SkyHigh

First off, what are you going on about? Cant answer if you give no context Second, anyone who at the same time claims they're both a Christian and a trump supporter exhibits such cognitive dissonance that futher conversation is pointless

Could you possibly put more words in my mouth? Dude if the best you can do is argue against points,that not only did I not make but don't even agree with, im not even sure responding is worth it, but im a glutton for punishment so here goes All i said was that following a man that claims to be an authority on everything but can't offer any supporting evidence. Ie; im rich but won't show comprehensive financial statements can't and shouldn't be trusted. But you keep making straw men so you can tear them down, but my head is in the sand? Silly little man

And your citation supports my claims. You've provided zero evidence that he succeeded without daddy's money, or do you not agree that orangealy, orangey, at the beginning( maybe if i speak like him you'll understand better) it was his father bankrolling him? The fact is that without comprehensive financial statements, neither of us have any idea what he has or doesn't, but i don't know very many successful business men with multiple bankruptcies, lawsuits, and court rulings against them, and none that can't even run a charity above board. I started a small foundation for foster kids in my area( i was one) and even though ive never claimed to be a billionaire, my charity has given more then the trump foundation

You provided a reference that said he bought some buildings in the 80s( in new york where it waa most definitely a buyers market with his daddys money), and another about a licensing deal in the early 2000s, along with a a slough of failures. That was exactly what i said

I already said he was a brilliant self promoter. Still waiting on what business ventures he succeeded with on his own merits. Playing a business man on a scripted tv show means nothing, do you remember the old commercials with the guy that says " im not a doctor, i just play one on TV" ? Same thing with trump. Trump hater? Please! Facts don't have political agendas

What? You can't have any credibility if you're not only anonymous, but you're historical sources aren't even written in the language that was used by the person you're supposedly reporting on. Willam lane Craig is a hack that misrepresents things including but not limited to the kalam cosmological argument, and has been destroyed by many actual philosophical scholars, Do you know whar pascals wager is? It's the video you put forth, if you don't understand your own argument nothing i can do for you Your argument against pi being an estimate is simply ridiculous. If your God was all knowing why would he give an approximate? Again, if he can't communicate simple math, why would you think the rest of the book has any truth?

Hmmm a guy with cheney in his name talking about bias, funny No im sure you're right being given tens if not hundreds of millions in the 80s in new york with connections the real estate market that his father was in, then using his fathers reputation to license his name takes real skill. Again can you show any success he has had in business that was not dependent on his fathers money or reputation? Forget business the man can't run a charity

Daddy buying you things does not a successful business make So what? That's your retort? So apparently you have nothing substantive or intelligent to asd Yes the irs does, and taxes show the entire situation, not to mention the returns we have seen show him losing money unparalleled to his contemporaries at the time. That you see no issue with his demonstrable untruths, shows nothing but your inability to understand basic principles in life not to mention a complete ignorance to politics

Didn't even need to go further then the first paragraph, where your link says "disputed" fortune, which was exactly my point or do you need your own lesson on the difference between assets and liabilities. I did continue reading though and after listing his many failures(he bankrupted a casino, a casino) they got to his "successes" witch were mostly buildings bought in the 80s and 90s, again exactly what i said, the one example in the 2000s was most likely during the period when he was just licensing his name(when it meant something) to other developers. His only discernable skill is shameless self promotion, and there's no doubt he is a master self promoter

Here's a little econ lesson for you. There's a difference between assets(what we have) and liabilities(what we owe), here's a real world example I just bought a duplex for a little over 600k, and took out a 250k loan to renovate(converting the duplex to one place) therfore i owe almost a million on a property that's only worth 650k. Trumps daddy bought him some places in the 80s that he still has, he has never ran a successful business(multiple bankruptcies, lawsuits, etc..) other then playing a business man on a scripted tv show. Again he has never offered evidence of his actual financial situation. As for the rest if you don't think being a proven lier both personally and professionally is not an issue, keep supporting a man that thinks windmills give you cancer, thinks there were airports during the revolutionary war and isn't even lucid enough to know where his own father eas born

