Venandi Posted March 28 Report Posted March 28 (edited) On 3/26/2026 at 2:54 PM, BeaverFever said: As has already been explained many times it’s not a “play”. These trees were planned years ago, before Carney and before any pledge to spend 2% and its a trivial amount of money. You guys are just desperate to find any excuse There is no "you guys" in this for me. Do the tree thing if you want... Do the Coast Guard budget thing if you want too... If you could only restrain yourself from snowing the Snow Queen when you do it I wouldn't have an issue with either one. I can't make it much clearer than that. Edited March 28 by Venandi Quote
Legato Posted March 28 Report Posted March 28 1 hour ago, BeaverFever said: So? All legit defence expenditures that are deliberately included by NATO and other countries but haven’t been included by Canada. . But there’s also net new spending being awarded constantly. The numbers were fudged. The hollow man fiddled and you fell for it. Almost no new spending. 1 Quote
User Posted March 28 Report Posted March 28 1 hour ago, BeaverFever said: You don’t know what you are talking about, plain and simple. You pick and choose what want to believe and make up the rest to fill in the gaps. Says the guy who was wrong about the spending on trees and spent pages and days lying about it instead of just admitting you were wrong. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 28 Author Report Posted March 28 8 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Helmets and rifles and aircraft and military satellites and upgrades to military bases and building military housing isn’t military spending? Trees and coast guard are? Are you really this stupid? Do I really have to hold your hand and walk through this yet again with you? Tens of billions of dollars of this spending had nothing to do with the military. The coast guard is not the military . And you keep insisting it is and that all this was military spending. 🙄🙄🙄🙄 8 hours ago, BeaverFever said: And what do you mean it’s bit new spending? If it was spent this year but not last year it’s new spending, period, A four year old can figure out if they spent 10 billion on the coast guard, then DECIDED to call that 'military spending and claimed that the military spending went up by 10 billion dollars, that in reality there's no new military spending there. FFS. you're getting dumber with each post. Its literally getting hard to believe this. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted March 28 Report Posted March 28 (edited) 17 hours ago, CdnFox said: So I was right. And his reasoning at the time specifically was that Canada couldn't afford to be spending that much money on the military at that time because money was tight and the military didn't need the 'best' helecopter anyway. He called it the 'Cadillac' of helecopters and the military didn't deserve that during tough economic times. I don't know why you insist on pretending you disagree with me and then post that i was absolutely correct. Yeash. Anyway chretien was no friend to the military that's for sure. Broken down used subs that never did work and "no 'Cadillac ' helo's for you!"' And he flushed a billion bucks of taxpayer cash down the toilet doing it. Here's a non paywall link. Story's very old of course so the formatting is a little off How Chrétien fumbled the helicopter mission - The Globe and Mail Wow...you just continually prove how ignorant of the reasons for decisions you are LOL Yet your link does not go on to identify that he did buy the EH101 SAR variant for the Air Force SAR helicopter replacement...and that he also ended up getting the Sikorsky S92 maritime helicopter replacement for the old Sea King. You truly have no clue of Military or Military matters. The closest you have ever come to anything Military is when you walked past a recruiting poster. Ahhh, so, confux the pedophile LOSER screws up again LOL LOL LOL Edited March 28 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Army Guy Posted March 28 Report Posted March 28 On 3/27/2026 at 5:56 PM, BeaverFever said: 1) What you e citing is AN OUTDATED ESTIMATE 2) For the hundredth time NATO DETERMINES WHETHER A COUNTRY HIT THE TARGET OR NOT. Not Carney. Not the PBO. NATO has confirmed that we hit the target. PERIOD. GAME OVER. There’s nothing more to argue. Here's how Canada hit its NATO defence spending target By The Canadian Press Opens in new window Updated: March 26, 2026 at 5:51PM EDT Published: March 26, 2026 at 5:49PM EDT OTTAWA — Canada spent $63.4 billion on national defence in 2025, meeting its NATO commitment to spend two per cent of GDP on defence for the first time, the alliance’s annual report said Thursday. Speaking at an event in Halifax, N.S., on Thursday, Prime Minister Mark Carney called it the “single largest year-on-year increase in defence investment in generations.” Some details of the Carney government’s defence spending spree won’t be public until it publishes its full accounts for the year in the fall. Here’s a closer look at where some of that money is going: — The government added $9 billion to the fiscal framework in summer 2025 to help meet the NATO spending target. That included $2.6 billion for recruitment and retention and nearly $1 billion for maintaining infrastructure and equipment. — Ottawa ordered a major salary hike for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, with some members receiving pay bumps as high as 20 per cent. That was part of that $9 billion sum, although the government did not provide a detailed