Moonbox

Of course I do. That's what this thread is about. Your self-serving personal commentary is useless and nobody's interested in debating with your imagination. We're here to debate, not listen to Fox Storytelling. 🤡

It is a lot of the same bunch. It would have been nice to hold them accountable for enabling Trudeau's disastrous leadership. Unfortunately, holding them accountable required putting Pierre Poilievre in power, and he managed to make himself look like a worse option. That's an impressive achievement. Carney has been plenty different from Trudeau to shift opinion his way. Whether or not you choose to accept these differences is your choice, but not terribly relevant.

Just as a thought-exercise: Is there anything the Liberals could do that would make you support them, or anything the Conservative could do that would make you not support them?

How do you miss the oblivious hypocrisy of this comment, right after you said this: It's crazy how little self-awareness some of you people have - especially considering we have recent examples of you citing anonymous facebook posts as "evidence" for your conspiracy theories. 🤡

If you were telling the truth, you could quote it. You'd have the evidence that would help you prove that claim. As usual, you can't, so you won't. A bunch of insults and emotional ranting is what you'll offer instead, and after you've flustered yourself enough you'll somehow confuse yourself into believing you said something useful. 🙃

I don't get my news from the Facebook algorithm...like you. 🙃 You aren't even trying to debate here. You're just having a tantrum.

Only you can answer that, because you're quoting your imagination. This hot mess you just posted is your idea of rational and intelligent conversation? OKAY.

It's fascinating that you typed this out and thought to yourself, "Yeah. THIS is a compelling argument." Thanks for coming out again Karen.

Burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim. That's basic reasoning. That's why we assume innocence until guilt is proven. It's why scientific hypotheses are just that until proven by experiment. The standard for evidence is lower on an internet forum, but it doesn't disappear. Longwinded, insult-laden emotional rants don't act as a substitute. Like the unsupported claim, they're just discarded. If you make specific claims, you are the one that needs to provide evidence. Insisting it works backwards is insane.

You were. I spoke very specifically about evidence. If you're just going to argue against points I never made, go for it. It's only your own time you're wasting. 🙃 Pounding out an extra 1000 words of irrelevant commentary doesn't change anything.

That's the key. It's political theatre. He's just distracting from domestic failure and not actually accomplishing anything but pissing off and further entrenching Iranian belligerence.

That's the reason why the Liberals won the last election. They understood the environment and changed around it. The Conservatives keep running the same playbook back and hope that the environment changes around them.

He probably is capable...but I think it's too late for him to do it and have it be believable. The guy isn't some new hotness coming to Canadian politics. He's a lifelong politician who's been around forever. Everyone knows who he is and what he's about. Even 15 years ago he was widely disliked. Opinions on him have crystalized and he's not going to convince the middle ground he's a new man at this point. It's not him who needs to change. I think he's probably a lame duck at this point. It's the overall party that needs to wake up. He needs to because too much of the country can't stand him and that's not likely to change. His strategy appears to be firming up the support he has and strengthening the margins rather than reaching out. He's relying on things going poorly for Carney for any turnaround.

Too bad the orange baboon south of the border has made it impossible to collaborate and provide a unified front against China. Pretty bad when the spiteful and domineering communist dictatorship is considered the more reliable trade partner.

It's the same it's always been. The party is too fractuous and too focused on appealing to the dumbest and/or most entrenched part of the base that they forget they still need to win a general election. Harper understood the dynamic and muzzled the bubbas and the conspiracy theorists in his party. Poilievre validates and enables them. Harper understood that his ruthless debate and rhetorical style alienated Canadians and adjusted his image. Poilievre isn't nearly as reflective or dynamic.

That's a kind of a catch-all answer that people apply way too readily. Yes, the government can and does make things more expensive and harder to do, but there are all sorts of other things beyond that. Economies of scale, labour cost, environmental rules and other factors are involved as well. Canada doesn't build refineries for its crude here because of the government makes it too hard, for example. It doesn't do it because it could never hope to compete with Houston etc on their massive economies of scale and decades long infrastructure advantage. I don't disagree at all. I think it's appalling that we pay a 20-40% premium on dairy to subsidize dairy farmers.

I said I was looking for evidence. I don't think the difference between evidence and absolute proof needs explaining, does it? You misquoted me deliberately. Is that what the insults are for? If something specific is being claimed, some evidence should exist for it. If none is provided, we have nothing to test or evaluate - nothing to disprove. Your longwinded personal commentary, opinions and interpretive storytelling don't build the case. You're just repeating the claim with more and more words, and insisting that people accept it.

A lot of the restrictions on resource projects is provincial (like the NB natural gas moratorium you highlighted previously). While I agree with the sentiment around Canada not doing enough to develop its resources (or to obstruct that altogether), the reasons why we don't do certain things aren't always as simple as "the guberment". Things like rare earths are a good example. Rare earths aren't rare. They're everywhere. They're just expensive to extract and process, and the initial investment is prohibitive when there are cheaper and larger-scaled operations in China. These are strategic resources and we SHOULD be self-sufficient on them, but in this would probably be something the government would have to subsidize to remain independent of China.

So you're saying that the people taking jobs should be able to properly speak the language of the population they're meant to service? You should tell the CRA. I call the french line so that I don't have to deal with the brown person on the other line that can barely speak english.

Nobody's asking for absolute proof of anything. I'm just highlighting how ridiculous it is to demand people disprove claims for which no evidence has been offered. Disproving something requires challenging and evaluating evidence, and you've provided none. Your self-impressing monologues aren't a substitute.

A pile of insults and a longwinded interpretive storyline don't magically upgrade an unsupported claim. Calling these messes "layers of proof" and pretending they substitute for evidence is nonsense. Nobody is required to match your effort and your walls of text when the bar for dismissal on a no-evidence claim is already zero.

Another useless accusation. We'll believe that when you don't reflexively accuse people of lying at the first sign of disagreement. It doesn't stop being true because you don't like it being said. After thousands of compulsive accusations of dishonesty, you don’t get to complain that people no longer treat them as carefully reasoned objections. That's the consequence of your childish behavior, and you now have to live with it.

There’s plenty of self-affirming narration in that wall of text, but none of it makes burden‑shift any less absurd — asking people to disprove claims made with no evidence is always ridiculous.

Since you call anyone and everyone who disagrees with you a liar, and you've repeated this pattern thousands of times on this forum in hundreds of threads, I'm afraid the problem is you. 🙃

What on Earth does Justin's blackface have to do with providing evidence for claims made?