Poilievre -UnTypical Canadian

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

What a farcical comment you make.  Everyone knows you hate Bible believers - Christians.

You have made lots of comments proving your hatred of the Bible and Christianity.  You only quote the Bible when you think you can use it against a Bible believer because that is your main goal.  You love to be an accuser of Bible believers.

That is your interpretation of the Bible and you think it applies to your Socialist beliefs, which is a lie.

It cannot be used to support Communism or Socialism.

In all your insulting and accusatory comments to me and rebuking me for preaching the Bible, you prove you don't believe the Bible at all.  So how is it you are suddenly preaching to love your enemies etc.?   That is pure hyprocrisy.   Everyone knows you don't believe the Bible to begin with.  You only cherry pick something that you think you can use to throw dirt with.  It's pure fakery.

Farcical??  I am calling you out.

I don't hate bible believers, I just hate pushy people like you.

You are contradictory to your bible preaching diatribes.

Socialist??? Is there any part of the bible that is political and anti political belief?

All peoples are to be loved as the bible says and here you are discriminating.

I never once said I do not believe the bible and my dissing you is because you diss people using bible quotes and that, to me is pushy, hypocritical and disingenuous.

What is farcical is you.

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

That has nothing to do with immigration to Canada. .....

You are mixing up and trying to use verses that have nothing to do with immigration.

......

......

How do you see those verses as having anything to do with immigration and taxpayer funded support of immigrants?

Hey  just using your own bible against you.

Sucks to find out you are a true hypocrite LOL

[ExFlyer]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, how much do you think he'll cut immigration by?

I'm only about 50% sure of my own prediction btw...

Actually, I think he will cut what is happening today and in the past year (the amount of immigrants and refugees) by a great deal but, that may have already happened by the time he gets elected.

The present bubble may have burst by then so he won't have to cut anything..

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

1. Do you though? because The list included reducing immigration to sustainable levels and you seem to have forgotten that.

2. Still struggling with basic comprehension and logic i see. 

3. The fact that it won't be that hard Doesn't mean it won't have a big impact.  

... It's entirely possible for it to be both easy and impactful to make change.

4. As I noted, your buddy's the Liberals ...

5. So yes, I absolutely expect substantial reductions in immigration both permanent and to a lesser degree temporary.

1. I did a search on some keywords to remind myself of people's positions. I found four posts from you that talked about what you think would happen. I didn't remember anything beyond that so that's why I did the search. I didn't see anything in there but immigration which is why I asked you to clarify. Thanks. 

2. 4. You accuse me of struggling because I don't remember some specific post you made a year ago? And yet you keep saying I like Trudeau despite multiple corrections. That seems like a contradiction. 

3. Agreed and I hope He's successful .

5. I expect some cuts but not substantial. I think the max I would expect would be 10%. Do you care to put a number out there? 

Please understand that I'm not arguing with you at all on here, since we are only predicting things. There's no argument to be made until the facts come down in a couple of years.

 

 

 

[Nationalist]

On 6/1/2024 at 3:48 AM, August1991 said:

Canadians celebrate Trudeau Snr.

 

 

OMG you have tunnel vision. Allow me to introduce you to The West...where the name Trudeau is spoken and followed by spitting on the ground.

Where do you get the nonsense you spout?

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I....

2. 4. You accuse me of struggling because I don't remember some specific post you made a year ago? And yet you keep saying I like Trudeau despite multiple corrections. That seems like a contradiction. 

3. .....

5. I.....

Please understand that I'm not arguing with you at all on here, since we are only predicting things. There's no argument to be made until the facts come down in a couple of years.

 

 

 

How could anyone remember anything he has posted. This guy has posted 1800 posts in just over a year. LOL

He argues everything and if you don't agree with him you are a liar, or one of his many insults LOL

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

All peoples are to be loved as the bible says and here you are discriminating.

What you mean by that is I must agree with you and your beliefs and not say anything against it.  That is not how love works.  According to you it has to be one way, your way.  It is ok for you to falsely accuse but if I speak back and call you out, it's not love.  

There is such a thing as love.  But on a debating forum, people disagree.  You often called me names.  If you think you know what love is, you don't show it.

