CdnFox

Sure. Trudeau said 'this will be the last election that's first past the post". That was three elections ago

He absolutely did. 100 percent. He mentioned it frequently. Here - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-times-trump-called-hillary-clinton-democrats-investigated/story?id=51138506 Yet - as soon as he was elected he specifically stated that he wouldn't bother prosecuting her becuase 'she's suffered enough' . That was about day three after his win. Pretty fast backtrack. I"m not picking on him - all presidents are like this. I was pretty clear he was an example, not the only one. They all promise change and there's a LITTLE ... not what they promise tho. Obama went from "Yes we can' to "we probably can't" pretty damn fast. They all do.

Well like i say- the big difference is that there's no reasonable expectation that they would know if you were a hitman or not. They don't have any reason to believe you are or are not a felon, or if you've served time in jail or any of that. So that's something you can discuss later - it's fair to say you can't impart all knowledge about yourself at once. BUT - THERE IS a reason to believe they think you're a biological girl/boy. they PROBABLY think that. SO - allowing them to CONTINUE to believe that instead of correcting that is dishonest. It would be like meeting at a dating website called "totally-NOT - former-hitman.Com' and then mentioning date three - ooh by the way... You can't give people the impression you're a girl/boy and allow them to hold that belief and then do a bait and switch later. It's dishonest in the extreme.

Those statements are not connected. The marian reforms changed how soldiers were orgainzed when the legions WERE formed - it has nothing to do with whether or not they kept a large standing army. For about 200 years ish after that The army was still conscripts as needed, with a very small number of legions kept active. They wouldn't even move to standing forces till much later and even then they still did a lot of it by conscription as needed. Swing and a miss kiddo. talking to your mirror again'? You have to station more even just to keep the peace when you can't get reinforcements there any time soon. They could easily raise more troops on the mainland if they needed them, they could move troops about, not much need for large forces everywhere. And the wall worked . That's the point. Did the celts ever threaten rome? Were the romans thrown off the island? Nope - they were a beaten people for the most part and at best there was a small amount of raiding. They weren't a major problem for the romans. As you proved - for the most part they had minor skirmishes and weren't much of an issue. Every few hundred years the'd have a limited success but otherwise just weren't an issue. The romans handled them easily. They weren't the reason the empire fell. It's more like gangs today in America. Sure - they're an issue and they cause problems but there's no chance the US is going to collapse because of gang violence or activity. Here's a clue - if something is going on for 700 years and still doesn't cause the civilization to fall - it's not why the civilization fell Rome fell because of worse and worse leadership due to the tendancy of picking strong leaders over smart ones and an increasing beurocracy that sucked up all the revenues and became increasingly inefficient. Sorry - you're just wrong here. Border fights were a thing that happened from the beginning to the end of the empire and all through the byzantine. They absolutely did not bring the country down. They weren't much of a problem, any more than crime is for modern culture today. Sorry kiddo ';) next time try reading BEFORE you talk.

The 'change' is often far less than advertised. obviously any gov't is going to be a 'change' from the one that came before. One might well argue that even in a second term gov'ts 'change' often enough. Obama did. But look at trump - "i'll build a wall, hillary will be in jail, i'll stop illegal immigraiton. i'll bring the good paying jobs back to america", etc etc. Sure - he improved the economy, there's no doubt, and he did do things different than obama - but a lot of the change he promised didn't materialize. And that's often the case, democrat or republican.

Yeah pretty much. BUT - the slogan works. So they keep using it.

YOU DIE NOW HERETIC!!!!! ' Well... the good news is if you ARE an 'arborsexual' i guess you won't be needing birth control. We're not here to judge, this is a safe space. I mean obviously you're entitled to an opinon for sure - and i can see arguments against it for various reasons. But i was just pointing out that beyond morality there IS a practical component to this. A single abortion costs a hell of a lot of money and they're already getting those for free.

