CdnFox

Well the other thing that kind of pisses me off is when the "Fact checkers" don't check facts - they editorialize. For example they'll say something that is 100 percent true is "partially true" because it "needs context". Lets say AOC were to claim that we have to shut down all airlines. (which she did - but seperate story). And someone on the right said "You know - AOC says we have to shut down all airlines". Which is a true statement. The factcheckers will often say it's only PARTLY true or even NOT true because "Yes she did absolutely say that but you have to understand what she REALLY meant in the context she's talking in is.... " ANd then go on to editorialize without actually providing proof. So they're not even actually fact checking if it's true. It can be true and they'll still give it a partial or

What makes you think i would? The quote i was responding to addressed the issue, i responded to that. You don't pay attention much do you. You mean like calling the guy who couldn't figure out what i was responding to despite my quoting it in my response a bit stupid? Yeah that'd be crazy. And the reason they gave is that some groups of people should be protected. Not all - but some. Sooooo .... maybe it is about racism and prejudice after all? ok - cool story

Don't be stupid . You can't kill someone with a squirt gun. No need for a shovel.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-liberals-attack-parliamentary-budget-officer-for-telling-truth Every time Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux points out there are costs to Canadians because of the Trudeau government’s climate action plan, Federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, among other Liberals, blows a gasket. Giroux’s main conclusion is that the CFR is regressive because the costs faced by lower-income families represent a larger percentage of their disposable income than higher-income households. That’s what Guilbeault’s ministry said last year in its analysis of the CFR: “Low-income households may be disproportionately affected by the Regulations as they may incur higher transportation costs relative to their income. Moreover, low-income households tend to have a lower ability to absorb higher fuel costs compared to high-income households.” Guilbeault criticized Giroux for failing “to recognize the cost of climate change to Canadians, like extreme weather.” Except there won’t be savings to Canadians from milder weather by lowering Canada’s emissions —and certainly not by 2030 — because, as Giroux noted, “Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change and therefore their reduction would not materially affect the Canadian economy … Canada’s primary means of limiting the economic costs of climate change are through participation in a globally coordinated emissions reduction regime.” To recap: This is hard on the poor. This will lower our GDP and economy There will be no 'climate benefit because we don't pollute enough to make a difference. Why the HELL are we doing this?

Boy - that isn't weighing on your mind at all is it LOL You're going to bring that up in a thread i'm not even part of that's a year old And what you said wasn't the shamefull part - the shamefull part was that after it was pointed out you went back and deleted it and then tried to claim you never did Everyone knows your a liar kiddo But if i'm being honest - they knew that before that incident looking at some of the comments Glad to see the guilt is still keeping you up at nights tho - ROFLMAO!!!

Wanna bet? (sorry. Coudn't help it. )

Rather than the smoking and non smoking as originally proposed by freud. THat just leads to intolerance. I was going to ask for clarification .... i have decided it's in the best interests of my mental health not to.

Can you tho? So far we're seeing that's 50 percent true. Stop being a sealion. The days of left wing losers demanding cite after cite over common knowledge are long over. Post your own or admit you're just a troll. It's pathetic. Learn to do your own research or go back to kindergarten.

No, not really. Discrimination is discrimination. The idea that there's "good" prejudice and racism and "bad" prejudice and racism is about the same as thinking there's good or bad types of slavery. And history has been pretty clear that using racism to fight racism is not effective. Are we a less racist society today since the start of the culture wars ? The stats are that since we started to fight racism with racism that racist violence and incidents are on the rise. Significantly. People either have equal rights or they don't. If they don't, we've seen historically what that leads to. And if people don't have equal rights what was the problem with slavery in the first place again?

Well then shut up and quit being intentionally obtuse. You're such a dishonest poster. And yet you're going to tell others to take 15 seconds to google things.

It is entirely common knowlege, frequently commented on, has been the subject of congressional hearings, it's kind of a big deal. So it seems a little unlikely you haven't heard this issue being raised. Ohhhhh the irony

https://torontosun.com/news/national/newspaper-calls-trudeau-a-buffoon-after-lecturing-italian-pm#:~:text=Italian media was quick to,wants to teach us lessons.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a self-described feminist, is being slammed for his “repugnant” behaviour after trying to “mansplain” democracy to Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni. Meloni seemed none too pleased Friday at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, when Trudeau told her before private, bilateral talks that “Canada is concerned about some of the positions Italy is taking in terms of LGBT rights.” He added that he was looking forward to speaking to her more about the issue and “other democratic principles that the world needs.” Italian media was quick to condemn Trudeau’s latest misstep on the world stage with the Milan-based Libero newspaper splashing a picture of the Grit prime minister on its front page in blackface with the headline, translated from Italian, saying, “This buffoon wants to teach us lessons.” Sigh - the liberals making us look good on the world stage yet again.

You can't fight racism and discrimination with more racism and discrimination. It doesn't work and it just makes things worse. The phrase 'fight fire with fire" is stupid. Professionals fight fire with water.