I think if you were to compare the times you called me names and insulted me as opposed to the number of times I did, you would you win the race for insults and name calling.  I generally have avoided name-calling as much as possible on the forum.   I do quote the Bible which is a proper thing to do and is applicable in cases where I do.  Name calling, no, I don't indulge in that except perhaps on rare occasions.

You now claim you don't disagree with the Bible.  Hate to have to tell you but if you disagree with everything I say from the Bible or based on the Bible, it is hard to believe you don't disagree with the Bible.  If you really believe it, you need to confess your faith and stop trying to silence me and keep me from quoting it.  Telling someone they shouldn't be quoting it or calling them a Bible thumper repeatedly doesn't really show you believe it.

Edited June 3, 2024 by blackbird

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

All peoples are to be loved as the bible says and here you are discriminating.

Why?  Because I don't believe in open borders and mass immigration from the third world.  

Protecting one's country from third world aliens who have completely different beliefs than Canadians is not contrary to the Bible.  It is love for Canada and Canadians.  Destroying Canada with the wrong kind of immigration is not love.  You take a different view and seem to believe Canada should let in anybody from anywhere and a vast number of them.  We will have to just agree to disagree.

Sovereign countries have a right to protect their country from people who would cause harm or have a negative effect on it.  Some countries allow very few immigrants and only certain people are allowed to come in.  

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I did a search on some keywords to remind myself of people's positions. I found four posts from you that talked about what you think would happen. I didn't remember anything beyond that so that's why I did the search. I didn't see anything in there but immigration which is why I asked you to clarify. Thanks. 2.

 

And yet you claim that you remembered my position on immigration. Yet another one of your millions of "Mistakes"? That is simply dishonest Mike. You did not ask me to clarify, you told me what I thought.

"I don't really think he will, no.  The thinking of most here, including you, seems to be that aside from gutting the CBC, there won't be major changes."

That was in response To my question to you about whether you think he will cut immigration. Your memory then was that I said there would be no major changes. You didn't ask me to clarify anything.

 

Quote

4. You accuse me of struggling because I don't remember some specific post you made a year ago? And yet you keep saying I like Trudeau despite multiple corrections. That seems like a contradiction

I have never said that you didn't make that claim nor have i ever claimed i don't remember you making that claim.. There's absolutely no contradiction, I can't contradict something I never said. 

So that wouldn't seem like a contradiction to anyone. I never clamed i didn't remember you saying it, but based on your actions and posts i just don't believe you. And i've been clear on that. Remember?  

So It seems more likely that you are attempting to deflect from the issue yet again by introducing something that never happened in order to change the channel on the discussion.

An example of a contradiction would be claiming you don't support the libs and then regularly defening them and supporting their positions constantly under the ridiculous guise of 'standing up for justin because you guys pick on him too much'. 

Quote

I expect some cuts but not substantial. I think the max I would expect would be 10%. Do you care to put a number out there? 

In all seriousness I expect that it will be impossible to measure it quite that simply. First off I think it's going to affect different groups differently. There are permanent immigrants, there are refugees, and then of course our temporary workers and students. I think they will all face different reductions.

Further I expect that some of the reductions will not necessarily be numerical by decree, but rather new rules will be implemented that will result in significant reductions without stating a specific target goal.

For example, a rule stating that in order to have a student's visa you must be actively taking classes or be enrolled and waiting for new classes to start would significantly reduce the number of student immigrant visas. A shocking number of them come to Canada and don't study for a single day. That would reduce the number of student immigrants but you would only be able to tell the effect afterwards over time. 

If we are talking about regular immigration then it will depend on what the housing construction situation is at that time. He's promised to link the two so without knowing what it will be in the future and how many homes will building it's a little hard to say. But my guess is that he will look at reducing the number of immigrants to somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 to 350,000 and I'm basic that on what I think housing construction will look like by 2026, 2027 which is when he'll be making that decision. 

You will have to be a little careful not to reduce it too suddenly because Justin has tied a lot of the economy into excessive immigration and if you cut that suddenly it can have repercussions on the industries such as universities.

