Hey Justin!

[glen]

I knew we could figure it all out.

 

The gov takes too much money.

The gov wastes too much money.

You can't eliminate Terorism but you can reduce it.

It better to fight over there then here.

Getting good info is difficult because of all the story tellers.

 

Justin has a chance to make things better and be loved by the people.

Edited February 22, 2016 by glen

[SirCranksalot]

If it wasn't for Justin Lake Simcoe would be safe to fish on right now!!

[aplumma]

We have the ability to prevent a single persons post from being viewed by the board until we read and release it we call it Mod Q. We use it infrequently usually a P.M. is all it takes. We can also go as far as locking out a person from there account or banning them as they say. Usually by the time one person needs a warning the thread has divided into groups and is no longer salvageable.

 

 

Art

[FloatnFly]

 

Actually, I think that legalizing marijuana is pretty low priority for him. Low enough that I am not convinced that it will even happen in this mandate.

 

 

it was high enough priority that he used it, along with tax breaks for the middle class to get him elected in the first place. and one of very first actions after being sworn in, was putting that in motion over more important issues. so yes, it was high on his priority list. this article is from Sept 3rd 2015 where he stated he take action to legalize it "right away" http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/trudeau-promises-to-legalize-marijuana-not-sell-it-in-depanneurs-1.2546046

[FloatnFly]

We have the ability to prevent a single persons post from being viewed by the board until we read and release it we call it Mod Q. We use it infrequently usually a P.M. is all it takes. We can also go as far as locking out a person from there account or banning them as they say. Usually by the time one person needs a warning the thread has divided into groups and is no longer salvageable.

 

 

Art

 

 

for the most part this thread has been pretty good, it may have gone off track from the OP, but it happens. been a good debate.

[John Bacon]

 

 

it was high enough priority that he used it, along with tax breaks for the middle class to get him elected in the first place. and one of very first actions after being sworn in, was putting that in motion over more important issues. so yes, it was high on his priority list. this article is from Sept 3rd 2015 where he stated he take action to legalize it "right away" http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/trudeau-promises-to-legalize-marijuana-not-sell-it-in-depanneurs-1.2546046

 

Sept 3rd, 2015 was before the election. I referring to his priorities after the election.

 

Before the election he was going to bring in 25,000 refugees by Dec 31, limit annual deficits to $10 billion, and run a balanced budget in his fourth year. After the election he reduced the refugee target to 10,000 by Dec 31st and 25,000 by March 1st; he missed the former and is expected to miss latter. Annual deficits are expected to be well over $10 billion and he is not expected to balace the books by 2019 afterall. And remember how the tax reduction for the middle class and the tax increase for the rich were going to be revenue neutral? That changed after the election too. And we may still end up getting the F35s as well.

 

What he said he would do before the election and what he will do after are not the same.

Edited February 22, 2016 by JohnBacon

[FloatnFly]

 

Sept 3rd, 2015 was before the election. I referring to his priorities after the election.

 

Before the election he was going to bring in 25,000 refugees by Dec 31, limit annual deficits to $10 billion, and run a balanced budget in his fourth year. After the election he reduced the refugee target to 10,000 by Dec 31st and 25,000 by March 1st; he missed the former and is expected to miss latter. Annual deficits are expected to be well over $10 billion and he is not expected to balace the books by 2019 afterall. And remember how the tax reduction for the middle class and the tax increase for the rich were going to be revenue neutral? That changed after the election too. And we may still end up getting the F35s as well.

 

What he said he would do before the election and what he will do after are not the same.

 

He put the legalization into motion immediately after being elected, only reason it hasn't been is because it breaks a few international treaties

[smitty55]

We have the ability to prevent a single persons post from being viewed by the board until we read and release it we call it Mod Q. We use it infrequently usually a P.M. is all it takes. We can also go as far as locking out a person from there account or banning them as they say. Usually by the time one person needs a warning the thread has divided into groups and is no longer salvageable.

 

 

Art

 

I've only ever been a member of a few outdoor forums and I'm sure I'm not up on all the protocols but does/should the thread starter not have the right to request that responses stick to the topic so that threads don't go too sideways? Or ask a mod to enforce that or lock a thread? Not here in particular, but then of course there are those that like to hijack threads, while others may start threads they know will be controversial. Some are good topics that remain productive, others go sideways. So be it, it seems to go on everywhere to varying degrees. So be the online world. It's pretty easy going and civil here from what I've seen on other forums. I like it here, I visit everyday.. I'm sure the mods love it too not having to deal with as many issues.

 

To Big Cliff, my apology for going off topic. hehe On that note, I never got the feeling that you were ever blaming Justin for the plight of this lady, you were just bringing this example to light and suggesting to him that it's about time that Canada starts taking more care of its own first rather than spending money so freely abroad. I totally agree, but it's pretty obvious so far that it's not happening with the liberals. The opposite in fact. Scary that political agendas take priority to common sense, but what the hell do I know eh.

 

Cheers

[aplumma]

 

I've only ever been a member of a few outdoor forums and I'm sure I'm not up on all the protocols but does/should the thread starter not have the right to request that responses stick to the topic so that threads don't go too sideways? Or ask a mod to enforce that or lock a thread? Not here in particular, but then of course there are those that like to hijack threads, while others may start threads they know will be controversial. Some are good topics that remain productive, others go sideways. So be it, it seems to go on everywhere to varying degrees. So be the online world. It's pretty easy going and civil here from what I've seen on other forums. I like it here, I visit everyday.. I'm sure the mods love it too not having to deal with as many issues.

