CdnFox

Of course -he's hilarious I mean you're funny - but you're just kind of slow. He actually performs on command and he always knows to come when you call. it's like having your own pet monkey

Ooops = triggered leftie is triggered Sorry kid - it's pretty obvious it's a defense mechanism. You feel stupid - so you do something stupid to try to distract. IT's not like you can make a logical argument Says the guy who follows me around going "yup ok" 10 times in a row on demand ROFLMAO!!!! Yeah- sorry kid, i think you kind of blew any chance at the 'repetitive nonsense' argument with that But hey - it's always fun to watch the monkey's dance so you keep doing you

You literally posted like 30 of those things because i told you to before you wised up, with me laughing at you all the way I'd say the 'weird infatuation' isn't on my part Awww little banana. Still haven't learned to speak in complete sentences yet i see Another one who's too scared to actually discuss anything - just runs out, yaps at the bigger dogs and runs away Well there's the left for you.

Awww little guy - did you finally wake up and realize how stupid you look when you do that? Well i knew it woudln't last forever - for you it was work, for me it was just hilarious entertainment I mean you might as well post 'I've failed, please don't hurt me' every time you post that

No, it was not. Same thing as last time, you're making that up to justify a position you've decided you like The use of the term grooming when it comes to preparing people for some future role goes back to the 18oo's and the term grooming to mean preparing a child to be sexually exploited later goes back to at least 1985 and appears to be a direct evolution of the terms orginal use as in to 'groom a child' for adulthood. There's no marketing department invovled. It's long been known that sexual predators 'groom' kids for later exploitation and that parents groom kids for their roles in adult life and this is basically somewhere in between. The position of the disparaged of course No details. The term means the same thing regardless - reduce money to police. Regardless of how much you defund them, you're still defunding them. And? Your preferences aren't relevant. You can express them of course and the other person can take that into consideration if they wish. But - they are free and should be encouraged to use language they feel accurately and most completely encompasses their thoughts and intended meaning. Of course - language is kind of a crappy way ot communicate at the end of the day so sometimes things aren't always as perfect as we'd like But it's for them to mean what they say, not for you to define it.

Did ja WANT to create a whole batch of new trump supporters? Because that's how you create a whole batch of new trump supporters.

Marketing firms didn't come up with that term. The term 'internet influencer' has been around for ages and was a term that an 'influencer' came up with to describe youtubers who make a living doing commentary and videos about a very wide range of things So - you were wrong. Which suggests you're just making shit up as you go to try to defend a position you like rather than one you arrived at logically. It means take money away from the police. That requires almost no time to think - that's obvious. You don't even need the quiet. They're both descriptive. An influencer is someone who influences people. A groomer is someone who prepares someone for a future task or position. A groomer is just a task specific influencer at the end of the day. The problem is that the trans/gay positive community does not want to see their activiites as being anything like that because they fear backlash fro the public. it's that simple,

Well this is my concern. I feel like their goal isn't to solve a problem but rather to get noticed and feel relevant. Lots of children behave like this. They want attention so they act out and behave badly trying desperately to get the attention they want. @ExFlyer is like that, he trashes threads whenever he thinks i'm "winning" an argument with him because he can't cope and wants attention. He's doing it right now with two threads. So - the question becomes, are we really solving a problem or are we simply rewarding childish behavior - because if it turns out to be the latter then all we're doing is making it worse and encouraging MORE discord.

9 more I know that this is your only way of coping I intimidate the hell out of you and you can't argue against my points so this is how you deal with it. What's funny tho is that you've now trained yourself to do it on demand when i tell you you can't even help yourself. But i guess it sort of takes over the thread and you're obviously hoping it'll hide your previous stupidity from others.

Nine more And i still love that you do what you're told when i tell you to

It is almost the same thing. And it's important to realize that the term 'groomer' has been around for quite a while and is generally not a pejorative historically. We have talked for generations about the need to groom young men to grow up to be good citizens with good behavior and morals as seen by the society of the day. We talk about politicians being 'groomed' to be a presidential candidate or the like. This 'kerfuffle' began because grooming children is exactly what the more aggressive trans and gay activists wanted to do. BUT - they didn't want it to SEEM that way, they wanted to do it while denying that they had any such intent. So now they look on it as an accusation. How DAAAARREE you claim i'm trying to influence children?!?!?!!?! All i'm doing is changing how they think and their moral ideals! LOL Yeah -that's grooming. So it's really not about the term. Use what ever term you like you'll still run into the same problem. They want to influence kids and have them see gays as being a positive and even desirable thing to be and to embrace and support that culture - BUT they don't want anyone to think that's what they're doing for various reasons.

Yes, it can. Here's the problem those on the left never get - once you say 'racism is ok when we do it', then what people wind up thinking is 'racism is ok'. You can't just keep it to "the racism i like is ok your racism is bad". Either racism is ok or it isn't. So we're going to go through a period of racism again.

They didn't "Barely" win. They won and while it wasn't a landslide it was pretty strong. About 53 percent of the vote to 44 percent. Not exactly running away with it but not a squeaker. Here's the thing - that was about as good as it gets for the ndp. You had major scandals. You had an endless supply of embarrasing things said while Smith was a talk show host. You had wildfires. You had rulings convicting her of wrongdoing. You had tight polling going into it so hte ndp voters were motivated and believed they could win. You had discouraged UCP voters who probably stayed at home. And they still lost. We'll see if notley is still in charge when they go again but she's old and haggard and that was a horrible campaign. If Smith gets 4 years to actually work and there isn't an internal war or an oil crash (which doesn't look likely) then i think this is the 'peak' for the ndp for at least one election.

