WestCanMan

I've never seen anything on Fox News saying that Gates wants to microchip people. What I do know for certain is that the world doesn't need to wait for Bill Gates' vaccine to get back open.

Stow it Argus, you don't know your arse from a hole in the ground. No one wanted Trump to be President when he first announced his candidacy. It was like a big joke. Then he opened his mouth and it wasn't even funny anymore. Sadly, as you looked around the room, there were no better options in the GOP Primary. Then he came up against evil incarnate in 2016. And I've known Hillary was a heartless, witless snake with a desperate need for power ever since I saw her interviewed right after Bill's confession, I didn't need an email scandal or anything else to convince me of it. That bitch has said various versions of "I don't remember" to the FBI about 200 times in two separate interrogations. "I fell backwards on the stairs and hit my head, my memory is foggy (but I'm in the middle of a campaign and it's not foggy at all on stage)." Did you want Hillary "It's too early to say that the guy with the AK-47 yelling allhooakbar while he was killing gays was a terrorist" Clinton to be the POTUS? The woman who said "What difference does it make" after she left Americans to die in Benghazi? The woman who called her husband's accusers bimbos and then called Trump a misogynist? That's fucked up. Hillary proved what a useless, heinous piece of crap she was when she worked for Obama. Now you want Biden? Answer me honestly, who do you think committed an actual quid pro quo, and had an actual scandal in Ukraine - Trump or Biden? For real now, with big boy pants on, whose Ukrainian history includes an actual scandal? Which one of them has a Chinese scandal, involving over $1B? Which one of them protected US interests from China when they had a chance? You know the answers to those questions as well as I do, but we both know what you're going to say before you say it. If you haven't ben duped, then you're a straight liar for propagating CNN crapaganda.

You talking down about the intelligence of Trump supporters is like Adolf Hitler talking down about Sister Theresa's altruism. Did you read that post? Did you see just how inaccurate PolitiFAKE is? Only an idiot would regurgitate their screed. You're COMPLETELY duped by CNN and all their toadies Argus. You gobbled their crap up HOOK, LINE AND SINKER every time and I've helped you muddle through their idiocy dozens of times here Argus. Tell the same lie enough times and it becomes the truth. "Let's put a fake story out there, and we'll get all of our faked-check websites to say it's true! Idiots will believe it, even when they see video evidence that it's a lie, just like Argus did with the video of Obama."

Trump has been a great President. That's all I care about, unless he has some actual crimes to speak of. Alberta didn't go "all-in" with oil. They have as diverse an economy as any province. They just have that one industry that dwarfs ALL other industries in Canada. Oil makes up about 23% of Canada's exports, by dollar volume. Idiots like E May think that Canada will be a world leader in manufacturing green technology, they have no god-damned clue what they're talking about. There's a reason why we don't make cell phones, computers, TVs, furnaces, kitchen appliances, etc, etc, etc, etc. Canadians want to make $30/hr, not $40/week. The main reason that we can afford to import all those things that I talked about is because we have a lot of exports. Honestly, E May is so completely retarded that she makes Trudeau look like a mere idiot. You're gonna believe whatever you see on CNN, I'm not going to handhold you through every story that comes along Boges. If you don't know by now that they have absolutely no relationship with the truth whatsoever, you never will.

FYI, everything is us vs them. Business is war. People who want to “fight for a better standard of living” but don’t care about international trade deals just don’t have a clue wtf they’re talking about. Eg, our government’s stance that Alberta oil needs to stay in the ground, and we can’t build a pipeline eastwards, and we will import everything we need from Saudi Arabia, but then they think we will somehow still have enough money to give everyone free everything and we will give billions of dollars to foreign countries...... that is just plain stupid. If you took all the brains from every Liberal MP they’d fit in a nutshell and rattle.

Boges you don't have room to look down on anyone based on their intelligence. Your track record for getting sucked in by idiotic conspiracy theories like Kavanaugh's horrific rape, Ukrainian collusion, Russian collusion, etc is utterly pathetic.

Grow up eyeball. You should have just manned up and admitted that you were wrong once your "fact-checker" was proven to be complete bullshit, or tried to find something verifiable. Instead you just gave up on that topic, and came here cry and pound your hapless little fists.

