What The Liberals Did To Canada

[ExFlyer]

 

Cannot put the link up as Facebook won't allow it but  here it goes

https://globalnews DOT ca/news/11814734/otoole-poilievre-conservatives-carney/

"Former Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole believes his successor Pierre Poilievre needs to change his policies in order to compete with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal Party.

“I think they do need to moderate some of the positions to reach out to more Canadians,” O’Toole said in an interview with Global News.

“If you look at what the Liberals have done with Mark Carney, they have a leader who is more to the centre, centre-right. They don’t have (Justin) Trudeau on the further left anymore. They have to adapt to Canada as it is now … and the opponent Conservatives have now.”

While O’Toole says Poilievre has done a good job of holding the government to account, he is urging the party to “ignore the culture war issues, ignore the floor crossings, and just focus on the long-term prosperity of Canadians.” 

O’Toole led the federal Conservatives between 2020 and 2022, losing the 2021 election to the Liberals under Trudeau. O’Toole was ousted after the Conservative caucus voted to remove him during the Freedom Convoy’s protest in downtown Ottawa.

The former party leader still believes Poilievre will lead the Tories into the next election, but was critical of the party’s embrace of social media influencers under Poilievre.

“Some of the influencers within the conservative movement now are the biggest gifts to the Liberal Party I’ve ever seen. Ignore all those so-called influencers. They’re going to guarantee you a loss in the next election,” O’Toole said.

Poilievre has done multiple interviews with influencers since blowing a 20-point lead in the polls and losing the 2025 federal election. The party also granted media accreditation to prominent influencers during the last election campaign and gave special accreditation for influencers during the recent Conservative convention.

Story continues below advertisement

 

O’Toole believes the party is too beholden to what those influencers are posting.

“Pierre is a smart policy person as well, so maybe he wants to have a Conservative thinkers conference — not a Conservative tweeters conference — and come up with some smart ideas for the future,” O’Toole told Global News.

O’Toole joined the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on Canada-U.S. Economic Relations on Tuesday and was very complimentary of Carney."

[Goddess]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

"Former Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole believes his successor Pierre Poilievre needs to change his policies in order to compete with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal Party.

I find it very odd that Libbies are quoting O'Toole as an authority now after years of saying he was exactly like Trump.

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I find it very odd that Libbies are quoting O'Toole as an authority now after years of saying he was exactly like Trump.

Who ever said O'Foole was an authority???  Who is quoting O'Foole??? It was a piece in a newspaper.

He was leader and, like a honourable person, stepped down when he lost.

More importantly, he is Canadian and doing what is best for Canada...not just complaining about everything in Canada is wrong like his new leader.  Seems he changed his mind...but has not crossed the floor....yet LOL

Oh and, it was not "years of saying he was like Trump".  O'Foole was leader (2020-2022) and Trump was not yet elected.

 

Edited April 26 by ExFlyer

[Goddess]

I watched a couple of videos this morning on the state of Canada's economy.  Together, there was 7 economists on the panel discussions.

One of them went through the actual CUSMA agreement and the documentation list that the US provides every year on trade irritants.  Both videos showed parts of the recent US committee on CUSMA and why Canada is refusing to resolve all the trade irritants.

Canadians are being told that it was the US that started the trade war, but in reality - Canada has been violating CUSMA for the last 5 years.  This was pointed out by the Biden administration, long before Trump came on the scene.  In fact, for the last 5 years, the US has initiated several disputes that have been taken to an independent dispute resolution panel, and Canada has lost all the disputes.  But still refuses to fix the issues.

Biden sort of let it go at that and let Canada off the hook.  Then Trump comes along and decides to do something about it.  This is why Mexico is so much further along in CUSMA talks.  They have acted to resolve the irritants.  Canada is still refusing.

One panel included a discussion on the state of industry in Canada.  Approvals for industrial infrastructure in the US take about 18 months.  In Canada, they take 5-6 years.  The delay cost to Canadian taxpayer has been about $38 billion under the Liberals.

In spite of giving Carney ultimate power to "move at speeds never before seen" by means of Bill C-5, Carney has not used this after another year of Liberal delaying of projects.  The 12 new bureaucracies he has set up, have not approved a single project, nor fast-tracked anything.

Both panels agreed that the MOU's, the new bureaucracies, the new advisory panel -they will fool a certain percentage of Canadians into thinking something is actually being done.  The same percentage of Canadians that keep getting fooled by the Liberals.  But all them are just performative, for show.  No substance.

