How Canada's Middle Class got Shafted

[CdnFox]

On 9/28/2024 at 12:44 PM, BeaverFever said:

Actual historical evidence suggests otherwise. As Ive said repeatedly

1) no non-oil country has ever consistently run balanced budgets over extended periods and 

2) the countries that did have the maximum prosperity for their people (ie USA and the entire first world) ran substantial deficits for substantial periods of time. 
 

The market itself is rife with incompetence and bad behaviour but what it wants most of all in the physical and social infrastructure to conduct business. That means publicly funded roads, airports, education, sanitation, law enforcement etc etc. Do you honestly believe businesses are indifferent or opposed to these things?  In fact a big reason for deficits is because than DEMAND these services but don’t want to pay taxes to cover them.
 

 In fact more so than taxes,  public services are the primary reason a company would chose for its location  Do you think a company that  requires a highly educated workers would relocate to country where education is scarce?  Do you think a company that relies on shipping would choose to relocate to a country whose roads and ports are poor quality and unreliable?   It’s only AFTER these many types of concerns are addressed to the company’s satisfaction that they start looking at taxes  

Lastly I will point out that economic growth only occurs when money is borrowed as that is the only time that new wealth is created. While public sector borrowing shouldn’t be the primary driver of growth, it provides a “baseload” of borrowing  That money isn’t shot into space, it’s paid to workers and private sector contractors who in turn spend it in the market economy supporting other businesses and other jobs  Theres a reason Ottawa an provincial capital cities tend to have lower unemployment numbers during recessions compared to rest of the country and that’s not a bad thing  

 

I will echo my earlier comments, to state once again that no only is there ZERO historical real-world evidence of this claim, that actual historical evidence directly contradicts it. 

Thought i'd throw this out there as well seeing as i had it handy. 

US deficits over time.  Notice anything?

 

Successful countries do minimal deficits. The us did NOT run significant deficits for most of its history. That is a more modern thing. 

Trudeau borrowed more than all other prime ministers combined so if borrowing didn't hurt the economy we'd know it right? But it's trashed our economy horribly. 

Deficits (during good times anyway) are bad things. You don't have to hit a perfectly balanced budget as long as your population is rising.  But you do have to be close and not run substantial deficits. 

 

[Mathieub]

I found that our middle class, with the today tech, is in a very good situation. Better than ever.

A country is all these you listed.

[CdnFox]

20 hours ago, Mathieub said:

I found that our middle class, with the today tech, is in a very good situation. Better than ever.

A country is all these you listed.

Depending which country you're referring to that's demonstrably not true, unless you're going back only 8 years or so. 

 

[Mathieub]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Depending which country you're referring to that's demonstrably not true, unless you're going back only 8 years or so. 

 

Canada. Our country.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Mathieub said:

Canada. Our country.

Well in that case you're just plain wrong. 

Our quality of life by every measurable metric has reduced compared to what it was before 10 years ago. Our healthcare is worse. Even middle class people struggle to find affordable housing and to buy enough food. 25 percent of canadians will use a food bank this fall. Inflation has reduced our practical spending power.  Business investment is leaving canada for the first time in our history, our adjusted gdp per capaita is falling which means there's less tax dollars to provide services just when interest is sucking up a lot of our tax income. 

The situation has become so bad that our birthrate has now fallen to 1.3 births per female in their life time.  We need 2.2 births just to maintain our population so we're now completely and utterly dependent on immigration to even keep our current population levels because people dont' have time or money to have kids. 

People wait many many years to get a personal doctor AND the medical clinics which used to fill in the gaps are all but not taking anyone anymore.  Emerg wait times are now regularly into the double digit hours of waiting, and in many cases the emerg rooms are closing for many days per week or altogether, and numerous people have died in the hours it takes for the ambulance to get to the nearest open facility. 

And you think a bit of tech makes up for that? It's ok if your wife dies due to lack of care or you can't afford a home as long as you've got good download speeds on your iphone?

