Housing affordability is a crisis in Canada

[Moonbox]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh  and nobody can read the little meme picture you made. Font's way too small. I appreciate that you went through all the effort to try to make a picture to impress me but unfortunately i guess you're not that good at it. 

 

There you go little buddy, I gotchu.  🤡

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

There you go little buddy, I gotchu.  🤡

Wow you spend a lot of time crafting replies to me.  I must be very important in your mind  

 And it looks like you need further education   

It could be said that the constitution is the "Supreme law"  in canada. it is not an act of parliament.  Parliament cannot amend the constitution or the charter of rights and freedoms.

When we talk about laws in Canada we are usually referring to the acts of parliament or regulations that those acts enable. None of those can create rights outside of the framework of the charter

 

Sorry, I guess you made your little picture for nothing   I'll put it on the fridge for you anyway tho.  good job little guy!!! 

[herbie]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It could be said that the constitution is the "Supreme law"  in canada. it is not an act of parliament.  Parliament cannot amend the constitution or the charter of rights and freedoms.

Yor political ignorance is beyond belief.

As is continuing to blame the govt for the fact you can't afford a house is. It doesn't build, buy or sell houses. If it did it really would be a communist dictatorship. You simply can't afford one. Not their problem, yours. Get more money.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Yor political ignorance is beyond belief.

.

LOL really   so the constitution is not the supreme law from which all other law flows? Or are you saying the constitution IS an act of parliament? IN which case, what document enables the parliament to exist in the first place?

Or are you saying that the parliament can amend the constitution unilaterally?

Herbie, everyone already thinks you're stupid, there's no need to hammer it home  

1 hour ago, herbie said:

As is continuing to blame the govt for the fact you can't afford a house is. It doesn't build, buy or sell houses.

It does control the number of people looking for a house.  If the gov't knows that 10 houses are being built, and it adds 20 people who need a house to the market,  then they are absolutely 100 percent to blame for the housing shortage.

That's pretty simple math. See if you can find someone in grade 3 to explain it to you.  They should have the math skills necessary. 

[herbie]

Go take a full shift at Timmies as a 2nd job. Maybe then you can afford a house, you can stop whining about TFWs and cougar can get her order f*cked up by a white person. Solve 3 gripes at once.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Like I said. Landlords have rights and responsibilities under the residencial tenancy act. 

 

The residential tenancy act does not grant rights. Sorry. 

So what you're saying is that you have been wrong the entire time.

I appreciate your admission. As I said landlords don't have rights. Certainly none under the residential tenancy act. As if provinces can grant rights to Canadians

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Landlords still have rights and you have yet to prove otherwise.

 

Th onus is on you to prove your statement true.  It's a lie to say i haven't proved otherwise when i've shown specific examples where they did NOT have that right. 

An act of parliament or the provincial leg is not a right.  So  show me where these rights exist. You say they exist - where?

Only a liar and a cheat insists something exists and refused to prove it exists. 

[Moonbox]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Wow you spend a lot of time crafting replies to me.  I must be very important in your mind  

Don't worry about me little buddy.  Copy pasting doesn't take much time, and then I get on with my day.  

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It could be said that the constitution is the "Supreme law"  in canada. it is not an act of parliament.  Parliament cannot amend the constitution or the charter of rights and freedoms.

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.  

 

Edited September 19, 2024 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You calling someone a liar and trying to gaslight to make it stick, won't make your points any truer.

I haven't seen gaslighting this desperate since January 6 o_O.

You dodging the issue and lying won't make your point any truer .

Now prove where they have rights or admit that you're a lying creep

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Don't worry about me little buddy.  Copy pasting doesn't take much time, and then I get on with my day.  

 

It takes tonnes of time according to you. Hell all i do is put in a few words and you claim it's my whole life, never mind going out, hunting down pictures, modifying them to say what i want, then coming back and posting them    THAT"S real work    

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It doesn't matter.  It's Law, Supreme or otherwise.

Well of course it does  You're claiming that there's no difference between the constitution and a regulation passed by a province?

You honestly don't see a difference?  The constitution is the same thing as the transportation act in canada? In your mind trucks and cars have rights do they ?     :  ROFLMAO!!!

