Moonbox

I think I will too. This is some of most buffoonish and garbage posting I've seen on this forum in awhile. It's a waste of time even reading the angry derangement of people like this.

I feel bad for her more than anything. Making her the defense minister would have been like making my mom defense minister. She didn't know anything about it, she wasn't interested in it, and she didn't want the job. No wonder she sucked at it. I am not sure what to think of this. Belarus' army is even trashier than Russia's, but Lukashenko's fate is inextrictably linked to Putin's. On one hand, his own country tried to revolt against him not long ago and Putin is the only reason he's still in power. On the other hand, Belarussians still hate him and could revolt again if they thro them into the war. My guess is nothing happens, but I'm not making any bets on it.

I don't even know how someone can seriously try to post a Redacted clip as credible news and not burst out laughing at themselves. No wonder people get so screwed up over this stuff. Literally anything gets past their filter, as long as it's anti-establishment.

Just saying they're facts don't make them so. ? You should know that I believe in constitutional rights like freedom of speech, protest and medical discretion. Where we differ is that I actually have a baseline understanding of the Constitution and the Charter, what they actually protect, and what they're meant for. I don't just wave it around cluelessly when I'm upset about something.

I spent most of my life wanting nothing to do with the Liberals. You're not going to believe that, but that's you're problem - you're not interested in acknowledging or believing anything that doesn't fit your worldview. Everything is black and white for you, like this gem of a quote here: You can't seem to fathom any gray area, where someone can't be anti-Liberal, or "conservative" without falling perfectly in line with your own viewpoints. Groot's a "sell-out", because he doesn't support anti-vaxxers. It's "selling out" to make up your own mind and have nuanced opinions on things...? Government overreach and claims of fascism are very different. The Emergencies Act was government overreach. COVID mandates were not. I label you a conspiracy theorist because you follow and promote conspiracy theories. See below: ? The frequency with which your programming gets tripped and you flip back to "Reee! MSM fake news! You're programmed sheep! A blind fascist-communist!" to cope with reality not matching your worldview is funny and sad in equal measure.

Considering the last 15-20 years has seen the middle class shrink and income inequality rise substantially in Canada, that whole line of reasoning is silly.

They're not, but there's no point in arguing with delusion. You can continue to rant and rave about this, but you've discredited yourself too many times for anyone to take you seriously that didn't already subscribe to your mind-warped alternate reality.

You like Poilievre because he's brave enough to get in front of the mob and tell them everything they want to hear. ? It's easy to like people who are repeating your views back to you.

That's a strategy the CPC has run with as long as it's existed - or every party for that matter. I'll grant that the Liberals (at least IMO) are more shameless and brazen about it, but they're not unique. The conservative base, at least the furthest reaches of it, generally seem more interested in identity politics and culture wars (owning the Libs, the woke etc). It's the moderate conservatives (the small C's or the red tories) that actually care about public spending and practical matters. We seem to pretty much agree on this and have the same issues with it. The only thing I'll say is that what Canadian voters are going to want to see is that he doesn't mean a lot of the stuff he's said about the topics he's listed. He's only recently been elected party leader and he's already painted himself into a corner as a demagogue populist catering to the conspiracy circus. That's going to be an uphill climb, because he's far too prone to zingers and one-liners and he's given his opponents a lot of ammunition to define him as exactly what he's looked like so far.

Why are we asking this question now? I don't see what handing over some tanks changes. There's no question that thee West is directly supporting Ukraine, and wants to help defeat Russia. The distinguishing factor is that NATO isn't attacking Russia directly, nor are NATO troops firing on Russia's dicrepit army from NATO territory. There's not much logic to the idea that MBTs push the envelope if HIMARS didn't. The West can continue to call Russia's bluff on "escalation", because Russia can't afford to escalate anything.

Post the whole quote, goof. Show us the context that changes or adds anything to it. You won't, because you've already been asked to a dozen times, and you can't. You said that. You meant that. That it contradicts so much of what you say now makes you look really foolish, and that's no doubt why you get so irritated when someone posts it.

Cool (and worthless) testimonial. My biggest client fled Ukraine as a Soviet political dissident. That's an equally worthless testimonial. Whether true or not, the reality is that the bulk of Ukraine very much doesn't want to be part of Russia, else they'd not be fighting and they'd be surrendering their tanks and equipment to Russia, rather than the other way around. ?

He's not still popular. It's more the opposite. His die-hards still support him, but most of the folks who gave him the benefit of the doubt no longer do so. Look up his approval ratings. He'll succeed or fail in the next election based on how much PP leans on his angry base. If Poilievre can bridge the gap and start acting like an adult with real ideas, I'll vote for him, and so will most moderate conservatives. If he continues on the current course, he'll hand Trudeau the next election by virtue of being even less popular than him.

No, the whole economy has been adding jobs. That's the point. There's an explanation for every layoff, as well as for every hiring spree. That Lockheed and Raytheon have benefited from the war is obvious, but all you asked was for companies that had done mass hiring. Anyways, that's not why Chase hired thousands this year, or Deloitte or any other of the countless other companies who struggled to fill vacant jobs in 2022. Hundreds of thousands of jobs added in December, and you're pointing at individual companies underperformers like:

Uh, yes I do, because you're telling us right here in this thread and the sub-forum. ?

I think both lines of thinking are valid. It's hard to seriously argue that Trudeau's policymaking is principled, soberly considered or even particularly pragmatic. That being said, Morneau's credibility is certainly worth questioning. That doesn't mean he's wrong, just that he's not an unbiased critic.

This one? Yeah it's a gem.

Neither is cheerleading the invasion of a sovereign nation. ?‍♂️

You can come up with whatever explanations you like, but none of that means much when we see a nation 1/4 the size of its invader successfully fight them off. That speaks to their motivation, compared to the conscripts who can barely move forward without a general coming to the front line to yell at and threaten his subordinates. When Russia leaves Ukraine, the fighting will be over. That's how long the fighting will keep going.

Nobody said you are, but if all you're doing is copy and pasting then I'd say you're not really communicating anything. If someone wants to read about this stuff, they're not going to use a search engine and read what they find rather than come here to read someone's curated bulletin-board of news. I'm very interested in this topic, but I must admit I'm just skipping through these posts to see if anyone's said anything new. It's up to the Ukrainians to decide how far and how long they want to push this fight. Maybe Russia shouldn't have invaded then? ?‍♂️

It's not actually that hard when you have big Pharma, the MIC, and space vampires with mind-control powers from Zeta Reticuli helping you.

Two answers: 1) Because their information matches their recommendations OR 2) A globe-spanning conspiracy orchestrated by millions is taking to take control or...something.

Yet you're referring to drill-down data on specific instances, while refusing to acknowledge the more important meta data which far better represents the overall health of the economy. Nobody here is trying to say we're not headed towards slowdown or recession. I'm saying that we're not headed for financial calamity, which seems to be what you want to see, rather than what it looks like we're going to see.

That's the number of views since June. I'm sure you're reading it all. See in you in the forum rules section. As always, your input is invaluable. ?

What I'm wondering is how many people you figure are still actually reading this thread. ?