cost breakdown for the pay raise. — As part of a flurry of announcements in March, Ottawa announced $200 million for a space launch pad in Nova Scotia to send satellites into orbit. — The government recently set aside $1.4 billion for producing munitions in Canada, such as 155mm artillery shells. Of that sum, $356 million is going toward setting up a factory in Quebec to make nitrocellulose, an ingredient used as a propellant in artillery shells. — $307 million is going to Colt Canada for new modular assault rifles to replace army rifles and carbines that are more than 35 years old. — $753 million went to Bombardier for a fleet of Global 6500 VIP jets. — The Treasury Board said in February, close to the deadline for the fiscal year, that National Defence needed “$1 billion to cover urgent and unforeseen defence requirements.” It did not explain why the funds were urgently needed. In a recent interview, Defence Minister David McGuinty said to speed up the process, a lot of the spending was broken down into small projects — such as one to expand Wi-Fi access at military bases and another to overhaul the bases’ water and wastewater systems. He did not say exactly much each project would cost. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/heres-how-canada-hit-its-nato-defence-spending-target/ 1.....my source document is dated October 2025....it is 5 months old or 7 months into the fiscal year and at that time DND still had .40 % to spend....which equates to billions of dollars , and in Aug of 2025 Government dumps 9 bil more into the pot...Historically DND can not spend their normal budget in time let alone an additional 9 bil...... when major purchases take years to complete... 2. Where do you think NATO gets its figures from....they get it from reports sent to them from the liberal government...The PBO office says those figures are not correct...not then and not now...because of faulty or misleading numbers sent from the liberal party....It is the PBO's office to monitor and verify all government transactions, they are the link between government and the people to ensure we the tax payers are getting what we paid for.....So ya those numbers come from Carneys government , NATO publishes them in their report.... How does NATO confirm anything do they have a person in the finance office or do they rely on what info the government sends them....Your making a claim you have no proof of....And your right nothing to argue over period... Historically for the last decade DND has returned almost 2 bil of unspent dollars back to the federal government, which is normally put towards a future major expenditure....So it is not spent....but will be spent in the future...to get to our 2 % of GDP that money needs to be "spent"...before it can be counted....now add to that an additional 9 bil dollars, it would be impossible for them to spend that in that point in time of the fiscal budget.... one of the easiest ways to spend money quickly is dump it into pay and benefits which does not even add up to half that 9 bil... Just a note on these contracts the entire price of contracts are not normally PAID OUT before receipt of all goods, or in increments for construction OR LENGHTY MANUFACTURE PROCESSES....So i doubt very much those numbers you have quoted would even count towards this end years budget. Like the F-35 we pay as we receive an airplane....it is not practice to pay out out front...normally payment of goods must be received before end year or it counts as coming out of next years budget....unless you can prove other wise...Flyer has done these transaction millions of times....I'm surprised he has not a said anything , I'm pretty sure the liberal government has to follow the same rules for purchasing as anyone else, it is after all them that make the rules. SO they can make all the announcements they want, it does not change the rules of government purchasing....You can not count announcements as money spent towards your % of GDP... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
ExFlyer Posted March 29 Report Posted March 29 (edited) 15 hours ago, Army Guy said: 1.....my source document is dated October 2025....it is 5 months old or 7 months into the fiscal year and at that time DND still had .40 % to spend....which equates to billions of dollars , and in Aug of 2025 Government dumps 9 bil more into the pot...Historically DND can not spend their normal budget in time let alone an additional 9 bil...... when major purchases take years to complete... 2. Where do you think NATO gets its figures from....they get it from reports sent to them from the liberal government...The PBO office says those figures are not correct...not then and not now...because of faulty or misleading numbers sent from the liberal party....It is the PBO's office to monitor and verify all government transactions, they are the link between government and the people to ensure we the tax payers are getting what we paid for.....So ya those numbers come from Carneys government , NATO publishes them in their report.... How does NATO confirm anything do they have a person in the finance office or do they rely on what info the government sends them....Your making a claim you have no proof of....And your right nothing to argue over period... Historically for the last decade DND has returned almost 2 bil of unspent dollars back to the federal government, which is normally put towards a future major expenditure....So it is not spent....but will be spent in the future...to get to our 2 % of GDP that money needs to