 

[BeaverFever]

On 9/29/2024 at 4:19 PM, CdnFox said:

US deficits over time.  Notice anything?

 

That chart is misleading because it is showing constant dollars but as if money had the same value then as today but in 1940 you could buy a new car for $700 and the average annual income was just short of $1,400 PER YEAR so of course the budget in constant dollars is going to look like that. 
 

Here is a realistic depiction of US budget relative to the size of economy (ie as percentage of GDP)  Notice anything?

Note the second chart is from 2013 and anything past the vertical line at that year on the right was just their prediction of future budgets at that time but I include it here because it shows deficits back to the year 1900. For prosperous countries, deficits are the norm, always have been.   Balanced or surplus budgets are the rarity. They only occur briefly and infrequently. As Ive said there’s a limit to how much debt a country can carry its not infinite but it’s not zero  

 

 

On 9/29/2024 at 4:19 PM, CdnFox said:

Trudeau borrowed more than all other prime ministers combined so if borrowing didn't hurt the economy we'd know it right? But it's trashed our economy horribly. 

Explain how government borrowing harmed the economy. Explain the cause and effect, don’t just point to some economic indicators you don’t like and then claim somehow borrowing must have caused it  Also compared to other countries Canadas economy isn’t so trashed.  Inflation has returned to 2% target, unemployment remains at historic average. Income and savings rates have started moving back up even when adjusted for inflation.  Canada’s debt-GDP ratio is still one of the lowest in G7 and 5th lowest in top 32 countries. Not all indicators are positive but it’s not the doom and gloom you make it out to be  

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That chart is misleading because it is showing constant dollars

Nope. Even in the recent years such as 1985 1995 etc you can see the results are the same we actually had surpluses in 2001 so explain that?

but as if money had the same value then as today but in 1940 you could buy a new car for $700 and the average annual income was just short of $1,400 PER YEAR so of course the budget in constant dollars is going to look like that. 
 

Quote

ere is a realistic depiction of US budget relative to the size of economy (ie as percentage of GDP)  Notice anything?

Yeah. From about 1945 to about 1980 it was pretty much a balanced budget. So I was right. Most of the time even by cherry picking the numbers the way you have huge and long stretches with minimal deficits.

And as you can see here om actual numbers as your chart also shows 

U.S. Budget Deficit by Year (thebalancemoney.com)

It was also tiny before that.

And deficit to GDP is not the right calculation here. We're talking about what percentage of the budget went to deficit. And if you go and look and start comparing year to year you'll see that historically the amount of money that the government borrowed compared to its budget was very small

SO in fact you were quire wrong. Our country and the US both have a history of gong long periods of time with low/no deficit budgets.  And  more notably the periods of the fastest growth were during those periods. 

 

 

 

Quote

Note the second chart is from 2013 and anything past the vertical line at that year on the right was just their prediction of future budgets at that time but I include it here because it shows deficits back to the year 1900. For prosperous countries, deficits are the norm, always have been.  

kid, the charts you yourself posted show that that's not true. In fact for the US more than half the time was with very small or no deficits. And that's even with you cherry picking your type of data. Deficit per GDP is an interesting figure for several things but not when you were talking about what percent of the budget was financed.

 

 

Quote

Explain how government borrowing harmed the economy. Explain the cause and effect, don’t just point to some economic indicators you don’t like and then claim somehow borrowing must have caused it

So in other words try and cram a couple years worth of economic knowledge, data and education into your brain in a single post.

No.

You get the short version and you can do your own research and read a book for crying out loud. Substantial deficits hurt the economy in several ways.

One they all but guaranteed to cause significant inflation. I assume I don't need to explain to you why inflation is a bad thing.

two , they Create a significant drag on the economy. The interest at least has to be repaid after taxes and other revenues which means there is considerably less revenue to provide government services. So more taxes have to be charged or you get into a vicious cycle. That means you are taking earned money out of the economy at far higher levels than are necessary to provide the services

Three, they create a false economy that tends to lengthen and deepen recessions and economic downturns. Bob Ray thought he could spend his way out of a recession and it turned it into a disaster. There are numerous examples. When the economic activity of a society is not tied to need and supply and demand, bad financial things happen.

