CdnFox

Yes what i said is 100 percent true. You can't live for 50 years in a place that's only been there 40 years. So it's not pedant, what you said isn't possible. Which is why i was kind and said 'i think you misspoke a litlte'. Apparently that's not the case and you're just retarded and don't know what numbers mean. God you are dumb. well everyone knows you're a liar - you probably were just lying about where you live and screwed up the numbers and now you're mad at me for pointing it out. What a tard.

Sorry barbie - it's you. You're the problem.' And your kind. Long before the eleciton thing cnn was pushing a false story about kids who were catholics attacking first nations people and creating all kinds of hatred - and that was a complete lie. And you are fine with that. NBC deliberately lied to whip up racist anger at the martin incidnet - and you seem ok with that as well. There are TONNES of other examples. I think they're ALL bad. But - you only care about the ones that your tribe disapproves of. And that's america today. Which is why it won't stop, and will get worse and the beatings will continue until morale improves.

It would never be enough to stop the mass shootings. It's like saying "we have enough avocados - but just not enough to stop mass shootings' you have enough to do the job that background checks can do. More will not make any difference. Lots of good ones. The answers are not difficult. The implementations can be but even there - not THAT difficult. but for the left it will always be about guns, and for the right it will always be about stopping the left takign guns. No good solutions will be discused.

It does for every particle that travels at the speed of light. Including light for starters. This is way over your head. I can see this turning into a 5 hour educational discussion and you'll still be confused. Further, time technically stops at the event horizon of a black hole, but that gets REALLY seriously complicated. go take a few physics courses if you want to understand more. Time relative to the observer - time is not a 'fixed' thing that moves at the same rate every where. In fact - gravity itself is a temporal distortion - when you are standing your feet are moving at a slower time than your head. To quote the good doctor - time is more of a big ball of wibbly-wobbly-timey-whimey things. We percieve the 'arrow of time' due to the process of entropy, and it's believed that we percieve the 'present' due to the effect of local quantum decohesion that turns the future from probability packets called wave functions into actually existing particles. Any other questions?

Wouldn't make a difference. At all. The level you have now is enough. I have answers - i just don't think they'll ever be discussed in the us the left will focus on guns, the right will focus on the lefts focus on guns - both will become more entrenched over time and at the end of the day that's where it stops. I just don't see real solutions being discussed seriously.

Sigh. What is english, your 3rd language? 4th? You said you lived in the same place for 50 years in a house you built 40 years ago. If you just built the house 40 years ago you can't have been living in the 'same' place for 50 years, You were living in a different place for 10 years then began living in the current house 40 years ago that's how english works. Now - i assumed you meant you lived in the same area for 50 years, or perhaps there was some other dwelling on the property for the first 10 years, or whatever and you just said it poorly. Which is why i said i'll just assume you didn't word that well. But now you're displaying your stupidity to the world by doubling down on it. If you built the house 40 years ago - you havent' lived in it for 50 years. so you weren't living in the same place for 50 years. Damn you're dumb.

It doesn't actually - but of course nobody thought you were a physics student. in any case - while time may move forward that is not always true of people or cultures or even countries. Most of them will come to a point where they can no longer move forward.

Kids dont know what 'masculine' is. And it won't explain the clothes etc. And trans people arne't people who just LOOK more masculine or feminine. So lets not kid ourselves - that was a silly answer. That is NOT what the left is proposing kids be taught is it. The real question the kid will ask is 'why is that man a woman'. And you cant' explain that by saying "well they're just more feminine looking. I see how easy it was for you to get it wrong Here's some fun - go up to the next trans person you meet and tell them that trans people are just regular people who look more feminine or masculine See how that goes for you I'll say something nice at the funeral.

Extreme success is always going to be the exception - even amonst those born with these 'privileges' you speak of. Most upper middle class people ALSO won't be billionares. But what it does show is that there is a clear path. OF those who DO get rich - a very large percent of them come from these backgrounds - so coming from that background does NOT impact your ability to achieve that kind of success in comparison to the 'privlidged. I think they do - i think if there's a problem it's more in convincing them of that, and perhaps a little education regarding the path, which i mentioned before. the opportunity is there - some may not know how to make use of that opportunity. Which is just as true of those who are not born poor but it is MORE likely they'll get that training from their parents who figured it out already. Well my answer was yes but i'm STILL all over the idea of helping young people maximize their opportunties and making sure they have some. However - for most on the left "giving opporutnity' means bumping other kids out of school to give these kids a chance even tho they didn't earn it. That is NOT 'giving opportunity'. Or demanding that more women be forced into STEM, and that is not opportunity So - i'm pro opportunity but i suspect we may differ as to what that looks like. You contradict yourself. Is it based on location or wealth? And even then the numbers don't seem to add up. And of course there's the obvious logical fallacy of commonality is not causality. As noted - the reason they might stay poor is not necessarily a lack of opportunity. It may be that people in that area teach their kids they'll grow up poor. "you can't succeed" is a common message in such areas - i remember some black guy (thats actually his handle - some black guy, well known youtuber) talking about this at length how his family and his friends families were that way and it really hampered him till he got over it. So - it may not be a lack of opportunity at all. I bet you pretty good money if you dropped me into one of those areas with no money with the knowledge i have today as a 20 year old it woudl be pretty quick and i'd be upper middle class. So is it REALLY an opportunity issue? Or is it a cultural/education issue? there are plenty of studies out there that do. Do some honest resaerch. and 2/3 is not a 'slight' majority THat is the point. There are no real opportunity barriers. The opportunities are there. If there are challenges they lie in other areas.