be "spent"...before it can be counted....now add to that an additional 9 bil dollars, it would be impossible for them to spend that in that point in time of the fiscal budget.... one of the easiest ways to spend money quickly is dump it into pay and benefits which does not even add up to half that 9 bil... Just a note on these contracts the entire price of contracts are not normally PAID OUT before receipt of all goods, or in increments for construction OR LENGHTY MANUFACTURE PROCESSES....So i doubt very much those numbers you have quoted would even count towards this end years budget. Like the F-35 we pay as we receive an airplane....it is not practice to pay out out front...normally payment of goods must be received before end year or it counts as coming out of next years budget....unless you can prove other wise...Flyer has done these transaction millions of times....I'm surprised he has not a said anything , I'm pretty sure the liberal government has to follow the same rules for purchasing as anyone else, it is after all them that make the rules. SO they can make all the announcements they want, it does not change the rules of government purchasing....You can not count announcements as money spent towards your % of GDP... I am not sure why you have become so anti military. It seems your hatred of the liberals has made you hate the military and any progress or equipment purchases for them. I would have thought that you, of all people, that has spent a career in the military would be very happy that the military is finally getting money and equipment. No matter about political partisanship...the military is finally getting what you used to say is lacking so much. You should be happy. Pay and benefits for military members...well, as you should know, most recent military budgets have gone to pay and benefits. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/regular.html. Major crown purchases do not affect the actual military operating budget. They come for a different purse and are accounted differently. As for procurements, when you sign a contract, the money is budgeted as the procurement evolves. X$ in increments as the procurement and project grows. Payments are by negotiated progress payments and milestones. Money does not go back into government coffers. Yes, procurement takes a long time for us as we do not manufacture so, we sign a contract and get in line for the product but...we have to provide a lot of the funds to the manufacturer to ensure we are o the list and that manufacturers can tool up for us. Edited March 29 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
CdnFox Posted March 29 Author Report Posted March 29 7 hours ago, ExFlyer said: I am not sure why you have become so anti military. It seems your hatred of the liberals has made you hate the military and any progress or equipment purchases for them. But as we have seen there is no real progress. Calling the coast guard military doesn't actually help the military 7 hours ago, ExFlyer said: I would have thought that you, of all people, that has spent a career in the military would be very happy that the military is finally getting money and equipment. But they aren't getting any new equipment and not much in the way of money. What new equipment have they received? Are there new subs on order? They haven't even finished the official review process of the aircraft never mind replaced our aging fleet. Any new armored personnel carriers that we are giving to Ukraine? Any air defense systems that we didn't give to Ukraine? The guys got a small raise which brings them closer to a reasonable pay scale for what they do but really isn't enough and they aren't getting any new gear at the moment What they got is some trees that were purchased under Trudeau's 4 billion dollar new tree program I realize you're not old enough to get this, but this is all an accounting scam. Which is what I predicted sometime ago and lo and behold yet again I'm right 7 hours ago, ExFlyer said: No matter about political partisanship...the military is finally getting what you used to say is lacking so much. You should be happy. Pay and benefits for military members...well, as you should know, most recent military budgets have gone to pay and benefits. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/regular.html. Major crown purchases do not affect the actual military operating budget. They come for a different purse and are accounted differently. As for procurements, when you sign a contract, the money is budgeted as the procurement evolves. X$ in increments as the procurement and project grows. Payments are by negotiated progress payments and milestones. Money does not go back into government coffers. Yes, procurement takes a long time for us as we do not manufacture so, we sign a contract and get in line for the product but...we have to provide a lot of the funds to the manufacturer to ensure we are o the list and that manufacturers can tool up for us. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
eyeball Posted March 29 Report Posted March 29 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: But as we have seen there is no real progress. Calling the coast guard military doesn't actually help the military It certainly didn't make much difference when they were rolled into DFO. That said I'm pretty sure the Coast Guard will be happier being in the military instead. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