Four, it weakens the dollar against other currencies. The US is the exception because it is an anchor currency, but any other Currency suffers as debt begins to climb. Countries that are seen as not being able to control their spending wind up with borrowing problems. Ask Greece about that.

Five, it tends to lead to reduced competitiveness and advancement in the business marketplace. We're seeing this right now, we've had the highest borrowing that we've had in our entire history and for the very first time in our history investment dollars are leaving Canada instead of coming into it. This means nobody's upgrading their gear, nobody's starting new and Innovative businesses, nobody is purchasing the kind of technology that leads to performance enhancements and as a result are quality of life goes down because there is less taxable income per person.

Those are the very basics and they're not theories. You see it again and again and again and not just in Canada or America.

You cannot run substantial deficits for any length of time and do well. It just does not work

[BeaverFever]

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. Even in the recent years such as 1985 1995 etc you can see the results are the same we actually had surpluses in 2001 so explain that?

but as if money had the same value then as today but in 1940 you could buy a new car for $700 and the average annual income was just short of $1,400 PER YEAR so of course the budget in constant dollars is going to look like that. 
 

Yeah. From about 1945 to about 1980 it was pretty much a balanced budget. So I was right. Most of the time even by cherry picking the numbers the way you have huge and long stretches with minimal deficits.

And as you can see here om actual numbers as your chart also shows 

U.S. Budget Deficit by Year (thebalancemoney.com)

It was also tiny before that.

And deficit to GDP is not the right calculation here. We're talking about what percentage of the budget went to deficit. And if you go and look and start comparing year to year you'll see that historically the amount of money that the government borrowed compared to its budget was very small

SO in fact you were quire wrong. Our country and the US both have a history of gong long periods of time with low/no deficit budgets.  And  more notably the periods of the fastest growth were during those periods. 

 

 

 

kid, the charts you yourself posted show that that's not true. In fact for the US more than half the time was with very small or no deficits. And that's even with you cherry picking your type of data. Deficit per GDP is an interesting figure for several things but not when you were talking about what percent of the budget was financed.

 

 

So in other words try and cram a couple years worth of economic knowledge, data and education into your brain in a single post.

No.

You get the short version and you can do your own research and read a book for crying out loud. Substantial deficits hurt the economy in several ways.

One they all but guaranteed to cause significant inflation. I assume I don't need to explain to you why inflation is a bad thing.

two , they Create a significant drag on the economy. The interest at least has to be repaid after taxes and other revenues which means there is considerably less revenue to provide government services. So more taxes have to be charged or you get into a vicious cycle. That means you are taking earned money out of the economy at far higher levels than are necessary to provide the services

Three, they create a false economy that tends to lengthen and deepen recessions and economic downturns. Bob Ray thought he could spend his way out of a recession and it turned it into a disaster. There are numerous examples. When the economic activity of a society is not tied to need and supply and demand, bad financial things happen.

Four, it weakens the dollar against other currencies. The US is the exception because it is an anchor currency, but any other Currency suffers as debt begins to climb. Countries that are seen as not being able to control their spending wind up with borrowing problems. Ask Greece about that.

Five, it tends to lead to reduced competitiveness and advancement in the business marketplace. We're seeing this right now, we've had the highest borrowing that we've had in our entire history and for the very first time in our history investment dollars are leaving Canada instead of coming into it. This means nobody's upgrading their gear, nobody's starting new and Innovative businesses, nobody is purchasing the kind of technology that leads to performance enhancements and as a result are quality of life goes down because there is less taxable income per person.

Those are the very basics and they're not theories. You see it again and again and again and not just in Canada or America.

You cannot run substantial deficits for any length of time and do well. It just does not work

I will repeat myself again as you haven’t rebutted anything Ive been saying:

1) Governments never need to balance budgets. There’s a limit to how much debt they can hold at any given point in time but it’s not the “zero” number people on the right have recently been claiming.  

