Moonbox

I can predict your behavior too. 🤣 You'll start a debate, get into an argument, make up and mischaracterize something someone says, tell them they're lying when they point that out, then squawk and carry on about muffins, little guys and project about fragile egos. You've been doing it all day. You'll do it tomorrow. You'll do it 16 hours a day, multiple people will call you out for it, and you'll argue as long as somebody is paying attention to you. 🤡

No, you're too stupid to argue actual points people are making (or maybe you don't understand them) so you make up something ridiculous to argue against instead. We should keep a tally of how many different members (both old and new) have pointed this out to you. Nobody argues with themself like CdnFox can. Nobody wins as many arguments against themself than him. 🤣

It's funny watching you say stuff like this, because nobody on this forum is less capable of introspection or self-awareness than you. 🤡

Yes, but you still don't understand why they're selling, and at what prices. A good investor cashes out when their investment is being overvalued. Amazon is trading at 60x it's earnings right now and grossly overvalued. Jeff Bezos will happily take advantage. META is selling at 32x earnings. Mark Zuckerberg will do the same. JP Morgan is at an all-time high as well, so Mr. Dimon will cash out as well. There is no mystery here. This is the oldest investing dynamic in the book. Markets go up, people hop on the bandwagon, which makes it go up more, which gets more people on the bandwagon. Eventually, the big money and the smart money sees it's unsustainable and ridiculous, sells ahead of everyone else, and the prices start to go down. This triggers a reverse bandwagon, with silly emotional investors panicking and selling, driving prices down, making more people panic sell, driving prices down further and faster. This is where the Warren Buffets step in and starts buying, and thanks the average investor for being a rube. That's what he's done lately. That's what he says he's been doing. That's what he's been doing his whole career.

I'm not sure who you're talking about (the comic?). These terms of left/right/progressive/conservative etc, or "proponents of identity politics" don't mean a heck of a lot either. I can probably agree the "proponents of identity politics" have no humor in them, but that goes for those from the Right as well, doesn't it?

I said Americans died at double the rate of Canadians (actually closer to 2.5x). We had roughly 51,000 dead, and the Americans had 1,200,000. If you'd have bothered looking, you'd have seen the difference. You didn't have to be good at math. We didn't fare better because our health care system was better either. Ours is also shit. The difference was that we didn't have Orange Man undermining trust in our health officials at every opportunity with retarded, self-serving lies and batshit conspiracy theories. Whatever standard you figure you hold Justin to is irrelevant. Neither of us can stand the guy and both agree he couldn't be gone sooner. The difference between us, I think, is that I don't think blind anger is worth much, and being "opposed" to Trudeau (or the "Left") isn't enough to make me automatically trust what someone is saying.

I think in this case, you opinion is based on amplifying whatever good he may have done (and there was some) while blissfully ignoring all of the truly awful (of which there was much more). More than a million Americans died to COVID, more than double the rate they died here, and much of that can be blamed on the lies, mistrust and conspiracy theories Donald Trump promoted to his dumb-dumb rabble. The contradiction I'm trying to draw for you here is that you abhor Trudeau's lies and deceit (which is fine) but then somehow feel Trump's are acceptable. It makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, but then we don't really need papa government getting involved in that, do we? 🫡

True enough, but but that's the perspective and self-awareness that the average culture warrior (of both sides) seems to lack. It's self-absorbed and ignorant snowflakes arguing just raging and yelling at each other, yes.

Most things do, or should, have limits. That's why Section 1 of the Charter is Section 1. As the "tolerance level" for rudeness, I'd say it should be pretty high when it comes to regulation, law etc. Having hurt feelings, being offended etc demands far too much attention these days. People need to get over themselves.

So what? Putin can't use his.

Andrew Coyne has not had much good to say about the Liberals lately.

I don't think it did (I searched for it), but the survey asked a bunch of questions that weren't about "wokeness" specifically, and the results are interesting: By a 78 to 22 margin, Canadians agree that “political correctness has gone too far By 70 to 30, people prefer a colour blind rather than colour-conscious approach to issues in society Bolded is what my position has been for a long time.

The right has been a wasteland for comedy for decades, and it's something they've been self-conscious of for a long time. Liberals have dominated this space for as long as I've been alive.

