Leaderboard

Why post the story directly from Angus Reid, with its objective information and summary, when Army Guy can just repost the AI-generated slop version, right off the feed the algorithm is giving him?

Not surprisingly.... @Goddess hasn't answered it here or any time previously. I'll assume the answer was that it was great that Harper was so focused on China trade, but Carney is selling us out. Chalk it up to 'minions do what minions do'...

You people believe so many lies that you don't even know what reality is. Lie #1: The implication, and llie, here is that the right just randomly wanted Hillary Clinton thrown in jail. However, there were two viable reasons (and a whole host of rumors) as to why she should be locked up. The most pressing was her bathroom server. She operated a ghost e-mail from that server that was hacked. On that server were classified documents/information. Her use of that server and its storage of sensitive information was a clear violation of the law. No one is above the law? Well, except her. Then there was the infamous "stand down" order that is believed to come from her office during the 2012 Benghazi attack. Her and/or Obama created a lie that some goofball made a video in the desert near Vegas and that caused these terrorists to kill our ambassador. That goofball went to jail for that lie. The lock her up chants were not some made up attacks with no basis. There was a real need for the justice system to hold power accountable. They did not. Lie #2: What he really said: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know". What he really said was that her judges would eliminate rights. Then, the only recourse would be the 2nd amendment. Part of the reason we have a 2nd amendment is to fight oppression. But he never said the 2nd amendment people will take care of her. Lie #3: He never said that. He has called people treasonous for things that are not fully treason, but that is standard rhetoric. Lie #4: You are projecting. Then there is the left: Lie #5: Gerrymandering isn't racist, except when the left does it. The Supreme Court on Wednesday, in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, struck down a Louisiana congressional map that a group of voters who describe themselves as “non-African American” had challenged as the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The left created racially motivated districts with the intent of promoting one race over another under the racist assumption that skin color is your defining political trait. Lie #6: This is so far off base that I have no idea what you are talking about. Lie #7: The ruling said you CANNOT use race to give people preferential treatment like their own voting district. That is anti-racism. Lie #8: Limiting the amount of money an individual or entity can use to promote a message, especially a political message, is against the first amendment. It is tantamount to saying you can only spend $1000 to save your life, then you just have to die. Lie #9 You are being so racist here, on top of lying. More than half of Latinos now favor the republican party. But your assertion that the republican party is about rich whate people displays your bigotry toward people that have money and people that are white. It is blatant racism and it is truly disgusting. Let's talk reality. Most of your assertions about the right are really things you are doing. But you tell yourself these lies over and over and over and over until you actually believe them and can't phathom the truth.

It was literally linked in the first post.

Liberals new fund has many experts asking a lot of questions, including CBC, which everyone knows is Liberal friendly....which is a huge red flag, that something does not smell right....And Carney was being touted as a master banker, and yet many of his comrades are not convinced this idea is going to work....It is not the same as those examples he uses, they are very different than Carneys model.....Is this going to be a huge gamble for Canadians investing in this fund....Government does not exactly have a record of investing money wisely... The video is well done...

FoxNews Justice.gov It seems like the left is literally doing every thing they can to harm people. They open the borders, push kids in to transmania, push girls out of sports, pay terrorist nations to build nukes, tax wealth out of existence, subsidize everything out of affordability, sensor dissenting opinion, and espoused hatred for or killed anyone that dared disagree with them. So I am not surprised or shocked to see FBI documented proof of government suppression of Christians.

Mind your own business.”