Holy crap kid. That's not the dumbest thing i've ever heard you say, but it was a hell of an effort  

[Moonbox]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Hell all i do is put in a few words and you claim it's my whole life

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.  

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You honestly don't see a difference?  The constitution is the same thing as the transportation act in canada? In your mind trucks and cars have rights do they ?

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.  🤡

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

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.  🤡

LOL  so once again you're wrong because of my post count

Your desperation is as predictable as it is hilarious  

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The issue is you feeling landlords have no rights.

The issue is you say they do but can't provide a scap of proof, 

Quote

I did, using the correct vessel where their rights are listed. Offered to post it for you.

no you didn't. We both know that provincial regulation is not a right. Residential tenancy act does not create rights.

And you think somehow it's my job to prove or disprove your statement, your claim, that they have rights.

So you're admitting that you lied and you have no reason to believe that they have rights.  

Well there you go. 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

LOL  so once again you're wrong because of my post count

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.  🤡

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Is still ...

you claiming landlords have rights.  

But you can't provide anything to back that up.  Meanwhile i've shown that they don't, the gov't can decide whatever they want whenever they want. 

But maybe if you repeat your lies a few more times they'll suddenly magically be true

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're wrong because you said Laws don't give rights, 

Not laws made by parliament, which is what you claimed. 

Then you admitted you don't realize that there's a difference between constitutional law and acts of parliament

Sorry kid, you're the loser here

[Moonbox]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not laws made by parliament, which is what you claimed. 

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.  🤡

[herbie]

Parliament makes Landlord and Tenant rules? What kind of deluded m0ron thinks that?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, by Laws made by Parliament (Acts). 

Nope.

Quote

Considering the Constitution itself was formed as an Act, your argument is just as stupid now as it was yesterday.

 If you thought about that for even one second you realize how stupid it was. The constitution is what creates the parliament and gives it power. So how could the parliament create the constitution before the constitution existed? Until the constitution was created there wasn't even a parliament.

LOL  neat idea tho,  "we don't exist but we'll pass a law that allows us to exist and then we'll exist and can pass laws"   

Parlaiment can't even CHANGE the constitution, the constitution can only be changed with the 7 50 formula set out in ... you guessed it....  the constitution.  And even tht's new, before that  NO canadian could change the constitution, british parliament had to 

LOL  this happens every single time you try and jump into an argument because you are perpetually buthurt and are hoping desperately to look like less of a fool than you are. You wind up making stupid statements that are demonstrably wrong and looking even worse. Then you try and blame me in my postcount

Claim that parliament creates the constitution is beyond wrong, it's childish. Your claim that constitutional law is the same as parliamentary law is equally as !diotic.  And your high school teachers, assuming that you actually graduated that far, should be placed in stocks in the public square and pelted with rancid fruit for how badly they've raised you and how poorly they've educated you.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

One example I gave you, landlords have the right to increase rents after 12 months. 

 

But that's not all right. The government can change that at any time on a whim and in fact has done so. That is a privilege that the government grants when it feels like. If the government is simply passes a new regulation stating that you can't raise rates this year then you can't raise rates this year, there's no right. And if they do that you cannot sue the government for violating your rights.

And in fact the law you're talking about is not only not a right, it's a restriction. It's telling you what you can't do. You cannot raise the rent except once a year under very specific circumstances if you follow certain rules. And on top of it the government can change that restriction at any time and make it worse or better.

So it's got nothing to do with rights. And I think you know that and you're just desperately bullshitting to save face. You know what a right is. A right isn't where the government gives you permission, it's where the government cannot take permission away and it's spelled out in one of the instruments of rights such as the charter

So explain where the charter of rights and freedoms or the constitution grants landlords rights. 

They have no rights. The government can put any restrictions on them that they want at any time and change anything at any time even for contracts that are already in place.

You've spent pages and pages lying about this now. Are you ready to admit that you cannot provide a single example of a right?

 

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The constitution is what creates the parliament and gives it power. So how could the parliament create the constitution before the constitution existed? Until the constitution was created there wasn't even a parliament.

Yeah real clever there, genius.  

"How can there be a Parliament, if the Constitution created Parliament!?"  🤣

Nevermind the absurd chicken-before-egg reasoning you're using, I've got you covered anyway.   It was an Act of British Parliament that formed the basis of our Constitution. 