well i think it has more to do with the fact you said you just lived 50 years in a house you built 40 years ago but sure. Lets go with pedant

Well you have nationwide background checks now.. Living in a country where we probably did it more right that most i do have an idea of what 'reasonable' gun laws would look like that would be fair to both sides . And make no mistake - even as an owner of about 30 firearms and who grew up in a strong hunting and firearms culture i still support reasonable fireatms laws - mostly to prevent accidents (which frankly area bigger problem your way than crazy people). But - even the best gun control laws won't solve the problem at all. At least not the problem of a crazy person deciding a bunch of other innocent people need to die. That will require other things to change. And again canada tends to do that better than the us for whatever reason. But the problem is those issues will never be seriously discussed. The left focuses on banning guns as a solution. The right focuses on preventing that. Neither side is interested in focusing on how to actually stop killings. Or reduce them. I don't see that changing anytime during our lifetimes

Sure and look at you - desperately clinging to your echochamber ideas and identity issues. You literallly lie on the internet as part of your core identity. A prime example of someone who grows up without it and is looking for somewhere to belong. er.... i'm just going to assume you worded that improperly. It was pervasive. it was quite common. And it's not really a surprise that that would be the case - humans instictively feel a NEED to belong to a group. We are a 'pack' type animal. And if we don't have one readily available we will FIND one to belong to. That's how cults and far left and far right groups work. They find people who have no such anchor and who feel disconnected and they offer them a connection to cling to and boom.

no no no no - you see it's the FORK that makes them DO it - and the manufactuers KNOW that when they sell the fork! I mean - what else is the fork going to be used for! We should SUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEE (reeeeeee!) the law does stop that. I'm pretty sure murder is illegal. but it is the personal choice of the bad guy to kill people. Blaming the manufacturer for that choice is just as silly as blaming the guy who made the fork. Sure. LIke i said - if the democrats were reasonable i think there's some room for some actual useful amendments. Although i suspect it would do more to reduce accidents than crime but either way. But they can't. If they give an inch the dems will demand a foot. Much more than that and you don't have a leg to stand on. Nope - the dems have made their feelings clear. SO it's not slippery slope at all. It is demonstrable that any rights given up now will not be returned AND they will demand more rights be given up tomorrow. Conservatives in the us cannot afford to give up even a single right, and should one be taken they should fight like hell to get it back. Or they won't have any at all before long. That's how democrats work.

Well this demonstrates that sliding scale doesn't it. A gay couple walking around is one thing, "Some people have two mommies or two daddies". Done. But then we get into trans people - explaining that does indeed become a sexually explicit discussion. It's impossible not to. How do you possibly explain that to children without either confusing them or getting into issues of sexuality, gender perception etc. And that starts to tread on thin ice - children aren't ready for that level of thinking. And then we get into cross dressing - much of which during 'drag story time' seems to involve sexy outfits. And now it's really about sex. And its this dishonesty that keeps people in general, not just the right, very leery of the 'agenda' and leads to comments like 'grooming', and why the left is begining to fall out of favour again. Of course, of course. Hows that' abortion thing working out for you btw?

'Oh - i see we're back to our little trick here of pretending i'm a fox supporter even after i agreed with you. Apparently i personally have to 'justify' it. Because i don't agree with you on everything so i must be an evil orange-man fox drone right? Sigh. Just when it looked like you might not be a TOTAL bimbo. Oh well. God knows how they'll justify it but they will. 'Taken out of context". "felt compelled to say that by peer pressure'. " discovered evidence that i was wrong and it was all true later". Who knows. People can delude themselves into thinking anything. After i agreed with you and reasonably noted that fox fans would excuse fox you flip back to suggesting that I"m the one who's creating excuses. It's impossible to say how people can manage to be that stupid on either side. But as you've demonstrated they're out there.

LOL - says the girl who refuses to confirm her points You should buy a mirror.