Both panels agreed that nothing has changed under the "new" liberal government.  The 20 MOU agreements signed with other countries are pretty much useless, the 12 new bureaucracies have achieved nothing but suck up more taxpayer dollars and for whatever reason - Carney is stalling CUSMA talks.  One panel speculated that Carney thinks the US will give in on the trade irritants, like Biden did and just continue to let Canada violate CUSMA.  

There is no incentive for this "new" Liberal government to do anything differently than they have always done.

By continuing to elect them, Canadians have told them very clearly - "We like the direction you've taken this country and want you to continue down that road."

It seems like they have gotten very comfortable in the knowledge that their voter base is loyal to the point of id10cy and will never hold them to account.  They are not interested in guiding Canada or Canadians to prosperity.  They're only interested in how much they can fill their pockets and keep getting elected so they can keep gorging at the taxpayer money trough.

If you look into the "spaceport" - it's clearly been a slush fund for Liberal insiders for years, and Canadians have done nothing about it, so now they're putting more billions into that slush fund.  This has been the story of all the "investments" the Liberals have made for over a decade.  Canadians have lost billions of dollars on failed investments and gotten absolutely nothing in return, and Liberal politicians have made out like bandits.

The new "investments" if you look at them are all following the exact same pattern.

I just can't understand why Liberal pom-pom wavers keep supporting this.  It's like they just don't care.  I mean, I kind of understand "Let's just give them another chance" but.......seriously.  It's been over a decade of decline. We're at the "first gradually, then all at once" point now.

I don't believe Canada can survive another 4 years of this.

We need something drastic to change and we need it NOW.  Not 4 years from now.  And the saddest part - it won't be just another 4 years added to the last 10 years of decline.

The Pom-pom wavers will give them another chance in 4 years.  Liberal politicians know this.  They count on it.  They know their base doesn't care what they do.  And again in 8 years.  And again in 12.  There is absolutely nothing that will ever wake them up at any point.

Alberta needs to get out of this insane asylum.

31 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

He was leader and, like a honourable person, stepped down when he lost.

He didn't step down.  He was voted out.  73-45.

Edited April 26 by Goddess

[Goddess]

For the AI lovers:

Is Canada actually a top economic performer in the G7, or are we just inflating the numbers with population growth? Short answer.

Answer: 

**Short answer:** Mostly population-driven. Per latest IMF April 2026 data, Canada is #2 in G7 total real GDP growth for 2026 at 1.5% (behind US 2.3%, ahead of France 0.9%, UK/Germany 0.8%, etc.). But per-capita growth has been the G7’s weakest for a decade—rapid immigration inflated headline GDP while living standards lagged.

So if Canada’s growth is mostly population-driven, is it fair to say the average Canadian isn’t actually benefiting? Short answer.

Answer:

**Short answer:** Yes. Canada’s total GDP has grown from population surges, but real GDP per capita—the best measure of average living standards—has been the G7’s weakest for a decade. The average Canadian’s slice of the pie hasn’t grown; it’s shrunk relative to peers.

What’s the biggest reason Canada’s per capita growth has lagged the G7 for so long? Low productivity, policy choices or something else? Short answer.

Answer:

**Short answer:** Low productivity. It’s the core driver—Canada’s lagged G7 peers for decades due to weak business investment in capital and tech, heavy regulation, tax disincentives, and immigration policies that flooded the labor market with lower-skilled workers. This let firms substitute cheap labor for productivity-boosting tools instead of innovating.

If low productivity is the issue, what specific policy is holding Canada back the most? Short answer.

Answer:

**Short answer:** Heavy regulation and tax disincentives on business investment. These make capital equipment and tech upgrades expensive, so firms hire cheap labor instead of innovating—Canada’s core productivity trap for decades. Interprovincial barriers add another layer by limiting competition.

If heavy regulation and tax disincentives are the problem, what’s the one policy change that would make the biggest difference for Canada’s productivity? Short answer.

Answer:

**Short answer:** Comprehensive “Big Bang” tax reform to slash marginal rates on new investment, modernize corporate taxation, and remove disincentives for capital formation. This would directly reverse the lock-in effect and regulatory drag, spurring business spending on machinery, tech, and expansion far more than piecemeal tweaks—exactly what recent C.D. Howe and expert analyses flag as the highest-impact lever for breaking Canada’s productivity trap.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

For the AI lovers:

Is Canada actually a top economic performer in the G7, or are we just inflating the numbers with population growth? Short answer.

