Wanna-B-Fanboy

I find it curiously interesting that during the discussion on the pandemic benefits and how that was just handed out with very little over sight and "with out putting strings" on them. yet here you are advocating that Trudeau do exactly that- no strings, no oversight... It's like he's damn if he does or damned if he doesn't with you... I think you just suffer from TDS... And to hell with you for making me defend Trudeau. 😄

Heh- love it:

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201191E 3 The Federal Spending Power The federal spending power is inferred from Parliament’s jurisdiction in the Constitution Act, 1867 over public debt and property (section 91(1A)) and its general taxing power (section 91(3)). Thus, Parliament may raise money by taxation and may spend it, or grant it to others, as it sees fit. Although the provinces are responsible for the direct delivery of most medical services, the federal government uses its spending power to play a strong role in the Canadian medicare system through its financial contributions and by setting certain national standards by means of the Canada Health Act. Using its spending power, Parliament may set conditions for receipt of the money. The Canada Health Act, therefore, is constitutionally about the financing of health care, not health care directly, and the national standards it establishes are the conditions to which the provinces must adhere if they wish to continue to receive federal money. The only sanction on a province for breach of any of the Act’s criteria or conditions is for the federal government to reduce or withhold payments to the province. In a 1997 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice LaForest stated that Parliament has played its role in the provision of medical care by employing its inherent spending power to set national standards for provincial medicare programs. The Canada Health Act … requires the federal government to contribute to the funding of provincial health insurance programs provided they conform with certain specified criteria. (The constitutionality of this kind of conditional grant, I note parenthetically, was approved by this Court in Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, at p. 567.)

fixed for accuracy. I swear every time pp, hears anyone saying **** Trudeau or anything disparaging towards JT, he's all:

So.. Kari Lake's husband just got symbolically cucked by donald trump... can you ******* believe it? Sadly, on second thought- this is not a surprise. AT. ALL.

I would have a serious amount of new found respect if that happened... I would 100% use skip the dishes and send him a 24 of his favorite beer.

To give the announcement a bit more context, here is a solid article:

I for one, am looking forward to Maas' signature sideline meltdowns. There should be an MBB pool picking the first poor victim (inanimate or otherwise) destroyed by Maas' tantrums. My money says, a waterboy.

Curious to see how much the Saudis and Russians bought...

☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️ 😅🤣😂😆 😅🤣😂😆 😅🤣😂😆 😅🤣😂😆 😅🤣😂😆 😅🤣😂😆 Brokémon

The scary part in all this is this: If you are foreign entity and you want access to an ex-POTUS or heaven forbid, the next POTUS- what is stopping them from buying hundreds of thousands or even millions of these NFTs (Now Funding Trump)?

Total vindication.

This guy is a FA in February:

Nemo mihi narrat quod possum vel non possum.

"... one spectrum's terrorist is more dangerous" One side of that spectrum is pretty prominent with attempted insurrections, mass shootings, mass car-mowing incidents and so and so on. You shouldn't make false equivalencies here- it's not helpful to the dialogue- which is limiting these threats and how to mitigate them. It's not speculative... you can literally find the stats on that. Here is a pretty good article on exactly that: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2021/domestic-terrorism-data/

Though, they are still decades away from making functional fusion, this is a huge step. And weirdly, not getting the amount of fanfare this should be generating...

You are conflating extremist groups with acts of terror. Which is it? There are extremist groups on both sides, to be sure. what is being said here, correct me if I am wrong, is that there is far more examples of right wing terror acts than left wing terror acts.

I don't think you have fully read that study. It does mention the rise of the left wing terrorism as a direct result of right wing terrorism... I feel you are really trying to "both sides" this argument when in reality there is overwhelming amounts of examples of right wing extremism and RW domestic terror than the left wing brand of terror.

I would have 1000% more respect for that show of MUCHO HUEVOS GRANDE.

Interesting. Like who? Honest question, I can't think of any. Google is having trouble finding any too.

Well, saw this and thought I should post it somewhere- here seems like a good place:

Damn, guys... let's give this signing the proper respct: This is my new Jersey.