CdnFox

Only to someone sick in the head. Seriously it's a disgusting thing to say. Backyard pools kill more children in the states than guns do - does that mean they love pools more than children? It's this weird thing with the left that if you DAAAAARREEEEE to think gun rights are at all important it must mean you hate people and want to see everyone dead. The nra has very little political power in reality and is a very small donor compared to other industries. But no republican would dare give the democrats the time of day on ANY gun issue. They KNOW the dems are lying and only want to ban ALL guns and remove firearms ownership. So there can never be a compromise or reasonable talk about it. It's like isreal and palestine - as long as one of them has 'kill all jews and drive them into the sea" as a stated policy it's pretty hard to sit down for peace talks.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-425828-4-.htm#425828 The Liberals faced a backlash Monday over a policy the party approved at its national convention that critics said could force journalists to reveal confidential sources. The policy calls on the government to “explore options” for forcing online information services to publish material based only on named sources. Conservative MPs said this would amount to a form of censorship, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association warned it would chill the freedom of the press. The policy was contained in a resolution drawn up by British Columbia Liberals and put on the convention’s agenda. It was voted on by party members on Saturday, and its approval makes it Liberal Party policy. I mean - what could go wrong giving the liberals more power to censor. And we all know what this is about - they're mad about the chinese leaks Stories that contain no specifics that could be verified are one thing and should have all kinds of disclaimers but forcing journalists to disclose sources basically muzzles the press from any story that damages the gov't.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/did-trudeau-liberals-ignore-2021-csis-report-due-to-election Did Trudeau Liberals ignore 2021 CSIS report due to election? Report by CSIS was issued just three weeks before the election was called, would have changed the campaign. The story of Wei threatening Canadian elected officials, including Chong, became public a week ago, but the Trudeau government was alerted in July 2021. A report by CSIS, sent to the Privy Council Office – Trudeau’s department – as well as the then public safety minister, Bill Blair, and his top officials was either not read or ignored. That is until the issue became public.

On twitter? Weird - guess he figures youtube would kick him pretty quick. Should bump elon's ad revenues tho,

Dude that's disgusting. Nobody anywhere cares more about their guns than their children,. This is why nobody on the left can be taken seriously, and why gun control will never be debated in the states.

Sounds like you're talking to your mirror. This is pointless. I posted line for line where everything i said is true from your own report. Line for line. The only lying sack of shit here is you. There is NOTHING in that report that claims collusion. And considering that's ALL they talked about for 4 years before that if they COULD have they would - but it's CLEAR that they have NO evidence of collusion. A guy talked to another guy about how well the campaign was going and that they thought they'd win. That's it. You are delusional and frothing at the mouth. You have proven with the report YOU posted that there was no collusion. If they found collusion - point to me where it says that in the report. Go on. And the FBI report agrees - NO evidence of any kind of conspiracy AT ALL. You need to get professional help - this level of self delusion is not healthy.

First off you ARE a nobody so it still counts and no you just whine about everything when people point out you're lying. Then level your own criticisms. Oh wait - you don't. You simply lie to try to cover for them. Well you'd know. You literally edit your posts to erase your mistakes when you get called on them so there you go.

They called it a little early. The fact that they got it right doesn't mean it couldn't have gone another way. There's nothing wrong with saying "people are pissed we called it early - don't make that mistake again". Imagine lying that they did on the internet We're talking about a projection. A guess. Not a final result. So they decided to be sure of their guess and not guess early. That is NOT the same as "not reporting". They still called it before the results were in to prove the prediction. It isn't even scuffed. nobody anywhere cares about this except people who hate him already. It's a complete and utter nothing burger.

You're basing that on your years of covering elections for major news networks? Usually they don't make a mistake and call a state too early either. So this time they did, and they took extra caution to make sure they didn't again. That's absolutely fine and there's nothing remotely shady about that.

"Crying like babies" about a foreign gov't interfering directly in our elections and threatening members of parliament? Is complaining about that 'crying like a baby' to you now? And the "So called" scandal? You think that taking no action for years on these reports is a "So Called" scandal not a real one? What would make you post such drivel? Wait a minute - blink twice if your family is being held by the chinese!

Your stupidity is consistent, my responses are consistent. Seems pretty normal. LOL - i can always tell you're emotonally damaged when you start to break out pictures and memes You're like AA that way ':) How about If: opponent makes true statements you can't refute and points out your errors THEN: have hissy fit AND: a) try to change channel by focusing on irrelevant minor issue you might be able to win while ignoring the overwelming evidence against you, b) attack them personally by claiming they're on the internet too much c) Lie about what you've said or done d) Post a picture because god knows you don't have anything intelligent to say.