You live rent free in your mother's basement. i accept your admission of defeat

As you buddy goodeees has provided..the issue is from 2017...9 years ago. Nothing new here at all LOL Broadcasting Services - The Parliamentary Record - House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third edition, 2017 - ProceduralInfo - House of Commons of Canada In the Canadian Parliament, “in camera” (closed‑door) committee meetings are not open to the public, and their minutes, transcripts, and evidence are kept confidential. According to House of Commons procedural rules, these records are archived and normally remain sealed for 30 years before they can be released. This 30‑year rule is part of the House of Commons’ broader approach to parliamentary records and is reflected in the way historical committee documents eventually become accessible through the Canadian Parliamentary Historical Resources archive, which includes materials only after long-term confidentiality periods expire. What becomes public after 30 years Once the confidentiality period expires, the following may be released: Committee minutes Transcripts (if any were taken — not all in camera meetings are transcribed) Documents submitted to the committee Reports or internal analyses These materials then appear in the Library of Parliament’s historical archives.

From 2017??? 9 years ago?? So there is nothing new here LOL

The CBC appears concerned that the Liberals' inexorable drift towards one-party rule was - ironically - made more transparent by their lack of transparency.

Liberals use majority to move some parliamentary ... CBC https://www.cbc.ca › news › politics › liberals-in-camer... 2 days ago — On Thursday, the science and research committee was moved in camera following a Liberal request to proceed to "drafting instructions" on a study ...Read more Liberals shut down committee debate on $6.6B IT project CTV News https://www.ctvnews.ca › politics › article › liberals-shu... 1 day ago — Opposition MPs say the Liberals used their new power as a majority government Thursday to shelve debate on calls for the government to ... Why are the Liberals moving meetings behind closed doors ... YouTube · CBC News 8K+ views · 18 hours ago 11:02 Four committee meetings have been held in camera since the Liberals secured a majority government less than a week ago. Top stories CBC Liberals use majority to move some parliamentary committees behind closed doors 2 days ago CTV News Liberals shut down committee debate on $6.6-billion IT project 1 day ago Global News Liberals want committees to be ‘open,’ minister says as Tories cry foul 19 hours ago Global News Tories say Liberals using their committee majorities to stop public debate 2 days ago More news Liberals want committees to be 'open,' minister says as ... Global News https://globalnews.ca › news › liberals-committees-trans... 19 hours ago — “This move to in camera is completely undemocratic because when a committee is in camera it means the cameras are actually shut off. It ...Read more BREAKING: The Liberals just voted to SHUT OFF THE ... Facebook · Dan Mazier 930+ reactions · 4 days ago 2:11 BREAKING: The Liberals just voted to SHUT OFF THE CAMERAS at the health committee's emergency meeting on PrescribeIT. Why are the Liberals moving meetings behind closed doors? CBC https://www.cbc.ca · 10 hours ago 9:04 Four committee meetings have been held in camera since the Liberals secured a majority government less than a week ago. Liberals shut down committee debate on $6.6-billion IT ... Yahoo News Canada https://ca.news.yahoo.com › liberals-shut-down-commit... 2 days ago — OTTAWA — Opposition MPs say the Liberals used their new power as a majority government Thursday to shelve debate on calls for the government ... Be ashamed of yourself! Conservatives call out Liberals for ... YouTube · Canada Info 2.7K+ views · 17 hours ago Be ashamed of yourself! Conservatives call out Liberals for shutting off camera to hide the truth. 2.7K views · 4 hours ago.Read more 🚨🚨 BREAKING 🚨🚨 The Liberals have voted to shut off t Facebook · Vincent Ho for Richmond Hill South 140+ reactions · 2 days ago BREAKING The Liberals have voted to shut off the cameras at today's Science and Research Committee meeting, cutting off debate on a motion ...Read more

^^This is yet another sterling example of your conspiracy-addled mind at work. The difference is that letting you rant and spread misinformation (not an article about Fauci) is pretty low stakes today. Let crazy be crazy. Plenty of time to sort out facts. But letting you spread misinformation and FUD while we're fighting a global pandemic was going to be fatal, first to your fellow kooks, and then to regular people caught as collateral damage. Media platforms were absolutely right to mute you people in a life and death scenario. It's a free country. You're free to speak. But nobody owes you a platform.

@ExFlyer Why do you think it's a good thing that the LPoC has blocked information about these LPoC scandals for 30 years? What would you have said if Harper just blocked the $90K Duffygate investigation, or any details about it for 30 years?