Your own video lies No legitimate scholar thinks the gospels were written by four guys named Mathieu, mark, luke and john, but were written by anonymous scribes,in fact the first gospel was written at least 40 years after Jesus, and "Luke" is estimated around 90 years after "christ", so the videos claim of eyewitnesses is patently false. The reference to pascals wager is also just a tool to distract from the fact that the "God" of the bible has no morals Referencing other historical figures is again misleading, as these other people have outside sources saying the same thing, Jesus has the bible and only the bible, Josephus claimed only that people said they believed, but never gave any contemporaneous evidence to support it. Not to mention simple objective truths the bible gets wrong for example 1 Kings 7:23 says pi is 3, if it can't get simple math correct, Why would anyone trust this book for internal salvation?

When you say your rich but won't show the documents that will prove it, that's relevant When you say you have "a really big abrain" but get lawyers to keep school transcripts sealed, that's relevant When you say you're a devout Christian whilst paying off pornstars you had affairs with, that's relevant When you hide everything that would confirm, you are who you say you are, Well, that's relevant

Exactly, high risk At 17 I went through it personally, or a least supported the girl I was with at the time(she went through it), and can unequivocally state that at no time did we, or any medical professionals equate it to "abortion" in the colloquial sense. That's why i get frustrated when people can't or won't differentiate between them, we didn't choose to terminate, it was "forced" apon us regardless of what our ethical or moral beliefs may or may not have been

Making your point? Do you even know what your point is? Because you're arguing mine. I have been the one trying to differentiate between necessary medical procedures and voluntary ones. Of course, there are "serious congenital anomalies" and "exceptional clinical situations", "when the diagnosis is certain, and the defect is grave and incurable" that necessitate termination of a viable fetus, but you've yet to provide any evidence that "abortions" solely based on preference are

The first link uses words like "assume" and "rough estimate", so until I can evaluate the methodology I'll refrain from referring to it. The second link, which is self described as "the #1 pro life news website" after conceding that the medical profession only preforms such procedures "when the diagnosis is certain and the defect is grave and incurable" , the best contradictory evidence they provide is that same medical profession made "a statement that "IMPLIES" that there "MAY" habe been some third trimester abortions performed for other non medical reasons. It also mentions having to send people south of the border to preform these procedures, seems to support my assertion that they're not available in Canada Again "grave and incurable" are not words associated with elective surgery

Backtracking? Just to be clear, you consider terminating a gestation when the mothers life is in danger and someone that decides to voluntarily terminate one for "personal reasons" the same thing? Abortion, as we use it colloquially, is an elective surgery. Read the quote i got from your link again "serious congenital anomalies" or "exceptional clinical situations" do either of those sound elective to do? Again a mastectomy is not a boob job

A direct quote from what you sent from the College of physicians " the 2002 guidelines stipulate that late term abortions after 23 weeks are reserved for, "serious congenital anomalies" or "exceptional clinical situations" There's a difference between preforming necessary medical interventions and elective surgery, "abortion" being the latter. It's like i asked you to show me where the gov't provides boob jobs and you showed me evidence that someone got a mastectomy because of a growth.

I provided a citation already (right above the last time you said the same thing) which wasn't even the original thing I'd seen on the subject, but just the first thing that popped up after a simple Google search. Saying "that's not true" without supporting evidence means nothing, if im wrong it should be easy enough to prove. Show me a doctor in our public system offering "abortions" after 23 weeks.

You can disagree all you want, does nothing to change the fact that Canadian doctors don't offer abortions after 23 weeks. The ethics of abortion aside, if the "service" isn't available, how the law is written is irrelevant. So again this is a mute point

With all due respect, how does that adress the differences between how Canada and the US conduct politics, and the way those differences must be debated here? I see the "pendulum" analogy, but would humbly like to offer up the term "metronome" though it still fluctuates from right to left, it also maintains a steady beat allowing all those who follow the ability to keep up no matter their part, Which I feel is what we have, and what we should continue to strive for here.