It's not an unreasonable position but the challenge is they're not going for 3 months - they're going for 6 weeks. That's a month and half. Technically the heart muscles start contracting around that point but they are not really 'beating' per se. Personally i don't think 'heartbeat' is a very reasonable measure of when someone's a human. WE don't consider them 'dead' if we give them an artificial heart after all. But the BRAIN is another story. Death is when the brain stops medically speaking, not when the heart stops. Once all brain activity ceases - a person is considered dead. So why wouldn't they be considered alive when the brain starts? The brain boots up and actually starts getting to work controlling bodily functions at about week 15 - 16. In my books, when there's a live brain actualy controlling the little body's functions - that's a human being. At that point all rights attach and it's murder. So - for me 3 months (and possibly another week or two) is quite reasonable. It allows for a safety margin and still gives plenty of time for a woman to discover she's preggers and take the appropriate steps if she wants to. And it's a very legally and practically defensible position. We all agree that the brain is largely what makes us 'people' rather than hunks of meat - you can replace a heart but you can't really replace a brain.

Wow -you have some very weird fantasies in that head of yours dontcha blair white. Looks like you don't know anything do you

The way things are going, we can't go forward either. When it comes to civilizations historically this is near the end of the book where you know how it's going to end.

And yet people still get fat. That kind of proves my point. Bringing in 'cutlery control' laws wouldn't change anything. And nobody is stupid enough to think it would. It's only 'guns' and their hoplophobia that makes them lose their minds and think a manufacturer is responsible for someone misusing their product. And the idea that the gun manufacturers 'own' the gop is just simply not defensible. IT would be reasonable to say that the majority of GOP supporters don't favour gun laws, but that's democracy. But lets get real - the biggest problem is that nobody believes that if reasonable gun laws were brought in that the dems would stop there. They would continue to go after gun owners till ALL guns ownership was banned. So the republican voters know they can't afford to give an inch. IF the dems were reasonable about it then progress could be made, but they're not. They will always want to ban 'the shoulder thingie that goes up".

Sorry kiddo - another lefty myth they don't line up. And they weren't banned, there were tonnes of them out there. The ar itself was never banned, just the sale of new ones and there were many other similar rifles that were quite available. SO people could buy ar's quite easily during the ban, just not brand new ones. In fact - the sale of ars went up radically just before the ban came in place - as it always does - so the number of ar's out there during the 'ban" was actually higher than any time in history. So how does the left get their numbers to work? Well first off - they define 'mass shooting' as any shooting with 4 or more fatalities. Which is fair enough, that's what the fbi uses and you have to have SOME definition. But - that winds up including gang and criminal shootings. So if a gang gets into a shootout and 4 people are killed - thats a ' mass shooting'. Guess what happened about the same time as the gun ban? New laws and a serious reduction in criminal shootings. The majority of killings before during and after the ban have been done by handguns. But when the gangs stop shooting each other then guess what. Fewer 'mass shootings'. If you look at what MOST of us would call 'mass shootings' - ie crazy person goes out and shoots innocent people - then there's really no difference. Violent crime overall was falling since 1990 with new laws and enforcement - and all violent crime happened to go up a little in 2004, but it's fallen back down since. Sorry - the whole' gun ban worked' thing is a complete lie generated by manipulating statistics.

Or NBC splicing the trevon martin tapes to create the impression of racism where none existed. They ALL lie.

Sure but seeing as that probably won't happen at least casting light on it would help the public realize that something VERY bad is going on here. A company tied to a foreign gov't that doesn't exist gave huge amounts of money to charity that is directly linked to the prime minister of the country and which he'll become a paid director of when he steps down. That needs to be in the paper for as long as possible. People need to see that justin is selling out his country.

I myself had to sit down and take five Well these days things have a way of spinning themselves. THey don't need to do anything but monitor social media and see what spin their fans come up with and like best and go with that. My guess is: "THEY were FORCED to PRETEND they lied because the left wing appointed judge was going to rule against them no matter what if it went to court AND nancy pelosi had their children locked up in a puppy-chow factory basement surrounded by rabid poodles! We'll see. If we've learned anything from both sides over the years its 'never underestimate the creativity of the fanatic".

It is a problem. And i would theorize about another problem today that kind of flies under the radar. In the past family ties and ties to your community were stronger - for better or worse. People belonged to the local church and knew the neighbours in the community and there were MUCH stronger bonds there. That was people's "identity" - i'm part of my community. So when one person from that community was a conservative and one was a liberal they could have some pretty intense discussions but at the end of the day, their sense of belonging included each other and it was quickly forgotten. A threat to that community (such as flood or the like) would generate a strong response to attack the problem. Now - i regularly see and hear that there is less of that - and people WANT to belong to a community. So - people like her can very easily be attracted to a community like antifa or the far left, and it fills a strong need. And of course - all other ideologies are percieved as a threat - and they attack. I think that as long as this kind of politics is where kids feel safe and at home, we're going to see less and less logic and tolerance and more and more intolerance and division.