CdnFox

I'm sure he'll be pardoned "Trump, you may be president now but your'e still a criminal! What do you have to say for yourself?" "Well Pardon me for keeping my own documents!" Oh - well, i guess you're free to go then. Rats, really thought we had you there. I suspect the next election will be over before this is resolved. These things take time. So he'll be in a position to pardon himself before he goes to prison if he wins

Name 1 person nuclear secrets have killed.

Well no, that's not how it works LOL If hunter biden was running for president then things are different. Is hunter biden running for president? No? Not the same thing. Is it.

So you're saying they assault other women at the same rate the number of men who've demanded this is so small vs the overall population that they could commit double or triple the number of rapes and it wouldn't make a blip. So lets see this data of yours. I' have a funny feeling it doesnt' say what you say it says. If it exists at all.

That is BLATANTLY not true. This IS an area i'm expert in and the vast majority of stratas are NOT able to provide everyone with a stage 2 charger on their grid. The power systems cannot handle it. People occasionally put one in without telling anyone but once the policy has been set by council they may be forced to rip them out and may face heavy fines. If your townhouse allows it now they will have a serious problem when a decent percent of owners have ev's. Most stratas don't allow ev chargers unless there's a power plan in place (costs a couple of grand) and even then many don't for now. You can stretch it out a little by doing a proper electrical assessment and implementing load balancing systems across the strata/condo but as it stands very few places will be able to offer everyone chargers without massive upgrades to not only the buildings but the local grid. Even WITHOUT ev's most provinces are short on power. BC - with its massive hydroelectricity and having just completed the site c dam, is expected to be short of power in 5 years as is. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/bc-hydro-set-to-start-first-hunt-in-15-years-for-new-electricity-sources-1.6443116 and even if there WERE enough power the local grids can't handle the load. So no - what you said about everybody being able to get a charger is NOT true, it's not true now and it certainly won't be true in the near future. SOME might - but not all and i doubt even most. People who own their own homes can but even then there's goign to be power problems if more and more people do it.

Which turns them into political animals. The whole point of an independent judiciary is that they are SUPPOSED to follow the law and not try to 'correct' politicians they disagree with or 'please' politicians they do - or pursue personal agendas. I would agree. And i think that we should be intolerant of corruption and such that we see there (in contrast to simply bad policy). But in any case - if the judiciary becomes a 'third house of parliament' then our system falls apart. They need to start to do their jobs. With great power comes great responsibility

So you're suggesting we should pass a law saying all clandestine meetings to plan illegal activities should be open to the public? I see a few problems enforcing that.

And? If more people had been killed in vietnam you'd be ok with things then? If twice as many died in vietnam and we were only hitting those numbers once every four years with the current death rates you'd be ok? What's an acceptable vietnam death-to-"gun" death for you? It's an old appeal to emotion trick to try to relate two unrelated things. It's like saying "There were more murders than gay marriages last year - so we should have gay marriage control to do something about the problems." It makes NO sense. It's meaningless and trite comments like that which cheapen the deaths and prevent sensible conversation.

Nope. The option is largely off the table. Funny story about that.... Back even till the end of the 60's women's incomes were not allowed to be used to calculate bank mortgages and lines of credit for buying a home etc. It was assumed that even if they were working now, they would soon get married and have babies and their income would end. Women of course felt this was unfair - it was corrected after much lobbying and quickly women's incomes were treated just like men's. The unintended effect was that couples could now buy nicer homes. And not surprisingly housing prices went up. and up and up. Cost of living and inflation went up. And up. Over time we've arrived at a point where now it REQUIRES two incomes just to get by for most people. Families struggle to be able to afford the time off necessary for ONE child. Two is a luxury. Most people can't afford to have the wife stay home and not work to be pregnant and raise kids. So no. It's that the option is now off the table. People really can't choose to have 3 or 4 kids - many really can't afford even 1.

Of course she did. Her campaign and the dems paid for the steel dossier which formed the basis for the investigation in the first place ,and that's just the start. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html Sorry kiddo - you're wrong again But hey - at least you're consistent!

That shows gun deaths - not deaths. If your argument is that more guns mean more deaths, then the overall death rate should be twice as high in the us as a place with half the guns. Or at least close. In fact - the avilability of guns has no bearing on that. ANd that's what mauser's paper proved. And those who disagree with it really don't disagree with the facts he uncovered, they are like our friend beaver up there who simply attack the source. "BUT IT WASN'T PEER REVIEWED!" . Sure - that particular paper wasn't, he has others that are, i pointed out there's a library of his works but sure - that one isn't. SO - what facts do you disagree with ? (Silence). There's been a lot of research on this in and out of the usa itself. Many of the states like vermont where you can still wear a sidearm openly as well as concealed carry have much lower death rates AND gun death rates than places with lots of gun restrictions like new york. Gun laws mostly prevent accidents. They're decent at that. Screening to prevent known criminals from getting easy access to guns helps as well. So bsckground checks. Pretty much everything else is largely useless. Gun bans, types of guns mag caps - really makes no difference. But that's all that gets talked about. It's my belief that so-called "Red flag" laws would also help if done right but they'd be useful for more than just guns.

LOL - i undersatnd it better than you ANd your opinion IS useless without PROOF!!! ROFMAO - thanks for proving me right LOL wow you screwed that one up They are instructed to turn them in the day they leave office. Thats WHY he was in such a tizzy to turn them back in the moment they were discovered. Sure - but anything outside the indictment is meaningless. You can't convict on it. Two things can be true at the same time - Trump can be guilty of a crime, and Trump could defeat the charges and the DOJ could fail to prove he was guilty. There's no significant doubt in my mind he broke laws. But that doesn't mean he's going to get convicted of it. There's no doubt in my mind hillary broke the laws just as badly and she skated .

