All Activity

So frustrating that Liberal supporters put more importance on ability to win an election than they do on responsible and capable governing. This is at least a dozen times I've seen them say this here. Canada is circling the toilet bowl and as long as it's the Liberal party doing it, they're ecstatic. 🤪

double entrendre, bro Sorry, ur still 2 bit. 🤣

Yes correct you are wrong. Re you opining again.

aw, dude .................. Hitler was not Liberal-ideology............ how silly. Liberals (Communists) put people in gulags? Fascist's (Nazi) put people in concentration camps. Every school child knows that. Get ur facts straight.

You don't know the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." "All persons" present in the US are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" unless specifically EXCLUDED from it. "Children of aliens" are NOT specifically excluded and face arrest/punishment for ANY CRIMES. You need to stop LYING.

Uhhh yeah. You realize i was the 64 and you were the 2 bit in that example right? LOLOL Holy shit kid, this isn't fun if you're making my insults to you for me

History says that. And so did Hitler. And so do you. So there you go For many people victory at all costs no matter how bad you screw over the country is indeed a viable political position. And now we know that's how you feel, you would elect Hitler himself if he ran for the liberals because getting elected is the only thing that matters That's just who you are and it's a free country.

..............better to be a 64 bit than a 2-bit. Know anyone like that? Look'n at u, Kid ..................oops, sorry, u don't have teeth. 🤣

You don't even know the definition of "traitor" and prove that every time you try to use the word.

Yes you're almost as talented as Exflyer. All proven. Many times in most cases . You yourself prove they didn't give adequate information about the risks. As I have said many many times because it's an unknown and untested medical product there is a higher risk of unknown and dangerous side effects. That's not what they told the public as you yourself proved Officials knew from minute one that this was an untested brand new medical technology and that there may very well be significant unknown side effects. That was never hidden from them, but that's not what they told the public We've posted what they said to the public at the time. They said that the risk was the same or lower as any other vaccine and that people that disagreed with taking the vaccine were bigots and the sandress and shouldn't be tolerated As I have mentioned it numerous times what they should have said is that while we believe the risks are low this is an untried and untested product with minimal emergency testing and there may be serious unknown side effects that we can't anticipate. And more importantly they should have said that consistently. Instead what they did was say it was no more dangerous than your polio shot and they didn't even stick to that, often suggesting it was even more safe and people who claim there was a risk were simply alarmists and deniers All of this has been said before in this thread by myself numerous times, all of it has been shown and demonstrated, none of this is new And yes you're very good at cutting and pasting the same thing over and over despite the fact you've had this information since the beginning and all you're doing right now is cry baby and running and hiding like a little biatch.

PROVE IT, lDIOT. PROVE they are not ATTACKED by FASCIST GOONS, FIRST. Too bad you have ZERO EVIDENCE and therefore your OPINIONS mean NOTHING HERE beause they are easily refuted by me saying YOU'RE WRONG.

Political hacks think that ..... ............... politics 101 - first ya get elected and then ya pass the 'enabling act'.

Yeah that's what they used to say about those Tamagotchi things, but you're an 8 bit kinda guy in a 64 bit world

^STUPIDLY engages in PROJECTION of her own practices. You're the TRAITOR who continually defends/encourages CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

Yeah, Hitler used to say that Didn't make him a good guy tho. And eventually people caught on. But he was very popular at the start.

........ well at least I have a personality ................ what's ur excuse .....too much of a pencil neck ...or other? 🤣

No, but given your life experiences i can see why you'd think that LOL you REALLY suck at this

Who cares about facts and the truth? LOL well not you obviously but thanks for admitting it at least I did not, i posted the entire story for all to read. Everything was there. Wahh wahh waaaaaaaahhhh, it's amazing to me how fast you wind up looking stupid in these exchanges and then some how manage to find a way to look even stupider just as quick

With a personality like yours? Well no wonder you can't get a date.

That doesn't seem to be true as far as i can see. He said she should be tried for sedition and noted that sedition is punishable by death. But he did not call for her execution. he called for their arrest and trial. If a person committed a crime punishable by death and someone said they should be arrested and tried that is not the same as calling for someone's death. That's calling for someone to be held accountable under the law for a crime. As usual you twist the truth to try to defend your own 'side's bad actions. Nice attempt at whataboutism tho.

'AND THE SURVEY SAYS'? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA (gasp,BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA (gasp, breathe!), BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA (gasp, breathe), breathe!), BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA (gasp, breathe!),

......... clearly more than ur working with.🙄 All ur Libs are the same, all hat, no substance.

Like General Mark Milley, Liz Cheney, Democratic Congress members Elissa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan and Maggie Goodlander are good starts. 🙃

Again… (see how easy this is for me to go copy and paste?!) If you want to go back to your original assertion, about the only thing of substance here, that Canada did not adequately warn of the risks, that is your job to prove: What risk? <-Define the risk When did officials know? <- You say they should have done more, so... what did they know before and what evidence do you have? What did they say publicly at the time? <- What was it they said you think is proof of them downplaying the risk (and remember, you must define that risk) What should they have said instead?

Winning any election is job one - connecting or CON-necting, maybe. But winning certainly. Ya don't make policy from the cheap seats.