Ahhh taking stuff out of context from previous posts How very leftist of you And for the 12th time sure it was - ANYONE could commission the same poling to be done. So you're a liar. I did. You just can't cope with the truth of what the report says. You have to add your own spin. Here - lets read some together. So they're talking about how trump could win. That is NOT collusion. That is just two people talking about whether or not his boss could win. And they noted that some of the negatives for clinton were high. EVERY POLL AT THE TIME SHOWED THAT. And ANYONE COULD PAY FOR A POLL AND FIND THAT OUT. There's NOTHING secret there. Hardly a secret - and again that's manifords plan. IT's not collusion to share your plan Again - bragging his boss could win. (which he did). No collusion. And was the ukraine accused of collusion? Nope. Sure he could - because it's NOT SENSITIVE INFORMATION. Its just polling data. ANYONE can pay to get polling data. With no connection between that and any "polling data". And for it to be collusion they would have to have agreed that the polling data would be used somehow to hurt clinton and there's no indication of that. Your OWN REPORT says they don't know who it was given to or if it was used for anything. They didn't. That's pretty obvious. At best they took it as evidence that trump had a good chance of winning and i'm sure they found that interesting. But that's about all that info would have been useful for. Do you think it was because some !diot would accuse him of something ? It's more like giving someone a wooden spoon and a public phone book and then having someone claim you are guilty in the knife attack based on the logic that a wooden spoon is kind of cutlery too soo.... let me make this simple for you. The committee reports are clear. There was no indicaiton of collusion. Manafort bragged to a russian that trump was going to win. The information provided would have been of no real use to the russians in attacking anyone. You cannot show how the information was used - unlike the steel dossier for example. Nor can you even show how it WOULD be used specifically. None of this is "collusion" or anything close to it. Collusion requires two parties to agree to carry out some sort of plot or scheme usually illegal or the like. No scheme is in evidence here. Manafort just says "hey my boss is totally going to win and the other guy is like 'oh that's interesting', BUT NO REPORT AT ALL OF ANY KIND OF DEAL OR PLOT OR SCHEME. If anything, this tends to prove that there WAS no plot. If there was they would have discussed it. No collusion. Sorry kiddo - i know your brain melts thinking about this stuff but there simply is no collusion and CERTAINLY nothing inappropriate or illegal.

Not at all = that's just observation. But i'm not apperently - remember all opinions on their own are useless. Uh huh. But it really isn't - everything you offer you claim is valid, everything anyone else says is baseless opinion that's useless. So it would seem that you're all tit and no tat

Sure - when it becomes obvious your argumetns are bullcrap you turn and run. Gotcha. Again - you get called on your bullshit and suddenly it's everyone else's fault you can't hold a conversation. Pot - this is kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Sure - run home with your tail between your legs. But you know i'm right. Next time be a little more honest

Amazing how your opinions are observations and everyone else's observations are opinions. It's literally what you did.

You mean like the ethics commissioner?

The libs didn't think through anything. THe ndp and cpc pushed them to do the right thing and eventually they caved. Justin was happy to be their whipping boy until public opinion started to turn.

Isn't that just your opinion? Hypocrite

Again - pretty commonly accepted. Sure - but repeating a lie doesn't make it true. And if the disagreement is valid - and it is - then it's actually an indication that your actions or statements are wrong. At the end of the day you actually DID IN FACT do what i pointed out. And in fact that behavior is seen generally as poor behavior. Behave better.

ROFLMAO - so still no examples? Well how about that Nice attempt at changing the channel nobody said how you felt - i recounted your actions Sure it is I can see why you'd choose to lie about it tho. If you say less stupid things to begin with you won't be embarrassed by them later. Try that. Awww sorry punkin - no dice Hell you confirmed what i said in your next post by clarifying you believed that PP is targeting the stupid in the party. So swing and a miss there Sure they can. And look at them all leaping to your defense People already know you're a dishonest debater so i can imagine leaving it there wont' hurt your rep any futher. I think everyone knows your emotional state Broken You run along home again if you like.

LOL - i've never claimed otherwise - but i ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED that there's nothing "collusionary" about sharing your strategy or polling data that ANYONE COULD GET And you lose right there. Zero evidence of collusion. None at all. We've been over this a million times. I realize your tribal belief in your echo chamber makes this hard to undrestand - but none of that is evidence of collusion at all. Where'd they use this data? Where did it show up? We can see where the steel dossier went - where was this info used? How was it 'collusion'? but they didn't and the committee admitted that. The committe says they don't know that. Sorry. It's right in your quote And what reason is that? What did they actually do with the data? It wasn't collusion from the looks of it. Sure you are. You're lying and trying to cover up your first statement - which i pointed out was false and the concept of mes rea was a real legal thing. And THEN after some frantic googling you come back with "oh .. .er... yah... er.. well of COURSE it is... what i meant is .. And it's bullshit. Sorry you didn't know how the law worked before hand but covering that up now isn't working for you it is the polar opposite of the definition. THere's no scheme, there's no working together, none of that. It's litearlly missing ALL the elements required to be collusion Sure - but you can' be asleep and dreaming ALL the time (also - big job? What, you work for trump now? "My job is bigly!" ) Well i'm both. Sadly only one of us can say either of those thigns

You didn't provide a single example of them lying. You said a bunch of things you didn't like. But couldn't come up with a single one where they lied I noted i could come up with plenty where trudeau out and out lied and you got pouty and took your ball and went home Want to try again? Show where he actually lied. No, it isn't. If you say 2 +2 = 425 and i say that's wrong i'm not being 'partisan'. Wasn't an argument - it was just an observation Nobody has, not sorry. it is what you plainly said. And for heaven's sake that is NOT what a "straw man" is in either case. A straw man argument is something entirely different. If you're just going to lie about what you said then you shouldn't be surprised when you get mocked And you doubled down on it after when i called you on it, saying PP was appealing to the stupid in the party. Then when i pointed out that wasn't a very smart thing to say, you got real quiet about it LOL - instead you're now claiming you said NOTHING of the KIND!!! What? Never!!! STRAW MAAAAAAN! Yeash.

I have not expressed a 'pre-drawn' conclusion. If anything what i said was it's fairly difficult to come to a conclusion. And i noted some facts about that. Do you need me to explain this further to you? Do i need to go find some crayons? Or are you just angry someone who knows something showed up and it offends your tribal sensibilities?

The chinese paid the proper cash tribute. That's the difference, The liberals will NOT allow anyone to steal this country's democracy and rule of law. BUt they will sell it at a reasonable price,

That isn't actually a particularly useful metric for several reasons. There's actually been a number of pretty detailed studies done. And it's not radically conclusive either way. THe us probably has a better system for those who access it - but they also spend more money on it. If we spent what they do per capita ours would probably be better - but right now its arguably worse. Deaths per 100 k is a useless measure.