It's unfathomable to me that so many people here just don't care that Fauci, Canada's Covid Sherpa, was lying to them all along. And here's how the CBC chooses to approach this subject: Former Fauci adviser indicted for allegedly concealing communications related to COVID-19 research Oh. That's all he did. "Concealed some communications" lol. It sounds like maybe he accidentally used the wrong email or something... Prolly no big D, right? Canadians: "What's for dinner, Marge? And don't say 'meatloaf', we can't afford anther vet bill." For anyone who wasn't bored to death from the headline, here's the sub-headline: Dr. David Morens is accused of using private email to hide info on COVID-19 research Ok, he hid some info. *yawn*. Still nothing to see, according to the CBC. The first two paragraphs of the article get a bit spicier, but there's still nothing alarming about it. It doesn't seem like there were any ulterior motives: A former senior adviser to Dr. Anthony Fauci was indicted on federal charges alleging he conspired to hide his communications related to COVID-19 research as the pandemic raged across the country, the U.S. Justice Department said Tuesday. Dr. David Morens, 78, is accused of using his private email account to intentionally circumvent public records laws while employed at the National Institutes of Health. The Justice Department alleges that he concealed or destroyed records of discussions related to COVID-19 research grants, including an effort to revive a controversial coronavirus grant. At the end of the second paragraph there's a mention of "a controversial coronavirus grant". Hmmmmm, it's almost getting unboring. If the dog doesn't bark, and no one farts loudly enough to create a distraction, a guy might keep reading... Morens faces charges of conspiracy against the United States; destruction, alteration or falsification of records in federal investigations; concealment, removal or mutilation of records; and aiding and abetting, according to a Justice Department news release. Six paragraphs in it gets kinda spicy again, but still nothing that says "This is central to the way Canadians understood the whole covid narrative". The indictment reflects Republicans' long-held belief that the federal government covered up key information about COVID-19 as the pandemic unfolded. Despite numerous probes, the origins of COVID have never been proven. Scientists are unsure whether the virus jumped from an animal, as many others have, or came from a laboratory accident. ^^^^^^^^^THAT LAST PARAGRAPH IS CBC ENGAGING IN DECEPTION^^^^^^^^^ The truth that's relevant to Canadians is: "The hidden emails show that Fauci and Morens were conspiring to keep their GoF research on the bat coronavirus in the Wuhan lab secret, so that they could float the pangolin theory as the only likely culprit." As a member of the TNI, CBC was ACTIVELY pushing the pangolin narrative. That was a directive that came from foreign influencers, because BBC was theoretically the leader of TNI. What's far worse, and what Canadians should be hopping mad about, is that TNI as a whole was ACTIVELY blocking any and all talk of the BSL4 lab on social media. CBC was thick as thieves with these groups as they obliterated Freedom of Speech in our country. Then, when Elon Musk yanked Titter out of TNI, leftists went absolutely BERSERK on him, and he even started getting death threats from the people who were grovelling at his feet just months earlier. Look below for proof that TNI, The "Trusted News Initiative", which CBC was a part of, was "heavily involved in efforts to combat C-19 disinformation" lol. The truth, that we all know today, is that they were banning extremely important and highly relevant information about the origin of covid, in conjunction with the Fauci/Morens attemts to cover their tracks. Here's the proof that people were getting banned from the internet for merely talking about the Wuhan Lab as a potential source of the lab leak. Again, nothing that I'm saying is unverified. It is all 100% true, which is something that the CBC can never say. AI Overview Yes, both Facebook and Twitter (now X) took actions to suppress or remove posts discussing the theory that COVID-19 originated from a lab, such as the BSL4 lab in Wuhan, China, particularly during 2020 and early 2021. These platforms labeled such discussions as "misinformation" or "conspiracy theories" before reversing their policies in May 2021. [1, 2, 3, 4] Facebook and Instagram Policy (2020–2021) Initial Ban: In February 2021, Facebook announced it would remove posts claiming that COVID-19 was "man-made or manufactured". Censorship Actions: Users reported having their posts removed and some accounts were penalized for sharing articles suggesting a Wuhan lab leak. [that last parts means that: "people were banned from social media platforms - by the CBC's partners at TNI - just for telling the truth"] For instance, a World Socialist Web Site article was blocked as "false information". Reversal: On May 26, 2021, Facebook quietly reversed this policy, announcing that it would no longer remove posts claiming the virus was man-made following increased scientific and political debate. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Twitter Actions Suspensions: In early 2020, Twitter suspended accounts that suggested the virus was a bioweapon from the Wuhan lab, including an instance where Zero Hedge was suspended for posting an article with the personal information of a Chinese researcher. Labeling: Twitter heavily moderated, and in some cases labeled as "disputed," content that challenged the natural origins theory. Policy Change: Following Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, the company stopped enforcing its COVID-19 misleading information policy in late 2022. [1, 2, 3] Context Behind the Bans Public Health Consensus: Social media companies stated they were relying on guidance from public health officials and the World Health Organization (WHO), who largely dismissed the lab-leak theory early in the pandemic. Shifting Scientific Viewpoint: The reversal of policy in May 2021 came after new reporting indicated that several researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized in late 2019, which prompted U.S. officials to call for a more thorough investigation. [1, 2, 3, 4] @eyeball @Hodad @BeaverFever @ExFlyer @Moonbox @CrakHoBarbie @herbie @otherleftistret4rds All of the things that conservatives were saying are being proven over and over and over again, and at every turn, the CBC is found to be more and more wrong, and are reduced to straight deception when they cover the news. The absolute fact of the matter is that THIS STORY IS ABOUT FAUCI LYING TO US RIGHT FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY HE OPENED HIS GOD-DAMNED MOUTH ON YOUR TV SET. That is what is really at stake here. That's what this story is about. CBC is doing everything that they can to keep this story off the radar, and to keep Fauci's reputation intact, but the facts are slowly becoming more and more mainstream, and the lying and bullshit from the covid era is being exposed. I know that you guys owe me, Goddess, and a lot of others here several apologies, and I doubt that any are coming, but I'm sure that by now you have no choice but to realize that WE WERE YEARS AHEAD OF THE CANADIAN MSM at getting to the truth, and even now, CBC is STILL LYING. They can just never stop now, they are in it way too deep. @Goddess - you are a treasure here. Never let the left4rd horde get you down.