 

To Big Cliff, my apology for going off topic. hehe On that note, I never got the feeling that you were ever blaming Justin for the plight of this lady, you were just bringing this example to light and suggesting to him that it's about time that Canada starts taking more care of its own first rather than spending money so freely abroad. I totally agree, but it's pretty obvious so far that it's not happening with the liberals. The opposite in fact. Scary that political agendas take priority to common sense, but what the hell do I know eh.

 

Cheers

The poster of a thread can certainly request that a thread stay on topic and if it wanders it can be requested to have it locked. I have limited time to spend on reading the content but try to check it a few times a day. This thread has certainly gone sideways but so far it has followed the rules and Big Cliff has gotten enough feedback to keep him happy. If he sent a request to lock it down then it would be certainly honored.

 

Art

[Big Cliff]

As long as people keep it civil I would never request that a thread be locked.

[netminder]

 

 

it was high enough priority that he used it, along with tax breaks for the middle class to get him elected in the first place. and one of very first actions after being sworn in, was putting that in motion over more important issues. so yes, it was high on his priority list. this article is from Sept 3rd 2015 where he stated he take action to legalize it "right away" http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/trudeau-promises-to-legalize-marijuana-not-sell-it-in-depanneurs-1.2546046

And now the Conservatives are saying it's taking too long to become legalized. I don't think anyone knows what their priorities are. Including myself. I should get back to work... I need to be a dutiful taxpayer, afterall

[FloatnFly]

And now the Conservatives are saying it's taking too long to become legalized. I don't think anyone knows what their priorities are. Including myself. I should get back to work... I need to be a dutiful taxpayer, afterall

international treaties are holding it back, guess JT forgot about those

[Dara]

When you're making promises you know you can't keep just to get a job you tend to forget about a lot of details...like even simple addition.

 

But hey, the people that voted for him are pretty forgiving...he is such a nice guy after all...and he really meant well.

[FloatnFly]

When you're making promises you know you can't keep just to get a job you tend to forget about a lot of details...like even simple addition.

 

But hey, the people that voted for him are pretty forgiving...he is such a nice guy after all...and he really meant well.

 

you forgot about his nice hair lol

[Dutch01]

When you're making promises you know you can't keep just to get a job you tend to forget about a lot of details...like even simple addition.

 

But hey, the people that voted for him are pretty forgiving...he is such a nice guy after all...and he really meant well.

Where have you been all your life? This is the same as every politician in my lifetime (except perhaps Mike Harris). It's kinda funny that you're acting like only the "other guys" do it - they ALL do the same thing. Edited February 22, 2016 by Dutch01

[Dutch01]

Net adjusted deficit/surplus (2011 dollars)

 

Stephen Harper (2006-2014): $127.45 billion net deficit over his term

 

Jean Chretien (1993-2004): $107.97 billion net deficit over term

 

Brian Mulroney (1984-1992): $464.8 billion net deficit over term

 

Pierre Trudeau (1980-1984): $185.23 billion net deficit over term

 

Joe Clark (1979-1980): $38.6 billion net deficit over term

 

Pierre Trudeau (1968-1979): $72.16 billion net deficit over term

 

(Source: Finance Canada, Statistics Canada, Bank of Canada, Parliament of Canada, IMF as reported at "http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571")

 

 

Tell me again how Liberals ruin this country . With free spending while Conservatives are sound fiscal managers?

 

They are all the same. The only difference is they have some people fooled into believing differently.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Dutch01

[FloatnFly]

They are the same, Liberal and Conservative. When we will finally vote a different colour into the PM seat and find out for sure if all politicians are the same

[Dara]

Just glad you're happy with him Dutch

[Dutch01]

Just glad you're happy with him Dutch

I'm not necessarily.

 

I just think the previous guy was doing too much damage and had to go. I didn't want to live in the police state he was trying to create.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Dutch01

[Dara]

And I'm just saying he sure is backing off on a lot of promises...yet to be seen what kind of job he ends up doing

[SirCranksalot]

I'm not necessarily.

 

I just think the previous guy was doing too much damage and had to go. I didn't want to live in the police state he was trying to create.

Like many Canadians I have gone from horrified by the gov't to the normal state of being 'mildly dissatisfied"

[Dutch01]

Like many Canadians I have gone from horrified by the gov't to the normal state of being 'mildly dissatisfied"

Great way to put it!

[Canuck]

Because we bomb them!!!

Wow

Somebody killed your family are they not on your "list"

We are on their list because we are infidels not because we bombed them. ISIL is 100% focussed on expanding its view of pure Islam. That's is all it is about. They are not about politics or oil or economics. It's about religious idealism and extermination of the non-believers.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Canuck

[manitoubass2]

We are on their list because we are infidels not because we bombed them. ISIL is 100% focussed on expanding its view of pure Islam. That's is all it is about. They are not about politics or oil or economics. It's about religious idealism and extermination of the non-believers.

Strongly disagree.

 

Never mind the fact the west has paid/trained these coups for political and socioeconomic reasons, like al qaeda, boko haram etc

[Dutch01]

We are on their list because we are infidels not because we bombed them. ISIL is 100% focussed on expanding its view of pure Islam. That's is all it is about. They are not about politics or oil or economics. It's about religious idealism and extermination of the non-believers.

ISIL are no more representative of mainstream Islam than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of mainstream Christianity.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Dutch01