2) no non-oil country has ever consistently run balanced budgets over extended periods and 

3) the countries that did have the maximum prosperity for their people (ie USA and the entire first world) ran substantial deficits for substantial periods of time. 
 

You are the one trying to salvage your argument by now claiming arbitrarily that historical deficits were ”small,” and trying to equate “small deficits”  with being same as the  balanced budgets you amd other conservatives are always harping about. 

In your own link, the average deficit in a deficit year is 4.2% of GDP, a number the that the US was consistently below since the 90s with the exception of the financial crisis years and since COVID

To your numbered claims:

1) They are not guaranteed to cause inflation. There are many many factors that contribute to inflation including organic economic growth. Government spending is one of those many many factors that CAN contribute to inflation but not necessarily. Furthermore whether or not that gov spending is from a balanced budget or not is irrelevant to it impact on inflation 

2) The amount of money a government has to spend is finite so yes spending on A means you have less to spend on B, whether we’re talking about defence or interest payments or healthcare or whatever. HOWEVER government debt is mostly long term bonds that mature over the span of decades. Economies (and therefore government revenues) always grow substantially over those periods. As a side note, it’s also interesting to me that you describe government being unable to provide other services as a “drag on the economy” considering tou previously described government services themselves being a drag on the economy. Are you finally coming to the realization that government services can support the economy?

3) Government spending is the only thing helping economies along during recessions, keeping businesses afloat and a minimum level of economic activity  There are not countless examples. Bob Rae (correct spelling) first of all as a provincial leader didn’t have the same tools as federal governments have, ie Ontario didn’t have a sovereign currency or its own central bank and didn’t have any sympathy or support from the federal government. . Second of all, he chickened out and backpedaled under pressure from the business community who waged what is known as a “capital strike” even going so far as to commit economic treason by taking out ads in foreign newspapers telling people not to invest in Ontario. Basically the business community made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. This was at a time when the new Reaganmoics was popular even among mainstream and moderate politicians and an absolute religion of the business community. If the business community believes that the premier wearing a purple hat on a Tuesday will crash the economy then that’s exactly what will happen if the Premier doesbecause they will wage a “capital strike” and withhold investment, close operations, etc etc. Third it’s also worth noting that all this occurred during the worst economic recession similar the Great Depression and everyone was in uncharted waters.  It’s doubtful that any premier could turn back a tidal wave that was sweeping the entire world  

Im not saying Rae’s policies, had he been able to implement them would have worked even under the best conditions. And given the prevailing ideology of the rest of North America there’s no way they could have worked. Even the sanest and smartest ideas are doomed if everyone else thinks they’re crazy and the consensus among business and government leaders was that Rae was crazy and needed to get with the new ideology.   So what happened is he went in on a big spending plan, then backtracked and submitted to Reaganomics, throwing his labour support under the bus while not redeeming himself in the eyes of his critics amd his spending all went to waste. 

4) The Canadian dollar ebbs and flows vs the US dollar for a variety of reasons none of which are directly related to whether the government happens to be running a deficit or not. IRONICALLY the value of the Canadian dollar was never lower than when Chretien-Martin austerity was as its peak. That actually had the effect of attracting foreign investment into Canada. Canada can’t haven Greece’s problem because Greece’s problem stems from the fact that it doesn’t control its own currency as it uses the Euro so doesn’t have monetary levers available unlike Canada. Canada also has substantial assets backing its liabilities that other countries don’t. For example Canada Pension Plan is 100% funded on a going concern basis whereas other countries pensions and similar obligations including the US Social Security system, operate on a “pay as you go” basis. This is why Canada’s net debt is the lowest in the G7
 

Sidebar: History lesson time! I know you hate reading and learning so skip to #5 if you don’t want to know how much you don’t know  

Greece along with Italy, Spain Portugal, (and I believe also Ireland and Iceland to a lesser extent) were relatively poor countries right into the late 20th century. Spain and Greece were actually ruled by dictators as recently as the 1970s. I mean these countries still had substantial populations living in villages with no electricity and in the southern European countries there were hillside slums etc. The western nations (ie the US) were concerned about growing sympathy for communism among the impoverished masses in these countries and so helped these countries borrow huge amounts of money to catch up with the west, join the first world, embrace capitalism etc.  

