CdnFox

You certainly are. Except that your mom is alive and well and available to anyone for about $40 and your Dad we can't say for sure because he went out for cigarettes 10 years ago and never came back, a fact that his obviously left you emotionally scarred But I don't think there's any real doubt that something your Dad did to you before you left has left you with this weird fixation on pedophilia that you just can't stop talking about

So i see, Hey everybody - waive to the pedophile loser, he wants attention again! (everybody waives to Exflyer) can't you get someone to sleep with you if you're that desperate? I told your mom will sleep with anyone for 20 bucks, your Dad obviously would do it for free again if you could find him

Yes it is, you sure do post a lot of fail posts. And you are obsessed with being a pedophile.

Why would that matter. The in a number of other people were aware the violent people were destroying the homes and lives of people he respected and he went to help. That's kind of a normal thing to do. The protesters weren't abused by the police, they weren't family or relatives of george Floyd, they weren't business partners or anything of George Floyd, yet you have no problem with the fact that they were there protesting and smashing things up in his name Being a little hypocritical there I think kiddo

are you stupid or something? This whole thread was about the CBC editing out a specific phrase that was embarrassing. Go.....read.....it.....again. What the hell is the matter with you? There are a number of leftists here but when they say something stupid or wrong continue to double down on it and wind up looking like utter and complete buffoons but usually you're smart enough not to jump over the cliff when you've done something stupid. Shame on you. Obviously this thread was about specifically a phrase he used which he has now very obviously avoided like crazy because I was right! And people have pointed it out to him! Well I guess that's your way of admitting you were being a twat. Do better next time. It's nice to have at least a couple of people around here that you can have semi-intelligent conversations with even if you're wrong more often than you're right and it's disappointing to see you being this dumb

That is the problem indeed. And that scares away investors. To be honest even if we throw the libs out unless we get a majority at least the investors are going to be thinking "Yeah but how long with this last and we're back to the anti business liberals?"

LOL ohhh kid, i would have thought by now you'd have learned to double check your facts before talking to me to AVOID looking like a complete re tard. You need at LEAST a 2.1 percent fertiilty rate to even replace your population. And many say that's not accurate and it's more like 2.2. The last time the us was at 2.1 or over was about 1970 give or take a year. The rest of the time after that the us has been BELOW replacement Fertility rate in the U.S. 1800-2020| Statista Now.... i know math is hard for you and many US schools are substandard, but if you count on your fingers and toes you'll realize that in fact 1970 -2025 is actually FIFTY FIVE (55) years. LOLOLOL I'll say this, if we ever decide to join the us it will NOT be because of the fantastic education system oh and china dropped below replacement in 1991, so that's WAY after the us. And it was intentional with laws to make that happen as i recall. Sorry kiddo. Did you have anything else or are you done looking like a twat for the day?

Yelling at the Mexican who sells you your zucchini because he raised the price of nickel is not a protest

They were conservatives. Sorry Raducal for the left in the south. Not conservatives in the north. Nope In canada it was conservative (unionparty) robert borden, in the states many conservatives supported it Sorry to break it to you but conservatives do protest. You're wrong across the board as usual Your problem is that if the conservatives do anything you like you claim that they couldn't have possibly done it because you consider it Progressive. And in your mind anything Progressive means it can't possibly be conservative But that's a lie. And it's a lie that twists your mind so badly you cannot even admit the simple truths

Yes but remember, as you say you may have failed but at least you tried your best! Mind you i suppose that means at best you're a failure

LOLOL kid.... at this point in your life you really should know that if i'm questioning you it's time to double check your facts. Here's a transcript of his speech: Davos 2026: Special address by Mark Carney, PM of Canada | World Economic Forum Find the phrase "New world order" in it. Anywhere. Even once. Wahh wahhh waaaaaaaaaahhhhh, you lose LOLOL He says we don't have 'rules based order' anymore, and at one point mentions the 'old world order' is gone but he NEVER MENTIONES "NEW WORLD ORDER" And do you know why? because it's EMBARRASSING, I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG, AND HIS PEOPLE HAVE POINTED THAT OUT TO HIM LOL My post aged great, his avoidance of the term at Davos proves i'm correct, and meanwhile you're aging like a banana You sure do, and btw it's a little creepy how you refer to yourself in the third party like gollum from the lord of the rings "Can'ts gets us a date, nobody likes us, obsessed with pedophilia, habe to play with my precious" LOLOL you sound creepy as hell

