Moonbox

At no point have I ever said Russia hasn't made any gains. This isn't the first, the second, or even the 10th time I've told you that either. You're brazenly lying now. I'm not reading your long rants because: 1) Your formatting sucks. You refuse to use the quotation function properly like everyone else, so it's never really clear what exactly you're responding to. 2) You drop long walls of text - a bunch of stream-of-consciousness rambling that buries whatever relevant points (if any) in a deluge of worthless exposition and irrelevant "citation". 3) You don't respond to what people are saying, but rather what you decide you want them to be saying. The bolded part above is a good example. Whether that's intentional dishonesty and bad-faith on your part, or a reading comprehension problem makes no difference. It's not worth putting any energy into it. 😑

Yes, by Laws made by Parliament (Acts). Considering the Constitution itself was formed as an Act, your argument is just as stupid now as it was yesterday. Keep flailing. 🤡

You're wrong because you said Laws don't give rights, followed by listing Laws that...provide rights. There's not much more to it. That you're too belligerent, too stupid and that your ego is too fragile to reconcile that is just entertainment for the rest of us. We will continue laughing at you, and you will continue to uselessly flail and further prove you have absolutely nothing else to do with your life. 🤡

What fight is that? Where you're trying to tell us the Constitution isn't law? I gladly invite anyone to check that out that spectacle: This forum has never seen a bigger buffoon than you. Why are you linking WW2 history to us? Who said Germany didn't use forced labour? Hello!? 🤣

22,000 posts in less than two years is where the mockery comes from, no-life. Nobody has even come close to this level of lonely spamming in the 20+ years this forum has been around. I see the difference, but it doesn't make your claim any less hilarious. The Constitution is a set of Laws, so claiming that Laws don't give rights is retarded. A reasonable person would concede that point, but not you. As I said before, you're going to contort your spine (and logic) to lick your own butthole, and then try to tell us that makes you right. 🤡

He's not the deluded muppet trying to say Hitler was a leftist, and that he was a big proponent of immigration. "Working captured slave labour to death = promoting immigration" Yet another fabulously dumb statement from re:Politics' most spectacular clown.

Okay. You enjoy what you like. We'll enjoy what we like. If CFL is that great, then it doesn't need federal money, does it? Perfect.

No. Each step in NATO's escalation of aid to Ukraine is carefully considered, because there are dangers to it. Vladimir Putin's farcical ranting and limp posturing is paid little heed. After making a million limp threats, as you say, nobody takes your threats seriously anymore. That's how credibility works. Perhaps you should spend your energy arguing that point then, instead of pages and pages dedicated to exaggerating Russian strength and Russian accomplishments, while minimizing that of their opponents? Just a thought...

Don't worry about me little buddy. Copy pasting doesn't take much time, and then I get on with my day. It doesn't matter. It's Law, Supreme or otherwise. You're left telling us that Laws don't grant rights, while in the same breath telling us that two sets of Laws are what grant rights. 🤣 The consistency with which you humiliate yourself on this forum is fantastic.

There's a difference between taking the objective danger implied in the threat seriously, vs the blustering pageantry of the threat itself and the man making it. The former would be irresponsible to ignore, so yes, NATO considers it carefully in its planning and action. The latter, on the other hand, has proven over and over again that his strength is exaggerated, that his threats have been hollow, and nothing he says is credible. Even if Putin's balogna was real, and that when the first ATACM hits a Russian airbase he'll launch nukes, consider the implications: You're arguing that murderous dictators can throw nuclear tantrums to take what they want in wars of aggression, and that we should appease them.

I would say it falls under the same umbrella, but if you don't, I'll survive. Let's swap Liberal "immigration" for "TFW" policy. Now what?

It just makes it easier for the offense, harder for the defense.

Too much, too fast, too few guardrails, too many abuses, not enough housing, no plan to fix it. Unless you want to argue that Liberal immigration policy has been thoughtful, well-executed and is beyond criticism, I'm not sure where you want to go with this. 🤷‍♂️

There you go little buddy, I gotchu. 🤡

First off, you're asking me to cite something I never said. 👌 Second, unless you're trying to tell us that Putin hasn't previously threatened all sorts of red lines that NATO has subsequently crossed without consequence, what I did say was not an opinion. It was fact. I'll leave you to clarify your position, but I'm not going to bother read your rambling wall of text until you do.

Sure. Where did I say we didn't need any foreign workers? There's no question that farms wouldn't be able to afford wages for berry-pickers etc. That's why there were no suggestions to ban foreign workers...at least from me. It's definitely about people caring about profit, but it's also about worker wages, competition, regulation, tariffs and a great many other things. Car companies could pay high wages to union members, make shitty cars that broke down all of the time, and still rake in big profits...until they were subjected to foreign competition. I'd say we're all better off for that, but the key there is that we have fair competition

I mean, sure, blame it if you want, but what good does it do? It makes a lot more sense blaming the guy for putting the scorpion in your boot, or for not informing you that he lives in a open-range scorpion den before you take your boots off. As you say, the consequences were predictable. It's the same with capitalism. It's basic human self-interest applied on a meta-scale. That's predictable, and therefore can be (to an extent) controlled and directed. Government plays a big role in that. The extent to which they do that is the debate.

No, that's the thing. This isn't an opinion. I'm objectively describing exactly what's happened. Putin has ranted and threatened nuclear escalation and warned about red lines every step of the way. NATO has crossed those red lines over and over again, and there have predictably been no consequences. There are all sorts of reasons why the West and NATO have not been supporting Ukraine sufficiently or reliably. We've talked about those elsewhere, but none of it addresses the reality that Putin's threats have consistently born out as limp-dick posturing, that NATO has repeatedly called those bluffs. Nonetheless, here you are unwittingly arguing on his behalf and regurgitating his tired old rhetoric. Now the red line, I suppose, is super-super-duper, totally-absolutely-serious-this-time, right? 🙄 As I said, that's a wrench in your logic that you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge.

Yes, but boneheaded decisions by the Liberals set the conditions to make it worse. Capitalism is great because of its inexorable drive to get more efficient, more productive and better. That drive, however, is predictably cynical and fundamentally unconcerned with society at large. The people and the government have to set up guardrails and incentives to direct this force of (human) nature so that it benefits society, or at the very least doesn't harm it. Blaming capitalism for doing capitalistic things is like blaming the scorpion for stinging.

I already acknowledged it's popular in the Prairies. Part of that might be that there aren't many alternatives. If you say so. I don't agree, and statistically neither do the majority of football fans in Canada. An NFL fan has 32 teams and more games and more variety of games to watch than he can reasonably consume. The CFL fan has less than 1/3rd the action. It's more likely he flips on the NFL than the other way around.

My neck? I worry about yours, bending your spine backwards to lick your own butthole, and presenting that as your argument.

I'm smart enough to know that laws grant rights. You? We're still waiting to see what the floor is for how dumb you are. 🤡

I did, which was after he told us that tenants have no rights. 🫠

It's the main reason I don't like the CFL, but with the wider fields and the bigger endzones, I'm not sure how great it would be. Either way, I'll be probably still be watching the NFL.

...by showing how deluded and generally confused you are? Okay. 🤡