So massive amounts of long-term government debt transformed these countries into first world countries in an extremely short amount of time although there was still a very high level of corruption, tax evasion and inefficient, unproductive government spending. The chickens came home to roost when Greece joined the Eurozone and adopted the Euro, a currency driven by highly productive and competitive economies like Germany and France who drove the value of the Euro up. Now Greece’s massive debt is refinanced in high-flying Euros making it more expensive. The gun is loaded. Then came the global financial crisis which hit Greece's economy especially hard and increasingly conservative investors pull back from high-debt countries. The trigger is pulled. Greece’s economy can’t generate the income needed to make those payments in expensive Euros and because it doesn’t have a sovereign currency to print which is an important measure. Of note the crippling austerity measures that were imposed actually WORSENED Greece’s recession as huge numbers of public employees were let go causing a ripple effect through the economy, causing Greece to need even more bailouts and letting up on austerity. 
 

5) It doesn’t sound like net capital outflow is the “first time in our history” Do you have a link for that claim?  Money tends to flee smaller markets like Canada during global uncertainty or when US and other countries offer better opportunities for returns. Canada has some challenges foe sure but you fail to demonstrate how defecit spending is the reason for capital outflow. As I mentioned last time, you’re mostly just listing off anything negative about the Canadian economy oe markets and them magically claiming debt is to blame without showing any attempt at linking the 2. . And it’s not obvious why they would leave just because Canada doesn’t have a balanced budget. I’ll say it again we have the lowest debt in the G7 and our budget deficit relative to the size of our economy is also m the smallest so your argument doesn’t make sense. 
 

In closing, nearly all developed  countries regularly run  deficits and only on the rare occasion balance a budget. It would appear that deficits are a feature, not a bug, of a capitalist market economy. You are trying to hide in your arbitrary definition of what is “substantial”  vs “small” deficit, trying to equate the latter with a balanced budget as in when you say “at least half the time there was a small deficit or balanced budget” when in fact it’s nearly always been a deficit which is different from a balanced budget. As Ive said all along there are limits to how much debt a country can acquire but there is never any need to consistently balance a budget. 

 

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I will repeat myself again as you haven’t rebutted anything Ive been saying:

I have her rebutted  literally every single thing you said. More than once and with Clarity.

Now you're doing that weird thing where you think if you post something really long and say what I have already rebutted but in a longer version somehow magically it will be correct. And that's not how logic or reason works

Governments run balanced budgets. Budget can be considered to be balanced if the difference represents a very small percentage of the overall budget for most budgets that are complex 1% difference is a rounding error.

Most government bonds mature in 5 years. Not decades. You are a lunatic

Government spending is not the only thing that helps in a recession. Far from it. Lowering interest rates, reducing tax burdens, etc are also extremely powerful tools.  In fact government spending often makes recessions longer and deeper as was the case in bob rae's time in Ontario

Government spending that is highly targeted and well thought out can help with this recession but mostly it helps by bridging so that individuals and companies can survive the recession until it corrects itself through other means. Harper's example in 2008 to 2010 is a prime example of that. 

As for the ebb and flow of the dollar it absolutely 100% has to do with the economy and the price of oil. If the economy is strong and there is a demand for our products the dollar goes up if the economy is weak and there is a lack of demand for our product dollar goes down.

And here's proof you don't know what you're talking about

According to the latest World Bank data on Canada, net outflows of foreign direct investment are nearly double the amount of investment dollars coming into this country. 

Investment dollars fleeing Canada | Caledon Citizen

Canada Just Saw The Largest Foreign Investor Sell Off Ever That was the take from BMO Capital Markets, warning the TSX saw a record sell off from foreign investors. The institution warns this is just part of a larger issue of domestic and global capital seeing fewer opportunities in the country, and sending their money to work elsewhere.