But they did. Committees have the power to do that for those who participate in the committee Let's put it another way. If it's true would you agree that it's a bad thing to do and a sign that the liberals are being dishonest?

You're on the right track I think. But another way to look at it is the disassociation of common values. And I'm not just talking religion or moral or ethical values per se For the most part countries are founded based on a shared ethnicity. And I'm not talking about race I'm talking about a common language, a common understanding of how things work, a common set of ethical beliefs and expectations and in general agreement about what is appropriate and make sense and what isn't and doesn't That allows everybody to examine issues from a point of common reference. As an example our forefathers all agreed that murder is bad, now with that in mind they could have conversations about what an appropriate punishment would be But if one person thinks murder is good and one person thinks murder is bad there is no common framework for them to have any reasonable discussion about what is appropriate or not appropriate for punishment. There's no possible way to arrive at a consensus because there's a fundamental difference in the belief system that provides a common frame It would be like if you spoke french and I spoke English, without a common agreed upon language it would be very difficult for us to have a conversation because there's no common structure that we could use to facilitate that That's basically where America and several other countries are at the moment. There is no common landing or principles upon which to base a conversation. There is no longer an Overton window, there is now an Overton kaleidoscope which means it's impossible to have a clear picture of things I don't really know if there's any coming back from that to be honest

Me? I didn't run in any election, did you get confused again? LOL More people still liked the conservatives than the liberals so you were wrong and I was right. So while the conservatives may have lost the election, you're the loser here Gotcha kid

For all the JCPOA worshipers: Chuckles basically says the deal mostly sucked.

