CdnFox

Soooo -you didn't understand what was said to you. Sigh. It's also true that you're not traumatized because you're an dolt apparently. If you can't understand, next time just ask and i can explain it to you again. Now you just look dense. As to the rest.... ROFLMAO - holy butthurt batman Man, you're just raving now - look, neither me nor blackbird intended to get you so worked up you'd become incoherent I get this is upsetting for you - i know how you get when you realize you can't defend your point of view and start freaking out. But it's just the internet. You said something less intelligent - you got called on it - tomorrow's another day. Go have a glass of warm milk or something and try to cope.

Darn - I KNEW i forgot something. We were SUPPOSED to get a permission slip from OftenWrong before discussing issues around censorship!! ROTFLMAO !!!! - Well thanks for showing up and demonstrating that a) the left wing is pretty anti-free speech to the point where they come in and yap like a chihuahua if people are having 'unauthorized' conversations they dont' approve of so the story about the mayor certainly has the ring of truth and b) the left doesn't even realize when they're making our point for us LOLOLOL!!!!!

Sure, just like they invaded the us when they gave them weapons. Oh wait...... I doubt they'll be doing much invading of anyone for a while, thanks to the pounding they're taking in ukraine. Good thing we're helping there to grind them down. You go back to burying your head in the sand little guy - the adults will handle this and we'll tell you when it's safe to come out

So you didn't say it was poorly written? I'm highlighting that ONCE AGAIN you are lying about what you said previously that everyone can read and pretending it's someone else's fault. Well just for fun i'll rise to the bait this time and quote you: "They were poorly written and poorly conceived laws that were expected to be challenged" Those are your words. Poorly Written. And you can't claim that you only meant that they werne't a very good idea because you ALSO said they were poorly conceived on TOP of that. So - you mean the laws were poorly written. There you go. Proof that you lie right from your own mouth. SIgh. Well at least people know the truth of what you are. Nope - went down under harper. It always fluctuates a little but it pretty much went down year after year during harper's terms. And it's gone steadily up under trudeau. And it is directly linked to his policies. It's no coincidence. He's relaxed bail conditions, hes required race to be a factor in sentencing, he's overseen the dismantling of the consecutive terms laws, he's fostered hatred between a large number of groups and ratcheted up tensions, the list goes on and is extensive. I"m not claiming commonality is causality here, it's not just a freak occurrence that it's gone up radically during his time. There's reasons

Soooooo... that's your proof? LoL? iiiiiisssss THAT your evidence? A blog of mostly made up 'i-don't-like-harper' crap with no evidence of accepting dirty money? Well i guess that's ONE way of saying "I'm a complete partisan hack with no idea what i'm talking about" without actually saying it. So - after all that you've got zero reason to think Harper solicited or encouraged illegal campaign donations. Well. How about that. Sounds like yet another liberal hack trying to excuse the actions of your fearless leader by trying to pretend that everyone else is just as corrupt. Yeah - they're not. It's you guys.

If they do it much they tend to get caught. We've caught the libs now twice with major scams = and pretty much back to back. Chretien/martin were the last libs before trudeau adn we had adscam. Now trudeau has chinagate. How many times have the CPC been caught doing that? (cricket cricket) If you want to make that claim - put some proof on the table. I just did. Show that the cpc or ndp has been accepting illegal donations of substance knowingly and we'll talk Otherwise it's just conspiracy crap that somehow because one politician does it they all must. That's not how logic works.

the evidence is that women are MORE violent than men, not less. They are MORE likely to instigate dometic violence for example. Men are just much better at it, and when men fight someone's more likely to get hurt. But i haven't' seen any research that shows women are significantly less violent. They're just not as likely to do damage. Men do commit more violent crime if it helps but that doesnt' mean they're more violent as people. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

Aww muffin - is it your nap time again? Go get your cookie and your blankie.... "Poorly written"? Are you trying to pretend now that they're not having been called on it? Yeah you did - go back and read your own comments. It would depend on what you mean by 'abused'. if you mean "could be used to pass somthing you personally don't agree with" then sure. But that's pretty much all laws. If you mean something else you'd have to define it. The law was intended to give the gov't the power to set aside charter rights where it felt there was a justifyable reason to do so. The public has to decide if the gov't was correct or overstepped. I don't know the public will think keeping a mass murderer in jail is wrong. I mean - it's not like we're talking about using something sweeping like the emergency act to shut down a protest we don't appove of is it In any case all such laws must be reviewed every 5 years. So consecutive gov'ts will have to agree to it, No no. Just 'you dumb". Because, y'know. You dumb. Nope. THe majority of the spike has happend and accelerated under Trudeau. The vast majority of harper's term saw falling rates. And we can point to laws justin's passed that have aided that. In fact there's huge pressure right now for him to recind some hes' passed because people are getting killed. But i love that you claim that the gov't of 7 years has nothing whatsoever to do with things like crime SUre - that's not a fed responsibility at all "It's all harper's fault!" - every liberal ever.