CdnFox Posted March 30 Author Report Posted March 30 (edited) 3 hours ago, eyeball said: It certainly didn't make much difference when they were rolled into DFO. That said I'm pretty sure the Coast Guard will be happier being in the military instead. I wouldn't argue that point. I'm not sure it's a great idea but I'm certainly not sure it's a bad idea and a lot of other nations have chosen to go that route so it certainly not unprecedented. But that's not really the issue. The issue being discussed is does it represent new military spending. And that's a hell of a lot more clear. When you say that we got to 2% spending because you rolled existing spending into the military budget then what you're really saying is we didn't get anywhere near 2% spending. The coast guard and tree planting programs that had already been funded are not military spending the way most people would invision the term Edited March 30 by CdnFox Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted March 30 Report Posted March 30 13 hours ago, CdnFox said: But as we have seen there is no real progress. Calling the coast guard military doesn't actually help the military But they aren't getting any new equipment and not much in the way of money. What new equipment have they received? Are there new subs on order? They haven't even finished the official review process of the aircraft never mind replaced our aging fleet. Any new armored personnel carriers that we are giving to Ukraine? Any air defense systems that we didn't give to Ukraine? The guys got a small raise which brings them closer to a reasonable pay scale for what they do but really isn't enough and they aren't getting any new gear at the moment What they got is some trees that were purchased under Trudeau's 4 billion dollar new tree program I realize you're not old enough to get this, but this is all an accounting scam. Which is what I predicted sometime ago and lo and behold yet again I'm right Was not addressing you. You have no credibility speaking about the military ...as I said, the closest you ever got to the military was when you walked past a recruiting poster. Pay??? Here is the military pay scale...they are paid quite well. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/regular.html https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/pay-rates-specialist-ncms.html Once again with your paedophilia comments ... LOSER. 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
John Johnston Posted March 30 Report Posted March 30 13 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Was not addressing you. You have no credibility speaking about the military ...as I said, the closest you ever got to the military was when you walked past a recruiting poster. Pay??? Here is the military pay scale...they are paid quite well. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/regular.html https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/pay/pay-rates-specialist-ncms.html Once again with your paedophilia comments ... LOSER. You have no credibility speaking about the military ...as I said, the closest you ever got to the military was when you walked past a recruiting poster. Or playing Call of Duty. 1 Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted March 30 Report Posted March 30 On 3/27/2026 at 11:17 AM, Army Guy said: Yes it was forecasted....Based on what was actually spent to date, meaning as of OCT 2025 info...or do you think those numbers where just pulled out of thin air...and by some miracle you want us to believe that in less than 5 months they spent bils,that the PBO was not aware off... that is a stretch, first off the entire budget at the start of the year does not equate to 2 % of GDP, so where did the additional money come from....even the additional 9 bil does not take us to the 2 % mark....the next question would be what did they spend it on, what signed contracts have their been that would add up to the remaining bils ....... because in order to count it must be spent before march 31....forecasting or announcing your going to spend money does not count. IT must be spent , contract signed, before march 31 for it to count as spent... What it does show is there is a huge disconnect between official Liberal government numbers, and what the PBO office has... The point being, it is a forecasted number. It's forecasted to be 9C here later today, but that isn't guaranteed. 1 Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted March 30 Report Posted March 30 On 3/27/2026 at 11:30 AM, Army Guy said: It does matter a lot it equates to hundreds of millions of dollars, which could go to training , courses, recruitment etc,.....And while i do truly apricate all the extra dollars, Canadians want to be told the truth, we are tired of being told lies, Carney was suppose to be a much different guy " he is not Justin"....this is not the first lie he has told.....Now i know that may not be a character trait you aspire to, but it is one i hold on to. The point was we're spending, which we haven't done in 20 years.... including your guy who had the lowest NATO spend of 1%. You were in favour of spending, weren't you? The polls appear to heavily favour Carney's approval and liberal choice of government so I'm thinking when you say "Canadian's", you mean your same group that's been tired of losing elections and complaining for years. