CdnFox

Well it would to someone who's delusional. And how did you know i was talking about you? Kind of sounds like you know you're doing the devils' work for him. Are you SURE you're a christian? You spend a of time here making people hate religion.

What's interesting is how delusional some people can be. And how stunningly full of pride. Wasn't that supposed to be a sin?

To be honest - i think they didn't care about either one of them one way or another. A lot of the time foreign gov'ts aren't trying to achieve a specific goal, like 'get so and so elected', a lot of the time they just want to cause disruption and stir trouble. It destabilizes their opponents and keeps them from interfering internationally. I think they just threw crap out there to get america wound up. I think the believed that the democrat voters thought Hillary was a cinch to win and making her look bad created turmoil. Remember - the experts all agreed that the russian efforts did not actually affect the outcome of the campaing. But - that was a VERY divisive campaign and when trump won the left lost it's collective mind entirely and the nation was plunged into chaos. America had next to no actual impact globally for the entire trump administration - he was the first president in forever not to start a war. So - if their goal was to throw an election they really suck. If their ACTUAL goal was just to cause domestic strife .... well i think we can say 'mission accomplished'

He is lowering the bar for him isn't he

Again - if it's one sided and there's repercussions then it's a form of control. If all the fact checkers only 'fact check' negatively to the right and not the left then that's an issue. It wouldn't be an issue on it's own but "fact checking" tends to have consequence. Stories are flagged or taken down. "Fact check" sources are taken as unbais authorities when in reality they are not giving people a false impression of the data. People and businesses social media accounts may be suspended. Or they may be branded as 'suspect' by an org. Look at how the cbc freaked out about being a 'gov't funded org'. Again -you sound like you're being willfully ignorant of something everyone knows.

Given the circumstances, it might be more appropriate for Dylan to self identify as an albatross.

Looks like Bud can't catch a break. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/19/business/hrc-rating-bud-light/index.html The left has no mercy. They can see Anheiser is taking massive multi billion dollar losses on this issue and they didn't exactly disavow the trans person, they could let things cool down. But instead they've got to be dinks and kick 'em when they're down. Maybe they think they're doing them a favor and by pretending the gays and trans are actually really pissed at them people will go back

Whether he does or doesn't the cbc will claim he does.

Fifty internet points for the ultra obscure red dwarf reference

Worst attempt at haiku ever. in any case if that were true that's what you would have done Instead, looks like i live rent free in your heads. Which is good because looking around sure as hell nobody'd pay to be in there....

You two have to keep trying to convince yourselves of that to make yourselves feel better

Oh noes!! Triggered Leftie wingbat is triggered!!! Nighty nite kiddo. Next time try a little honesty and decency instead of being a turd.

I think in real life that's the way you want to go. And i think most people think that way Not all by any stretch but most . On an internet forum tho i think you'll find it's a little like discussing sports

Try not to be any more deliberately obtuse than absolutely necessary.

The problem is that the 'counter speech' only applies to the left in this case. The right would still be guilty of defaming the person. And i'm sure the left loves that

ROFLMAO - It has been pointed out many times by more than one person that @Americana Antifa only posts memes when she knows she's got no argument and wants to put up something you can't really 'quote' and argue against It's a sign you've broken her emotionally on the subject Her other "tell" is that she will use popular leftist debate buzzwords like "Projection!!" "Deflection!" "GET BACK HERE WITH THOSE GOALPOSTS!!" , which are also signs she doesn't have a come back or argument, she just wants to blow off your criticism.

