CdnFox

Well then you haven't had much luck with this whole 'thinking' thing have you.

About what you said. You claimed you never said the very things i just posted you saying Everyone can see it kiddo. It's right there. So now that i've PROVEN you're a liar ... what were you saying before about liberals and ethics? Are you now claiming you didn't KNOW it was unethical to lie? Is that why you get angry every time someone points out the libs are liars... because you feel that should be socially accepted ? You lied - i posted the proof, now everyone can see

https://www.thefp.com/p/justice-is-no-longer-blind-in-canada Equality under the law is the cornerstone of liberal democracy. But judges across the country are now factoring race into sentencing. I obtained Smith’s IRCA from Smith himself. Oddly, the four-page report cites no concrete instances of racism—no violence, no untoward remarks, no employers or schools that turned Smith down because of his skin color. Not even any microaggressions. It also fails to mention that, in a separate incident in January 2018, Smith was arrested and charged with theft, robbery, and kidnapping. What it does say is that Smith had a rough childhood and adolescence—the refugee camp in Ghana, his father’s absence, immigrating to Canada, his early run-ins with the law. It further notes that “Edward identifies as an African Canadian” who is of “Liberian heritage,” and that he has “a feeling of disconnection with his culture.” The judge apparently sympathized with Smith. In February 2020, after six months in prison, he was allowed to go free with court-appointed supervision. If he’d been white, he would have been looking at eight years behind bars. “I didn’t face racism,” Smith admitted to me in a recent phone call. He’s now a sales representative at a debt-collection company. Referring to the IRCA, Smith said, “It was my only way out of this situation. I took full advantage.” TL:DR : People who are a visible minority can get vastly reduced sentences without ever having to prove that they were discriminated against or suffered And it's leaving victims of crime horrified and feeling like they got no justice. And the instances of crime are going up. I get that people's background should be a factor when considering their sentancing. But does this go way too far? Nobody cares that a white kid was abused when they're sentencing him. I feel like this could lead to a bad end.

Nope. Only hard core left wing liberal supporters see her like that. She blew the free trade deal with the us, she blew a bunch of other trade deals - and while she was able to hang SOME of that on justin, her budgets have been horrible and largely frowned on. She should never have taken the job as finance minister. Justin's policies force her to make horrible budgets that no one is impressed with. And her Disney plus comments ruined her in the eyes of the 'average person'. that was pretty much the end of her chances at pm. And she's a terrible speaker. And like i say - even the democracy-hating liberals will have to have a leadership race, and she'd be up against people who really can talk in public. I mean freeland would be an automatic win for PP and probably a majority, so i wish it were true, but it's just not going to happen.

Yeah thats pretty much the same as selling the country's democracy to the chinese and passing totalitarian censorship laws.

Well that's true

Easiest thing in the world kiddo. Here's your exchange with me: Where you claim i made assumptions about who you voted for and your morality ( all i'd said to that point is LIBERALS ) And here's where you did it with him. And my reply: So there you go. You're a liar. Plain and simple. I'm sure you'll now attempt some species of justification = "oh well it's not REALLY lying because today is opposite day" or some such stupidity. But - sorry kiddo, you did it, you denied it, now you're shown to be dishonest. But hey - go ahead and try to weasel out of it now, Show everyone what a dishonest poster you are.

They are related - but different. One is the disintegration of the social fabric. That is a result of justin spreading division and hatred as a political tool, which drives up anger and discontent in the country to record heights, combined with new laws that allow violent repeat criminals back on the streets, and a few other factors. Police aren't enforcing the laws as much - what is the POINT in arresting a violent offender when you KNOW he'll be back on the street laughing at you that afternoon. Recruitment and retention are down in the police forces and the people who DO sign up are the kind who generally speaking aren't getting into it for the right reasons, But the housing crisis will lead to actual organized blowback. You'll get demonstrations an eventually riots and civil unrest. You'll get people demanding that other people's property be taken away and given to them. And there just won't be solutions.

She would get eaten alive. And while we all know that liberals aren't big fans of democracy, i think even THEY would be forced to go through the appearance of a leadership race. And justin is too entitled and ego driven to step aside just because it's the right thing

And? Did you think this was news? You didn't notice him standing idly by while dozens and dozens of churches burned and statues were toppled last year? the left wing agenda is to demonize canada and erase it's history so that nobody will complain when they suggest replacing it with their 'utopian' society. Why don't you mention the sun rose in the east today as well. That's about as shocking.