You worship Satan.

The Left is powerful in poverty & redistribution, gender bending, drug/human trafficking, illegal immigration and sexualizing kids. Are you sure that's where you want to plant your flag?

First, explain how we've sold our sovereignty to China. Don't run away and change the subject....answer it 🤡 Now, maybe use this as a reference for your hero's affection for China; https://canadians.org/analysis/harper-sneaks-through-canada-china-fipa-locks-canada-31-years/ HARPER SNEAKS THROUGH CANADA-CHINA FIPA, LOCKS CANADA IN FOR 31 YEARS by Scott Harris. September 12, 2014Analysis In the world of official government announcements, a two-paragraph media release sent out in the late afternoon on the Friday before Parliament resumes sitting is the best way for a government to admit, “We know this is really, really unpopular, but we’re doing it anyway.” That’s the way the Harper government, by way of a release quoting Trade Minister Ed Fast, announced that it had decided to ignore widespread public opposition, parliamentary opposition from the NDP, Greens and even lukewarm Liberal criticism, an ongoing First Nations legal challenge, and even division at its own cabinet table and grassroots membershipand proceed with the ratification of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). With China’s ratification of the deal long since signed, sealed, and delivered (and, really, when you can convince another government to sign a deal this lopsided in your favour, wouldn’t you ratify as quickly as possible too?) Canada’s ratification of the deal means it will enter into force on October 1. And once that happens, we’ll be locked into the terms of FIPA for a minimum of 31 years. That’s right, even if a new government is formed after the election next year and they choose to back out of FIPA, the next seven Canadian governments will be bound by the consequences of Harper’s poor negotiations. Just how bad of a deal has Harper locked the next seven Canadian governments into? Here’s how Diane Francis — hardly an anti-trade left-winger — described it in an op-ed in the Financial Post:

Always the same with u Liberals .................. u don't realize that eventually u run out of other people's money!

Big changes take time. Carney and Trump are both under the clock...

Air Canada just had to pay out terminated employees over the job for denying religious exemptions. An arbitrator ruled that such denial of exemption violated the Human Rights Code. I imagine the US government will be paying out similar compensation in the next little while

The left just cant face reality

convince yourself of that. Add it to the list of brash lies the m0ron MAGAts love to spout. MAYDAY = workers rights, not the Divine Right of Kings which the de facto dictator you endorse wuold like it to be. I hope every server and minimum wage worker walks out to parade for some decent labour laws down there.

Works well with those who think the govt controls the price of food and gas. The ones who call themselves conservatives and gripe when the govt doesn't interfere in the markets. And love the PP solutions of cutting gas taxes even more, so they can not even attempt to lessen their need for it and just saw within the last week how 10c in tax cuts was quickly gobbled up and surpassed by the market. If wishes were horses and Carney could do more than Jim Pattison about grocery prices the stupid poll might be relevant. But the guy pulled off a hat trick shutout in byelections just days ago and you try to use this to prove a loss of support?

Congrats on finding a bar that opens before noon!

Attack? Did you scald yourself on the flied lice?