Answer: 

**Short answer:** Mostly population-driven. Per latest IMF April 2026 data, Canada is #2 in G7 total real GDP growth for 2026 at 1.5% (behind US 2.3%, ahead of France 0.9%, UK/Germany 0.8%, etc.). But per-capita growth has been the G7’s weakest for a decade—rapid immigration inflated headline GDP while living standards lagged.

So if Canada’s growth is mostly population-driven, is it fair to say the average Canadian isn’t actually benefiting? Short answer.

Answer:

**Short answer:** Yes. Canada’s total GDP has grown from population surges, but real GDP per capita—the best measure of average living standards—has been the G7’s weakest for a decade. The average Canadian’s slice of the pie hasn’t grown; it’s shrunk relative to peers.

What’s the biggest reason Canada’s per capita growth has lagged the G7 for so long? Low productivity, policy choices or something else? Short answer.

Answer:

**Short answer:** Low productivity. It’s the core driver—Canada’s lagged G7 peers for decades due to weak business investment in capital and tech, heavy regulation, tax disincentives, and immigration policies that flooded the labor market with lower-skilled workers. This let firms substitute cheap labor for productivity-boosting tools instead of innovating.

If low productivity is the issue, what specific policy is holding Canada back the most? Short answer.

Answer:

**Short answer:** Heavy regulation and tax disincentives on business investment. These make capital equipment and tech upgrades expensive, so firms hire cheap labor instead of innovating—Canada’s core productivity trap for decades. Interprovincial barriers add another layer by limiting competition.

If heavy regulation and tax disincentives are the problem, what’s the one policy change that would make the biggest difference for Canada’s productivity? Short answer.

Answer:

**Short answer:** Comprehensive “Big Bang” tax reform to slash marginal rates on new investment, modernize corporate taxation, and remove disincentives for capital formation. This would directly reverse the lock-in effect and regulatory drag, spurring business spending on machinery, tech, and expansion far more than piecemeal tweaks—exactly what recent C.D. Howe and expert analyses flag as the highest-impact lever for breaking Canada’s productivity trap.

Yeah. 

Sadly our political leaders right now don't have "AI".  Or any kind of  "I".  The only "I" they care about is " Me Myself and I" 

[Goddess]

For those who keep saying Danielle Smith is perfectly happy with the MOU and super ecstatic about Carney:

 

 

[Goddess]

20 years ago you were expected to have a house, maybe a family by the age of 30.

Today that's not even financially possible for the average 30 year old.

Yet Liberal supporters blame today's youth. They tell them, "You're not good enough.  You didn't plan.  You don't know how to work hard.  You don't deserve to have what we got."

But listen to me. That is NOT the truth of who you are. It’s not your fault You are NOT lazy. You are NOT a failure. The system you put your trust in turned against you.

That confusion around how the world is supposed to work? It’s by design.

Let’s go back to 2009. The year the financial crisis began. The year your Prime Minister became Governor of the Bank of Canada.

He was the man who decided what the interest rates would be for all Canadian Banks. He decided to slash them. 4.25% → 0.25%. For the first time in Canadian history, the rates were held at 1% or lower for nearly a decade.

That means that everyone who HAD money to borrow against, paid basically nothing for a loan. Or a mortgage. That's what caused housing prices DOUBLE, and in some markets, even TRIPLE. And what ultimately led to Canadian banks taking $114 BILLION in government support.

That year, the federal budget went from a surplus to a $56 BILLION deficit — the worst in Canadian history at the time. TD bank received $26 BILLION in government support. That year, the CEO got a $4M raise. TD posted a record $4.7 BILLION in profit.

And sitting as Deputy Chair was a man named Frank McKenna. The next year, Frank McKenna became Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. He held both positions simultaneously.

The same Brookfield that was chaired by Carney until he became Prime Minister of Canada. And it gets worse — In Brookfield's own SEC filings, they called 2009 "a year of outstanding opportunity." Carney built the near-zero interest environment that Brookfield used to acquire distressed assets all over the world. While ordinary Canadians tightened their belts. Brookfield bought the world.