 

Having said that I guess it also depends on what you mean by substantial. A 10% cut is actually relatively substantial. I don't think it would be enough but I think there's no doubt that it would have substance. I think overall across the board over a. Of time as new rules come into effect it'll be approximately a 25% reduction, maybe slightly more. But that's it I don't think we're going down further unless the housing construction market fails completely

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

What you mean by that is I must agree with you and your beliefs and not say anything against it.  .....

.....

I think if you were to compare the times you called me names and insulted me as opposed to the number of times.....

You now claim you don't disagree with the Bible.  ....

Telling someone they shouldn't be quoting it or calling them a Bible thumper repeatedly doesn't really show you believe it.

Nope, I would never expect you to agree ioth me LOL

I only ever called you a bible thumper.

Nope, never once did I say I disagreed with the bible, only your take on it and your dismissal of all other religions.

I never once preached at you or tried to change your mind or told you anti bible things, just always demeaned you for your uber evangilistic take on things and your dismissal of all other religions than christianity according to you.

And now, you want to keep our homeless needy refugees... and hiding behind some sort of "bad for the country" bush LOL

 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Why?  Because I don't believe in open borders and mass immigration from the third world.  

....

Nope, because you are going against your preaching of your bible.

Being a hypocrite.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And yet you claim that you remembered my position on immigration. Yet another one of your millions of "Mistakes"? 

Yes, I don't remember your positions on every single thing.  Why would I ?

If you doubt my honesty, don't exchange with me.

[Army Guy]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, how much do you think he'll cut immigration by?

I'm only about 50% sure of my own prediction btw...

I think we could all agree 1 million plus is way to much, I'm going to guess he is going to cut 50 %,which is still way to much.... i personally think it should be cut to zero, for 2 or 3 years, allow the  building market to start to recover....

[Army Guy]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I think you'll find you've got it a little bit backwards. Slapping landlords around is what has given us so few landlords right now. And the ones that are here are very commercial and armed to the teeth with legal teams and experts to fight tenants every which way.

If you think it's easy right now to be a landlord you are grossly mistaken. Remember, these are the people that the governments in many provinces decided out of the blue were personally responsible for providing the social safety net during covid and expected them to go without being paid rent and still provide homes for people because apparently somehow that's Fair.

I think it'll be the other way around if he does anything at all on the federal level which is going to be fairly limited of course. I think he will make things better for landlords, I think he will protect their rights a little bit more so they don't feel like they have to Jack Rents through the roof just to survive in case there's some downturn, and I think he will encourage developers to build rental units along with the regular stratas that they build.

The idea that you can bully people into letting them give you their property simply doesn't work. They wind up using their property for something else

I agree that renters do have a huge step up when it comes to owners...and people on both sides are taking advantage...what i see here in NB is corporations building tons of rental properties, or taking the advantage of the way things are today, jacking rent up after a small rebuild...you can see it in the amount of homeless people in the area... 

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I don't remember your positions on every single thing.  Why would I ?

 

But you literally started off saying you did. As i've already quoted you on.  So ... which is it?

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I agree that renters do have a huge step up when it comes to owners...and people on both sides are taking advantage...what i see here in NB is corporations building tons of rental properties, or taking the advantage of the way things are today, jacking rent up after a small rebuild...you can see it in the amount of homeless people in the area... 

Yes, that is expected. Over the last decade both the public and the governments across Canada have begun to treat landlords as if they were a Disney evil stepmom. Many hung on because rents were going up so much but basically a lot of the small investors who owned one or three rental properties and were far more interested in making sure they had stable tenants rather than worrying about getting the top dollar for rentals have been forced out of the market. The government's abuse the hell out of them, the tenants abuse the hell out of them and they leave.

In their place are the large corporations who snatch up the rental opportunities and have the manpower and money to really play the game and squeeze the last dollar out of the rental community possible. But that's the only group left who's willing to deal with the nonsense. For the average person it's just way too much risk.

We need to build more homes, nothing gets solved without that. But we also need to respect landlords and stop treating them as evil villains. Otherwise all that will be left is the most nastiest and Cutthroat of corporate landlords

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 1.  But my guess is that he will look at reducing the number of immigrants to somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 to 350,000 and I'm basic that on what I think housing construction will look like by 2026, 2027 which is when he'll be making that decision. 