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted March 30 Author Report Posted March 30 4 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Was not addressing you. That's fine, you're allowed to be wrong to more than one person at a time Quote You have no credibility speaking about the military ...as I said, the closest you ever got to the military was when you walked past a recruiting poster. I am FULLY qualified to speak on budgeting and spending. Sorry kiddo but that's absolutely my wheel house. And i also have a solid understanding of history, both military AND political. So i'm a hell of a lot more qualified to speak on this than YOU, who isn't even old enough to join yet (maybe the cadets?) Quote Pay??? Here is the military pay scale...they are paid quite well. First off, i believe that is the CURRENT pay scale, AFTER the raise. so if you think that's adequate pay now then arguably they weren't getting "quite well" pay previous to that raise. Secondly, that's not much money. I mean 4 years in and you're getting 88 k pre tax? For a GOV'T job? Go look at how much a teacher makes, it's WAY more than that. And they're not going to be called up to go to some foreign country and get shot at. Now i realize there's things like bonuses for deployments and such but this isn't exactly luxury pay. I'm sure it seems like a lot to a kid like you but seriously that's peanuts in this day and age, a living wage but your wife better have a job too. Quote Once again with your paedophilia comments ... LOSER. Sorry kid,, that's just wishful thinking on your part You really need to get some help with that, whatever happened to you seems to have left some permanent damage Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted March 30 Report Posted March 30 33 minutes ago, CdnFox said: That's fine, you're allowed to be wrong to more than one person at a time I am FULLY qualified to speak on budgeting and spending. Sorry kiddo but that's absolutely my wheel house. And i also have a solid understanding of history, both military AND political. So i'm a hell of a lot more qualified to speak on this than YOU, who isn't even old enough to join yet (maybe the cadets?) First off, i believe that is the CURRENT pay scale, AFTER the raise. so if you think that's adequate pay now then arguably they weren't getting "quite well" pay previous to that raise. Secondly, that's not much money. I mean 4 years in and you're getting 88 k pre tax? For a GOV'T job? Go look at how much a teacher makes, it's WAY more than that. And they're not going to be called up to go to some foreign country and get shot at. Now i realize there's things like bonuses for deployments and such but this isn't exactly luxury pay. I'm sure it seems like a lot to a kid like you but seriously that's peanuts in this day and age, a living wage but your wife better have a job too. Sorry kid,, that's just wishful thinking on your part You really need to get some help with that, whatever happened to you seems to have left some permanent damage You have zero qualifications to speak on military buying, spending and procurement and budgeting. All announcements are for procurement and much of it will be in the future...if you have a clue, you would realize there is no Military hardware store where you walk in and buy weapons off the shelf. All is proposed, contracted and wait for delivery. Of course that is the current pay scale. The military members have been given a pay raise every year for decades. (and sometimes twice in a year). If you compare the occupations with equivalent civilian jobs, it is very good pay. " AI Overview Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) pay has seen significant, multi-year increases over the past decade, culminating in a historic raise announced in August 2025. This 2025 adjustment, described as the largest in a generation, provides raises of 8% to 20% depending on rank and trade, effective retroactively to April 1, 2025. [1, 2, 3] Key Pay Increases (2016–2026) 2025–2026 (Historic Adjustment): Following a modernization of the "Military Factor" (a percentage added to base salary for 24/7 duty and service limitations), pay increased significantly: 20% increase: Starting pay for Regular Force Privates. 13% increase: Lieutenant-Colonels and below (Regular & Reserve). 8% increase: Colonels and above (Regular & Reserve). 2021–2024 (Multi-Year Economic Increases): CAF members received a compounded increase of approximately 10.4% during this period, consisting of annual raises of 1.5% (2021), 3.5% (2022), 3.0% (2023), and 2.0% (2024). 2016–2017: A compounded increase of 6.34% was implemented, covering several years of retroactive increases and a 1.2% Military Factor increase" Beyond base pay, the 2025 package introduced a Military Service Pay benefit, a lump-sum payment based on years of service, ranging from $2,000 to $6,000 annually for Regular Force members, aimed at improving retention August 2025 changes, combined with earlier economic increases, indicate that in the last decade, junior-level pay has increased by over 30% on a cumulative, non-compounded basis, while mid-career pay has also seen substantial hikes, driven by both annual inflation adjustments and significant upward revisions to the Military Factor So, you say $88K after 4 years is not good pay (not including benefits)?? I am quite sure there are millions of Canadians that will disagree with you. As I said, you clearly do bot know anything about the Military...watching Remembrance Observations on the news does not make you knowledgeable. LOSER !!! As for you being a pedophile LOSER, well your comments to me that claim is "a kid like you" and "Sorry kid" clearly is evidence of your paedophilia LOL Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