That is obviously true but the thing is he has to know that he's got to pull the ejection seat before the next election. If he goes into the next election with this coalition in tact he'll be wearing the liberal track record for the election and people will be asking 'why not just vote for the liberals directly instead of indirectly?" History shows that the minor partner in such agreements get mauled. So unless he's wiling to put his own party into the ground he's got to find an issue to go to the polls on before then, and what are the chances of a better one coming up? Besides - if he pressured the libs would cave and there would be an inquiry. He'd look to people like he really was independent of the libs and that would be valuable - but i think he really is in the pockets of the liberals.

Awww look at you, trying to pretend you're saying something without saying something If Jags actually DID push for an inquiry then the balance of power WOULD be doing something. Wouldn't it. So your comment is nonsensical to begin with. Jags should be standing behind his statements, he should be forcing an enquiry and doing the right thing for Canadians. Instead he's bowing down to the ilberals, his lord and master. The point is - he shouldn't. I know that as a liberal this might confuse you - but our democracy is not "nothing'. And some of us care about it. Liberals obviously don't but it's a little bit of a surprise to find the ndp doesn't either. I know - you're against spending canadian money on protecting elections when you feel we should be spending it on BUYING elections for the liberals. But - that's not how everyone feels.

Well the problem is that the courts and the human rights tribunals say it IS about rights so we're stuck with that now. It's where we're at and there's little we can do about that. Vote CPC - it will minimize but not eliminate this kind of nonsense. But that's about all you can do. Losing again. Oh so you ROFLMAO ROFLMAO - well at least when i do speak i actually can. When i whrn to. Sorrly little guy - didn't mean to scare you. Are you going to poop yourself 10 times for us again?

Thats nice that you disagree but we're not doing all of this for you. If it makes them feel like they're not real women then they won't accept it and that's the only reason this is happening. So your opinion doesn't matter. LOL - well, welcome to the world of being a conservative But like i said the Trans LIKE those fancy words and they are the only reason this is happening so if they don't like it your reasonable opinion means nothing. THat's why my question was 'if we spend all this cash and go through all this trouble, are we done? Have we made them happy?"

These aren't "new" rights - they're old rights that are interpreted and applied to things in a new way. Nobody added a new 'right' - the charter has said for more than 40 years now that people can't be discriminated against based on sex etc. It's just that it's now been 'discovered' or decided that this applies in this fashion to people who have this mental health issue. So while i appreciate the intent of your idea unfortunately it's not workable in the real world. That is the problem with our laws in a general sense - the law gets made twice. Once when the lawmaker makes it and once when the judges interpret it - and the law can wind up being VASTLY different than it originallyl was after the second one.

Oh noes!!! Someone's liberal buddies might get exposed! Can't have that. How childish. Inquiries regularly produce data that the house itself can't. That's why the liberals are so afraid of it. And much of that info can help the public decide if the gov't is doing the right thing or if they've been incompetent fools. So the 'sitting on a shelf' thing fools no one. But if that's how Jaggers thinks, and he doesn't believe an inquiry would be valuable - why'd he call for one? Why'd he say johnston should step down? Nah - the poor fools who voted ndp thinking it was a different party from the liberals were unfortunately sadly mistaken. I guess neither the liberals OR the ndp care too much for the democratic process.

Unfortunately that isn't an option at a lot of locations (there just isnt' the room) and on top of that the Trans say it makes them feel segregated because they're women just like other women so why are they forced to use a different bathroom than women. It would have been a reasonable solution in many places but the Trans people feel it's just another form of excluding them.

You always shoot first - you just miss a lot. Then when you wind up looking stupid you pout and try to ruin the thread posting like a child again and again. Its kind of your thing. ? Apparently you don't - you're happy to buy them bathrooms Or, sorry, maybe it was that you did have a problem and you just wanted boys to learn to publicly in front of girls? So Trans people shouldn't have to use boy's washrooms - EVERYONE should. Because Europe. Your ramblings are so garbled it's hard to say.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9742306/ndp-singh-election-foreign-interference-johnston/ NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is defending his party’s decision not to include binding orders in its foreign interference motion, which called for David Johnston to step down as special rapporteur, and says an election does not “make sense” if the goal is protecting Canada’s democracy. Singh told The West Block’s Mercedes Stephenson in an interview that aired Sunday that he wants to get a better understanding of the full extent of allegations of foreign interference. Well if anyone needed any proof that Jagger's is nothing more than Justin's House boy, there you go. He has stated that a public enquiry is necessary, that Johnston isn't acceptable, and that our democracy is on the line..... but won't force the gov't to do anything about it. The ndp is now officially just a chapter house of the Liberals.

that seems HIGHLY unlikely. Of course it is. That's the only reason we're doing this. 99.99 percent of the population is fine with boys showering/going to the washroom with boys and girls with girls. A teeny tiny percent of the population really wants boys to go pee with girls and vice versa. And we're doing this to accommodate their wants. And once again - typical leftie, you failed to address the issue You obviously know i'm right and you're wrong. If you thought you were right you'd be able to make an argument. But ya can't.

It's the modern day equivalent of mass religious fervor.

when socialists lie it's fact. When conservatives tell the truth it's a lie. Yeah. We know how it works with you socialists.