What epistemic fragmentation is At its core, epistemic fragmentation is the loss of shared mechanisms for determining truth. In healthy democracies, people may disagree about values or policy, but they still rely on common reference points: statistical agencies, scientific institutions, courts, major news outlets, and shared civic processes. These institutions act as epistemic anchors that help society distinguish truth from falsehood. When trust in these anchors collapses, citizens no longer share the same baseline understanding of reality. They begin to inhabit parallel information worlds, each with its own facts, narratives. What makes this different from ordinary polarization Polarization is disagreement within a shared reality. Epistemic fragmentation is disagreement about reality itself. Examples include: One group sees an election as legitimate; another sees it as stolen. One group sees a pandemic as a public health crisis; another sees it as a hoax. One group sees climate data as scientific consensus; another sees it as manipulation. These aren’t interpretive differences — they’re incompatible factual universes. Why it matters Democracy requires shared facts. Without agreement on what is happening, citizens cannot deliberate, compromise, or hold leaders accountable. Researchers warn that epistemic fragmentation threatens democratic governance, public trust, social cohesion, and collective action on major challenges. 2. Governments and institutions often use metrics that no longer match modern economic reality Many national indicators were designed decades ago. They don’t fully capture: the cost of housing in major cities the rise of gig work the explosion of household debt the cost of childcare the cost of food the cost of transportation the erosion of job security So a government can say “affordability is improving” because a formula says so, while millions of people feel the opposite. This mismatch isn’t always intentional — but it’s real. why lived experience diverges from official data Lived experience diverges from official data because they measure different layers of reality — and those layers don’t always move together. When the gap gets wide, people stop believing the data, institutions stop believing the people, and epistemic fragmentation accelerates. 1. Official data is averaged; lived experience is uneven Governments typically report aggregate indicators: inflation rate GDP growth median wages average rent consumer price index These numbers smooth out extremes. If 20% of people are doing much better and 20% are doing much worse, the average can look “fine.” Lived experience is not averaged. If your rent doubled or your grocery bill jumped 40%, the national inflation rate being “2.8%” feels irrelevant. This creates a psychological split: Data says things are improving. Your wallet says they aren’t. 2. Official metrics often exclude what people actually feel Many affordability metrics: don’t include housing prices, only mortgage interest don’t include food bank usage don’t include debt stress don’t include regional cost differences don’t include shrinking package sizes (“shrinkflation”) don’t include quality-of-life losses So a government can say “affordability is improving” while people feel squeezed because the metrics ignore the pain points that matter most. Governments choose the framing that benefits them This isn’t necessarily deception; it’s strategic communication. A government might highlight: the one metric that looks good a short-term improvement a comparison to a worse period a projection rather than a current reality Citizens, meanwhile, judge reality by: their bills their debt their stress their community’s struggles Two different “truths” emerge. 6. When the gap becomes too large, trust collapses If official data says “things are great” while people are borrowing money to eat, citizens conclude: “The data is fake.” “The government is lying.” “The media is covering for them.” Meanwhile, officials conclude: “People are misinformed.” “They’re being manipulated.” “They don’t understand economics.” This mutual distrust is the engine of epistemic fragmentation. How this ties directly to epistemic fragmentation Epistemic fragmentation happens when: official reality (data, institutions, experts) and experienced reality (daily life, community hardship) stop matching. Once that happens, society splits into incompatible camps: Camp 1: “The data is correct; people are overreacting.” Camp 2: “The data is meaningless; people are suffering.” These camps no longer share: a common definition of affordability a common understanding of economic reality a common trust in institutions That’s the fragmentation. 4. National-level divergence creates national-level epistemic camps You start to see two incompatible realities: Reality A: “The economy is strong; people are doing well.” This group trusts official data, expert commentary, and institutional narratives. Reality B: “People can’t afford basic necessities; the system is failing.” This group trusts lived experience, community hardship, and alternative information sources. Both groups believe they are looking at the real country. Both groups believe the other is misinformed. This is epistemic fragmentation at scale. When governments present incomplete metrics as a full picture, trust erodes Even without intent to deceive, the effect is the same: People feel gaslit. People feel unheard. People feel their struggles are being minimized. When someone is borrowing money to buy food and hears “affordability is the best it’s ever been,” the emotional reaction is: “They must be lying.” But the deeper problem is that the definition of affordability being used by officials no longer matches the definition used by the public. That mismatch is the engine of epistemic fragmentation. Epistemic fragmentation thrives in the space between “technically true” and “socially false” A government can say something that is: technically true according to outdated metrics socially false according to lived experience This is the exact kind of contradiction that fractures a society’s shared reality. One group hears the technical truth and trusts it. Another group sees the social falsehood and rejects it. Now you have two incompatible realities. one side believes the metrics define reality the other believes lived experience defines reality Each side thinks the other is being dishonest. This is why epistemic fragmentation is so corrosive: it makes even basic questions about truth impossible to resolve. 6. A more precise way to phrase the situation Instead of “the government is lying,” a more accurate description is: “The government is using metrics that no longer capture the economic reality people are living, and presenting those metrics as if they do.” That’s not the same as intentional deception, but it produces the same social consequences as if it were. what happens when a government than makes policy decisions based on outdated metrics and not lived reality When a government makes policy decisions based on metrics that no longer reflect lived reality, the consequences are serious — not because of partisan motives, but because the system becomes misaligned with the society it’s supposed to govern. This is a structural problem, not a personality problem, and it’s something political scientists, economists, and sociologists have been warning about for years. The political system becomes unresponsive A government using outdated metrics will think: “Our policies are working.” “People are doing better.” “The economy is strong.” Meanwhile, citizens are experiencing: rising debt food insecurity unaffordable housing stagnant wages declining quality of life This mismatch makes the system feel unresponsive, even illegitimate.

