Maple maga: we seriously don't need this totalitarian sh*t here

[CdnFox]

35 minutes ago, myata said:

Who needs comments these days? What's there to comment if we have eyes and at a small, even a smallest part of a working brain?

Left: Mussolini

The working part of your brain is considerably smaller than either of those things

[myata]

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

.i hope your voting liberal this year...

You nailed it! Wasn't even hard, eh? Like a nobrainer, like not a zillionth of other chance, in this layout

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, myata said:

You nailed it! Wasn't even hard, eh? Like a nobrainer, like not a zillionth of other chance, in this layout

We can agree on that, it is a "nobrainer".  No  brain that is to vote liberal.  Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.

[myata]

No you don't "discuss" with this old, nasty sh*t - you disinfect it first, then take it out far and safe from your home. There's neither the ground nor the language to discuss in, because it wants to drain and consume all sanity, dignity, integrity and then the freedom too. Just watch it, in real time no black-n-white documentaries needed.

You laugh it out, ostracize it out and kick it out. You show and explain to your misguided young men that real men can think and know what is right. They stand for what's right and they take out and kick out liars and thugs peddling false promises whenever they show up on their doorstep, quick and hard. Real men respect women's choices because it's about freedom too, because they know what freedom is, value it and can live it.

This is who real men are and what they do. Now get you lost losers.

Edited Sunday at 10:05 AM by myata

[CouchPotato]

1 hour ago, myata said:

No you don't "discuss" with this old, nasty sh*t -

It's so much easier to just demonize people who disagree with you. Your attitude is no different than the totalitarians you claim to oppose.

Quote

Real men respect women's choices because it's about freedom too, because they know what freedom is, value it and can live it.

Who is not respecting women's choices? Provide examples.

[myata]

3 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

women's choices? Provide examples.

Please don't start me there:

"biological clocks" adage - is it a weirdo, just a freak thing?

For two decades he voted against most affordable housing initiatives. Was housing minister under Harper - where are the results?

Voted against affordable childcare, school food program. What does he care about women's "clocks"?

 

[I am Groot]

I guess Liberal lying doesn't count, huh? All the bald-faced lies Trudeau told on a variety of subjects, and the lies Carney has already been caught up in after just a few weeks as a PM. 

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Please don't start me there:

"biological clocks" adage - is it a weirdo, just a freak thing?

Have you ever met a woman?

2 minutes ago, myata said:

For two decades he voted against most affordable housing initiatives. Was housing minister under Harper - where are the results?

They were pretty good until Trudeau took over.

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Voted against affordable childcare, school food program. What does he care about women's "clocks"?
 

People like you always feel that those who offer 'free stuff' are wonderful people, even though they aren't paying for it, while those who worry about the ever-increasing debt must be morally deficient.

"Just spend more! Give me more free stuff! Who cares about debts!? Someone else can pay that back someday!"  - the cry of the Liberal

[Legato]

6 minutes ago, myata said:

Please don't start me there:

"biological clocks" adage - is it a weirdo, just a freak thing?

For two decades he voted against most affordable housing initiatives. Was housing minister under Harper - where are the results?

Voted against affordable childcare, school food program. What does he care about women's "clocks"?

 

Just go to Google and type liar.com

Tells all one needs to know.

[CouchPotato]

2 hours ago, myata said:

"biological clocks" adage - is it a weirdo, just a freak thing?

“We will not forget that young 36-year-old couple whose biological clock is running out faster than they can afford to buy a home and have kids.”

What is wrong with that? He is talking about how people are struggling to afford homes and start a family. What does that have to do with not respecting women's choices?

Edited Sunday at 05:47 PM by CouchPotato

[Army Guy]

8 hours ago, myata said:

You nailed it! Wasn't even hard, eh? Like a nobrainer, like not a zillionth of other chance, in this layout

well done, it's your vote use it as you like.

[CouchPotato]

On 4/11/2025 at 9:21 AM, myata said:

It always, every time begins with twisting the truth a little bit at a time, no one noticed, nobody cared and always ends up in this.

And here's the remedy: zero tolerance,

And after ten years of the Liberals doing this we are just as sick of it as you, myata. Luckily Pierre Poilievre has a plan to combat dishonesty and corruption in government.

Check out this six point plan....

1.    Ban shadow lobbyists and close the Carney loophole by requiring anyone advising the government directly or indirectly, who stands to gain financially from their advice, to register as a lobbyist.

2.    Ban politicians from making decisions that benefit themselves or their families disproportionately, and require Ethics Commissioner approval and full public disclosure of all personal interests.

3.    Increase fines for ethics violations to $10,000.

4.    Tax transparency. Require anyone running for public office to disclose where they paid taxes for the last seven years.

5.    Require cabinet ministers to divest fully from tax havens and disclose assets to the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, with penalties for non-compliance. No more so-called blind trusts that only blind the public.

6.    Require party leaders to disclose their assets within 30 days of becoming leader and require Prime Ministers to divest their assets within 30 days of assuming office. 

https://www.conservative.ca/poilievres-plan-means-accountability-for-a-change/?utm_source=perplexity

I am with you, myata! Let's bring it home, Buddy. Vote CPC! Vote Pierre!

Edited Monday at 05:06 PM by CouchPotato

[myata]

32 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

5.    Require cabinet ministers to divest fully from tax havens and disclose assets to the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, with penalties for non-compliance. No more so-called blind trusts that only blind the public.

I'll take this one because the rest is pretty much Poilievre hot air that he's been blowing for two decades on public dime without much real essence. So ask yourself: why would this supposedly "transparent" measure be targeted against one specific individual he's been losing to so badly - as opposed to being applied fairly and universally?

Something is inherently wrong with tax havens ->->-> shouldn't PP's cozy bunch of billionaire admirers be "divested" of them as well?

No, everything is perfectly fine with the wealthy bunch who colluded on the price of bread and other necessities only out of desperate poverty (guessing why else) hiding their assets there - why pick and select one scapegoat to show pretend and false "transparency"?

Make no mistake, it's no oversight it's deliberate confusion, put simply: plain, glaring bull. Same as let's stand to America by sucking up to it (and how else would one "increase trade" in the current climate)?

Bull is what he's trying to sell Canada because he respects Canadians on the same or close level as his pretend (again - notice?) "adversary".

Is there anything real behind that veil of games, postures and pretenses? Here's my take: maybe or maybe not, but that train has left. Off we go. Two decades was enough and no more time for gamble. This time and challenges call for competence, professionalism, character and integrity. Simple, really.

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, myata said:

I'll take this one because the rest is pretty much Poilievre hot air that he's been blowing for two decades on public dime without much real essence. So ask yourself: why would this supposedly "transparent" measure be targeted against one specific individual he's been losing to so badly - as opposed to being applied fairly and universally?

 

 

You are retarded.  He IS proposing it for EVERYONE, he's just using Carney as one example of the kind of snake that takes advantage of the rules. 

You're absolutely amazing, you loser lefty communist types scream night and day about how the rich take advantage of the poor and should have to pay their fair share, and when somebody comes along and says I'll make them pay their fair share you're furious about it.

You made more sense when you made no sense