CdnFox

No, Antifa is. That's why i laughed when she demanded i name one.

Then all of his decisions go to appeal. Do you have any evidence that THIS judge has screwed every other decision? No? So you're just full of crap. Ok - thanks.

The fact that someone is not charged for something doesn't mean that they haven't done something. And it definitely meets the dictionary definition even if it doesn't meet the canadian legal bar. It's silly to pretend that only that which a person is charged for actually happenes.

Are you a bot? That makes zero sense. It's like you're trying to look retarded.

Nobody mentioned the scripture. None of that made sense. clearly English is not your first language. Keep practicing.

Oh i think you're 'woke' enough And in your case the term is 'reboot'. not wake. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Well no, i didn't I never said he educated me in the slightest. I actually only quoted his description of how time is not linear. I never said i learned a thing from him, much less defended it. So ... is that the problem here? You had some comprehension problmes and didn't understand what was being said? LOL - well next time i'll try to use even smaller words for you If Dr Who was too much for you to understand, i'll see if Dr Seuss has something that might help, perhaps that's more your comprehension level LOL - boy did you screw that one up Why would i take a pay cut?

Doesn't matter. While the legal requirement in canada to be charged with it may require that, the common definition does not, and that's still what it is even if he cannot be charged under the code. It's a serious matter. it is not just 'an opinion' it is a statement as part of a legal defense that canada's gov't is illegitimate and has no authority.

Oh - i'm sorry. I didn't realize you couldn't read. You're probably unaware but a judge must submit a detailed decision in writing. That's why it's called a decision. At least pretend to know what you're talking about. What were you expecting? 40 foot letters of fire carved into the side of a mountain? perhaps a little dance routine to accompany it? Of course they're words, just like his LEGAL SUBMISSION of defense. And the details of the case are available on canlii if you want to see them. You haven't offered a single thing to explain why this is excessive. In fact, you barely make sense. And the judge did not say 'we have a democracy or we don't" . Which is good - because that's stupid. You can have a partial democracy - which is precisely what we have. We have a constitutional representative democracy. Clearly you don't understand what that is. Which is a shame.

Oh look boys, she's being dishonest again. In a moment she'll ask you to name ONE trans person. Dishonest in the extreme. This is why the left can't be trusted on the issue.

Everybody is quite aware I am in very good faith. You're the one who's arguing in bad faith, demanding to have examples when you know there are plenty, and then trying to change the tune when i point that out. It's not just politicians either, it's academics, media personalities, you name it. The only reason the left tippytoes around it at all is because of the political backlash of saying they want to ban ALL guns. So they start with "Most" guns or this "class" of guns. Hell, even Biden does it. He'll say nobody needs 'assault' guns and then define that as anything that isn't for hunting. So - any gun that isn't a hunting gun, for now. That's most of the guns in the US. You lied from the get go. You know perfectly well the left does NOT support firearms ownership. Which is why they can't be trusted. IF anything, you've proven here that they are dishonest in the extreme. ROFLMAO!!!!!!! You already said you didn't want them - now you're back to wanting them again Ok - like i said, joe biden. There you go Now i can't wait to hear you twist and turn as to why he doesn't count, or what he said doesn't count Every single person who's reading this knows you're a liar of course most knew before hand.

ROFLMAO - What's that phrase of yours? "Get back here with those goalposts!" LOL!!!!! So you admit that there's liberals and lefties who say that well good. It's hilarious watching you make excuses like that before you even get the name that you demanded "Give me a name!" are you sure? i can do that. "Oh ... ummm - I HAVEN"T SEEN THE NAME BUT I ALREADY KNOW IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH AND I MEANT GIVE ME A NAME FROM A SPECIFIC GROUP !!!!""" You're so predictable Now that we're done pretending the left doesn't want to ban guns, or that there's any chance of them being rational about it, we're left with the same problem. The right can't trust the left on the firearms issues and the only thing the left cares about is banning the guns so there will never be any discussions around the real problems or solutions even though everyone knows guns aren' t the issue.

LOL - well at the end of the day she knows i'm right and she's just angry about it. The left wants to ban guns, period. They don't believe people "need' Guns, with the exception of law enforcement and MAAAAYBE hunters - but most of them aren't big on hunting either.