Oh the irony, CTV talking about bias.

No one "glorified" terrorists. Terrorists stand out like a sore thumb. They have a grievance against people who don't believe in their god so they kill as many women and children as they can. They're the pedophiles of the military world.

Bush was a disaster of a Prez imo. Kind of. But the brashness and the bravado of being a terrorist leader is gone now. I think that a terrorist org loses it's appeal when the leader wants to remain anonymous. Trump ran on a campaign promise of freeing up his generals, and especially the commanders within the theatre of war, to make decisions themselves instead of always waiting for the "green light" from the WH itself. Trump said that he though they could eliminate islamic state in 3 months. Obama said Trump was crazy, and that it would take 5 years, but after just 3 months islamic state was already fractured into pockets of resistance, and those were all but gone after another 3 months. What makes you think that Trump didn't want to do anything regarding Syria? That's the exact opposite of literally everything that I ever heard about Trump/Syria.

I mostly copied and pasted this from my response to a post in a different Trump thread. It seems like an important enough topic for it's own thread. When I look back over the past presidencies before Trump I recall lots of wars and lots of dead soldiers from other countries, and lots of dead and wounded American soldiers. Not so under Trump. Other Presidents may have enjoyed more peace than Trump did. I dunno if Jimmy Carter had to do much militarily, but Trump also inherited an America that was at war with islamic state, terrorist attacks were quite common from 2008-2016, and America was also experiencing widespread rioting and looting for the last 3 years before Trump took over. Trump doesn't have "a war", per se, but the fight that he inherited against isis from Obama was supposed to take a full 5 years, according to Barack himself. Trump wasted isis in less than 6 months. Trump drew a firm red line against the use of WMDs in the ME and enforced it vigorously, twice. America roared (attacked), no one roared back. The whole ME strategy changed under Trump. There's no new ME war started, there's not a war there imminent, and when Trump has a problem with a terrorist group he kills their leader and that's about it. This isn't probably an option that other leaders really had before Obama, but Trump and his Generals have got a huge winning streak going against terrorist leaders that puts everyone else to shame. Under Trump's watch American forces have killed Suleimani (Iran's top Quds General), Al-Baghdadi (leader of islamic state), Qassim al-Rimi (leader of Al Qaeda) and Bashir Mohamed Qorgab (leader ofAl Shabaab), for starters. That's the pinnacle of the leadership of the 4 largest terrorist orgs in the world. American forces haven't been killing honest soldiers from Iraq or any other ME country at all in the last 3 years, just islamic state terrorists that everybody hates. He hasn't given terrorist recruiters any juicy new reasons to kill. Back to the latest winning streak - everything is coming up aces so far, like I mentioned earlier. The world knows that Trump will act decisively, and terrorist leaders aren't puffing out their chests because they know they'll die really quickly if they do. Other US Presidents left messes. They killed a lot of actual soldiers from other countries: Obama pulled out of Iraq too quickly allowing isis to form, called them a Jr Varsity terrorist sqaud and let them grow into a huge country which commited a sizeable genocide, and then he had Benghazi. Despite not "starting" any new wars Obama was a disaster. GW Bush was a disaster. The legacy of G H W Bush Sr was ok, but he started off that whole Iraq saga that saw thousands of Americans dead and wounded through the years. Clinton took over after the cold war was won, all he did was botch a mission in Somalia afaik. Trump's military legacy to this point is killing off islamic state in quick fashion, killing the 3 highest-ranking terrorists in the world plus Iran's top terrorist planner, and starting no new wars. What US President has as successful a military legacy as Trump? Eisenhower and JFK are the only recent ones with successes to match Trump (to be sure Ike and JFK's accomplishments dwarf Trump's), but they share the blame for the Bay of Pigs disaster. Trump doesn't have a Bay of Pigs yet. The Eisenhower Doctrine turned out to be the mother of all "cans of worms", and JFK escalated the war in Viet Nam. If you think back to when the US was fighting isis, the MSM liked to criticize Trump and act like he had no clearly-set foreign policy, but with the benefit of hindsight, Trump kicked ass and left no questions about America's resolve to deal with military issues quickly and to their own satisfaction. I'd love to see a running total of how many US troops were wounded or KIA under Trump vs other presidents, and their lists of successes and failures. Thoughts?

