CdnFox

I have the funny feeling that we're about to agree on a subject for a change ....

sure. Tell your imaginary friend i said thanks

You turning every thread into a religious one?

That's a helluva thing to say this close to Easter

Everyone in the universe does except you And now i'm god! - wow, i knew you keep saying i'm perfect but i didn't realize you thought i was THAT far above you I'm not really god tho. I just seem that way to you, for the same reason a human would seem like 'god' to a dung beetle.

Well crazy people would think so Hardly. what i said is democrats would not be satisfied with anything less, and i noted that they refuse to say where they'll stop, as do you, and that we have examples to show that. So i have evidence to back my thinking up. You have zero and admit as much. Might as well keep them handy - the democrats won't allow anything else. Can't negotiate with crazy people. Nope. You've shown quite nicely that you're as loopy as the rest of the left, insisting all gun owners are happy to see their kids die because they love their guns so much and admitting you absolutely are sure about something you have no evidence for. No sense trying to talk to crazy people. It would seem that you prefer to watch killings happen rather than give up your 'virtue signalling' fun.

ROFLMAO - holy shit kid - you can google better than that ! So - pretty easy to prove you wrong then. The heisenberg uncertainty principle simply says you can't know ALL the information about a particle before measurement at the same time. It has absolutely nothing to do with knowing things 100 percent - in fact you CAN know any ONE measurement with precision 100 percent. Just not all of them. And that ceases to be true once measurement is taken and the waveform collapses. Thanks for confirming you're an uneducated !diot Just did - easiest thing in the world It's like listening to a child explain how santa is real I"m just smiling and nodding at you Btw - i'm going to be bugging you about being the guy who thinks the Uncertainty Principle actually means we can't be sure about anything ROFLMAO!!

Sure - Of course i can't prove a negative so explain your position as to why you think the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means there's no such thing as certainty and i'll point out why you're wrong THis aught to be good for a laugh (Fetches popcorn)

That sounds like the kind of lie a delusional leftie would tell himself in order to cover the fact that his position is not based on fact or reason. Well done - sounds like you're in true form today

I don't think strategic voting will. It will come down to two things if anything - what happens to the libs in quebec and how many seats in the 905 they can pick up. Momentum plays a HUGE role in most election campaigns, Theres three points where momentum can be gained or lost in the average campaign. I suspect PP knows this well, and if he can make that work for him a majority would likely be well achievable. Of course - still 2 years out so anything can happen.

ROFLMAO - Oh god, it so doesn't You saw the word 'uncertanty' and somehow thought that meant that there's no certainty in phyisics? LOL holy shit are you dumb kid

Yes - you're delusional. You can't articulate any logical reason for it, nor do you have any evidence so you just arrive at that conclusion because you like it. There's nothing nonsensical about my position in the slightest. Any agreement on any gun control laws will immediately lead to more demands for new gun control laws and this will continue. We've seen this before. You however believe that something you cannot articulate nor have proof for is true because normal human beings prefer to see their children die. Like i've said - no point having a conversation about it with lunatics.

I've never said that except possibly about a very specific thing i've never suggested that i'm always 100 percent correct. It just FEELS that way to you because you're always 100 percent wrong LOL And no - a physicist wouldn't think that at all But we already established you don't know anything about physics either ROFLMAO - are you trying to suggest that the uncertainty principle means nothing can be 100 percent correct? LOL that is officially the dumbest thing i've heard in months That's what happens when you try to educate yoruself in 5 minutes with google You don't understand any of this at all do you

If you're "sure" and think you "do know" without any evidence facts or reason.. that's not a sign that you're "sure". It's a sign you're delusional. Of course it is. which is why you can't say where they'd stop. Nope. There's nothing "generous' about delusions and hatred. And the people holding up rational discussions about how to deal with violence are people like you. Sure. But there's nothing sane about the democrats OR any of their gun control ideas. I've always maintained that there's things that would make the situation better at least a little bit but the dems make that discussion impossible. No, you're delusional and hate filled. It's actually people like you, as has been proven all along. The statement i made is factual and accurate. It's not possible to have rational discussions with lunatics like yourself who are not only hoplophobes but also detest gun owners as well. You make rational conversation impossible. And your counter is "well if you won't sit down with crazy people who hate you then YOU'RE the problem!!!!" Yeah. thanks for proving the point.

Yeah - i think those are the voices in your head talking again I've never once suggested i'm perfect or anything close to it. But - i get it. It's natural for someone like you who loses debates so often and is made to look foolish to think to themselves that the other person must be perfect. So you think 'I' believe that as well. Look kid - Just because i'm smarter than you, more successful, more popular, better educated, and wittier than you doesn't make me perfect, and i don't pretend otherwise Emojis are cartoon characters now? I'm not going to have to explain the difference am i? You're wearing down my crayons as it is LOL Yeah - your english skills always deteriorate when you get angry Calm down, you'll blow a blood vessel. Use your words. I understand it's upsetting to you when you try so hard to get the better of someone else and wind up looking ... well.. not too bright. But - remember, even tho you've failed you can always try again. In fact i kind of prefer it, you're hilarious

Why not? Do they hate their children too? Ahhh - so the democrats ALSO don't care about other people. Well thanks for proving that you can't have a sane discussion about it . This is why gun owners will never sit down with hate filled bigots and crazy people,

Ummmm.... so turns out you were lying i guess. A conservative website, not the republicans. the story even contradicts itself - no surprise for the post - starting off by noting that the website is not a republican website, and in fact is only partially funded by someone who SUPPORTS the republicans but is NOT a republican himself. He does not represent the party. And - they didn't create the steele dossier, they just hired the company that would later produce it at the request of the dems. Soooo - not funded by republicans, and not the steele dossier. Soooo - no, the republcians did not pay for the steele dossier nor did anyone other than the dems. Someone hired them to do background research on presidental candidates (not just trump) but not to produce a fake dossier to release to the public Pretty much all candidates get their backgrounds checked by their party. That's a normal thing, It is NOT normal to create a FAKE set of allegations with the help of foreign nationals and send it to the FBI. Wow. Way off base there weren't you. If you have to lie to make a point you probably don't have a very good point.