Context DOES matter though. It makes a difference if you're the agressor - launching missiles into a civillian area first is different than going after missle sites that are shooting at you. Who fires the first shot matters. Shooting at civilians with intent vs shooting at bad guys who surround themselves with civilians is Very Very different. You can't dismiss that as the same thing. Everyone has a right to self defense. I don't see them doing that much - but if that's the case... make peace. Come to the table and say "enough - lets work this out". The world would support that - instead they elect a gov't who has "kill all isrealis and drive them into the sea" as a platform plank. Then they're angry they're getting occupied? They attack the isrelis constantly, they state they want to kill them, they use human shield tactics with their own people and such - sorry but i can't feel any sympathy for people like that. Context does matter - if they don't want peace then they can't complain about the war can they.

I think its pretty clear the initial one wasn't her - 'they treat the palisinians just like they were nazis'. Me - "hey - that's not really ok to call jews nazis". Her - "Ummm ummmmm i meant EVERYONE is a nazi .. like jamacans and stuff..." Dude - she said jews are the same as nazi's. Her attempts now to downplay it are hollow. And this is NOT the first time she's slagged jews, And she out and out tried to claim that she's saying the jewish GOV"T is nazi - not necessarily all the people which doesn't make much sense considering the people elected them. This really is who she is.

You did elsewhere - and schools are for education, not PROGRAMMING or sexual grooming. The 'normal' agenda for a school is quite clear - this is a seperate agenda that the Letter people deny and then have to admit to. As i said - nobody trusts you, you lie far too often both personally and as a community. Seriously. Go back and count. Cinderella - no parents except an evil step mom. Snow white - no dad. Ariel - no mom. Nemo - no mom, Belle in the original - no mom. Rapunzel - no dad. Bambi - Mom and dad divorced and dad is deadbeat until mom gets killed. So lets not lie. As i said disney doesn't really even do heterosexual couples. Do they. All of them because they don't have ANY couples. This is about protecting kids from learning about sex too early. That's the agenda - teach them about sexualization young. As noted - not a lot of shows where hetero couples were the main characters. The ones that are are all family sit coms that follow a specific model because it's popular and it's harder to explain how a gay couple has three children. Having a married couple hinders the writers, so you don't see it unless the show is anchored around the idea of the family and then hetero makes the most sense to explain the kids and requires the least amount of explaining. It's that simple. You also don't get shows with a married lead where one is crippled for the same reason. It's not "anti -disability", it's just harder to write. Nope - gays and bi's are well represented. There's thousands of gay characters. Sorry. And considering that gay marriage wasn't even legal anywhere in the US till 2004 - that kind of makes sense doesn't it. "GEE - WHY WEREN'T THERE ANY SHOWS ABOUT IT BEFORE IT EXISTED?!?!?!!?" Duhhhhhhhh And schools have been moving away from secularism and don't recognize ANY holidays that aren't offical ones. So - perfect example They do in time. When it's the best time to teach them. In Canada we have classes called "Scoial studies" which go over that stuff plenty. But that doesn't mean children need to be discussing which god is 'real' and which isn't in kindergarten. "The decision to cease publication and sales of the books was made last year after months of discussion with teachers, academics and a "panel of experts," the company told AP." https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/dr-seuss-books-publication-racist-images-1.5933033 Oh - and it turns out they were ALL on the left. They lobbied the Dr Seuss foundation - and successfully got the books banned. Swing and a miss kiddo. So let me guess - you're going to claim that this was actually a group of Far RIght teachers, Nazi achademics and the panel was actually trump and desantes? Banned from libraries unless they're very careful to hide them. I posted an artice about how creative they were having to be to hide them a while back. And you can't buy the books for sale any more unless you can find one used - and eventually all those will be gone. It's hilarious that you CONSTANTLY CLAIM that the republicans BANNNNNEEEEEDD BOOOOOOOKS - for taking them out of school libraries only but claim that ceasing the sale entirely and removing them from ALL libraries is not a book ban. Yes you are - and hypocrites too The left wing only promotes lies and hatred - then wonders why no one wants them grooming their kids.