CdnFox Posted March 30 Author Report Posted March 30 32 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: You have zero qualifications to speak on military buying, spending and procurement and budgeting. I am 100% qualified. Certainly vastly more so than some child sitting in his mother's basement. Quote All announcements are for procurement and much of it will be in the future... That's not what's being sold. The specific claim is that currently in the 2025 year actual physical spending on the military was increased to match 2% of GDP That has nothing to do with future spending or any announcements that involves spending past 2025 His claim was that we have reached 2% of GDP in 2025 specifically in spending And the point is we absolutely did not. Simply renaming existing spending as military spending does not actually represent an increase in spending How are you not getting this? I realize you're probably only in high school but this is elementary school math. If I have $10 and I have another $10 and I put them together and say I have $20 instead of 10 and 10 I don't actually have any more money than when I started 35 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Of course that is the current pay scale. You very clearly did not realize that when you made your comment. I said it was good that they were getting a pay increase and you said they already get paid enough and offered those figures as an example But those figures are after the increase that was put forward. 36 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: So, you say $88K after 4 years is not good pay (not including benefits)?? I am quite sure there are millions of Canadians that will disagree with you. No, there aren't millions of would disagree with me. That's the problem; it was so low that it was almost impossible to recruit anybody into the military. As I noted, it's considerably less than what teachers get paid, or police. So if you're looking at a government job or career why would you go with the lowest paying job? Especially if it means getting shot at? Police officers in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, typically reach a 1st Class Constable rank within 4–5 years, earning between $115,000 and $134,000+. Why would you be a soldier instead of a cop? 43 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: As I said, you clearly do bot know anything about the Military I know more than you kiddo. Living in your mommy's basement doesn't make you an expert 43 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: As for you being a pedophile LOSER, well your comments to me that claim is "a kid like you" and "Sorry kid" clearly is evidence of your paedophilia LOL ROFLMAO!!! So anyone who calls a kid a kid is a pedophile?!?! holy shit I don't even know what to say about that, but you've got some weird homosexual fantasies going on there 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted March 30 Report Posted March 30 47 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I am 100% qualified. .... 100% qualifies pedophile LOSER Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
CdnFox Posted March 30 Author Report Posted March 30 4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: 100% qualifies pedophile LOSER LOL awww muffin, did you realize you were wrong again and now you're big mad I've told you before that your stupid isn't my fault 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Moonbox Posted March 30 Report Posted March 30 57 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I am 100% qualified. Certainly vastly more so than some child sitting in his mother's basement. What are your qualifications again, exactly? 🤨 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
CdnFox Posted March 30 Author Report Posted March 30 3 minutes ago, Moonbox said: What are your qualifications again, exactly? 🤨 Well I would explain it to you but some of it involves math, so I'm not confident you'd be able to grasp it. How's that math tutoring coming along for you by the way? 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted March 30 Report Posted March 30 (edited) 27 minutes ago, CdnFox said: LOL awww muffin, . 100% qualifies pedophile LOSER tries,...but fails...like a pedophile LOSER always does LOL LOL LOL 20 minutes ago, Moonbox said: What are your qualifications again, exactly? 🤨 confux qualifications are stalking and trying to debate with kids.... like he does on this forum all the time LOL and taking threads and running them off topic and demeaning and insulting and calling people liars when they disagree with him Edited March 30 by ExFlyer 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
CdnFox Posted March 30 Author Report Posted March 30 5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: 100% qualifies pedophile LOSER tries,... LOL whenever you get upset that you're losing your english goes to hell 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted March 30 Report Posted March 30 1 minute ago, CdnFox said: LOL whenever you get upset that you're losing your english goes to hell Awww the LOSER keeps trying and...as always FAILS. And now...all he has left is to criticize grammar 100% qualified pedophile LOSER tries but still comes up a LOSER Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
CdnFox Posted March 30 Author Report Posted March 30 2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Awww the LOSER keeps trying and...as always FAILS. You certainly do but we appreciate you making us laugh with your efforts 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.