I mean it's funny and all, but it's gotten to the point of absurdity now, lol.
then you should just stop it; again, read the rules, compose yourself... come back refreshed & recharged. And try harder.
I mean it's funny and all, but it's gotten to the point of absurdity now, lol.
lol, I see you suffer from a comprehension issue.then you should just stop it; again, read the rules, compose yourself... come back refreshed & recharged. And try harder.
Seriously, irony and hypocrisy, look them up. I mean you do them so well, you may as well learn what they mean.just give them a read; you'll be the better Bear for it!
I believe my read of the forum rules says stalking between threads is not allowed. Please cease and desist! Thanks for your consideration.
LOL, no, I don't seem to be under the impression I'm not a troll. What an absolutely absurd thing to say. I freely admit I'm a troll. A Cannibal Troll, to be exact.That is what the Ignore button is for. He seesm to be under the impression that he's not a troll.
why are you in favour of a stupid Harper Conservative proposal that (per CD Howe) only benefits 15% of Canadian families... and of those, nearly half the benefits would flow to those who (probably) need the benefit the least... those making more than $100,000 per year. No benefits for those who, apparently, don't meet the Harper Conservative definition of a family (i.e., 2 working parents with children under 18years. Per the Harper Conservative Finance Department: "the income-splitting proposal will cost the treasury about $2.4 billion in foregone revenues in the current fiscal year, and an average of about $2 billion per year over the next five years"... bye, bye surplus on a hyped proposal that offers no benefits to the vast majority of Canadians! You know, "not a wise investment for Canadians"!
LOL, no, I don't seem to be under the impression I'm not a troll. What an absolutely absurd thing to say. I freely admit I'm a troll. A Cannibal Troll, to be exact.
You see what I'm talking about now waldo?
You and Zipperherhead share the same shallow end of the gene puddle.
it seems like quite the insult-fest many of you are so ensconced in around here. I don't go out of my way to stir-the-shyte like many do around here... but I most certainly won't sit back and essentially enable the crap coming at me. Rather than back-slapping each other over the latest insult thrown, why not try, uhhh... you know, real dialogue, real meaningful discussion. Or are you guys just so far gone that insult/attack is your first reach, hey?
It wasn't a Liberal MP who resigned!! Sheesh, don't you know there are others in the House of Commons besides Liberals!! So stupid!!
You are correct. He was an independent.
Del Mastro is the fifth Conservative parliamentarian to resign or face suspension since the 2011 election. Last year, three former Conservative senators were suspended over contested living and housing expenses, while former cabinet minister Peter Penashue resigned last year over improper campaign contributions.
was he... technically?
Let me see if I have this right, Waldo. You are against benefitting those the most who pay the most taxes and provide the most help to the rest of the population? Let me know if that's not right!![]()
no - I'm against an inequitable proposal that doesn't benefit all Canadians... how quaint of you to be so dismissive of, apparently to you, the great unwashed middle/lower-class.
Name me one thing that could be done to benefit ALL Canadians! I'm not dismissive of anyone, you just can't help the poor by beating on the rich. Someone figured that out 150 years ago, but apparently you are a little slow at getting the picture.![]()
you're right.... I more correctly should have said 'to benefit the majority of Canadians'. Why couldn't the Harper Conservative income-splitting proposal been more inclusive to enable more Canadian families a benefit?