Justin Trudeaus legacy and best selling autobiography "How to f*** up a country in nine short years " -
- Thread starter JohnLarue
- Start date
Let's try it again shall we...
Define "worth". You mentioned that term...can't even explain it?
Just like you can't explain "fair share"?
You're good with throwing out terms you can't explain it appears.
What Peepee is doing, JayTee did it for the past 8 years....not a single year did the budget balanced itself...None of the Liberals (politicians not the people) plans worked really well...throwing money at everything will not fix the problem....they threw money on Arrivescam, CERB (and took it away LOL) it made JayTee look good on elections but biting Canadians in the ass long term...if rhetoric bothers you, Justin and his team make Peepee look like amateur...
If the market decides slavery is the cheapest option you'd be there offering yourself and your family as workers.
worth
the value equivalent to that of someone or something under consideration; the level at which someone or something deserves to be valued or rated.
"they had to listen to every piece of gossip and judge its worth"
fair share
a reasonable amount
He gets his fair share of attention, too.
1. axing the carbon tax is specific
2. reducing the size of govt is specific , the federal govt functioned before 2015, yet
3. protecting free speech is specific. Just undo Justins overreach laws
4. subject the central bank to the federal auditor general. Tiff Macklin called inflation transitory. he dropped the ball on his very critical mandate. Any senior executive who does this in the private sector is soon to be ''exploring other career options''
5. tie federal funding received by municipalities to home building
6. convert federal properties to affordable housing. (40% less federal bureaucrats will free up a lot of real estate in addition to the wasted federal properties already in existence)
7 here a specific for you. Poilievre also said he would provide more study loans to those immigrating to Canada who need extra training to meet licensing requirements.
8. reducing the red tape on our energy sector & get pipelines built is specific
you need not worry, he will be kept very busy undoing Trudeau's disasters.
what you and the other left loonies should be concerned about is the liberal / NDP being tagged with ''never again'' sentiment by the electorate
and since you want specifics: inflation has historically been political kryptonite in democracies
Trudeau won elections via support of gullible young voters who were promised a brighter future
the same young voters who are now denied an affordable home. something that was difficult but not impossible in 2015
and the NDP is now denying the electorate the election they want, because Deadmeat Singh wants to lock in his MPs pension
thats going to stick in voters minds for a long time.
opposition parties are required to hold the govt accountable
both the liberals & the NDP will need to rebuild, lets hope they will use better judgement and better selection criteria than "he has a famous last name" or 'he is a politically correct minority' when selecting their leaders.
neither worked
Last edited:
None of that is specific except for axing the carbon tax. It is basically a mix of rhetoric, promises and wishful thinking as of now.
it is all specific
far more specific than Trudeaus failed promise of a brighter future
perhaps i should know better than trying to help the loonie left understand
How is it specific?
- Reduce the size of govt: What does that even mean? Fire a whole bunch of federal employees and create unemployment?
- Subject the bank to the federal auditor general: Do they do this already? Even if they don't, subject them to an audit and find what? Sounds like a dog and pony show in the making to point fingers and save face in case PP's policies fail.
- Protecting free speech: You mean the same protections the charter already provides?
- Tie federal funding to municipalities: How? How much? What are the complications there?
- So instead of changing zoning, permitting etc, you want to create unemployment and use the unoccupied buildings for housing. Is that were houses are even needed? How does that resolve the housing crisis?
- Study loans for immigrants - Okay.
- Reduce red tape in energy sector - Okay. How about reducing red tape in housing where such housing is actually needed, instead of pretending to build affordable housing in random areas by firing federal employees and converting federal buildings into housing where people wont even occupy such housing?
As I said barring a couple, the rest sound like hogwash and wishful thinking.
Both of these definitions do nothing to explain your points and context of your arguments.
But I do think it's funny that you cut/paste some general definitions to try and say you provided answers.
That's pretty desperate. Lol!
You asked stupid questions, as usual, so I gave you what you asked for, the defitions.
Now you're running away.
All you're doing is confirming that right wingers are selfish assholes, psychopaths unable to care for other people.
I asked you to explain what you mean by "fair share"...if all you can say is that "fair share" is a "reasonable amount" based on a dictionary definition that you cut/paste, then I would say that taking more than half of someone's earned income is not reasonable. In fact it's the opposite of reasonable.
So thanks for proving my point.
Why is it not reasonable, skoob?
If someone is making a billion a year, why is it not reasonable that they make do with only 500 million?
If someone can afford to pay lobbyists to changes rules against workers and make more money off them, why is it unreasonable that they pay half their salary?
What is reasonable is if our democratic elections have voted to make this the law.
If you think it unreasonable move to Haiti so you don't have to pay taxes.
So you think you should be able to control how much money someone can make and take half of it and call it a "fair share"?
That's basically an admission you're a Communist.
ps get the fuck out of our country and go to North Korea where you belong since you align with that ideology so well.
No, skoob, that's called democracy.
Everyone voted for the governments that put progressive taxation in place.
If you don't like democracy move to Russia or somewhere else.
Or move to the US and give all your money to rump so he can destroy democracy.
Ah so you acknowledge that progressive taxation means that those who make more money pay more taxes, ie the rich, do indeed pay their "fair share".
Thanks for confirming your original accusation was wrong.
OMG, its like after months of discussion you finally understand what the terms of the discussion are and what the debate is about.
How do you get by in the real world, or do you?
The next step is you declaring that working full time should not make you enough money to afford food, housing or basic necessities.
After that we'll discuss the GINI rating and why you think building housing is more important then people being able to afford housing.
Next, you'll forget what the discussion was about, call everyone a commie and then declare you won.
Its all back to that central point.
You don't think society should be set up so working a full time job should pay for food, housing and basic necessites.