Why. You going to go beat them up? You always say 'name such and such', i name them, and then you either ignore it and go on to your next lie or ask for another. How about this - are you saying that NOBODY says that? Will you admit you are wrong and don't know what you're talknig about if i produce examples? Or are you instead going to admit right now that there are indeed those who say that on the left.

That would be YOUR strawmanning. And as always - we can tell you know you're in the wrong when you break out the buzzwords and pictures THis is what happens when you lie. Really. Well tell me precisely where they'll draw the line. You obviously agree they want to ban guns - you're just saying PERHAPS not ALL guns. So - which ones would they GUARANTEE they will NEVER come after, and where will they stop now? Fact is, they want to ban all guns. They just know that the climate won't allow for it right now. So they'll ban what they can now and come back for the rest later. I've DEFINITELY heard MANY on the left say that nobody needs a gun. Not exatly. They're open to the idea but it depends on the specific laws. But - they won't support them if they ban guns OR effectively ban guns by being so broad that just about evyerone would qualify for 'red flags'. The devil is in the details. Awww muffin - the truth hurts and you have no intelligent reply. Of course it's true, and of course you're upset people know it's true. This is why the left cannot be trusted.

And you'd make a good flat tire If that's all you got i'll just mark you down for a 'Didn't think before opening mouth' moment and we'll move on.

Well that's the challenge isn't it. If a male did it then sure it's indecent exposure. probably sexual harrassment, staring at naked girls in the shower has to be worth a few charges too - society recognizes it's wrong. But - all you have to do is yell "trans!" and that alllll goes away. No crime at all committed. Not even exposure. It's all above board with just one word.

Sure kid. The liberals are totally right wing. As in most. See? You resort to lies, and try to play games, and you wonder why nobody thinks of you as anything but a blowhard snake oil peddler. The left - ALL the left, would like to ban guns and for the most part - most guns. And if we've learned anything once they've banned one gun they'll want to ban another. For them its like lays chips - you can't ban just one. And your dishonesty is a prime example of why nothing will happen on the mass shooting front. Nobody can afford to try to do a deal with the left - they lie and always want more.

Yes! Except no. Leftists want to ban guns. Even as we speak biden is calling for a gun ban. But i'm sure they'd lie about it if they thought it would get them closer to a gun ban THis is why the right wing doesn't give them a millimeter - you lie about your agenda and you can't be trusted - so it's easier to just never even consider anything you say on the matter knowing you're full of it to begin with.

Well that's the end of it then. Parents can buy books for their kids that represent such things if they feel up to explaining it to them. Problem solved - we dont need it taught in schools by your own admission. Not really. They depict mommy and daddy. Kids know there's a mommy and a daddy. They don't really know that mommy and daddy have sex or how that relationship works. They're not depicting heterosexuality, they're depicting a family unit in the way that 99 percent of kids can understand without further questions. Sure. it's come up in canada a lot but here's some from the states https://nypost.com/2021/12/22/how-public-schools-brainwash-young-kids-with-harmful-transgender-ideology/ "Children — as young as 5 — are being encouraged to disregard their anatomy and choose their gender based on their feelings." There's a shit tonne of thsi out there - easy to find with a simple look And kids are being encouraged to take gender altering medical treatments at very young ages. Even doctors are becoming concerned. And i love how you blew off the rest But thanks for admitting it. Sure if you like. but 99 percent of kids will accept they have a mommy and a daddy before they ever get to school. THey don't know that mommy and daddy are 'heterosexual' - or what heterosexual means. THey just know they have a mommy and a daddy. Or in some cases one or the other. Pot - meet kettle. Or don't talk to them about issues they're not ready for. Pretty simple. Like i said, we don't discuss sexual kinks with kids either. You don't have kids obviously. But - if what you say is true then whats' the point of worrying about it. THey're obviously not ready. Leave it till they are LOL _ i always know you've realized you've failed when the pictures come out

well he didn't scratch his OWN back. If you haven't dealt with autistic children then just let it go. You'll wind up saying something out of ignorance that wont' be accurate. Moderately functioning autistics can still attend school and such but are very easy to confuse, they tend to focus on things so much that it's VERY easy to jump them, when they panic they lose the ability to take in their surroundings nearly as well, this is why they often wind up getting lost. Ok - well you unplug mentally if you need to. Doesn't feel like that here. Smollets story was implausable from the get go, and had all the hallmarks of a written script. THe hajib thing had a few flaws but honestly that COULD have happened. Investigations found out otherwise, but that could easily have been true. Such things have happened. This - we'll see but i'm not surprised there isn't more info. Happens more frequently than you'd think. Calling it mutlialtion is quite a stretch - looks like someone scratched him with a protractor or the like. Why would a principle say that. And it's far from the most vile attacks in our country. Hell isn't today the anneversary of when a bunch of people got killed being run over by a truck deliberately? Anyway, we'll see.

