CdnFox

Me spitting coffee on the keyboard watching you melt down LOLOL now i'll admit it's not quite as hard hitting as "ha ha ha". but what can you do And i see again you've mastered mimicry Well done, you're as smart as a parrot now! (almost!)

it would actually have taken him out of the campaign though. It would have been very risky. But yes, it could have blown up in their face just as easily. Obviously they didn't feel like risking it I think that's probably a given already

Umm that's what i said you !diot LOLOLOL how are you THIS stupid Whataboutism is when you say " you did this thing" and i say "well YOU did THAT thing over there, so...." COMPARISON is when you take two similar things and look at them. YOUR claim is that guns should be banned because theys bad and dealth, I compared that to booze which is exactly the same, not necessary and death. So why would we treat one as evil and the other as acceptable? That is NOT whataboutism Like, at all!!! It's not whataboutism its' comparison and your hypocrisy LOL Geeez man, even with the dictionary you effted it up How do you brush your teeth without poking your eye out? LOL - that's the fallacy of the 'red herring'. Nobody said anyone was fine with drinking and driving. And nobody anywhere is fine with mass shootings. Neither of those things are on the table, so when you pretend they are you're just lying to try to switch the subject because you've lost The issue was that you hate guns because they're misused and people die , but booze is misused and even MORE people die from that. So if you are against gun sales why are you not against booze sales? Swing and a miss there kiddo. Sorry kid Not all hypocrisy is 'whataboutism' You're still a complete hypocrite. And comparing two comparable things is absolutely a valid argument

That particular banker is pretty in tight with the climate change crowd So you might like him. Although he did speak out against the carbon tax sort of kind of recently for the first time, he has been a huge backer in the past

Why would they name a person. If ANY people are included then their case has merit. Further if they're making a statement that this is the case that is in and of itself evidence. They are stating that it's their knowledge that this is the case and asking for remedy. They'll have to do better than that if they're going to win but you can't say "NO" evidence. Ask a judge. In the meantime think about what you're saying: You're literally saying that someone's testimony that something exists should be good enough, while at the same time complaining that their testimony that something exist isn't evidence at all. like i said - lets stick to the reality of it. They'll still have to prove it in court of course.

Well there you go BWAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! God damn - there goes the coffee Oh my god that's your best one yet 🍿🍿🍿(munch munch)🍿🍿🍿

?????????? Blacks?!?! What the hell are you talking about?

LOL - ohhhh rriiiiiggghhhtt, i forgot about your weird sexual fantasies about that. I love that you're tying putin into your fantasies now - seems like something you'd be into.

Sure. But until that happens we can say the evidence must at least be compelling. Not "proof", but compelling. which means they're prepared to show their evidence. Which means they have evidence. Well they'll have to as part of the suit if they haven't already So there you go. We both know nobody files a suit like that without there being evidence or they'll be summarily dismissed. Evidence is not 'proof', but it's evidence. So lets not pretend that there's zero merit to it and enjoy life in the real world shall we Wow. I was going to ask how that Alzheimer's is coming along but i see you're already at the talking to yourself stage

Sure kid 🍿🍿🍿(munch munch)🍿🍿🍿

Yeah. Because you're drunk. Go read it again doorknob holy crap, it's like explaining a cartoon to a child. Nope, i made fun of the fact you sounded drunk. You're the grammar nazi That is not true. It's only an issue if they WERE ALREAYD VISIBLY INTOXICATED BEFORE they were sold the beers. Go ahead - show me the court case where someone walked in, bought two beers , got drunk and the pub was sued. Never happened in history. Nope, you're just wrong Oh look, you found something new to be wrong about! How cute This isnt what aboutism. Sorry. What aboutism is where you try to say that one thing should be acceptable because another completely different and unrelated thing happened which is also morally wrong. What I'm pointing out is that you are treating two completely similar things In wildly different fashions. We're talking about two objects which are misused to cause significant death and destruction but One you are perfectly fine with and the other you are deeply enraged about. So that would be hypocrisy. What we're looking at is hypocrisy. Specifically your hypocrisy. When you compare two things that are the same it's not 'whataboutism' I hope you're making these posts in an elevator, you're just wrong on so many levels

maybe they mean it causes lots of fights so we should learn to be strong Or get beaten up?

Me and westcan fight about russia/ukraine. We're on opposite sides of that one. I've been pretty direct with regards to that more than once, i think putin is 100 percent in the wrong, i think the war benefits us for various reasons, i think the invasion was unjustified. LOLOL - you didn't bother to look did you You just assumed for some reason i'm "In the Kremlin's pocket". ROFLMAO!!! Wow kid you sure don't miss very many chances to look like an uneducated conspiracy loon with delusions of competence do you Good lord, even the village !diot where you live must look down on you

Yeah that doesn't say 'bat crap crazy' at all LOLOLOL 🍿🍿🍿(munch munch)🍿🍿🍿

Specifically said i was leaving spelling mistakes in but... sure. I forgot comprehension wasn't your strong point And in fairness i guess it's not like you have ACTUAL arguments left Poor guy. Reduced to grammar nazi. You're 100 percent wrong. In fact it's harder to sue the bar. No bar in the us has ever been sued for just serving someone 2 beers. So right off the bat that's just dense. Anyone who's of age and not visibly intoxicated can be served. Many states, but not all, have the so-called dram store regulations which require that servers stop serving to people who are obviously inebriated. Just as gun stores are prohibited from selling guns without confirming that the person is not prohibited. But the difference is that the gun store has to prove that they did do the background research to show that the person was not prohibited. Whereas the onus is on the accuser to prove that the Pub knowingly served to someone who was obviously visibly inebriated which is a much higher bar and burden of proof. And then there's liquor stores that don't have any restrictions along those lines in most places. Should they be sued if someone buys a mickey Of vodka, goes and drinks it in the parking lot and crashes on the way home? Your hypocrisy here is epic. Many more people die from booze but you're happily defending that while complaining about guns which as we just noted requires active efforts on the part of the gun store owner to verify the buyer is legit.

