CdnFox

It's always hilarious to watch the left, whenever they see something they don't like they immediately jump to tyranny and repression as the solution. But suggest that people should use their biological washroom and they lose their god damn minds

The only thing you proved is you're a twat. And you hung on to the whole crash thing for three pages insisting that it was any day now You further insisted that countries were going to start selling off their us bonds and assets which I pointed out was absolutely nonsense and you ran and hid about that too I don't know if you could have embarrassed yourself more without spending money on actual research to figure out how to do it

For sure So i get that you say your mother underprivileged and mentally impaired, and clearly that's where you get it from. But while i understand the mentally impaired part (we have you as an example) i don't get why she's "underprivlidged"? What are you saying there? She's ethnic or something, like a mexican so she doesn't have privilege? She's poor? I mean we knew that i guess. She's flat chested? What makes her 'underprivlidged?'

Nope, it is impolite to be angry at the underprivileged and mentally impaired Jeezuz kid, you just called your mother underprivileged and mentally impaired!!! And you claim I'M the one who's insulting to her?!?! FFS, well fine then. I won't argue with you, sorry to hear your mom is mentally impaired.

The only thing that holds politicians to account in the voters and unfortunately far too many liberal voters are willing to let it slide. Eventually NDP voters have even been willing to wipe out a party here and there when they became corrupt. Conservatives have done it as well. If every party understood that corruption leads to being wiped out we see a few less problems. But unfortunately as long as the liberals are willing to give their people a free ride the whole concept breaks down It's always going to be some corruption, there's no getting around that. But you can have a hullabalot less if voters are willing to be intolerant of it

I can forgive the history but it's the current stuff that really ticks me off. They insist that they are the only non-racist group and then constantly spew racism And have you noticed the very first thing they do if they're losing an argument it start calling their opponent a f.a.g or the like or trying to 'gay shame' them. These are the people who insist they're "on the side of" lgbtq and it's the 'conservatives' who hate gays. But the first insult they think of is 'you like dick don't you". We see it on this forum constantly, and it's everywhere else as well. The level of hypocrisy the left has is almost impossible to overstate.

Jerk! Unauthorized questions that are difficult to answer are a clear violation of her right to free speech! (probably) For her to have her right to free speech you need to remain silent!

But isn't evidence You haven't made any case, no argument, nothing. Are you saying you don't have a rational argument for it but you just 'feel' it or something? LOL great minds, seems like i'm posting about 30 minutes behind you today but having the same thoughts

Sounds like you woke up angry again this morning.. Did your mommy have a hangover again and forget to change your diapers?

You mean with the guy who lied about his Brookfield assets, lied about moving the company, then met with Brookfield 's executives after being told not to by the conflict of interest people? Naaaaahhhhh

So did the liberals before Justin won

Well.... I suspect you're referring to the Clarity Act which came about after a court case involving Quebec separation. It doesn't actually say that the negotiations must end in separation. It just says that the government must enter into good faith negotiations It further stipulates that those negotiations are tempered by the nature of the vote. Factors like how clear the question was, whether it was a clear majority whatever the hell that means, voter turnout, and another bunch of factors. So what would be more accurate from a legal point of view to say that there's a clear path to addressing the constitutional crisis but if negotiations did finalize with Alberta leaving then it would actually require an amendment to the constitution and that follows the same old 7/50 law Where seven out of the 10 provinces representing at least 50% of the population would have to agree to it. Otherwise it's just a rebellion, although that certainly does have a long and well-established legal history to it as well

( Nope, still hasn't ) Earlier you said it was some ho

No my reply went on to explain that you can't have a moral foundation if you can't describe the moral foundation and noted that I myself can articulate any of the moral beliefs that I hold and without that there is no morality You just cut a small piece of it out because you couldn't actually address the reply and pretended that was my reply Which is indeed something you would expect from someone with no morals

What kills me is the three pages of stubborn defense before admitting that the statement wasn't accurate. I mean hell, any of us can make a statement and then evidence proves that it's inaccurate, but You can't drag the denial out for three pages and then turn around and say oh no I was wrong and run away

It might be but there is a great deal more than zero evidence So far the evidence does not reach high enough to say that with certainty was stolen. But there is a huge volume of evidence to suggest there was election fraud. And there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that more fraud could very well have happened and gone undetected. So we would be dishonest in the extreme to say that there is no evidence. About the best you can say at this point is the evidence is not compelling one way or another

False. First off, ONLY a majority? That's not so easy to come by these days and never would have been if ontario and quebec hadn't repressed growth in the west so long. How many actual majorities have we seen in the last 25 years? 2? Secondly there have been plenty of back bench revolts over the years. Nobody actually voted AGAINST trudeau, but do you think he WANTED to leave? Then there's the senate which can delay an obstruct legislation and has done so in the past. In fact the only reason that Trudeau called off the emergency act is that the senate was about to vote on it and made it clear that they were going to vote it down And if the pmo wanted to go to war even with the majority they would find it extremely more difficult and lengthy then trump does, unless we're actually being invaded. You have no idea how politics works

Doesn't need to be. The united nations recornizes that a territory or region may leave a parent country and tradition supports that. Basically if they declare themselves a new nation then Canada can claim it's a rebellion and can choose to go to war over it if they want but i don't think they would want to do that, Not true actually While there is a law that says if such a random takes place Canada's government must enter into negotiations in good faith to address the constitutional crisis, they're actually isn't anything that prevents alberta from rebelling and leaving Canada. Aside from going to war of course and I don't think they'd be interested

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!! I absolutely agree, a ho is the prime minister of canada!!!! LOLOL

You still pimping your mama out?!?! (lol

Its true. He wasn't born as a biological zucchini, at birth he was a radish. But through several stem replacement operations and fertilizer treatments he eventually became the vegetable he is today and gosh darn it we're proud of him!!!

Geez her name was Chloe Cole? Somebody should get sued over that alone

Yep we see you! You're doing great little guy!

(i don't think he' figured it out yet guys )

Hey! Hey! Dr Zaius Was absolutely amazing and nobody should be shamed in the comparison !!!!