When I look back over the twenty years before Trump I recall lots of wars and lots of dead and wounded American soldiers. Not so under Trump. No one racked up high-level terrorists at the pace Trump is killing them off. Who's the top terrorist left on earth right now? I'll tell you exactly who - it's some guy who wants to remain nameless. Under Trump's watch American forces have killed Suleimani (Iran's top Quds General), Al-Baghdadi (leader of islamic state), Qassim al-Rimi (leader of Al Qaeda) and Bashir Mohamed Qorgab (leader ofAl Shabaab), for starters. That's the pinnacle of the leadership of the 4 largest terrorist orgs in the world. This was all accomplished without starting any new wars. American forces have not racked up a large body count at all in the last 3 years, compared to how many high-level terrorists they killed. They've been gunning for the guys at the top of the list. That's Trump's MO and t's working. Obama did not match Trump's pace in killing high-level terrorists at all. Between the Bushes and Clinton they got some high-level dictators killed but in the end the killing of Hussein and Khadafi (I don't remember exactly who and when) didn't pay huge dividends for America. The rise of islamic state is part of that. IMO before 2016 the ME was an incredibly massive military expense for the US, they earned themselves a lot of hatred and mistrust, they started shit that got blown way out of proportion, and their "successes" just seemed to create more terrorism. Trump doesn't have a Libya or Iraq situation to frown about. He doesn't have islamic state uprising on his hands, or a Benghazi. Trump's military legacy to this point is killing off islamic state in quick fashion, killing the 3 highest-ranking terrorists in the world plus Iran's top terrorist planner, and starting no new wars. What US President has as successful a military legacy as Trump? Eisenhower and JFK are the only ones with successes to match Trump (to be sure Ike and JFK's accomplishments dwarf Trump's), but they share the blame for the Bay of Pigs disaster. Trump doesn't have a Bay of Pigs yet.

This was never going to be of biblical proportions. If we didn't social distance, 1,000 years from now they wouldn't even care about the global pandemic of 2019/20 that killed 500,000 people who were 80+ with two or more co-morbidities, along with 10,000 other people. On avg, 7,700 people die every day in the US. There would be 893,000 dead people in the US between Jan 31 and May 29 of this year even if there was no Covid. I'll reiterate, that's just the US. On a global scale 500,000 is nothing. It's 1/14,000th of the population. This won't stop people like Bill Gates from worrying about overpopulation.

I don't think anyone is saying that social distancing is a waste of time, but the net effect of the lockdown is gong to be worse than covid-19 if it goes on any longer.

We call them "fighters" now, according to our PM, and they're pretty happy here right now. Maybe they don't want to rock the boat while thinsg are going so well for them, but it might also have to do with the Trump factor down south. He has a habit of killing people at the top of the terrorist food chain instead of going after the little guys. What's the point of committing a terrorist attack if you're not allowed to brag about it lol? Mullahs were happy to tell young kids to strap explosives to themselves and go kill children at an Arianna Grande concert, but now it's not just the young terrorists who die, it's guys lie Sueimani and Al-Bhagdadi.

Mostly false, not entirely untrue..... both are inaccurate. If little Johnny wrote a math test and got 98 out of 100 correct you wouldn't say that he got most of them wrong, or that he didn't get them all wrong, you'd say that he got almost all of the questions right. Hannity's job is to do his due dilligence and find accurate sources to get his info from. He chose a credible source, so his job was basically done at that point, I don't know how much he did to check up on their story, but even from what the fake-fact-checker wrote the source was accurate. In the military, if you dropped ordnance on someone, and then you find out that the intel was as accurate as what Hannity aired in that segment, you wouldn't feel like you hit the wrong target. You wouldn't shuffle your feet saying "Well, the 640,000 crimes might not have all happened in that 7-year window, and not all of them resulted in convictions...Dang, we hit the wrong guys." (here's how this works, if a guy is busted for two counts of murder, 7 assaults, 13 drug offences, etc, the police don't go for charges on all 22 counts. When they get the guy in jail for 45 years for the two murders they wrap it up.)