We've been burned thousands of times with lies and deception from the "right" as well. Being skeptical of the "left" is fine, but when you save zero skepticism for the "right" you make yourself an easy dupe - easy to manipulate and easy to fool. The list goes on of his failings too, doesn't it? The fact that he's a compulsive liar, and can barely get through a sentence without fibbing? The fact that he tried to overturn the election? The 93 criminal indictments, and the numerous trials he faces, not to mention that he's a proven fraudster, and now owes $400M for cooking his books? None of that matters to you, or you just convince yourself it's not true? 🤔

Economist at the time agreed a tax cut was welcome, though they overwhelmingly (and still do today) argued that an income tax cut would have been better. A tax cut is still a tax cut though 🤷‍♂️.

This is the sort of clueless and completely out-of-touch stupidity that lends credibility to the "REeeEE! WOKE WOKE WOKE!" crowd. Nobody reasonable was ever offended or felt excluded by the term manhole cover. Zero effort, money or attention is warranted to this kind of foolishness.

Okay. That's my fault. My tone was wrong here. I apologize. Let me try another approach: When you claim that "one-sided skepticism" is something that "works for you", I struggle to understand how you can say that seriously. That amounts to an admission that you hate/distrust one side so badly that you're going to blindly accept/believe everything the other side says. If that's the case, then all they have to do is validate your anger, amplify it, and they have your vote. Whether or not they're telling you the truth is irrelevant?

I don't think there's any need. I'd argue that whether or not they have history that "impacted" Canada is a subjective question. Canadian History is pretty freaking boring after the War of 1812, with the only things I remember from then until WW1 being our independence. It sounds dopey, and you're probably right, but do we even know they're going to teach? Is there going to be like, 3 pages in a textbook on the underground railroad, or will they be devoting multiple chapters to the first female black woman in Canada to own her own sewing business, in lieu of talking about the Plains of Abraham? 🤔

I'm just curious...How popular do you figure he really is? Have you ever really looked it up, or is this just your preference manifesting as the version of reality you prefer? Works? For what? Keeping you ignorant and easily manipulated? You're essentially admitting to being a thoughtless partisan hack. 🙄

You say this as you're engaged in probably a half a dozen similar arguments, where each opponent in their own way is calling you out for your belligerent stupidity and your toddler-level self awareness. 🤣🤣🤣

If they're saying peer-reviewed = infallible and unquestionable, then they're wrong as well, especially in the social sciences. Peer-reviewed just adds credibility, and mainly depending on the quality and standards of the publishing journal/board/group. In the case of Roland Fryer, he had a working paper that was not subjected to peer-review but the New York Times picked it up and published it anyways, and this was back in 2016. The methodology and conclusions of the study have since been picked apart and refuted as flawed by other experts, including by the university he worked for. Many of the people who liked the conclusions he drew, however, have elevated him to mythical/martyr status, just like the anti-vaxx crowd did with the odd dissenter. They revere the experts that tell them what they want to hear, and ignore everyone else.

That's not what peer-reviewed means.

Sure. Actions speak louder than words. What I think you're struggling with is what those actions are speaking to. I'm just thinking if you're so interested in what Buffet said and what he's doing, you may have read (or listened to the transcript) of his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders explaining why. It's out there for the public to see. 🤷‍♂️

You can take any poll with a grain of salt, of course, but I don't know why you keep talking about 1500 Canadians. There have been quite a few of these surveys, both very recent and back over the years, and they've all told the same story. When you survey thousands of people over multiple polls, from numerous different polling companies, and your margin is 70:30 in favor of Biden, we're not guessing anymore. I would say that if I'm skeptical of someone's specific claims and want to challenge them (especially on a topic I don't know much about), I'll take a minute or two to actually look it up before posting. Maybe, but I think you need to pick a lane. You were arguing how popular you figured Trump would be in Canada among Canada's conservatives. Polls show he'd barely get 50% of their votes. You poo-poo the polling showing that, but then happily point to polls showing Trump's popularity in the US, or Trudeau's unpopularity in Canada. Do polls matter, or not? Or is it just the polls that support the narrative you follow that count? That's really not a good thing.