I would NEVER try to take away your coveted position Yeah i think so - but you do seem to be ok with doing just that. Again - you constantly 'creatively interpret' the evidence. if it's as clear as you claim - just point to the line that says they agree there was conspiracy or 'collusion' as the left called it for 4 years. Go on. The evidence is so obvious they must have said so clearly. Lets see that line. Or any time. Period. Not even enough for charges. And that's really the end of that. YOU on the other hand insist he's guilty and anyone who says otherwise is dishonest. There's no evidence kiddo. What YOU'VE 'spoon fed' is just pure pablum. You've indicated that a guy who works for trump talked to another guy he did business with for years and bragged about campaign strategy and polls. None of it classifed or in any way privileged information - all of it lawfully owned by trump, so he'd be the only one who would have had a right to complain. But you have utterly failed to show that there was any agreement between them to interfere with the election, or that the information was ever used for that purpose, or that it was even likely used - or even a single instance where you could say "there - they only did THAT because they had the information". None. Nothing, Zero Instead what you say is "ohhhh..welll... there's no evidence of course but he MUST have!!!" Nope. THat's not how it works. And no matter how you've come at it we still get to THAT point where there's a gap between your so called evidence and any kind of collusion or conspiracy or anything. YOU are the dishonest poster here. And you should be deeply ashamed.

I don't consider a chihuahua to be a big dog But you can keep yapping if it makes you feel better about yourself, i don't mind

You mean i can't cite a finding that says trump is guilty? Well - i can't cite something that doesn't exist. You were kind enough to post more than enough cites that show he's not guilty. They all noted the same things - no evidence of collusion or conspiracy, no illegal transfer of info or anything like that, no wrongdoing. They may not like that manafort shared the campaign strategy with a guy he did business with forever who would eventually tell the russians but they all agree it was his data and there's nothing wrong with sharing it. And zero charges were ever laid against anyone in connection with russian 'collusion' in any form in connection with trump and the campaign. This after YEARS of investigation by a huge team of FBI WHO WERE PREJUDICED AGAINST TRUMP AND WANTED TO FIND ANYTHING THEY COULD ON THE GUY. Highly motivated - still couldn't. Of course there are losers out there who claim "just because we found no evidence doesn't mean that somewhere there is evidence". It's the kind of bullshit losers say. Just because i haven't found evidence that Hodad isnt' a child rapist doesn't mean that he ISN'T one and the evidence is out there! ", Right? It's technically true - but if i were to go around calling you a child rapist that would be a very very wrong thing to do. You see how that works.

A ruling that creates prejudice and imbalance is never a step in the right direction. There are limits to free speech - defamation or slander is probably a reasonable one. You can't just say anything you like without any evidence about any person in order to try to cancel them, But it should be applied to everyone equally or its just discrimination no different than racism. IF however they decide it is ok - then it must be ok for everyone. For the same reason. Then at least a person who defames someone else knows they may face that in return. Why does this even need to be explained to you? what kind of person are you that this isn't pretty obvious?

No, you misunderstand it. I can see why you made that mistake tho. Defamation has always been unlawful and actionable for everyone. That really isn't considered to be free speech. The complaintant exercised his legitimate free speech. The accused defamed him and made accusations, which is in essence punishing his use of free speech and unlawfully harming him. It's not free speech in and of itself. The judge has ruled that because the accused was of a minority that it was OK for the accused to make accusations and defame the person unlawfully because such groups must be protected. So - person a from protected group says something - person b is not allowed to defame or slander them Person b from a non protected group says something - person a is ALLOWED to defame or slander them. Person a can exercise their free speech without worring about defamation Person b must be subject to defamation if he does. Do you see the free speech issue now?

Oh my god i directly mentioned a number - the RIGHT unike NON citizens to travel to and from any state which cannot be denied, the RIGHT not to be taxed differently in a state than the residents which does NOT extend to non citizens, the right to enter and leave the country which does NOT extend to non citizens etc etc etc. Well - you've proven yourself to be a dishonest little penis. I was kind enough to answer your question and all you do is make me repeat it again and again. Typical sealioning from the left. How pathetic. After your little performance? Block away retard. I'm not surprised in the sligthest that sticking your head in the sand is your reaction to people telling the truth about you. I dont' really care what you have to say to me, but i'll still be making fun of what you say so that others can read.

Sure kid. I believe you entirely

oh there was MUCH talk of that - liberals organizing on line claiming they were buying memberships to throw the vote towards a candidate they saw as 'better'. I have zero doubt that many did - but clearly they were the minority. Remember that the vast majority of people voting were first time members - not even renewals from the past but first time. So its not the 'party faithful' that decided that one

That was thought to be the case at one time, but nevermore.