You will have to be a little careful not to reduce it too suddenly because Justin has tied a lot of the economy into excessive immigration and if you cut that suddenly it can have repercussions on the industries such as universities.

Having said that I guess it also depends on what you mean by substantial. A 10% cut is actually relatively substantial. I don't think it would be enough but I think there's no doubt that it would have substance. I think overall across the board over a. Of time as new rules come into effect it'll be approximately a 25% reduction, maybe slightly more. But that's it I don't think we're going down further unless the housing construction market fails completely

1. Ok, well I appreciate that you saw fit to expound o nyour thoughts here.  I am going to save this post and we'll check in after we have PM PP.

[blackbird]

13 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I don't hate bible believers, I just hate pushy people like you.

That's a falsehood at the least.

I express my opinion;  you express yours.

You choose to disagree with me, call me a Bible thumper (which is fine.  I take it as a complement) but you see it as being "pushy".  

We all have our vocabulary on here and by your definition, quoting the Bible is being "pushy" when it isn't.  It is simply speaking truth because the Bible is truth.  It also depends how you take it. 

You may be taking it as an insult when in fact it is correction.

I have periodically quoted verses in Psalms and Proverbs that teach that those that receive wisdom (word of God) are wise and those who reject wisdom (word of God) are fools. 

So if one rejects quotes from the Bible in a general sense, what category does that put them in? 

Also, anyone is free to reply and explain why such and such a quote does not apply in a particular situation or a particular individual.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2024 by blackbird

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I never once preached at you or tried to change your mind or told you anti bible things, just always demeaned you for your uber evangilistic take on things and your dismissal of all other religions than christianity according to you.

Are you saying that other religions are just as valid as Christianity or the Bible?  Is there some religion that you believe is correct?

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

And now, you want to keep our homeless needy refugees... and hiding behind some sort of "bad for the country" bush LOL

Just wondering then... what number of immigrants should Canada take in per year?   

Do you believe that no immigrants are bad for the country?

Is there no maximum number that should be allowed in?

Should immigrants be categorized as to whether they can support themselves and their families or whether they must be supported by the government?   Is that important?  

Does the government have the right to screen immigrants on various categories?  Would some be good for the country and some bad?

Or do you believe immigrants should not be screened?  Should numbers be limited?

[ExFlyer]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

That's a falsehood at the least.

I express my opinion;  you express yours.

You choose to disagree with me, call me a Bible thumper (which is fine.  I take it as a complement) but you see it as being "pushy".  

....

You may be taking it as an insult when in fact it is correction.

I have periodically quoted verses in Psalms and Proverbs that teach that those that receive wisdom (word of God) are wise and those who reject wisdom (word of God) are fools. 

So if one rejects quotes from the Bible in a general sense, what category does that put them in? 

Also, anyone is free to reply and explain why such and such a quote does not apply in a particular situation or a particular individual.

 

 

No falsehood at all.

You express your bible, not your opinion.

If you believe being called a "bible thumper" is fine, then why are you saying it is an insult?

I quoted the bible and you rejected it...because it went against your immigration diatribe.

 

 

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Are you saying that other religions are just as valid as Christianity or the Bible?  Is there some religion that you believe is correct?

Yes, because religions are beliefs of people and one religious belief is as valid as another.

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Just wondering then... what number of immigrants should Canada take in per year?   

Do you believe that no immigrants are bad for the country?

Is there no maximum number that should be allowed in?

Should immigrants be categorized as to whether they can support themselves and their families or whether they must be supported by the government?   Is that important?  

Does the government have the right to screen immigrants on various categories?  Would some be good for the country and some bad?

Or do you believe immigrants should not be screened?  Should numbers be limited?

Wow, anti immigrant stance or what???  Very unchristian of you.

 

Why does it take 3 of your posts to address one of mine ??  Got ya rattled eh? LOL

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

No falsehood at all.

You express your bible, not your opinion.

If you believe being called a "bible thumper" is fine, then why are you saying it is an insult?

I quoted the bible and you rejected it...because it went against your immigration diatribe.