More like you hope i won't. So - here's proof she lies to you again people. Both articles refer to the same speech - he mentioned it ONCE, at a FATHERS DAY EVENT (imagine talking about families at fathers day) - but the kicker is this was AFTER HE WAS PRESIDENT FOR 4 YEARS. I said he never used 'family values" during his campaign where he said he wanted to 'make america great again". SHe posts this. - from 4 years AFTER that campaign. Didn't check the dates didja kiddo So there's your proof people = all the left does is lie. They cannot actually make their point WITHOUT lying. No - it isn't. And this has already been proven. Its about exactly the same thing as leftist propaganada - change. If it was - you wouldn't have to lie as you just did about what they said during the campaign. Sure sure - children are our future - next generation will be the best - heard it all before. They all say the same thing, the next is our best and brightest because reasons. In reality the polling in canada is VERY clear that the youth are leaving the left and dogpililng on the right in numbers never previously believed possible. I suspect the american kids will be the same. But - biden will still claim they're the 'best generation ever' even if he knew they'd grow up to be nazi's. Or jews i guess - i know you think it's synonymous. He lies about it because what he REALLY thinks is that you're dumb enough to believe he actually thinks that way. Sorry kiddo. The only kids he worries about is hunter. And conservatives simply don't talk about family values much at all. Except for one paid speech on fathers day for their second election roflmao Democrats and Republicans say exactly the same thing when facing an incumbent - "Change! Vote for change!"

No - attempting to change the channel with terms like 'Deflection" and "projection" is what weak minded low brow thinkers use when they realize they can't defend their position. Makes them feel like they're making an argument when they're not. That's why you've got those images on hot standby at all times Whenever you realize you've painted yourself into a corner you whip them out and then stick your head in the sand. I mean hell even the jews are nazi's according to you. Well - isreali jews anyway, you weren't clear if you were bigoted to ALL jews or just most of them.

No - it does not. If i win a race, and then i'm going to race again and i say I hope i win again - i'm not saying that i want to go back to the previous race. I'm saying that moving forward i intend to repeat my success in a new race. As in - Americans built a great nation - we will repeat that success and build a great nation again. Doesn't mean it's going to be the SAME as last time but that americans will succeed in building something great again. Which is an obvious interpretation of 'again'. We did something before and we can do it again. It is your bias that prevents you from seeing the obvious there and interpreting it in a negative light.

You... ahhh - you realize i pointed that out. It's no contradiction at all. Kennedy said lets make america great as well. Sure. It's a common theme. Kennedy basically said the same thing - "Hey - things have gone off the rails, we can get back to being great as soon as we get rid of this guy who's ruined eveyrthing". To listen to you anyone who uses the word "again" means "lets bring back slavery" Even trump it wasn't about going back to values. His "again" was to bring good paying jobs back, to be respected and feared appropriately around the world, to have a strong economy. It wasn't to lock up gays. Obama was no different. Only diehard lefties would fail to see it's the same message over and over and over. Justin trudeau - a leader who's even futher right than anyone in american history - his theme was "canada is "back"". It's the same crap from all of them. The people challenging the incumbent argue for change. "Things are out of whack, we'll bring them back to what they should be and things will be awesome". It's the same message again and again. There is ZERO difference between the left and the right in that regard.