No. It didn't In fact it didn't find a single drop of evidence of collusion or conspiracy. They mostly came up with was one guy who worked for trump knew a Russian. But there's absolutely no evidence of any kind of collusion or conspiracy You are just straight out and out lying at this point

LOL yes i see you're trying and i see your failing. But hey at least you're trying

Yes, and I see not only are you back but you're back to using memes Always love it when I drive you to having a hissy fit so bad you have to scour the internet for pictures LOLOL

You literally accuse everyone of lying constantly and not providing evidence. And you never provide evidence yourself, you provide links that go to something that's not related And we all know the reason you put people on so-called ignore is that they're the ones that take the time to intellectually beat you up rather than just laugh at you and you still read all of our posts

Most intelligent thing you've said on this forum

Not at all. We both know which side of his bread is buttered and he's kowtowing same as you do. He was so angry and hurt initially that he spoke the truth, but now carney has had a chance to 'instruct' him one on one and he's being a good little boy

You are violent before Ice ever showed up. And ice is violence is response to yours. You: runs over ice agent with car Ice: Shoots back You: Why you violent like that bra?!?

Yes you are. Still couldn't find a boyfriend to like you in the real world huh? Well like you say, keep trying

Well it kind of saves the planet, most of the humans will wind up dying off with no food and that will definitely have an impact on emissions

With almost 70 agents looking into it? Yes it does. There's no collusion. And unless you can prove otherwise which you can't that is the way it is

Oh he knows they're a threat, he's just bending over for Carney the same way you do

You shouldn't be that hard on yourself. I mean sure you're a loser but there's no need to laugh at yourself on top of it Why didn't it age well? There's still newspaper stories about it for heaven's sake Wasn't a good look for carney and it's not a good look for the CBC. Still isn't I see now he's spending his time defending the fact that when you talk to Donald Trump he tried to aggressively walk back everything he said at Davos. "No no Mr Trump gosh I didn't mean any of those things I said...." Which is typical, that's about the third time he's been caught saying one thing to the public and something completely different to trump

That's true. In a court of law it cannot be used as grounds to suggest criminal intentions unless he commits a criminal act. Which he did not . In other words the mere presence of the gun is not grounds for criminal activity but if he uses the gun in a criminal fashion then it can be evidence that he brought it there for that reason In this case According to reports he was not carrying the gun lawfully. He did not have the correct identification with him for lawful carry. That raises some questions, you're going to confront police officers and you're going to carry a gun but you're not going to do it legally even though you know the law? Odd choice But in any case he wasn't shot for merely having a gun. He knew he was armed and he chose to interfere physically and get into a fight with the cops. It is said that he reached for the gun although I'm not prepared to accept that as absolute just yet. If you're going to carry a gun then if you interact with police you have to be very careful about how you do it and you do not fight back if they're trying to arrest you clearly did

Neither do they. Doesn't mean violence didn't happen That is literally the definition of violence, he grabbed officers and shoved them and pulled them and interfered with them. That is violence. You start grabbing and shoving people that is violence Well there are lots of ways but there's no two ways about it he the police officer is going to have to answer for the last four or five shots. We'll have to explain himself and justify those actions. It certainly not unheard of for police officers to shoot additional shots after a threat has been ended and they have to pay for that if they don't have a good excuse. But it's still not murder And absolute lie. If that was the case he would have shot her through the back of the head what happened. That one isn't even disputable that one is 100% she deserved to be shot. You have to be deranged beyond belief to think otherwise If you're driving a car and strike a police officer and are still driving the car then you deserve to be shot because you are putting his life in danger. Let's not forget this guy would drag 30 ft the last time he didn't shoot in a similar circumstance it required hospitalization. Just driving a vehicle in the direction of a police officer Is enough to get shot with 100% justification It's absolutely like you do get to shoot if someone is threatening your life with a lethal weapon. Sorry If someone is driving a car at you you're in danger. If they hit you with that car you're in danger. It is beyond childish to suggest the guy wasn't in danger, he had to go to the hospital We haven't even discussed him, what do you mean I refuse to acknowledge him? Are you having weird imaginary fantasies about me again? Who else have I magically refused to acknowledge that we haven't discussed? Complete false equivalency. In one case you're talking about a police officer defending themselves in the moment and the other case you're talking about the legal punishments for actions. Not the same thing. Not even close. If a DC rider had driven their car at a cop and the cop is shot them I would be 100% saying that they had it coming.