 

 

Yes, because religions are beliefs of people and one religious belief is as valid as another.

Wow, anti immigrant stance or what???  Very unchristian of you.

 

Why does it take 3 of your posts to address one of mine ??  Got ya rattled eh? LOL

So you just can't answer the questions proving you don't know what you're talking about on immigration.

You obviously don't believe immigration should be tightly controlled and people screened for the benefit and protection of Canada.  You believe in a free-for-all falsely claiming the Bible defends it.

You are the one that said "And now, you want to keep out homeless needy refugees... and hiding behind some sort of "bad for the country" bush LOL"

The world is full of "homeless needy refugees".  You make it sound like Canada should just open its doors and let the rest of the world come in without any controls and you use the Bible to try to support that silly claim.

You don't understand Canada cannot solve the poverty situation of the world.   Poverty is a reality that always existed and taking taxpayer's money by force to redistribute it is evil Socialism.  It is stealing.  Therefore it is not the right of government to impose Socialism.  "thou shalt not steal".  Liberals are evil Socialists.

Canada does do a certain amount of immigration, but every country has the responsibility to protect its own citizens first and not destroy the country with uncontrolled immigration.  

I will make it clear;   I believe Canada has a duty to carefully control immigration.  I believe that is biblical. 

 I believe in some immigration as long as people are properly screened and the harmful people are kept out of Canada.  Immigrants that can assimilate, and can contribute to Canada should be given the main priority. Then I would agree to allow a certain number of refugees and relatives as long as they are not a risk to Canada and are properly screened.  But this is a particularly difficult issue to resolve because of the problems associated with it.  I don't have all the answers.  The priority must be the protection of society and law and order.  Law and order is a Biblical principle and evil doers do not have the same rights as law-abiding people.  This is where liberals and left fail.

There are hell holes in the world that are full of bad characters.   Places such as Haiti that are controlled by armed gangs.   Yet how many immigrants did Canada bring in from Haiti in the last 50 years and how much gun crime around Toronto is done by offspring of Haiti immigrants?  Those figures are not revealed because that would be considered "racist".

Another hell hole is the middle east which is full of Muslims whose beliefs are contrary to western values and beliefs.  A percentage are terrorist supporters as well. The west has tried to keep Muslims from taking over the west for 1,500 years for good reason, but in the last 50 years liberals have changed that and are now not bothering to protect the west.  They operate under the false ideology of multiculturalism believing it is good.  This is leading to all kinds of problems, divisions, and strife in many places.

Mexico, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, and various other countries are also full of lawless and risky people and extremists.

Edited June 4, 2024 by blackbird

[ExFlyer]

49 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So you just can't answer the questions proving you don't know what you're talking about on immigration.

You obviously don't believe ....

My take on immigration sis well known and I have said before that there should be some tighter controls and vetting

My debate with you is off topic and I am pointing out your hypocritical christian self. You espouse and preach the christian biblical path and yet, when it comes to the helpless, needy and suffering, you want them cut off.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

when it comes to the helpless, needy and suffering, you want them cut off.

There are about 8 billion people on the earth and Canada cannot take them all in.  Immigration controls, which you said yourself are necessary, means you can't take massive numbers of the "helpless, needy and suffering" into Canada.  We can take in a very small percentage if they pass screening.  So your claim that I am not following the Bible on the subject is a lie and a smear.  Same as your ongoing crusade against Christianity and the Bible.

Regards,

  Bible Thumper

[ExFlyer]

55 minutes ago, blackbird said:

  Bible Thumper

Bible Thumping Hypocrite.

regards.

[August1991]

On 6/2/2024 at 9:36 PM, Army Guy said:

Yes we have avoided civil war, but get along, is that why Quebec has a separation party, and has had a separation vote...is that why the west likes the est so much, you have a funny sense of who gets along...

Trudeau snr , who celebrates that guy again.... 

Various parts of various countries frequently disagree.

The people in northern North America - despite how different we are, we seem to get along.

====

Quebec has had various separatist parties. In Nfld, I'm sure there's one now.

The FLQ was violent. But in general, we get along peacefully. 

[August1991]

As to my OP, it was a "CallToAction".