Ahhh - here we go. So the letter people "NEED" to. So there IS an agenda and it is about sexuality. Well - thanks for admitting it. Not children's media. when was the last time a disney princess had a mother and father at the same time? If you mean at home there's plenty of gays in media. There's shows where most of the characters are gay. If you want to expose your children to that as a parent and you feel they and you can handle it there's tonnes of opportunity. there were plenty of main gay characters before. The vast majority of characters in EVERY show are not couples. Friends had no married couples (ross is too weird to call a 'married' anything and his wife was gay), seinfeild, etc etc. You get a few from back in the day like archie - which absolutely DID deal with homosexuallity - and brady bunch and cosby but for the most part it wasn't much of a popular theme. But there were plenty of gay characters. Gender and sex really can't be separated in kids minds. So - the quesiton is is it appropriate for kids to be dealing with this. Many people feel no - let them be kids and grow up and then address it. And there's evidence to suggest that's the correct answer. So let parents choose - keep it out of school and let parents decide at home if that's something they want to work on their kids with earlier or later. There's an agenda here. something the LBGTQRSPMOUSE community has been denying like crazy. Which is why there is now a lack of trust. And it may or may not be a positive one - how can parents be sure when that community has been so dishonest about it's intents before? They absolutely were - and they got cancelled. Thats 100 percent the left at work. See- when the right keeps a book out of schools, it's "Banning" the book and it's terrible. When the left actually forces the literal ban of a book which will now not be printed any longer and is being removed from libraries unless they get creative about hiding it ... ohhh that's nothing, yeah, no that's fine there's nothing to see there. Liar. Better be careful, your hypocrisy is showing So once again - the message from the left is "If you disagree with me you're a terrible evil person who should die". Also from the left "Why don't you trust me?" Put out as many gay childrens' books as you like - i'm sure others will put out books suggesting gays aren't such a great thing, You can have it out. And lets get real - it's already normalizing quite nicely. And that will continue apace. But - if you want to actually speed things up then attacking anyone who disagrees with you and acting in a disgustingly dishonest and disreputable way only breeds disrespect. the 'message' listening to you is "you can't trust gays and if you question then they will attack you. It's them vs you". Well... aside from the fact i don't believe that's a healthy or even accurate message - it will achieve the opposite of what you claim to want. THen again yours side is ALL about culture wars and hate. Maybe that's your goal in the end anyway and you don't actually WANT it to be normal. That certainly would explain your actions.

Yeah - that really doesn't prove your point at all No, he was about exploiting the public's desire for change. Same as the rest. Sorry. Regan never mentioned 'returning to values' in the slightest. He was all about the same thing as kennedy - exploit the public sense that things are going off track and say he'll put them on track. Nope -it's always the same. "Things are a mess, i'll change them". ti's the same message every time for the non incumbent. IF they want to win. The lie here is that the lefties think it's different when their person says exactly the same thing Nope - it s precisely the same for both. It's about being stupidly optimistic about the future for each and every one. And 'the children are our future' is also a popular one for both sides, but when it does show up it's secondary or tertiary. There's no difference. It's the same. It's a complete lie to say otherwise. And there's a reason it's the same - it works. All you have to do is try to think of a new way of saying "i'll change things for the better" that hopefully hasn't been used too much before. The difference here is that you're blinded by your hatred, bigotry and ideology so you are mentally unable to see it or cope with the idea that the republicans share ANYTHING in common with your beloved left. Where as i am sane and intelligent and assess things based on fact - so its clear as a bell. Republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, they all use the same line against an incumbent and it works. There's no difference except inside your teeny tiny little mind.

I come at this from a less 'moral' and more 'practical' position. Unplanned unwed pregnancies are known to lead to additional crime and other social problems. Less so with our canadian safety net than in the states, but still nonetheless. Truth be told, i ran a little side 'charity' when i was younger refurbing old computers that clients were disposing of and giving them to single moms who were looking at returning to school to upgrade their skills so that they could do the basics like use the internet and word/excel. I know what it was like for many of them. Are we likely to be able to get kids to stop having sex? Probably not. Is it reasonable to think kids under the age of 21 are going to always make the best decisions? Oh hell no. It is desirable to have fewer unplanned pregnancies. Kids are going to boink. Ergo - making birth control as accessable as possible does seem to have some merit. I HATE paying for things out of my tax dollars that only benefit one sex and that i will never get a benefit from personally in any way, but in this case i think it's justified.

well i'm sure that's how YOU really think about it. You've been pretty clear Ms "doesn't understand individualism".

you very clearly did. Nice backtrack. And if you said jews were 'fleeing nazi america' i think it'd be pretty hard to say you were blaming it all on trump If that's what you meant you'd have mentioend the gov't. But ya didn't. So you're saying the jews are CONTROLLED by their nazi gov't? THere's no way to make this look good. Comparing the jews to the nazi's is low, even for you.