Well - without facts nether of us can speak absoltuely (and i don't feel like looking it up on canlii right now) But - i'm still not sure why it seems excessive. He interferes with a cop, to the point where he gets charged, and then he demands as a legal defense that the court admit it has no authority. ANd once you put that forward as a legal statement then the court has to agree or disagree, there's no in between. I think the judge was being kind by dinging him for a year only for those things. interfering with a police investigation alone could net you that. But on top of it all what he was doing was sedition, and that's not ok either. But we can agree to disagree if you really feel that was excessive. I think it's defensible legally but whether it should be is an opinion. I'm happy enough to see such 'free men' learn that they are not in fact above the law.

So they aren't and you've realized that and you'd like to move along. Fair enough. But they didn't. A handful tried and failed and that was the end of it. So what's your point? So use other id. Are you telling me college people don't carry any other id? They don't have drivers licesnse or state id or the like? What do people who DON"T go to college carry? it sure as hell wouldn't be official id in Canada either but university kids still vote in droves. Again - are you worried that the extra id will make it too hard to walk to the voting booth? Who gives a shit? With mail in voting and advanced polls and such it's a null issue. And if they change the time go at that time. Are you now suggesting they don't have watches or iphones? And we have ALL of that in Canada and yet we have good voter turn out, BETTER on average than the states. So it's a complete lie to claim this stuff 'suppresses ' the vote.

Keep in mind i know CONSIDERABLY more than you and am actually extremely well versed on the issue. I believe i said they wanted to ban guns, which isn't the same thing, They might be ok with people owning single shot rifles. Or flintlocks i suppose. Hard to say. Did you have reason to believe otherwise? Certainly not the link you provided.

What isn't? human sexuality and relationships are complex. Like i said we don't teach kids about sexual fetishes or furries. We don't really even teach them about hetero relationships - we just don't go our of our way to hide them. WE don't have 'straight story time". SO you'd be happy with that? If teachers mentioned that once and that was the end of it? Nope - you want to have drag story time, you want to have discussions about gay relationships and couples, you want to discuss gender and have them make decisions about their own gender and whether they need surgery before their age even reaches double digits. Fact is - they'll learn that some kids have two moms or dads on their own. If that's all you wanted there would be no need to discuss this. Well then their parents can mention that to them and we're done here right? Right? Antifa? WE're done right? Uhhh ohhhh - looks like you lied. You want more than that. And you know it's a lie. Kids have follow up questions. "Why do they do that?" well. because they love each other. "but - why do you love daddy then and not another mommie" well... Some people are just like that "But why? I love my daddy don't they want to have a daddy?" Look kid ... it's complicated... hey, want to watch frozen again? You obviously don't have children. If you think for a moment that it's simple or that it stops at a single sentence you're very wrong. Well not a prince - two dads is fine but nobody has two kings LOL Probably would bomb in the box office if it was for children, for the reason i mentioned. Parents don't take their kids to a disney movie so that they can spend the next 4 hours explaining human relationships and sexuality - they take them for easy to digest simple entertainment. But sure - i'm sure disney could make a slightly more adult movie about gay relationships, IF i'ts a good story. If it makes the story work well. If it's just shoe horning it in for the SAKE of making a movie about gay people then it pisses people off. THat's what happened to star wars and has hurt other franchises. When you make something woke for the sake of being woke, it pisses people off. When you tell a good story for the sake of telling a good story, people don't care if it's got gays in it or how many actors are women or black or whatever. Bullshit. They haven't leaned on 'trans' at all and that had nothing to do with the midterms. None - because there isn't one. That's just the voices in your head again. And i wouldn't expect it would do well. People are DONE with this discussion. They're fed up. They don't want to talk about trans people anymore. THey're sick of them. If someone proposes a law that they have to SHUT UP they might get some traction. As bud how the whole 'talking about trans issues' thing is going for them.