You keep finding new ways to look stupid every time your fat fingers touch your keyboard.  You're having a banner week - keep up the good work.   

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Yeah real clever there, genius.  

"How can there be a Parliament, if the Constitution created Parliament!?"  🤣

 

Uhhhhh....  you been drinking?  LOL 

The constitution was created by the various parties involved including england, and  once it was created and agreed to it enabled the creation of a federal and provincial gov't structure as well as a legal system.  There was no federal OR provincial OR judicial system of Canada prior to th creation of the constitution.  It is the supreme law.  It is the one law that rules them all. 

Before the signing of the constitution there WAS no 'Canada' .

Like... you HONESTLY didn't know that? You didn't know that prior to our constitution being created and empowerd by the british that there WAS no "federal gov't?'  

the colonies and the brits created the constitution, the constitution created parlaiment. 

Hooooleeeeyy shit.  I honestly never though i'd meet a canadian who did not know this.  Go punch your teachers in the face. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

@CdnFox

You truly have a gift in stretching out a conflict laden lie.

There's no stretch and there's no lie. 

You've taken a position that simply isn't true.  There are no rights for landlords, you claim there is.  You cannot defend that position. 

But despite that fact you've tried to for pages now.  You want to blame ME for the fact there's no rights. You can't produce a single one. Your position is completely ridiculous. 

And your mad at me because i won't let you off the hook on it. 

Landlords have no rights.  Despite signing a contract with another person, the gov't can alter that contract at any time at will. They can demand the landlord provide free rent, they can demand that the contract doesn't end when it was supposed to, they can even dictate how much the landlord can charge for rent in the future, including changes that take place after both parties agree to the contract. 

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Reminds me of a Karen who walked into a Staples store ahead of me, returning a printer cartridge:

"I would like to return this"

(Cashier) No problem, do you have your receipt?

"I'm in your system".

I knew then and there, this was going downhill. No explanations from the cashier were going to do a thing.

She literally fought with the cashier for what seemed like an eternity, but was only about 5 minutes.

Long lineup forming.

She fought so hard, and only after pressure from the manager (who was called in), made the concession she bought the ink at another store, but literally was hell bent on advancing her will onto those staff, to just give her money for an ink cartridge without confirming where it was purchased, when, or its condition.

It got to the point the cashier was starting to question her own training.

You have a talent.

Sure kid.  Cool story. 

You're the karen.  You realize that rihgt? You make a statemnt - then i ask "do you have anything to back that up" and you provide nothing but insist the proof is 'in the system". 

Landlords have no rights. And now we're getting fewer and fewer landlords as a result. And the ones we're getting aren't the nicest ones. 

Well done. 

[Moonbox]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Like... you HONESTLY didn't know that? You didn't know that prior to our constitution being created and empowerd by the british that there WAS no "federal gov't?'  

Considering I just brought up the British North America Act, that's a probably the dumbest conclusion you could have possibly made. 

You never miss an opportunity to make a fool of yourself though.  Bravo👌

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

Considering I just brought up the British North America Act, that's a probably the dumbest conclusion you could have possibly made. 

 

Considering  you thought that the british north america act was passed by a canadian parliament i'd say i've got a ways to go before i get as dumb as you  

Yes i know you're trying to retcon your statements  and NOW claim you realize that british parliament voted on it  But you were VERY CLEAR that you thought it was CANADIAN previously.  Which is why i made fun of you for it   

You literally did not realize that the Canadian Constitution created our parliament. You literally said that constitutional law is the same as acts of parliament on top of it.

Now that I've made fun of you about it you Google didn't realize the truth and tried to pretend that that's what you meant all along when it's very obvious you did not

Kid, every time you do this you wind up looking like a Brainless imbecile. I'm glad you learned something here today, and presumably you now understand why a residential tenancy act does not grant rights.

Maybe do your Google searching beforehand next time And seriously, go punch your high school teacher in the face. She's failed both of us

[Moonbox]

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Considering  you thought that the british north america act was passed by a canadian parliament i'd say i've got a ways to go before i get as dumb as you  

Nope, that only happened in your clownworld fantasy:

20 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 It was an Act of British Parliament that formed the basis of our Constitution. 

Like I said, there's literally no floor for how dumb you're able to make yourself look.  🤡