Well that's all pretty much untrue. But it's a popular trope on the left. In fact - if you look through the winning campaigns of pretty much all the presidents they all do the same thing, and only trump really did the 'lets make america great AGAIN" routine. They either come up with a cutsie name and slogan for themselves (i like ike) or they come up wiht a slogan saying it's time for positive change Like Kennedy's for example - "it's time to make america great" . Sound familiar? So no - tehy don't pretend we have to go back to anything, they ALL simply acknowledge that things need to change and capitalize on that. And they all do the same thing. Change! We need change! We can make america great! We can do things differently this time! Yes we can! Carter - a leader for change! regan - Let's Make America Great Again (kennedy already stole lets make america great) Also regan the next time - its a new morning for america Bush - we need a 'kinder gentler nation" Clinton - for people ,for a change! Barrack - Change we can believe in. And of course Biden - "opur best days lie ahead" (Change again) It's always the same republican or democrat. If it's their first term - the message is that the country is going in the wrong direction and they'll make a change for the better. And it's telling that kennedy used 'make america great' the first time. If it's their second one it's basically "sorry - we'll get it right this time". But as we all know - the alt left like you DO love their fairy tales.

Ohhh i think we know you don't give a flying fig about individuality ohhh - so your argument isn't that the jews are the nazis - the jews just prefer to ELECT nazis! Well that's MUCH better Nice backtrack but that's not what you said. You didn't say they fled the nazi gov't but nazi germany Busted!!! Man you really don't like the jews - these kinds of comments just keep coming up. But real nice - comparing jews to the nazis is a class act thing to do. So you admit you were calling the jews nazis and are now adding 'fascist scum" to your description of them. Well. At least you're somewhat honest about how you feel. Points for that i guess. And yes - you are living proof that anyone can be fascist scum. That's for sure.

I don't remember any books as a kid that explained people could have a mommy and a daddy. Or the like. Why introduce sexuality at all to children? And as you know some of the 'banned books' (which aren't banned at all) are far worse. And the fact that it's being read during drag story hour highlights the fact that you're not just reading a book, you're pursuing an agenda. SO it's not just the book as you tried to pretend, it's that it's used to introduce children to complex issues beyond just two people getting married. Very dishonest. I can see why parents would be inherently distrustful of it and your motives. You downplay it as just being a book - but the truth is that it's part of a much larger agenda and 'drag story hour'. Meanwhile, your kind demanded the cancelling of "to think i saw it on mullberry st", Claiming any such images were just WAAAAAAY to formative for young children. So clearly you think even simple images are powerful for children and that we can't trust children to sort out the meaning of them accurately. Personally i'd be tempted to say leave both books alone and let parents talk to kids about them but you force the end of publication of one as a necessity and then question why the other should be excluded from schools only, but parents can buy it anywhere and show it to their kids. Well your use of 'triggered the right' shows you know it's a genuine issue and you feel the need to try to dismiss it. In fact, it was a concern for a number of parents. I heard about it . Strangely, despite being on the right, i wasn't triggered and nobody i know was. Parents had an issue with it. Guess what ... (some of them vote democrat!!! GASP!) I see your hypocrisy if that helps. You defend and deflect the same or worse actions on the left, yet condemn it here. I get why parents might not want to deal with complex sexual issues with kids. Whether you like it or not for many issues of gay or lesbian sex or marriage is a complex issue. Further - it's very clear that those promoting it are doing so based on an agenda. Nobody puts in the heterosexual kiss to promote heterosexuality - but the gay kiss is often put in for no better reason than to 'promote' the idea of homosexuality. That makes people concerned. And if you can't see that you're being grossly dishonest. So there's quesitons about motive. Why are they trying to 'teach' kids like that? What's next? Where does that stop? First it's a book - then the book is read by a trans or similar person, then ... what? All they know is that if they say 'you know - i have concerns about exposing children to this..." You'll attack immediately calling them right wing nazi's and how DAAAAARRE They and their concerns are completely invalid and they should shut up. Which ain't going to win anyone over to your side that's for sure. You come across as dishonest as hell. Can you understand why nobody trusts your motives?

DId i mention we all know when you post pictures because you can't make an argument you feel you lost the discussion? Thanks for conceding the point

You're comparing the current situation of the palestinians to that aren't you? That would make the jews the nazi's here.

I honestly wonder if he'd have any better luck with it.