I What you agree on is irrelevant. As the saying goes "its' not enough to be pure, one must be SEEN to be pure". You yourself claimed they behave as 'activists' - and that's notably true. And that creates the problem right there. If they are not seen as behaving impartially then they become tools for politicians. As we've seen in the states. That changes nothing in this regard. Their job doesn't change either way. See this ten foot poll? Yeah - i won't be touching it Well there wouldn't be a lobbyist involved. Just a few drinks with a staffer and a quiet understanding that if they get posted they'll "See" things the way the party wants them to. That's "activism" in the judiciary.

And as usual the left has to lie to try to make it's point In fact the RCMP's response note there was evidence, but not enough to go to trial AND that it was heavily blocked by parliamentary privilege. Not quite the same as 'no evidence'.

No, YOU are wrong.. In FIRST world countries leaders are exempt. In THIRD world countries - one party's leaders are exempt and one party puts its political opponents in jail Which is what The US has on the go right now

Immigrants can't vote Groot, at least not till they became citizens IF they ever did. He would have been long gone before it could possibly have had any effect. And while immigrants themselves in those days didn't' add much to the economy (that changed in 2006) their influx did, creating housing and other activity that made a significant difference. We really didn't. It was arguably one of the best times in history for successful integration, with the addition of the flag based systems and expansion of mentorships from 2006 on we were comfortably a world leader in successful immigration. Well we're in agreement there, and i think we can agree that the priority questions would be what is the number of highly integration-friendly who are skill-targeted for our economic needs and have a high chance of success are appropriate to stimulate economic growth. Not "how many refugees can we cram into a plane" Not surprisingly the number one overwhelming factor in success is strong language skills in english or french, Immigrants who have excellent engilsh or french integrate much better, are more financially successful and stable, and their kids do better.

Nuh uh - not since you sold us to the Americans!

Meh - you know what the left is like Trump being investigated - most important event in human history. Trudeau being investigated - why are you getting worked up over some little investigation or something? After this much time they probably just haven't closed the file but i doubt they're actively investigating any more. Its pretty hard to prove even tho we all know he did.

I'm half irish - we're all about domestic servitude

But he's not lying about there being a double standard and everyone is going to see that. That part is true. If you're finding being dishonest like that is tiring , just stop The facts were not substantially different in the end, other than she wasn't president and didn't even have that excuse. She committed a crime. That is a simple truth even the FBI noted . They claimed they coudn't prosecute because they coudln't prove she intended to commit a crime. But - we all know that's a lie. So - lets just stop pretending there's any real difference. Because it's wrong. You don't put your political opponents in jail. But - biden just threw that out the window. Watch what happens now. If you thought things were partisan before - we'll see more and more political appointments in law and courst and they will be used to attack political opponents. Was that really a good idea?

Having twice as many guns as any other country on the planet isn't the problem. If it was then there'd be half as many killings in countries with half as many guns - and we know that's not the case. Which is what you and the beve are in denial about. Look at him dance in that post - Trying to claim a well respected researcher and professor who's spent almost two decades researching something and who has spoken at the UN about the issue is not qualified to talk about it - AND attempting to discredit the one article i posted (despite me pointing to his other peer reviewed work) ..; without once making ANY kind of argument that the guy is wrong. ALl of which is what he promised not to do earlier - "oh as long as it's not some right wing magazine.. " Sure. And as long as people like him and you pretend that's the problem - this continues. Sorry.

Being activist is NOT their job. And it is NOT their job to decide when the politicians are doing things right. The MOMENT they become activist they lose their moral standing and people lose faith - and they start to become a political tool and not a force for law and order in society. ANd whats to stop conservatives from deciding they should start appointing their OWN activists? Harper came up wiht a very well received plan to depoliticize the whole thing - with a committee of citizens politicians judges and police all involved in choosing new supreme court justices. Very non partisan. Justin threw that away day one and just appointed judges he likes So - is the judiciary going to be an 'activist' center now? Should conservatives make sure that ONLY hard right conservative lawyers and judges get appointed to the courts or supreme courts? Be just like america " I'll appoint you provided you promise to rule the way i like if it ever comes up"?

And if he follows through and stops the behavior then that will have meaning. But hes' expressed regret before. Then a month later he does it again. And not just to me. So - expressing regret is great. But it has no meaning unless backed up by actions.

And it will continue as long as liars and apologists like beaver and "others" keep it up. Its that simple.

No, whataboutism is something different. Whataboutism is when you take one bad act and excuse it by pointing to another completely unrelated bad act. As in - "that republican stole public money!" Followed by "So? THAT Democrat slept with an underage girl! Whatabout that?!!?!" That is whataboutism. When you're comparing two of the same things its' not whataboutism, its precedent. "They shouldn't prosecute trump" "You're right, they didn't prosecute hillary for the same crime". That's precedent or direct comparison. I notice these days that there is a tendency on the left to conflate the two - they are VERY different. It is ENTIRELY appropriate to look at how similar cases were handled in the past. Yeah - he was convinced he was wrong to do so. Turns out he should have. You KNOW you're doing something wrong when you go ahead and do something even trump realized was morally wrong LOLOL I have read it carefully AND i know it better than you do, just based on a few of your comments. But two things can be true at the same time. it can be true that trump violated the law, AND it can ALSO be true that it's a massive and dangerous double standard to charge him when your own people did the same thing not long ago but benefitted from the 'no charge political opponent' rule. Had obama prosecuted hillary then fine. Trump is fair game. Had Trump done it - totally fine. He's fair game. But everyone in the free universe can see the double standard here and you can't make that 'right'. What the dems are doing is banana republic stuff. For their own - anything goes. For their opponents - the law. That's not ok. This is true.