They always drop compared to the last election. It was true for Campbell, Turner, martin, anyone who's ever tried.
Martin won an election. There's almost no chance a new Liberal leader will, but that's not what this is about. It's about survival. If Liberal MPs want any hope of keeping their seats, they need to shed the anchor around their necks that is Justin Trudeau.
9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:The candidate who replaces him would be instantly skewered and done in politics in all probability.
Maybe, but even an interim straw-leader would offer a better chance for Liberal MPs to keep their seats than Trudeau's poisonous presence.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Pointing out three different occasions that you were wrong is not 'different versions'
And i spelled them out
You "spelled out" three different versions of what you insisted my argument was - three different versions of what I "very clearly" claimed.
20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:LOLOL i don't have to tell you you're wrong kiddo - you know know that perfectly well. That's why you behave like this
Emotionally you can't cope with it 
and yet, you can't help doing it. These sorts of dumb performances are more about you reassuring yourself than anything else.
23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:Continue with your melt down tho
Keep projecting, muppet. Spastically inserting emojis into every phrase is a great way of convincing everyone it's the other guy having a meltdown. 🤡
-
44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
It does not matter. There is only a slight chance a new leader could do better than Trudeau against Poilievre at this point and with the time remaining. Oct 2025 is the next election I think.
There's over a year until the election. That's plenty of time for a leadership race. If the Liberals are so unpopular under Trudeau that they're giving up seats they've held for over 30 years, none of his MPs are safe. They'd be crazy to go to election with him in charge - political seppuku.
Crazy sometimes happens, of course, but I this is the writing on the wall. I'd be surprised if Trudeau isn't forced to resign before the end of summer, and it would be long overdue.
-
2
-
Conservatives win longtime Liberal stronghold Toronto-St. Paul's in shock byelection result - Will Trudeau Step Down?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by Moonbox
He's always been a loser and a joke. He knows it. That's why he these arguments are all mortal conflicts for him. His ego can't handle any challenge. This forum is all he has. 🤡🤡🤡