A bit of both I guess. One is an excuse for the other.

I can't speak for politfact's prior record. All I can say for absolute certain is that they are liars in 2020. They accused someone of being dishonest, and in my opinion that's a huge accusation. I doubted them, so I checked on two of their stories and in both instances politifact was 100% caught lying. I checked on a known liar to see if politfact called them out on it, and they didn't. They went ofer 3 on the stories I checked up on. IMO when I caught them blatantly lying once, that's enough to completely discredit their status as a "factchecker", because a fact-checker needs to be held to a high standard - near perfection. When they were caught lying 3 times out of 3, that's enough to call them outright liars. You were on a quest to label Hannity as dishonest, you lazily posted a link to what you thought was a fact-checker, and I proved to you that PolitiFact is not a fact-checker anymore in 2020. Now you need to do some research on the rest of the stories about Hannity and see if you can prove any of the other ones correct. And to be honest, that's probably your best place to look because they seem intent on a character assassination here, so they must have cherry-picked the stories they thought that they could score points on. And FYI, when they just cherry-picked a handful of things Hannity said, lied about them, and then acted like their assessment is a far summary of the veracity of Sean Hannity's brodcasts, that's entirely slimy. "Oh look only about 20% of what he says is true according to our lies". LMAO. In any event, that would be 20% more than Politifact right about now from what I've seen. PolitiFact is now officially PolitiFake. I wonder if it will say that Kennedy was assassinated if I go there. I mean, they must get at least something right, don't ya think? I'm gonna check and see what they say about Anderson Cooper from back when he was in "THE BIG FLOOD" lol. See if they think that he was exaggerating or not.... https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/sep/18/viral-image/hoax-uses-2008-anderson-cooper-photo-proof-fake-hu/ Yeah, they're liars, but Snopes is too. Snopes even posted some video of it to make it look legit: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/anderson-cooper-hurricane/ If this photo isn't fake, then why doesn't Anderson Cooper post the address of the house so that we can look at it on Google Maps?

Anti-terrorism. The FBI wants to be able to snoop on people right away, without having to go through a judge.

I totally believe you about the fraud, I just don't get the diebold reference. I don't remember anything about it, if I ever even heard of it.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what vote you're talking about.

I already did. To the best of my knowledge I've never even heard of them. I'd have to google it. What's the scoop?

Is Elizabeth Warren a Native American? Politi"fact": https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/ Getting warm, but where's the part where they say that her claim is false, or that she is a liar? Pretty much everyone on this forum is equally or more native than EW, unless they came to NA in the last 3 generations. If they can say that Hannity's claim about crime in Texas was false when it's 99% true, then what should they say about E Warren who's 1/1,000th native and applied for law school as a native? https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/28/harvard_must_set_the_record_straight_on_elizabeth_warren_140678.html She identified herself as a Native American. No one forced her to do it. She was a huge liar. She could just look in a mirror and notice she wasn't native. Not even Disneyland would make a movie or cartoon about natives and give one of them blue eyes. Again, politifact is shit. They might be correct once or twice a day, but the first 3 things I checked on them, they lied on every one.

I just checked into another "lie": I read through far too much of it, and it seemed true enough to me, so I just skipped down to the bottom: False? It's less than 6 years worth of arrests, the claim is that the crimes were committed over a 7 year period, they were illegal aliens, and they truly did accumulate 640,000 charges. Granted, some of those crimes may have happened before the 7 yr window, but undoubtedly there are hundreds of thousands of other crimes that no one has ever been charged for, and illegal aliens would have committed enough of them to make up for the few that happened before the 7 yr window in question. The claim is definitely accurate and true enough to be reported on, and Hannity isn't to blame if the Sherriff's dept was only 99% accurate. Politifact is bullshit.

Why does it take 1 second for me to prove that your "fact-checker" is absolute bullshit? Do you guys just take anyone's word for anything? Wouldn't you guys check into any of this?