And to top it all off — In 2020, Carney started advising Trudeau financially. That year, TD Asset Management was hired to run the Bank of Canada's bond-buying program. That program bought Brookfield bonds. Brookfield got a $1 BILLION credit facility in the same window. Today, TD Asset Management holds $1.68 BILLION in Brookfield stock. One of Brookfield's top 10 institutional shareholders.

This isn't a coincidence. It's a closed loop. A closed loop that Carney created to benefit Brookfield. And it's been closed around us for 17 years.

We were told it was complicated. It's not. It's just that it was not built for any of us.

[Goddess]

This is EXACTLY what talking to Liberals is like 🤣

 

 

[Goddess]

 

Spring economic update comes out next week.

 

Real fiscal responsibility isn’t complicated.

 

It’s what every sound-money, small-government era in history has proven works: Stop the "citizens-last" insanity.  End the flow of billions in CCB and benefits to temporary residents and non-citizens while legacy Canadians wait in ERs. Unleash Canadian energy instead of suppressing it. Approve pipelines on day one, kill the industrial carbon tax, and use our resources as leverage instead of calling our biggest customer “weak.”

 

Balance the operating budget with actual cuts, not slower deficit growth.   Slash foreign aid, NGO grants, and the bureaucratic bloat that now costs more in debt interest than entire provincial budgets. Prioritize the people who built the country: Lower taxes, reduce regulation, let markets set prices instead of central planners.

 

The Carney Liberals will never do any of this, because their entire project depends on big government, endless spending, and blaming everyone else for the failures.

 

The Spring Economic Update on Tuesday will be more of the same: pretty charts, big words, and zero accountability.

 

This isn’t leadership. 

 

And the only way we get it is by refusing to swallow the narrative that inflation, debt, and stagnation are someone else’s fault. They’re Liberal policy choices – and history is littered with the corpses of exactly where those choices lead.

[Goddess]

"Honey, I re-named all our credit card debt 'capital investment'.  Problem solved!"

[Goddess]

"Affordability is the best it's been in a decade." ~ Liberals

 

 

[eyeball]

On 4/24/2026 at 7:04 AM, I am Groot said:

Who benefits? Employers wanting cheap, obedient labour.

That's why so much of our manufacturing disappeared decades ago - to other countries with governments willing to let our 1% exploit their cheap obedient workers.

As I recall you people laughed at lefties for pointing out how this would bite us in the ass. Now look at you.

LMAO!

[eyeball]

On 4/24/2026 at 7:10 AM, LinkSoul60 said:

It underscores the point the we rely on and need immigration to support our economies.  Until there is an aptitude and colour test to get into the country it is what it is.

I suspect that if our government started listening to or taking seriously any advice that suggested we move towards a zero-growth economy and a zero-growth population that the obvious suspects in here would be screaming bloody blue murder that we need as many immigrants as we can get.

I get where the fear of not growing comes from but I just don't believe the reasons are sound enough to make the leap to the conclusion it equals economic catastrophe.

It always bears mentioning I think that economics is merely a liberal art. It's a social science, not STEM but... amongst other things it does have psychology informing it, perhaps not always appropriately but it could prove to be just as important as a way to mitigate the fear.

I get it that economics is not a trifling matter but I don't get being as wound up by it as we are. That's where catastrophe really lurks.

Edited April 27 by eyeball

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

"Some of the influencers within the conservative movement now are the biggest gifts to the Liberal Party I’ve ever seen. Ignore all those so-called influencers. They’re going to guarantee you a loss in the next election,” O’Toole said.

It's so much worse than just a few Randy Whites or influencers nowadays. It's the Freakers Ball of space-laser, anti-vax, AGW denial, Maple-MAGA, MSM mind-control paranoiacs under the Big ol' Conservative Tent spilling out onto the street that gives voters pause to consider.

Trump is like the Mother-of-all Randy Whites for the whole right wing brand here and increasingly around the world.

The big right wing backlash is inevitably petering out.

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I suspect that if our government started listening to or taking seriously any advice that suggested we move towards a zero-growth economy and a zero-growth population that the obvious suspects in here would be screaming bloody blue murder that we need as many immigrants as we can get.

That would be you.  You're the 'usual suspect' who supports that liberal policy. 

Quote

I get it that economics is not a trifling matter but I don't get being as wound up by it as we are. That's where catastrophe really lurks.