Ive been noticing more and more polarized, à la American politics taking a stronghold in Canada, and this worries me. Here we are rarely separated on a right left basis, but in fact the gross majority of conflict we have in Canada centers around regional autonomy and the overreaching grasp of centralized gov't. Allow me to illustrate this. Federally we have a "conservative" party that supports socialized healthcare and is not interested in reopening the abortion issue, and a supposed "lefty" Trudeau led government that would be best described as "Neo"liberal, not exactly polar opposites. Provincially we just need to look at the NDP in Alberta and compare them to the newly formed Npdq, other than a name they share very little similarities, again in my opinion showing that the left/right debate differs depending on where in the country you are. Blindly voting for a party based on the colour of their political signage, will do nothing to adress the alienation felt by, the west, quebec or the Maritimes. In the states there are only two sides, with us or against us, one side says Trump is a Nazi, the other Bernie is a communist(neither of course being true) and no room for middle ground. In Canada(for the most part) the reality is we actually understand compromise, partisan grandstanding is reserved for campaigns, and the real work is done in things like parliamentary committees, when juxtaposed to America wherein the day they get elected their only "want/job/desire/role/purpose(pick the one you like best) is reelection, the difference is glaring. In conclusion, please help in protecting our borders from this influx of intellectual ignorance flooding in from our southern neighbor. We're better educated, lets keep it that way This is my first attempt at starting a thread, and I admittedly to not posses the command of the written language that others here do, therefore apologizes if this lacked clarity, but I'd be most interested in the opinions of fellow interlocutors. Thanks

Pardon, folks? I asked legitimate, objective questions and was answered with insults( and this is far from the first time). Either you call out adhomenims at their onset or allow people to respond to those same personal attacks. Please explain how letting people go off then expecting those attacked to "stop the personal banter" is moderating Please understand this is simply asking for clarification, and in no way is intended to cast dispersion on you personally, or any other moderators here

Your a silly little man, my first comment on this wasn't even directed at you,it was who chose to interject. I know you are but what am I? Best you can come up with? Your willful ignorance is showing again, son. Going for Laughter? Statement of fact son, anyway you provide enough fooder for ridicul on your own without the need for me to point it out. Insult? Please, again the fact you're a partisan hack is objective, demonstrable reality, and your insinuations that im anti conservative without any basis,and that you ignore my persistent demands that you justify these claims just continues to prove my point. Oh so now my name disqualifies me from rational conversation? At least your previous adhoms required some level of thought, you're really reaching down to the bottom of the intellectual barrel, now. Go with you're first instinct, don't respond. Again it's not like you have the capacity or the want to bring added value to this or any other conversation.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, son. You are most certainly no serious legal authority, and have offered no justification for your silly belifs. Your own link supports the opposite, and bringing in a cherry picked court case post hoc when i already coincided that a plethora of cases dealing with the issue is further proof of the intellectual dishonesty to deal in For who's the dick, I'll let our fellow interlocutors review both of our posts not only in this thread but our respective catalogues of comments and decided themselves. Though im still waiting on any justification to calling me a lefty, if you want to play the poor little conservative victim go right ahead but claiming anti conservative bias on anyone that doesn't agree with your ridiculous ideas immediately just shows how your views are full of petty partisanship and zero want for the truth. No need to respond, nothing productive can come from an argument with ignorance.

Are you offering to finance and run my campaign for PM? There is a party leader position open. That could work for some but obviously not for all. No idea who these "natives" you hang around with are, but the people I was around, both indigenous and white were elders and community leaders, and they most assuredly neither played victim nor are they on any train. Again, this just illustrates your ignorance on the subject, no body is "giving them money for snowmobiles", in some cases no money changes hands, to simplify it essentially vouchers are given based on what Ottawa "thinks" would help.