Moonbox

At any moment you can put me on ignore. I'd be happy not hear from you. 👍

Right, like how the Conservatives "swept" the GTA? 🤡

The topic might change, but your "position" is the same in every thread: Step 1: Respond to disagreement by making up a retarded strawman to argue against Step 2: Squeal and moan about dishonesty when your opponent pushes back at your make-believe

The blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. Good job muppet. You finally got one. 👍 99/100 times, I'm pretty comfortable giving eyeball the benefit of the doubt over a chucklef*ck like you.

I already did you clown. If you can find anywhere where Eyeball is actually defending Hamas, or saying "rape is okay", go ahead and show us. Otherwise it's just the latest example of you dumbing and argument down and reframing it into a stupid enough strawman that you feel adequate to defeat it. 🤡 If I was running away from you, I wouldn't have engaged. The truth is you're a waste of time, because you never offer anything new. EVERY argument you get into: Step 1: Respond to disagreement by making up a retarded strawman to argue against Step 2: Squeal and moan about dishonesty when your opponent pushes back at your make-believe

It would be surprising not to see you squealing about dishonesty at the faintest hint of disagreement or opposition. Cute self-validating logic though: "I call you out for dishonesty because you're dishonest". 🥴👍 It's just too bad that you follow the same routine in every argument: Step 1: Respond to disagreement by making up a retarded strawman to argue against Step 2: Squeal and moan about dishonesty when your opponent pushes back at your make-believe EVERY TIME

..and look at that. User is squealing about dishonesty again when folks push back against his retarded strawman. 😆 Eyeball's a Hamas supporter...apparently...because that's what it means to question anything Israel is doing.

That's how logic works when you're a hysterical partisan, dontcha know?

Let down by the fact that you're referencing AI-generated slop? 🤡 Like I said before, it would have looked better on you if you hadn't read it. Now, you're left defending a book that at first looked like standard conspiracy-soup, but actually turned out to not even have a human author. Great job, genius. You're digging in your heels in and insisting that this book (one of three that were spammed out this year by the same "author" within a few months) is still somehow credible. It's still somehow credible despite the fact that as a "biography", it began with an error on something as basic as where Carney attended university (something that Wikipedia can tell you). It's still a worthy source, apparently, despite the fact that the National Post highlighted it as a sham misinformation piece written by AI, and despite the fact that it's been removed from vendor sites and is no longer available. Mon dieu...

You mean other than the obvious, ridiculous error I already quoted, and the fact that the National Post is highlighting it as AI-generated slop, and the fact that the book has been removed from most vendor websites? Did you actually have an intelligent point, or were you just following me around like a butthurt puppy? 🤡

Okay...get ready for it: ... ... ... That "biography" was even written by a human: "In total, some 30 titles were published about Carney this year and made available on Amazon — but most were taken down from the site after inquiries from Bloomberg News." "One author, James A. Powell, put his name to at least three books about the former central banker" Another book by Powell called ‘Mark Carney: The Unelected Power Broker of the 21st Century,’ which is still available, begins with an error, falsely claiming Carney graduated from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. https://financialpost.com/federal_election/ai-floods-amazon-with-strange-political-books-before-canadian-election What else is there to say here, really? When you're so blindly and hysterically biased that you fall for AI-generated slop propaganda (and apparently paid to be able to read it), I'm not sure anything or anyone is capable of getting through to you.

It's not the party, but rather the constituents. Floor-crossers don't typically have long careers. In this case, Carney doesn't really need a majority. The NDP is a wounded animal and won't be in a position to bring down the government for years. Quebec is ideologically opposed to Reform Party party politics and have already indicated they'll support the Liberals for at least a year "and some months". If Carney shits the bed all bets or off, but as a minority goes, this one has a mandate and plenty of runway.

Regurgitating 3 years of Pierre's dumdum populism has made you worse than uninformed on the topic. How would you know either way? For all the time and energy you spent conflating how Carney was an (informal) "advisor" to Trudeau, it's (not at all) curious how you aren't interested in how much advice Flaherty (the lawyer) sought out from the economics PhD he hired to run the BoC. 🙄 You should be embarrassed by the sources you provided, rather than continuing to bring them up. You cited Liz Truss, the former UK PM who was turfed after 40 days for her incompetence. You also cited a conspiracy treatise written and self-published by a nobody that you can barely even find online. What that tells us is that your research on the topic amounted to Googling "Why Carneyman bad?" You didn't actually research him or what people say about him. Carney was running for the Liberals, so you went scrambling to the interweb to find literally anything, no matter how ridiculous, that said bad things about him. That's the extent of your reasoning and knowledge on these topics. I'd argue they say a lot. When Flaherty's former deputy chief of staff speaks out publicly against Poilievre's team and how they tried to rewrite history and reality, that tells people something (but not you obviously). When I cite the National Post, a source you quote frequently, talking about how Carney was one of the smartest central bankers in the world and about the important things he did during the financial crisis, that too should register. Sadly, you curate your reality and your head's too deep in the sand. 🤷‍♂️