Canada Just Saw The Largest Foreign Investor Sell Off Ever - Better Dwelling

Canada has lost $225 billion in foreign investment since 2016 Ottawa boasts about large recent inflows of capital but outflows are even bigger. If Canadians prefer to invest elsewhere, that's bad news

Canada has lost $225 billion in foreign investment since 2016 | Financial Post

 

 

 

Kid you are an utter failure at this.  Everything youj've posted so far proves my point.' And you very very clearly had NO idea about what was happening in the marketplace, there's been dozens of stories about how for the FIRST TIME in history we're bleeding investment capital. 

 

Pay attention and learn something you snot nosed little brat.  Deficits are VERY BAD for countries and are to be avoided.  Countries that DON'T learn that go down the tubes like greece and venezuela. Sometimes when times are bad you HAVE to but it's a bad thing, it means things are not going well. 

 

Were you able to pull your head out of your echo chamber long enough to get it right? You could be excused for the frist post or two but at this point you're just being an utter clueless woke tard.  Pay attention. 

Edited October 3, 2024 by CdnFox

[cougar]

14 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

3) the countries that did have the maximum prosperity for their people (ie USA and the entire first world) ran substantial deficits for substantial periods of time.

 

Substantial periods of time?  Has the USA debt/ deficit ever decreased over the past 20 years?

I think you mean "indefinite periods of time"

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt

Debt growth appears exponential from 1950 till now.    Even if adjusted for inflation, it will show constant growth.

Funny how the chart shows millions of millions instead of what it should be called - trillions.

Edited October 3, 2024 by cougar

[herbie]

The BC NDP are promising a tax reduction aimed specifically at the middle class.
You better stop them at all costs! Vote for Rustad to lower taxes for the wealthy so one might hire you to clean their toilet.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

The BC NDP are promising a tax reduction aimed specifically at the middle class.

Oh yeah, it's amazing how suddenly the carbon tax and other income taxes are terrible when they are forced to face it in an election.

Then these election is over and they don't do anything. They've had eight years to cut taxes and didn't do it at all. In fact until yesterday or so they have been the staunchest supporters of it. Now we're supposed to believe that they have suddenly seen the light as BC voters threatened to wipe them out

1 hour ago, herbie said:

You better stop them at all costs! Vote for Rustad to lower taxes

Yep, thanks that's what we're going to do.

We're sick of taxes that are supposed to fix climate change and don't

We're sick of taxes that are supposed to save us from the rich but only make us poor

And we're sick of listening to NDP and Lefty's lie about it

I noticed that 338 is projecting a conservative win now. The conservatives have momentum and they are starting to lead in more than enough ridings to give them a majority.

Vote woke go broke. The young people have figured this out and won't be fooled again.

[CdnFox]

 

Canada is a lot less ‘woke’ than you might think... | Macdonald-Laurier Institute (macdonaldlaurier.ca)

The report indicates there is significant space for right-of-centre parties to increase the prominence of culture wars issues, and an associated electoral risk that left-of-centre parties must manage.

Key findings:

• Canadians oppose gender reassignment surgery for under-16s by 4 to 1;
• Respondents, by a 2 to 1 ratio, do not want transgender women to enter women’s sports competitions;
• More Canadians disapprove than approve of people displaying preferred pronouns;
• Canadians oppose removing statues of Sir John A. Macdonald by a 2 to 1 ratio;
• By a 78 to 22 margin, Canadians agree that “political correctness has gone too far”;
• By a 70 to 30 margin, Canadians oppose the idea that Canada is a racist country and a similar share do not want this taught at school;.
• By 70 to 30, people prefer a colour blind rather than colour-conscious approach to issues in society.
• Canadians oppose the idea of separating students in schools by race into privileged and oppressed by 92 to 8;
• Canadians are less likely to call their country racist than are Americans or Britons;
• 60 percent of Canadians believe that “215 indigenous residential school children were buried in a mass grave on school grounds in Kamloops, BC,” with just 15 percent disagreeing;
• 39 percent of Canadians and 55 percent of Americans believe that “Native peoples lived in peace and harmony prior to European settlement” of their countries;
• Canadian opinion on cancel culture, critical race/history, and transgender issues is almost identical to that in Britain and the United States.