Literally everything hinges on the economy. Our ability to deliver social programs hinges on the economy. Our ability to protect ourselves hinges on the economy. Our ability to attractive investment of developed or purchase better technology hinges on the economy. That affects every single thing from education to healthcare to the military

Economics isn't just "not a trifling matter", it is the primary matter upon which all other things depend

If you're okay with canceling all social services then we don't need to worry so much about the economy. People will fend for themselves. If you want to have social programs the economy matters a great deal. There's a ton of people in DC right now claiming that they're going to suffer horribly due to NDP cuts because the economy is so bad. That's what you get

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Literally everything hinges on the economy.

And the economy hinges on natural and social capital.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

And the economy hinges on natural and social capital.

Which means absolutely nothing in reality with regards to the economy. Made up terms that people who don't understand the economy throw around. 

Essentially those tend to work out fine if the economy is strong, not the other way around.  A strong economy allows people to focus on those things and provides enough forward momentum to overcome any drag those things tend to produce. 

In short, they're what you get to have when you  HAVE a strong economy, not what GIVES you a strong economy. 

Edited April 27 by CdnFox

[I am Groot]

22 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's why so much of our manufacturing disappeared decades ago - to other countries with governments willing to let our 1% exploit their cheap obedient workers.

As I recall you people laughed at lefties for pointing out how this would bite us in the ass. Now look at you.

LMAO!

I don't know who 'you people' are but I assure you, I am not them.

[LinkSoul60]

On 4/25/2026 at 12:49 PM, I am Groot said:

There is no evidence we need immigrants to support our economy. And certainly not in the numbers were are getting. it increases overall GDP, which does nothing helpful for the country or its people, but does serve to falsly suggest that the country's economy is growing.

We need immigration, period.  You should look harder.... which really wasn't hard to find;

1. Demographic Challenges (Aging Population)

• Low Birth Rate: Canada's fertility rate is 1.5 babies per woman, well below the 2.1 replacement rate needed to sustain the population.
• Retirement Surge: By 2030, 9 million baby boomers will reach retirement age, creating a smaller working population to pay taxes supporting healthcare and social services.
• Worker-to-Retiree Ratio: In 1971, the ratio was 6.6 workers for every retiree; by 2035, this is expected to drop to 2 to 1. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

2. Economic and Labor Market Needs

• Labor Force Growth: Nearly 100% of Canada's labor force growth is driven by immigration.
• Filling Key Shortages: Immigrants are crucial in key sectors: they represent 30%+ of manufacturing workers, 25%+ of healthcare sector workers, and 50% of home child care providers.
• Economic Impact: Studies suggest that immigration boosts GDP by increasing both the labor force and consumer demand. Without immigration, Canada's economy would experience a shrinking labor force and slower economic growth.
• Entrepreneurship: Immigrants are more likely to be business owners with paid staff than the Canadian-born population. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. Economic Growth and Productivity

• Filling Skilled Gaps: Over 80% of recent immigrants have post-secondary credentials, supporting industries that require high-skilled workers.
• • Increased Productivity: Firms owned by immigrants with higher education, such as doctorates or master’s degrees, tend to show higher productivity.
  • Boosting Trade: Immigrants help strengthen international trade ties, with research showing Canada has higher trade volumes with countries that have provided large numbers of immigrants. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
   
  4. Supporting Public Finances
  • Tax Base Growth: Working-age immigrants expand the tax base, which is crucial for funding social programs.
  • Fiscal Contribution: While early-stage incomes may be lower, economists generally find that skilled immigrants contribute more in taxes over their lifetimes than the cost of public services they consume.[1, 2, 3, 4]
  Note: While evidence supports the need for immigration for growth, reports also highlight the need for careful planning regarding infrastructure, housing supply, and integration to address pressures on public services. [1, 2]

   

  On 4/25/2026 at 12:49 PM, I am Groot said:

  You might think everything is peachy and wonderful in Canuckistan, but a lot of Canadians don't, and he's their voice.

  I've never said things are "peachy' but do believe a lot, or most Canadian's are also mature enough not to refer our country as Canuckistan. Some are disenchanted because their choice of politician was not elected, some are happy to see Carney elected, and some just like to complain all day because they think someone is listening.  Takes all kinds to make the world turn...

[LinkSoul60]

22 hours ago, eyeball said:

I suspect that if our government started listening to or taking seriously any advice that suggested we move towards a zero-growth economy and a zero-growth population that the obvious suspects in here would be screaming bloody blue murder that we need as many immigrants as we can get.

