4 ms·

Perhaps I would have simply had someone different represent Canadians. Is this too much to ask?

lwansbrough 6mo ago
Apparently!
givemeethekeys 6mo ago
Yes, considering everyone else was either utterly incompetent, didn't want the job, or screwed the pooch under pressure.
- petermcneeley 6mo ago
  Look, I checked my email everyday and didnt see anything.
  - givemeethekeys 5mo ago
    Might've gotten lost during a Canada Post strike.
lovich 6mo ago
So you were just complaining because you don’t like the guy?
- petermcneeley 6mo ago
  Your response is the quality of argument that I have come to expect in Canada.
  - lovich 6mo ago
    Well I’m from the US so you’re wrong on that point. Your quality of comment is what I expect from conservatives who think their feelings are reality and complain about shit without making solid inferences or connections. It’s a sovereign wealth fund and you’re complaining that one of the larger Canadian companies is included in it because Carney worked there. Then when pressed you say you wish someone else represented your(presumably you’re Canadian) people. That’s just kvetching.
    - petermcneeley 6mo ago
      > Perhaps I would have simply had someone different represent Canadians. Is this too much to ask? This was in reference to Carney. I dont think Carney represents the people very well. It is not a sovereign wealth fund. The name is intended to clash with a real sovereign wealth fund like say Norway has. Basically you need wealth and Canada has the inverse of wealth it has deficits. The fund was created (of course) by debt. It is a bit like borrowing to invest in the stock market rather than trying to invest your savings/income. Canada already has massive federal debt due to insane levels of mismanagment. So why would Canada create such a bizarre 'fund'. Well it is what happens when you put a banker in charge of a country. You get banking solutions to country problems. So now you see why Carney's career path matters. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more I can link you to many facets that you might find interesting.
      - lovich 6mo ago
        >So now you see why Carney's career path matters. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more I can link you to many facets that you might find interesting. Nah I don't. So far I'm batting 11/12 for going down the rabbit hole with anti Carney Canadians before i find out they were in support of the trucker convoy. Benefit of the doubt is gone if you don't open up with actual thought out critique.
        petermcneeley 6mo ago
        Come now, that's just the cognitive dissonance talking. I'm your huckleberry.
        lovich 5mo ago
        There is no cognitive dissonance. You agree with a group of people that I generally disagree with. There is the possibility that you are the rare mark that has consistent principles backing these thoughts, but the fact that you are aligned with a group that has consistently shown no consistent principles means I give you zero benefit of the doubt, and you opened the thread with an argument not backed by your later comment about wanting someone else to represent your country. If you want to convince the other side of your beliefs then you need to start with a solid argument instead of doing a motte and bailey.

Apparently!

Yes, considering everyone else was either utterly incompetent, didn't want the job, or screwed the pooch under pressure.

petermcneeley 6mo ago
Look, I checked my email everyday and didnt see anything.
- givemeethekeys 5mo ago
  Might've gotten lost during a Canada Post strike.

lovich 6mo ago

So you were just complaining because you don’t like the guy?

petermcneeley 6mo ago
Your response is the quality of argument that I have come to expect in Canada.
- lovich 6mo ago
  Well I’m from the US so you’re wrong on that point. Your quality of comment is what I expect from conservatives who think their feelings are reality and complain about shit without making solid inferences or connections. It’s a sovereign wealth fund and you’re complaining that one of the larger Canadian companies is included in it because Carney worked there. Then when pressed you say you wish someone else represented your(presumably you’re Canadian) people. That’s just kvetching.
  - petermcneeley 6mo ago
    > Perhaps I would have simply had someone different represent Canadians. Is this too much to ask? This was in reference to Carney. I dont think Carney represents the people very well. It is not a sovereign wealth fund. The name is intended to clash with a real sovereign wealth fund like say Norway has. Basically you need wealth and Canada has the inverse of wealth it has deficits. The fund was created (of course) by debt. It is a bit like borrowing to invest in the stock market rather than trying to invest your savings/income. Canada already has massive federal debt due to insane levels of mismanagment. So why would Canada create such a bizarre 'fund'. Well it is what happens when you put a banker in charge of a country. You get banking solutions to country problems. So now you see why Carney's career path matters. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more I can link you to many facets that you might find interesting.
    - lovich 6mo ago
      >So now you see why Carney's career path matters. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more I can link you to many facets that you might find interesting. Nah I don't. So far I'm batting 11/12 for going down the rabbit hole with anti Carney Canadians before i find out they were in support of the trucker convoy. Benefit of the doubt is gone if you don't open up with actual thought out critique.
      - petermcneeley 6mo ago
        Come now, that's just the cognitive dissonance talking. I'm your huckleberry.
        lovich 5mo ago
        There is no cognitive dissonance. You agree with a group of people that I generally disagree with. There is the possibility that you are the rare mark that has consistent principles backing these thoughts, but the fact that you are aligned with a group that has consistently shown no consistent principles means I give you zero benefit of the doubt, and you opened the thread with an argument not backed by your later comment about wanting someone else to represent your country. If you want to convince the other side of your beliefs then you need to start with a solid argument instead of doing a motte and bailey.