Some things are just lies. We know that an an english football team will win because they're the only ones allowed to compete. HOW DO YOU KNOW THE DEMS WONT" BAN ALL GUNS. Simple question The fact is you don't and you're simply lying to avoid having to deal with the truth. THat one got shot down pretty quick. Any more? Its simple truth that this is what the dems want. So why are you denying it? which makes you a lunatic. And having serious discussions about serious issues with a lunatic is nearly impossible. Actually what i said is that the dems would not be happy with anything less than a total ban. YOU are the one who added "would lead to" in there. And they won't - whatever they get today they'll push for more tomorrow and keep banning guns as far as they possibly can. If the person across the table is foaming at the mouth and thinks you're an inhuman monster and wishes you were gone ... if you stand up and walk away from that table it's really not you who's the problem. Gun owners (and the republicans they vote for) are never going to be interested in giving the dems an inch as long as they're slathering !diots who say psychotic things like "parents dont' love their children as much as guns". Like - once you hit that level of crazy there's no point in talking.

It's a factual statement. You did it with me and i called you out for it then - then you did it with him. Now you claim you didn't. That would be lying. Pointing out the truth? Yeah. And you're pretty good at the lying part. But then -you are a leftie aren't you You must be to get so screaming mad every time someone insults the liberals that you take it personally.

Yes, that's an issue as well. But in the medium term, housing is going to be our biggest fight. Followed closely by other infrastructure issues such as lack of medical resources and education resources. Check this out from a lower mainland hospital by vancouver - this isn't some small town this is part of the major metro: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/dire-and-near-catastrophic-b-c-doctor-urges-patients-to-avoid-langley-memorial-hospital-1.6389932 when the doctors are telling you to avoid the hospitals because they're a disaster and unsafe, that's bad. So when there's no where to live, there's no medical help for your family, and you can barely afford food, how long till people start to snap?

Awwww little guy My comments are fully supported - by the very information YOU posted. The senate report clearly says what it says and i quoted it line for line. Your problem is that YOUR position requires you to write a little unsupported fantasy to get to your conclusion. Mine: Senate did not claim collusion (true), Senate noted information was given but none of it inappropriate and couldn't verify the intent of giving it or identify that it was used anywhere (true). Therefore no evidence of 'collusion', which is when two parties conspire to act together towards a common goal, usually illegal or immoral. (true). Yours: Manafort gave information to person who was connected to russians (true). The ONLY POSSIBLE USE FOR THIS WAS TO ATTACK CLINTON AND THE FACT HE GAVE IT IS PROOF THAT HE AND THE RUSSIANS WERE WORKING TOGETHER ON A NEFAROUS SCHEME AND DESPITE THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE AND DESPITE THE COMMITTEE NOT COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION ITS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION POSSIBLE!!!!! Yeah... no. Not true. Sorry kiddo. Manafort didn't give anything important to the Russians at all. The polling data is information easily available, and trump's strategy was no real secret either. Sounds like he was bragging his boss would win. And he did. I'm sure the russians found that interesting. But that's not collusion. No collusion, trump did nothing wrong. And 3 years of fbi investigation and the senate hearing proves that.

Or elect people who DON"T feel the need to repress their population.

Awww little guy - still bitter about the fact you look like an !diot every time we square off? LOLOL well i suppose i could always go back and change my posts to something different if i find them embarrassing, like you do

The dems had majority for 2 years. Sure - but if they do then the dems just push for MORE changes, and more and more until all guns are banned. People like you are so psychopathic they actually believe that parents would be fine with seeing their children dead. You CANNOT reason with people who are that far gone. So you can't afford to give them an inch. It's like saying "well if we met the white supremacists half way.... " It just doesn't work like that. The white supremacists and the gun grabbers are never going to be satisfied and they're not interested in anything reasonable or rational.