He didn't just predict a conservative win...he predicted a conservative majority. That Kool-Aid is mighty potent. Reality bends to his desires.

As opposed to you, who spends his time and bandwidth ranting at and insulting people...and then whining about being insulted? Because out of the two of us, you're the one who was educated on and earns his living from economics and finance, right? 🥴👍 ...and thanks for proving why a source is wasted on you. 5 different cites and quotes, and you just fly past it with barely a comment beyond "Flaherty was his boss and saying good things about him is what bosses do." I even quoted a National Post article (and you love citing them) explaining what he did and why he was so highly regarded. Your response? **crickets** You provided garbage sources. Scouring the internet for anyone you can find that says something bad about Carney is questionable enough, but coming to us proudly with gems like Liz Truss, or conspiracy treatises on Carney's nefarious role in the "Great Reset" shows us how strict your information filter is: Any information that doesn't support what you what you want to hear gets tossed, no matter what, and anything that tells you what you want to hear is accepted with almost literally zero scrutiny.

I answered your question with one of my own. I don't have to "prove it" any more than you did, which was not at all. 🙃 What people "do" in debates is argue different viewpoints, often on subjective topics with no way of objectively or definitely proving them. We can present the facts we have, and the conclusions we draw from them. If you were offering anything more than your opinion, on a topic you know absolutely nothing about, that sort of comment would look less goofy. As it is, I can offer you quite a bit, as can fellas like former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: Flaherty's dead, so he can't weigh in now, but his deputy chief of staff did, after Pierre's wife tried to pull a fast one: We also have the big man himself, Prime Minister Harper: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-jRPA7zGZnM telling Parliament what a tremendous job Carney did as BoC governor. We know he tried to recruit Carney as his finance Minister, and one of the best lines from the Liberal campaign was: "Stephen Harper could have approached Pierre Poilievre about serving as his Finance Minister. He approached Mr. Carney instead,” “In 2025, Mr. Harper is being called on to save Pierre Poilievre from a historic drop in support, but no amount of revisionist history can take away from Mr. Carney’s proven record of economic leadership.” I know you like citing the National Post, so here's an article they published that gushed about him: https://financialpost.com/business-insider/two-moves-during-the-crisis-show-why-mark-carney-is-considered-one-of-the-shrewdest-central-bankers-in-the-world All of this paints a pretty clear picture about what both the Conservatives thought of Carney at the time, but also what the world thought about him and his role in 2008/2009. What's your "proof" again? Oh that's right, you repeat whatever the Conservative party says. 🙄

"Doing better than EVER" ...after losing their fourth straight election, and increasing the Liberal vote share to its highest in 45 years. If this is what success smells like to our little Foxie, that explains a lot about why he's so miserable. 🤣

I don't know why you would say the election was unnecessary. Trudeau didn't have a mandate anymore. Carney wasn't elected, until he was.

Astute is a bit of a stretch, I think. Taking this payment would have made (even more) a laughingstock and hypocrite out of him. This is like praising your child for not scoring on his own net again.

Or rather is this the revisionist history that the Conservatives are trying to peddle, and that Canadians unsurprisingly didn't buy in the last election?

I think what I should start doing from now on is just copy and paste this quote of yours, every time decide you need to enter a conversation I'm having with someone else...because you're "following me around". 🙄

Really!? Hmm... Yep you're right! I see more red than blue, and that's how it works now, according to Mr. Fox! 🤡

Just add it to the miles-long list of retarded things you've said over the years, right? Duh place wif more blue dan red. 🤣

That's how it works is it? The more blue paint, the more winninging? Kapuskasing-Timmins-Mushkegowuk is worth how much more than Mississauge-Streetsville, by your estimation? That's probably why the Conservatives got the most seats (or swept?) Ontario too right? Because more blue = winning? That's good shit. 👏🤡

To be fair, I bet he visits Five Guys A LOT, so this might be a statistically relevant sample.