I get where the fear of not growing comes from but I just don't believe the reasons are sound enough to make the leap to the conclusion it equals economic catastrophe.

It always bears mentioning I think that economics is merely a liberal art. It's a social science, not STEM but... amongst other things it does have psychology informing it, perhaps not always appropriately but it could prove to be just as important as a way to mitigate the fear.

I get it that economics is not a trifling matter but I don't get being as wound up by it as we are. That's where catastrophe really lurks.

Absolutely the same group that is complaining today about immigration would be the same group complaining if we intentionally brought our economy to its knees with no workers to support business and services we depend on.

I also get where people are coming from, and happen to one of those persons who thought we went way too far with the immigration numbers coming out of covid.  

I'll disagree though on the impacts to the economy....  Our birth rates have been declining for the past 15 years and we're an aging population who have been and are exiting the workforce.  By 2030 we're going to lose approximately 9 million baby boomers from the workforce which is going to have a big impact on our economy if we don't have people to fill those job losses to support both corporate and personal tax revenues and keep inflation in line. A business can't function without people and the government is dependent on tax revenues, and will be even more so as we age and require more health care and the costs associated with that.  We see it today, and I think our aging population is only going to create more financial and economic challenges for us before too long.

 

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Absolutely the same group that is complaining today about immigration would be the same group complaining if we intentionally brought our economy to its knees with no workers to support business and services we depend on.

 

 

You guys spend a lot of time whining that "the same people" Who are pointing out some flaw or problem with the liberal agenda would also complain if the exact opposite happened.

It's not true of course, it's basically your way of admitting you can't actually address the issue or the police raised, you just want to attack the person. That's kind of bullshit

. It's the thing that loser say when they can't admit that they're wrong but they know that they are.

Why don't you address the points that were raised? Is it because you can't? Thought so

[LinkSoul60]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You guys spend a lot of time whining that "the same people" Who are pointing out some flaw or problem with the liberal agenda would also complain if the exact opposite happened.

It's not true of course, it's basically your way of admitting you can't actually address the issue or the police raised, you just want to attack the person. That's kind of bullshit

. It's the thing that loser say when they can't admit that they're wrong but they know that they are.

Why don't you address the points that were raised? Is it because you can't? Thought so

As I've said many times... you and others non-stop crying and complaining is humorous sometimes, other times just plain boring...

Do you have any idea what you're talking about right now?  Nobody was attacked here because the convo isn't about anyone....it's about immigration and the economy.  

Are the meds kicking in kiddo?

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

As I've said many times... you and others non-stop crying and complaining is humorous sometimes, other times just plain boring...

 

It's pretty obvious you say that to make yourself feel better after you've lost a debate or discussion.

I'm pretty sure you realize nobody takes you seriously. While I will at least credit you for trying to make an argument from time to time which is more than we can say for some of the more 'IQ challenged'  around there, and you don't usually go into full meltdown mode like some of our more mental health challeged do, it's still pretty obvious you get butt hurt the moment you realize you're wrong and then it's insultsor this nonsense  

Hey, if it gets you through the night.....

Quote

Do you have any idea what you're talking about right now?  Nobody was attacked here because the convo isn't about anyone....it's about immigration and the economy.  

The "same group who...."  Sorry, was 'that group' the immigrants?

No? Hmmmmm.  

Kid... LOL honestly     It's bad enough you say stupid things from time to time but you really have to stop doubling down on the stupid  

 

[LinkSoul60]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's pretty obvious you say that to make yourself feel better after you've lost a debate or discussion.

I'm pretty sure you realize nobody takes you seriously. While I will at least credit you for trying to make an argument from time to time which is more than we can say for some of the more 'IQ challenged'  around there, and you don't usually go into full meltdown mode like some of our more mental health challeged do, it's still pretty obvious you get butt hurt the moment you realize you're wrong and then it's insultsor this nonsense  

Hey, if it gets you through the night.....

The "same group who...."  Sorry, was 'that group' the immigrants?

No? Hmmmmm.  

Kid... LOL honestly     It's bad enough you say stupid things from time to time but you really have to stop doubling down on the stupid  

 

I'm not sure how this turned into a debate for you that you've now won.  I said your non-stop crying and complaining was humorous, but sometimes just plain boring. No debate there right...

I'm not having a meltdown. Are you kiddo?  That's a lot of ranting...