Well this is just getting seriously boring. I guess notley's just getting too old for this or something. I expected sparks and bold moves and such and it's just a very blah campaign. At least they finally set a date for a debate. Perhaps notley was keeping her powder dry until the debate in the hopes she can get some last minute momentum The debate is for the 18th btw: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ucp-ndp-alberta-election-2023-1.6836515 The thing is that's only 10 days before the actual election which means if notley doesn't get a bit of a home run out of it then she's got no time to try anything else. She should be full out right now and then hit on all her strongest talking points during the debate. It's going to be a bit of an all or nothing for her and smith is a freaking talk show host - she knows how to talk fast and hit hard on stage.

Ahh but it's not "misinformation' when liberals do it of course

Of course he is. He will simply tell people he wouldn't and then after he wins he'll say 'well it was right in the poilcy documents, we HAVE to do it now...." You know i'm right It would be classic trudeau

"I know you are but what am I" And once again despite the already low bar you are below expectations. I"m sorry - shall i find you a 3rd grader to talk with? Someone more your speed? You mean it was obvious when you lied and said you DID know weren't looking for total gun bans? Yeah. That WAS obvious. which is why i called you on it. Nice of you to admit it now i guess. Well no you don't. If you don't know where they would stop then you don't know that . That is what the dem's want. ANd why wouldn't they - those on the left such as yourself and the dems literally think people like their guns more than their children. Why WOULDN'T someone want to end all guns if thats what they believe? You've been lying since the get go to push your agenda. You think the dems don't do the same? Nobody's going to go down that road and find out. So people like you end any chance of a reasonable discussion on guns.

Well that was pretty pathetic. Obviously you know the dems want all guns. Otherwise you'd have an opinion on where they'd stop. And the best you can do on the serious issues is dodge the question. well - if your goal was to prove that the left can't have a rational discussion about gun control then well done. But - you get to live with it. As for canada, we'll see what happens. The gun registry bit the dust - i'm thinking we may see some other changes too.

Nope. The committee said so. Polling data and trump's strategy - which was 'be mean to hillary'. I'm sure that came as a shock to the russians, NOBODY saw that coming :)_ So you're the liar it would seem. 100 percent true. Despite the fact you've foamed at the mouth like a rabid dog every time this has been pointed out - you have not been able to point to anything at all that indicates the info was ever intended to be used or even WAS used to help trump. And the senate noted that Nope - sorry 100 percent true again. There's not even a hint that the russians used that info in their attacks. And the senate noted as much. The russians definitely interfered but it has been noted many times that their attempts didnt' actually acheive anything at all - and NOTHING about them suggested the trump information was used or would have been useful. So - once again that would make you the liar. Not for collusion or sharing information. And that's maniford. Did trump go to jail? No? Was he charged with anything? no? Hmmm. So - trump did nothing wrong, Passing the information was not wrong, Meeting with the guy was not wrong. Nothing trump did was wrong. So every step of the way you have to lie to make your point. All you can do is accuse others of what you are doing yourself - lying. There was no collusion, trump did nothing wrong,

Looked more like you were stretching your mental abilities to the limit and 'locked up' Like i said - about the best anyone can expect from you. And will try again when he figures out how. That's what the left does. They won't rest until all guns are banned. That's why you coudln't answer a simple question - where will they stop. You just vapor-locked your brain again and had nothing to say. Because you know they won't stop. ROFLMAO - sure kid. As a starting point - because it makes it much easier to get to where we are THIS year. IT always does. They ban one gun, then it's the next. Just like justin did they'll try to call a hunting rifle a 'military sniper rifle' or the like and then ban it because nobody NEEEDS a high powered rifle and a scope! And with so many guns already banned it makes it easy to ban the next group, As justin did So i'm SURE they'd like to start there But it wouldn't end there. What it means is that because you can't be rational about having a discussion and have to go right to 'baby killers' and lie about the intent of the dems, we can't even open a dialoge about it. The dems scream 'Take the baby killers guns" and the gun owners dig in and stop listening and turn to their politicians and say 'give these asswipes the time of day and you're done". I don't know what kind of brain damage a person has to sustain to think that going with 'you're fine with children dying" as your opening position is going to allow for any further discussion, THere's no rational discussion to be had with someone like that,

Coming from a known liar that doesn't mean much But it is hilarious to watch you melt down as always You sure are fixated on getting you 'bag licked'. Flattered, but not interested. Is there something you want to tell the class? We're not here to judge