Mark Carney set to take on role as Trudeau special advisor: source - National | Globalnews.ca LOL well i called that one. Not that it was any great challenge. It's been rumoured for some time he'd be joining the liberals. But this will allow him to do so while trudeau claims he's 'solved the economy

"You people are unbelievably gullible. You will fall for any random post on the internet and then treat it as something meaningful. Here's a random post i found on the internet that i want you to treat as something meaningful! " Honestly, how do you people get your pants on in the morning.

The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), like you and otehr Drunkf*ckers wants booze to be widely avaialable and easily accessible to anyone and everyone which is tantamount to wanting people to be killed by drunk driving. (i left your spelling mistakes in, they nicely emphasis the drunk part ) Ya done being stupid yet? So if we make it so that 18 year olds can buy booze that'll make the gun laws ok? Nope. If they knowlingly sell to someone they shoudlnt' they can be sued, just the same as a bar that knowingly sells booze to someone they shouldn't. Gun shops that sold weapons trafficked into Washington, DC, sued by nation's capital and Maryland (citynews.ca) Ooopsie, you were wrong again. Three more strikes kiddo. You're looking dumber by the minute but feel free to continue if you like

But that doesn't mean anything. That's like saying people who are concerned about murderers are either fearful or are one themselves. Yes, people don't want to get killed, or they are killers themselves and think about it. In fact it would be just as easy to say that trans/gay supporters who obsess about how straights treat them are fearful or straight. And it would be as useless of a statement. The fact is that people who care about the subject either way have concerns. Mostly it seems to be concerns about the other party not intruding in the life of the first party and stomping on their rights, or at least what they perceive to be their rights. And both parties have valid concerns in those regards. And the real truth is most of the people who obsess about this are people who are one way or another profiting from it either financially or politically or other. If the gaze go do what the gays are going to do and the heteros do what the heteros are going to do and nobody worries about this it goes away but that is not what has been happening in our society for quite some time

Unless that's an insult. It is not. If you lie we'll know you're a liar is NOT an insult. But i guess we know you're a bit of a liar now don't we. When someone drags out that lame ass high school debate logic, it's obvious they're trying to dodge. You know it's Biden's fault. You don't want to talk about the fact that it's Biden's fault. You want to avoid that at all costs So now you're "Professionally offended" At an insult that never happened. Well. There you go.

LOL what the hell is that! ROFMAO!!! Holy shit kid And the meltdown continues apace 🍿🍿🍿(munch munch)🍿🍿🍿

But maybe they bought the car they got into the accident with in virginia, see, and the tires may have been out of state too and eveyrone knows oregon's tire laws are better and and and.... At the end of the day the one thing all murders have in common is there was a human who decided it was ok to kill other people. Once you get there the tool itself isn't terribly relevant. You need to address the human and stop them before they can act.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming. Which is why every single way @Black Dog Is trying to argue this tends to come to a dead end in a hurry. The problem when you have violence in a society is never the tool. The Ugandan genocide took place with machetes, 9/11 took place with planes, oklahoma city which is one of the other great mass killings was with a bomb. And there are a number of mass murderers who operated for years killing hundreds of people with nothing more than a knife. The one common denominator is always humans. Whether it's rocks or knives or fire or guns or pushing people down a flight of stairs, all murders involve a human. You address murders by addressing the humans. There are ways to do this, some countries are much more successful than others. But that's how you do it.

What name calling. I didn't call you or anyone else a name. If you're referring to my warning that i WOULD call you a name in the future if you falsely pretended something was true, thats because the last time i didn't warn you not to lie and say things that weren't true when it comes to biden's economic issues and policy, you went on and falsely pretended a bunch of things weren't true and were dishonest. Thought i'd give you fair warning this time Interesting you'd like to avoid the topic at hand though. Don't want to discuss biden's role in inflation or interest rates so you're asking about a 'name calling' that never happened. Well there you go. Mr honesty at work. 🙄

It's a nice theory but we can see from the actions of other countries that is just simply not entirely accurate. It is not difficult to create a system where the opportunity for fraud is very low and that there are safeguards in place such that if fraud was happening on any substantial level it would almost certainly be seen. Canada does this. Many countries do this. America does not do this. And the result is nobody trusts the system. In Canada Trudeau won the last two elections with less than the popular vote. In other words more people voted for someone else. But you don't hear hues and cries that Our system has been rigged or the liberals cheated etc etc. The rare times that we do get election interference that is even on a noticeable level it gets caught and we hear about it and it gets investigated and it still didn't make a difference. People have faith in the system. America should change whatever laws are necessary to ensure that they can say the same thing