Moonbox
-
Posts
8,514 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
37
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
If they want it, why not an all out civil war then. Canadian military vs the Six nations. No of course they wouldn't do that, that would take courage, which they don't have. Plus they are far too sucessful doing wehat they do now. Illegal protests and land seizures then when people ask why, they lay this 3 hundred year old guilt trip on us. White Liberal guilt takes over. Sad that we give into these terrorists when we should just conquer them once and for all.
It's embarrassing to read your posts. It makes it really hard to argue with Shwa or CR when they can score such easy points on your stupidity.
-
This criticism is pretty pathetic coming from the supporters of Harper, who during campaign speeches and publicity stops brings his own crowds of supporters and a ton of security guards and RCMP, at the taxpayers expense to make sure nobody who opposes him can get within a city block of his photo-ops. You people are as pathetic as the Harpercrite.
Harper's the PM. He brings RCMP to keep him safe. That's what most country's leaders do.
The criticism is that Layton's a publicity whore. It's apt criticism. Harper was too. He made sure he was seen at all sorts of Olympic events. The only one that wasn't was Ignatieff, but every time the camera is on him the polls go down so w/e.
Layton looked like a desperate amateur. People are making fun of him. That's all. Harper got made fun of when he was doing his sweater by the fire election adds. This isn't unfair. This is Jack being Jack and people laughing at him.
-
Nice. Now we're into psychology.
-
HAHAHAHAHA All the talk of the NDP leader but yet no mention from the conservatives here of the PM paying his own private photographer to follow him around at the games in hopes he gets the perfect shot for the next election. While CTV is good enough for Jack it isn't for Stevie.
It was obvious with Harper too. He doesn't give a crap about curling we all know that.
It's much funnier with Layton though, because he's so desperate to show people he's an 'everyman' type of guy that he has to push women out of the way to get his face on camera.
-
There was nothing "bad" about it. If he wanted attention, he would have been there. If no one watches them,* then it seems to me no one would be at Gretzky's for it, and he would have had the camera all to himself.
There were no cameras at bars for women's hockey. That's why.
*I'm pretty sure some Canadians tuned in to watch women's hockey. More than 19 million viewers watched some part of last night's gold medal win for the Canadian Women's Hockey squad over Team USA. link
I watched it...but the women only had a fraction of the viewer's the men's hockey had. No body contact. It's not real hockey...
-
So why did Alta4ever ask why he wasn't there then? And why didn't you respond to his post asking why he wasn't there?
So why didn't you tell that to Alta4ever, since he's the one who asked why he wasn't there?
Because you tried to tell us that since he wasn't at the Russia or women's game, then he couldn't be at the men's gold game for media attention. I was addressing YOUR bad logic.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Maybe all are, maybe all aren't. But in this particular instance the accusations seem rather silly to me.
It's pretty obvious he was. It is silly and worth a good laugh at Jack's expense. He looked like a tool.
-
Narcissists hang out where they are not wanted, most the time. So his low self-esteem feeds into his "isms"
Interesting. I didn't know that.
Narcissists, however, have high self esteem.
-
Seems to me that would go against your claim and be proof that he isn't a publicity hound. If he were at Gretzky's purely to be on camera, one would think he would have been there following the camera at those events, too.
Nobody was watching the women's game. So no...that doesn't go against the theory.
As for the Russian game, it was a quarter-final. Whoopy. There's still two games to go after that.
Again: "The TV screen was up there, he moved her arm to be able to see," Karl Bélanger told The Globe.
Where'd we get that quote from again? Oh yeah. The NDP -- meaning it's worthless.
-
Maybe they cut to the bar multiple times partly because Layton was there?
Gretzky's wasn't getting any special attention. They were showing bars across Canada. Layton 'just happened' to be front and centre.
-
They showed the same shot numerous times from the exact same angle throughout the game. It was a static camera. It was a packed bar in the middle of a Canada vs US Olympic gold game. How much room do you think that camera had to move???
Some of you seem inclined to pass this off as a really odd coincidence, but the fact that a politician would go to Gretzky's to watch the game is itself an indication that he was looking to be where the cameras were.
-
If it smells like a fish and looks like a fish it probably is a fish.
He was at Wayne Gretzky's (where a news camera happened to be), sitting directly in front of the news camera (conveniently) and when someone blocked his face from the camera he shoved her arms away.
I think the above make it fairly reasonable to assume he was dying for some media coverage.
-
I'm not defending Mr. Canada. It's embarrassing to read most of his posts. I'm just raising an eyebrow at the assertion that he posts to raise his self esteem, especially after criticizing him for playing the ad-hominem game etc.
If he was posting for his self-esteem, I doubt he'd be around anymore.
To get back on topic, I think your signature is hilarious and absolutely, totally, and completely rubbish.
-
I hate to defend Jack, but could he not simply have been trying to see the screen?
No. He turned away from the actual game and faced directly towards the news camera. It's quite unlikely that the TV screen was behind the camera. It was painfully obvious what he was doing.
-
Well that's a load o' crapolla.
It wasn't crapola. There isn't a single nation out there with anything to match a Nimitz, much less the new carriers coming off the docks.
And to BushCheney, I didn't say the carriers are irrelevant. I said I don't really care whose carriers they are as long as they keep commerce safe for Canadians. If the Americans want to foot the bill for this expense, I'm happy to let them, though I do feel you shoulder most of the cost while everyone reaps the benefits.