They tend to discourage illegal ones. These guys are encouraging illegal donations. There's a difference. Nobody would blame them if the donations were just chinese nationals who like the liberal party but they're documenting a money laundering scheme to funnel large amounts of donations illegally through proxies. Show me where the CPC or NDP ever did that. No, he wasn't. Harper didn't take money from corps or other gov'ts or outside the law. At least certainly not knowingly. This is a liberal thing and it's a recurring liberal thing.

That sounds a little tin hattish. But go ahead and show me where the CPC or the NDP encouraged foreign countries to donate to get them elected. This was not just a case of politicians cosying up to donors. this was a deliberate effort to money launder funds into the liberal party through proxy donors more akin to the sponsorship scandal. That's a little over and above

So.. you're saying that fundamental justice is incompatible with liberty? Kinda sounds like you don't really understand what either of those things are then.

No, but i suppose i shoudn't be surprised that you need basic human decency explained to you. The law was written fine. They didn't take any exception to the language of the law. You said it was 'poorly written' but turns out it wasn't. The judges didn't claim that the notwithstanding clause is 'constitutionally murky'. That was you kiddo ? Sorry - that would still make you the dim one here It was intended PRECISELY for when you don't like the outcome of a court decision. That's EXACTLY what TRUDEAU has been saying. He says it's HORRIBLE to use it BEFORE the court decision - it should only be used after one. That was his whole thing with doug ford's use of it. I don't know how you do it - every time i think you've hit bottom you find a way to look less educated Yup. And the spike in crimes and violence reflect his preferences there. Or is that all harper's fault too?

THis is exact language. In fact its very precise - it expressly says he's doing something that hurts canada without adding any meaning he doesn't intend. But yes, trudeau (both of them) are famous for giving obscure answers to questions and making obscure statements. Not really relevant here tho

Well you're wrong. this isn't an 'opinion' thing. the words do not mean the same thing. Saying "i disagree" is just saying " i don't like that i' m wrong and will pretend otherwise". I explained it in detail, a few look ups on the dictionary should confirm for you, there is a huge difference in that one implies intent and one does not, and that's just fact. Of course - as a liberal supporter you may not choose to recongnize facts as being relevant to a discussion (Snicker!)

Have to wait to see the final bill i guess. They may be reworking it after getting feedback who knows.

It isn't. It's similar but it's not. Sure you could say that YOU think that his actions rise to that level. But that's not what PP said. It's the same difference as saying someone said something untrue and someone lied. Lie implies that you DELIBERATELY intended to deceive. Rather than you were just wrong for some ohter reason. Likewise - disloyal suggests deliberately and knowingly harming canada for ulterior reasons, usually selfish. Rather than just doing something that's harmful to canada due to incompetence or ambivalence, or something else. It doesn't try to determine motive, just action. IF it was the same thing you wouldn't have had to change the word. Which means you know it wasn't the same thing. If you have to resort to dishonesty or trickery to make your point..... is it a good point in the first place?

I dont' know that it's passed yet.

I can't imagine why with such riveting content. Look - this isn't hard. If you want to be taken seriously just post things that are relevant to the discussion and more useful than going zzzzzz like you're a 15 year old or something.

That's pretty radically different and is a perfectly valid statement from the leader of the opposition given the circumstances. That's kind of his job. It's noteworthy that in comparing PP and Justin you used real quotes from justin but had to fabricate quotes from PP to make your point. And even in your 'correction' you have to throw in words that were never said - he didn't call him disloyal or use that word at all. He said he is not acting in the interests of Canada. You can't even just say that without embellishing because the truth just doesn't sound all that unreasonable. If the simple truth doesn't work for you - then it's time to reconsider your position.

It's definitely a 'me' problem - what the hell was i thinking trying to explain how dumb something is to dumb people. You have a good day kiddo.

LOL - I take it that's the sound of your brainwave monitor Yet another relevant and useful post on your part, well done.

They still want to sell papers first and foremost - they have done very well off the china stories they broke, if people like they write

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/carson-jerema-trudeau-family-friend-david-johnston-not-the-man-to-restore-election-confidence Carson Jerema: Trudeau 'family friend' David Johnston not the man to restore election confidence "There is no indication that Johnston is anything but a man of integrity, which is why he should have turned down the special rapporteur job " Groot called it.

This problem is deeply systemic and very difficult to resolve. Remember it's not just politicians who might want everything kept quiet. A lot of times errors show up in the bureaucracy and civil servants and they don't want to wear it any more than the gov't does, and they're often thrown under the bus. So even when a gov't gets in that wants more transparency, the actual bureaucracy resists that and finds ways to remain safely opaque. I have no idea what the answer is. You'd need like a decade or more of gov'ts that were committed to resolving that to get it fixed and not many are - it's not generally in their interest either.

It goes on everywhere but other countries try to fight it. We seem to tolerate it and the liberals seem to encourage it. Canadians have to get mad about this if they want to actually keep their sovereignty