No, a typo doesn't make people a liar ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!! Also - your sentance structure is wrong. It should be: you fail to realize that when you make mistakes so consistently while insisting you're 100% correct it makes you a liar. Liar. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!1 Also - you know we know you're emotionally broken when you break out the cartoon characters right?

yeah - that's more about what words mean then how they're spelled I'd rather use a word correctly and misspell it than spell it correctly and misuse it Food for thought when you have a minute to yourself. Oh - it gets worse. I write a lot of minutes for a lot of meetings and i frequently type the word so i've REALLY got no excuse Occasionally the dyslexia kicks in But - hey, i'm just happy we finally found something you could be right about LOL!! Nobody said anybody DID say that. I just pointed out that it's a legitimate thing and it's purpose is for when you don't agree with any of the choices. (or if you feel you're not qualified to make a decision - it does have that purpose as well). Nope. If you vote for someone or their party - you vote FOR them. That's literally built into our language - "who did you vote FOR", not who did you vote against. When you voted for trudeau - you endorsed his mandate and his policies and accepted his track record. That doesn't always mean you agree with EVERYTHNG but it DOES mean you agree more than you disagree and you are prepared to accept him. That's all it means. You voted in favor of corruption, bribery, interfering with the justice system, handing out single sourced contracts to his buddies, as well as policies such as censorship and debt levels that will cripple at LEAST the next generation. That's what you voted for. Oh lets not kid ourselves - you're FAR from qualified to be able to say if something is thoughtful or well informed

Meh. I dont' see that catching on

This seems an odd place to bring that up - what would you change or reinterpret?

Interesting fact - only the DNC and hillary's campaign was directly have been found to have hired Steele and they got in major crap and paid big dough for hiding the funding. Sorry but the story is bullshit. The money has been long since traced. Steele was commissioned by the dems. And ONLY the dems tried to peddle it as a legit document and tried to use it as an excuse to get an fbi investigation going. Please. Do better than that with your trolling. That was extemely low effort.

ROFLMAO - oh look - you learned a new word to not use properly Ok. Well fair enough, if you say you don't support restricting ownership without cause and you don't support banning or restricting any firearms then i'll take you at your word for now. But your friends sure do.

Sure. Everyone in the movement disavows them and turns them over to the police. Point out that they are complete scumbags who don't represent your views publically and if they show up at any events throw them out or record their activities and turn them over to the cops. Let it be known that no such "Fringe" will be tolerated. There. Took me 5 seconds. If you put 1/100th of the energy you do into defending them into turfing them they'd be gone. BLM embraces the violence - just like you do. MLK did not. He spoke against it, he tossed people who were violent - show me a single instance where he excused the violence and tolerated it. He was accused early on in his career as using 'violent rhertoric' but he completely changed that - and while the FBI and Kennedy (not "people like me" - pretty sure Kennedy was a dem) still wanted to brand him (quoting here ) "public negro number one" the fact is there were no further violent protests This is part of what King had to say about violence “Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. In a real sense nonviolence seeks to redeem the spiritual and moral lag that I spoke of earlier as the chief dilemma of modern man. It seeks to secure moral ends through moral means. Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. I believe in this method because I think it is the only way to reestablish a broken community. It is the method which seeks to implement the just law by appealing to the conscience of the great decent majority who through blindness, fear, pride, and irrationality have allowed their consciences to sleep. Doesn't leave much room for doubt. Here's what AOC had to say when SHE was asked by a reporter about violent protest making people feel unsafe: “The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes…To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable…that’s the point.” She also said, “The thing that critics of activists don’t get is that they tried playing the “polite language” policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore. It wasn’t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn’t their full demands.” So. Bit of a different take. AOC says violence is the point. MLK refused to accept it and kicked them out of his org. Swing and a miss kiddo Exactly the same as antifa. And BLM seeing as you brought it up. Trump did NOTHING that Antifa hasn't done and then some. You mean like Kamala Harris? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kamala-harris-pushed-bail-fund-that-helped-murder-and-rape-suspects-get-out-of-jail-while-awaiting-trial You promote and encourage it by supporting an org that accepts it In fact those were your words - you ACCEPT there's going to be a violent element. So you DO defend it. Sorry. You are by choice part of a terrorist movement that willfully and knowingly accepts violence.

Pierre Pollivre is still slowly but surely climbing in the polls and seat counts. They would now be in a position to maintain gov't without the lib and ndp support provided they had the bloc on board. the slow steady build up of PP and the slow steady demise of Justin should be very very concerning for the libs. This kind of thing tends to have more staying power. By the beginning of next year PP could be close to threatening a majority. And campaigns do matter and he's likely to enter the next election with momentum. https://338canada.com/