-
You are like the idiot cousin who embarrasses his side of the family at thanksgiving dinners with his absence of table manners.
I'm so glad you're back. I was trying to put into words what I was feeling while I read that post, and you got it bang on.
-
I think in this case 'assault' is an exaggeration. Either way, it makes him look like a tool.
-
He has no refutation and is the one that more often than not comes with straw man, hyperbole and ad hominen as his only arguments...................
I wouldn't waste your time with him. Sycophants like Mr. Canada simply use these kinds of forums to soothe their low self-esteem.
Not that I'm really in the business of defending Mr. Canada or his points, but I think your hypocrisy detector is malfunctioning...
-
I'll keep this in mind for the future. But thanks for your input. I really appreciate it. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether something will go over well or not, or the tone might not be spot on, etc. But your intelligent well-meaning reply has clarified all of that. You are a credit to the Internet. I look forward to more of your insightful views.
Keep up the good work Moonbox!
Let's see...your last 4-5 posts have been:
"You don't get it."
Unfortunately for you, this hasn't advanced the discussion forward an inch, nor has it helped you prove your point. Sadly, "You don't get it" doesn't work any better here than it does on your parents.
-
Let's see if you get it: ...
Nope. You still don't get it. Which, at this point, is not surprising.
As far as clever retorts go, this fails miserably. Not that we were expecting much though....
-
No surprise there. He's at best a used car saleman in my books.
Whatever bad things I can say about Harper, Iggy, Dion, May, Duceppe, I've always held Jack in the lowest esteem. He's nothing but pomp and bombast but when you get down to it he's just an idiot in love with his face.
-
Ask yourself what rate the government borrows at and then what rate a bank or consumer borrows at.
Once you've come to that revelation, consider the fact that housing prices have continued to increase in Canada over the last year or so.
With these two questions answered, even a crap flinging monkey should be able to figure out that the scenario you're laying out to us doesn't make any sense. The numbers you've provided are fabricated stupidity.
The difference between the housing market in the US and Canada is that housing prices tanked while default rates soared down south. Since housing prices have largely remained stable (or in a lot of cases increased) in Canada it's simply not true that the assets bought were 'toxic' like you're trying to tell us.
I'll say it again. You don't get it. You don't understand. Every post you've made here has made it more and more clear you don't have a clue.
-
Sure they are paid back... you obviously are in the business of trying to convince retards they are geniuses, because you are triyng to tell me liabilities are assets and loans banks don't want are good business.
I'm in the business of trying to convince retards they are retards...that's why I'm talking to you here.
See below:
loans arn't assets, they are liabilities. And you are saying I don't know how it works.
You don't know how it works. You have no idea. From how you talk I'd be surprised if you had 5 seconds of education in finance, be it personal or federal.
If a loan is a liability to someone, then it's an asset to someone else. If someone has listed 'accounts payable' on their liabilities in the balance sheet then you can be damn sure the other party has an equal 'accounts receivable' listed on the 'asset' side of theirs. It's the EXACT same thing here.
lets see the government isn't loaning the banks money by buying loans from the banks.. wake up dude. also WRONG - over 100 billion was allocated specifically to buy mortgages not exactly a loan.. it is much more involved than a loan - it contains collatoral clauses..
A mortgage is a loan with collateral charge. That makes it safer than a loan. You're digging a hole for yourself here bud.
but canada gets nothing here, they only expand their liabilities.
No. Canada gets their money back + interest while the debts are paid down. What you're basically saying here, in your infinite wisdom
is that if a bank lends me 400,000 to buy my home, they're actually GIVING me the money and getting nothing back in return. Think about it. also canada is in debt so its debt is compounded and it created more debt by buying these assets but won't be paying it for years.. meaning debt is aquired instead of assets... the asset has to outpay compound debt.. and these deals don't even come close.
O RLY!? Hey how about you give us a cite for that and show us how we're losing money on this deal. Methinks you pulled that shred of wisdom out of your arse.
-
No...NATO is specifically configured to not replicate all capabilities in the face of such costs and GDP limits.
Which is as it should be, but does it not seem odd that the US has 10+ super carriers out on the water and no other country anywhere even has one?
*shrug*
It makes no difference to me either way as I trust the USA's navy to keep the seas safe but I do personally feel you guys bear most of the burden. You don't seem to mind though!
-
Actually we should probably let William Ashley and Mr. Canada have it out with one another here.
Let's just see what happens. It's going to be like monkeys flinging poo at each other.
Racism on the reserve
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Low self-esteem is the causation of narcissism? First off, it's not that simple. Second, causation wasn't really the word you were looking for. I doubt very much from this post that you know anything about psychology.
The problem with your truth is that it's not actually reality. North America was subjugated by Europeans hundreds of years ago in case you didn't know. That was the end of the First Nations as such. That's reality. The Treaties you often bleat about were written long before myself or my parents or even my grandparents were born. They were written long before millions of immigrants came to Canada. Eventually, sovereignty passes to the actual inhabitants of the land. The First Nations have no more claim to the land I live on than do the Greeks have on Turkey.
Land is owned by the people who live on it. Even if it was taken in the past, the lines that make that distinction eventually blurr and disappear.