Well... THAT escalated quickly! ‘Come get me:’ Moe reacts to federal minister comments on ‘illegal’ power generation https://www.ckom.com/2023/05/19/come-get-me-moe-responds-to-federal-minister-comments-on-illegal-power-generation/

Obviously Well it's kind of interesting - the CPC really didn't set targets so they didn't miss any - but the libs frequently set targets and deliberately miss them and they're getting flack for it - so now more and more i've seen they're moving away from 'set targets' and moving towards promoting an activity without stetting targets. Like making all cars electric by 2030 or whatever. Or severely limiting fertilizer without any attached reductions that it'll achieve - or even the carbon tax which doesn't promise any specific reduction.

Nope - it's simple truth. You just think truth looks like a pretzel because your mind doesn't use it much. No, he may just have wanted hillary to lose. There's a difference. And that was the poster's point - he doesn't have to like trump at all. He may even not want trump as president. If he hates hillary more tho - that's enough. Hopefully you understand the difference and what it would mean. If not - i'll get some crayons out for you and go over it again. Frankly i think he just wanted to create instability in the us. And that actually worked out very well.

THeRe iS NO NEED to BeLieEVe ^^^^^THIS OPINION wiThOuT ProOF!!!!! And we're talking about motive. HIs point was the russians could easily have done what they were caught doing just because they hated hillary. And you pointed out they hated hillary. So there's no reason to believe trump had anything to do with anything - they may have just wanted to get rid of her. THeRe iS NO NEED to BeLieEVe ^^^^^THIS OPINION wiThOuT ProOF!!!!! There is nothing in that interview that says he cared much either way. Having a preference dosen't mean he cared about it And PROVE he didn't say it just to get the americans worked up! Again - THeRe iS NO NEED to BeLieEVe YoUr OPINION wiThOuT ProOF!!!!!

Against whom? If russia and the US were allies we woudln't have anyone to be the bad guy. Even china needed russian tech for their military.' I mean - virtually every significant conflict since ww2 would have never had happened without russian involvement. No vietnam, no korea, no gulf wars... think about the damage to the movie and TV industries alone! No MASH? No Rambo movies? Do we even want to LIVE in that kind of world?

You should start reading your own posts. (although i can understand why you wouldn't, they suck) Of course they can. Well first off you'll be in jail but second off yeah - you can. Yeah, you can. Thanks for reminding us who the dumbest person on the board is - we appreciate you volunteering.

THeRe iS NO NEED to BeLieEVe ^^^^^THIS OPINION wiThOuT ProOF!!!!! Or more likely you're just making crap up. I doubt he cared overly much either way. I think he cared about the us being a little destabilized. And guess what, - the russians did NOT affect the election , but they did do a lot to destabilize the us. It makes no sense that a powerful nation would fail to do something it set out to do - so if their big plan was to affect the election why didn't they? But - if their plan was to just create strife and discord.... that has been HIGHLY successful. They managed to get the FBI Chasing it's tail for half a decade and turn americans into snarling animals over who colluded with whom all while they sit back and laugh. The fake info they gave in the steele dossier? Then turning around and saying they liked trump? And all the other shenannigans? For a minimal effort they screwed with the us big time And weak minded !diots like yourself eat it up like candy

Ummmm ... you kind of proved his point.

Ahh - i see, you mean what would the feds do to saskatchewan as punishment. I thought you meant what would they do about climate change. They would have the power to shut down the plants i suppose but that would leave many without power - i doubt other canadians would be ok with that and the gov't would risk losing a lot of support. So i suspect they'd give them an "extension".

Well that sounds like the kind of thing the devil would say to lull you into a false sense of security. But the devil could CONVINCE you that you're following jesus when you're not. The devil would have no problem tricking people into thinking tehy had power. That doesn't mean the devil can't convince you to do his work in teh meantime without you even knowing. See above That is PRECISELY what the devil would convince you of if he wanted you to be out there making people hate religion. And it makes no sense if you think about it - if people either inherently hate or like religion nobody would need to spread it -the faithful would already be coming to you. I'm sure the devil feels exactly the same way. SO the question is - why do you do the devil's work for him?

it's a common (and somehwhat baffling) leftie belief. Athough authoritarians in general share it to some degree but the left really buys in. They are convinced that if only one side is allowed to talk and the other side is completely repressed then the ideas of the other side will go away and nobody will think them ever again. History has proven this wrong about a billion times now but - they keep trying.

I'm sure the russians who messed with the election did so with the knowledge and blessing of the gov't. It is FAR from the first country they've messed with. Point of interest - there's been pretty strong evidence the us has messed with a few over time as well I mean - if for no other reason than just to keep in practice and see the results it's worth it. Even if it doesn't shift the election watching how it disrupts people or affects the narrative can provide critical information for down the road. Get some polling done, do a little interfering in specific areas, check again and see if there's any movement. The russians don't have any elections. That means they don't have much natural data to draw on for how the actual dynamics of one works, and how public opinion can change and what kind of campaigns re most effective etc. If they want to understand it of course they're going to experiment a little, and destabilizing the enemy is always a good idea.