 

[herbie]

And you assume people like that have the intelligence to debate the pros and cons of a carbon tax, do you? Those are their political issues, half of which are entirely imaginary bullshit.

Your verbal sputum on the Kamloops residentlal school would be correctly worded if it read correctly. That some of the graves are most likely to be buried children.
Where'd you  dig up that self-confirming redneck report Rebel News ?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

And you assume people like that have the intelligence to debate the pros and cons of a carbon tax, do you?

oh look.  The triggered leftie thinks he's the only one smart enough to have an opinion on the carbon tax 🙄

Yeah kiddo. It's not very complicated. They stated what it would do and what the target was and it didn't get anywhere near it.

And it is up to the government and the experts to present it and the information in a way that is easy to understand and people can accept it but they don't. Instead what they do is anyone who dares to question it is attacked and brutally ridiculed if not out and out canceled.

Which is enough to tell me right there that they know they're in the wrong

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Your verbal sputum on the Kamloops residentlal school would be correctly worded if it read correctly. That some of the graves are most likely to be buried children.
Where'd you  dig up that self-confirming redneck report Rebel News ?

They are no longer most likely to be buried children I'm afraid and that has been admitted by both sides.

But of course you don't care about the truth. Or reconciliation apparently

[Guest]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah kiddo.

Either you're really old, or don't like disagreement. Am sure maturity will prevail, and you will eloquently make your point:

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

oh look.  The triggered leftie thinks he's the only one smart enough

Nevermind o_O

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Either you're really old, or don't like disagreement. Am sure maturity will prevail, and you will eloquently make your point:

Nevermind o_O

LOLOL  Sure kid  

But I do love that right after making homophobic remarks and slagging women you're going to try and lecture other people about maturity 😂🤣😆

🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

LOLOL  Sure kid  

But I do love that right after making homophobic remarks and slagging women you're going to try and lecture other people about maturity 😂🤣😆

🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

No need to get angry, girl. Am just joking o_O

[August1991]

18 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

No need to get angry, girl. Am just joking o_O

Perspektiv,

I suggest that you look at the origins of the 1914 Great War.

We Canadians get along.

[CdnFox]

18 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

No need to get angry, girl. Am just joking o_O

Well we both know you weren't  

Some things just aren't a joke.  LIke imagine if someone said "Niggers are all thieves... JUST JOKING!"  There's never a time that's funny. Even if a black guy says it.  

It's just derogatory and rude and demeans people.  Which is what you did. Do you think gays appreciate you "joking" about how bad it is for a person to be gay or using it as a slur? Same with women? "Joking" about how i'd be less of a person if i was a woman?

I swear.  You lefties are fueled by hatred and bigotry these days.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well we both know you weren't  

Some things just aren't a joke.  LIke imagine if someone said "Niggers are all thieves... JUST JOKING!"  There's never a time that's funny. Even if a black guy says it.  

It's just derogatory and rude and demeans people.  Which is what you did. Do you think gays appreciate you "joking" about how bad it is for a person to be gay or using it as a slur? Same with women? "Joking" about how i'd be less of a person if i was a woman?

I swear.  You lefties are fueled by hatred and bigotry these days.

Wow, girl. Calm down 🙃

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Wow, girl. Calm down 🙃

Awwww  Look at the homophobic woman hater trying to tell everyone ELSE To calm down

You're the only one getting excited.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Awwww  Look at the homophobic woman hater trying to tell everyone ELSE To calm down

You're the only one getting excited.  

Calm down. 🙃

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Calm down. 🙃

LOL talking to you yourself again i see   Don't forget your dribble bib this time      

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL talking to you yourself again i see   Don't forget your dribble bib this time      

Smileys don't mask your anger. 🙃