The 1st Amendment protects Christians and every other religion. Too bad so sad Mr Bigot.

It's a reasonable argument that people have the right to put themselves in harm's way to go to a religious ceremony. It's also reasonable to say they don't. But since Freedom of Religion is protected in their foundational legal documents I would say the former position should be the default.

There's a lot of problems with the whole concept. It's very hard to be an ally of China AND the US at the same time. Doing business with china is one thing but marrying them politically as the libs seem to be doing is not just a bad idea, it's dangerous to world stability and safety No, the Chinese didn't ask him to do that. The owners of Nexen asked him to do that The Chinese got no saying it whatsoever But I do appreciate you taking the time to both prove my point and demonstrate your ignorance all in one felt swoop

From the link he provided. You are such a clown. A. Enforcement Actions Key Finding 1: The Biden DOJ pursued aggressive prosecutions against non-violent, pro- life, Christian demonstrators under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act but responded less aggressively to violent attacks against pregnancy resource centers.

Go through the 200 page report. It is in there. I can't quote the whole thing.

Just saw more info on this. These gutless traitors are waiting for children to get out of school so they can hide behind the kids. These Libbies just must be sick, destructive fcks. Its disgusting.

Democrat spending just feels better, doesn't it comrade.

Poor babyyy...Did the big bad Twumpy-wumpy close the border and send your hope of one party rule packing? Poor dear...

Absolutely.... I understand patriotism and biases but at the end of the day, common sense still rules. When you look at China with 1.4 Billion people and their long time investments in R&D of critical technologies it's not too difficult to see who is leading this new world age.

Still not a registered Democrat. That's a fact. Other facts: Registered Republican. Definitely an opportunist. Definitely corrupt. Will definitely corrupt the once-independent DOJ to attack Trump's political enemies.

I posted about this in the Trickle thread a long time ago. Morens/Fauci emails were subpoenaed and showed they were conspiring to cover up Fauci involvement in the lab leak. He funded the gain of function experiments with Baric and then both of them published an article in the NEJM calling the lab leak a "conspiracy theory". Maybe Fauci will be next.

Expectant Widow haw haw haw.! If you don't find that funny, I pity you.

Oh FFS if you don't own a proper home, you're not in the new cat market. I just had to berate my own kid for buying a brand new car and still renting. Even I made that stupid irresponsible financial move when I was young back in the days when that would've been the entire down payment. If you buy a 'home' with no driveway, lawn or garden you better get used to riding a bus. You can pretend your chunk of LegoLand is property all you want.

This is delightful.

These guys would agree with you ............ " We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies"/ Pentagon Pete Hegseth "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bst'd die for his" / Patton 'I believe that forgiving the enemy is god's function, our job is to arrange the meeting" / Norman Schwartzkof So would this guy .............. a nation needs to be grateful. "