CdnFox

No, i don't. But i can certainly understand why you'd relate to it. Every other word out of your mouth is a demonstrable lie. Nobody trusts you or your ilk.

Well that's not saying much - to listen to you just being a white male conservative puts you into THAT category.

But not to instigate it. Generally violent conflict is instigated by the muslims. And usually in a fashion where retaliation will result in civillian casualties on purpose. For example they'll put a rocket launcher on a hospital roof and then shoot into isreal. The isrealis fire back and destroy the launcher and hospital. The muslims then say "how terrible they're destroying civilian hospitals! (My mom was in there ! Snif!). I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who commits random violence knowing what the result will be in order to gain favor in the international community, and the evidence seems pretty overwhelming that is what's happening.

That's true if we're attempting to assess 'responsibility'. As in 'which party is in the historical wrong here". However there are real inciting events. If there is no violence at the moment and someone fires a rocket and violence breaks out - that event did incite the current violence. And if you were the one who incited the violence then it's hard for you to claim a moral high position in what follows during that round of violence. Anyone who wants peace has to agree to stop inciting violence. No rockets, no fire balloons no nothing. I think if there's one thing we can do as outsiders that might help a little is condemn whoever incites a round of violence directly. I think that would make both sides think twice - right now it's too common for one side to put a rocket launcher on a hospital, shoot and then when they fire back and destroy the launcher AND the hospital go crying to the international community about how mean the other guy is, It almost encourages violence.

Even tho you quoted me, i assume you're not referring to me with that

We had a dog when i was younger that just couldn't stay away from skunks. It was a working dog on the prairies, you couldn't just keep him locked up all day. In the end he got rabies. We loved the dog. It wasn't the dog's fault it got rabies. It's an illness. The dog was a treasured member of the family. We killed the dog after it got rabies. Having compassion does not mean you don't have to do the right thing. "Compassion" doesn't mean it's somehow ok to do something wrong. Dealing with complex issues involving sex is too advanced for young kids to deal with safely. But - the left wing wants to teach about sex and sex acts and gender in elementary school. That's been a problem. Then when called on it they cry "no no no - we didn't MEAN that, we just want to show gender is ok". Sorry - nobody believes you. We've had this problem in canada recently, elementary school kids being exposed to very advanced sexual issues. It should stay out of school entirely till highschool at least, and parents should be able to decide if the school's 'version' of education is appropriate.

Sadly, two things can be true at once

Awww muffin Sounds like we're projecting just a little aren't we Rome didn't hav standing armies at the time you were referencing. Your own quotes proved that No it's demonstrably correct. As your own source said - it wasn't until the time of agustus, some 100 plus years after maruus, that rome even began to have standing armies and even THEN they still relied very heavily on creating legions and disbanding them as needed. ROFLMAO - Now you're arguing with YOUR OWN SOURCE!! See what happens when you try to google-educate yourself on the fly? In fact i mentioned there were a very small number of legions that weren't disbanded regularly, including the pretorians. But they weren't the 'standing army'. They were just to have a small force avaialbe without having to actually raise one if needed. Closer to a national guard than an army. If they actually had to go fight someone, they would use conscription and raise the legions they need Much later as the empire expanded they would raise permanent legions to go occupy those areas, and then when there was actual war they would raise additional legions as necessary. But - when the empire came to an end it was NOT the "germans" or germanic tribes that lead to the downfall as you and antifa clamied nor was it the celts as was also claimed. That was not the problem. Border wars and skermishes happened for the entire time of the empire. It didn't stop the rise of the empire, it didn't cause the downfall. It was like crime in modern cities - it's a pain and it sucks resources but it's not going to bring a country down. At all. You pee and moan about how the germans cost rome 3 legions - but tha'ts NOTHING. Look at what hannibal did, he cost them dozens - and they still managed to survive and thrive after that. The 'germans' were at best a petty annoyance and a money suck. What brought rome down was increasingly poor leadership based on 'strength' rather than skill combined with ever increasing bureaucracy which sucked resources till the empire bsically collapsed under it's own weight. You're wrong, historians know you're wrong, history shows you're wrong, the ONLY reason you took that point of view is you hoped that I'd be wrong because you're sick of being wrong around me. But - unfortunately - you were wrong Sorry.

According to you a nazi is someone who disagrees with you, or someone who's jewish. I suppose if we found a jewish person who disagreed with you they'd be some sort of uber-nazi, like a nazi 'final form' or something.

@August1991 and @Perspektiv you both seem to be talking about different things. August seems to be arguing that people with differences should be accepted for their differences even if they are in the minority. Which is true. Perspektiv seems to argue that regardless of accepting a person's differences or not, it's inappropriate to be dishonest about what the differences are and we should speak truthfully and accurately when we speak. Which is a pretty fair point and most would agree with the statement in general. Truth is good. The two positions ARE somewhat in conflict. What happens when someone's difference that we should accept is that they wish us to speak a lie for their mental health's sake? So - this is basically a conflict of rights. And that happens all the time, where one persons' rights butts up against another person's. For example, the rights to freedom of sexuality bumps up against freedom of religion. When that happens traditionally we look to find the solution that causes the LEAST offense to rights - recognizing that there will be some. For example, gays are allowed to marry, but churches are allowed to say 'we recognize your marriage as legal, but you can't get married here'. Gays rights are preserved with minor offense and the church's rights are preserved with minor offense. In this case, it would seem to be true that if we are being fair to all parties, a trans person should have the right to 'be' trans, should have the right to behave as whatever sex they want and to refer to themselves in whatever fashion they like and to be respected for their decsions. Their mental health should also be respected. However - we should also respect people's right to their own language and NOT compel them to lie by force of law. It would be WRONG to demand that someone MUST speak a lie if they are going to speak. And that is not only true of individuals but society in general. There is a legal term that is often used when discussing accomodating people's illness and disability in buildings for example - the law in BC says such people must be accomodated TO THE POINT OF HARDSHIP - in otherwords, to the point where it becomes unreasonable or impractical to do so. It is reasonable to treat trans people as the gender of their choice and allow them that freedom by and large. It is UNREASONABLE to COMPEL someone to refer to them by a gender which is not actually true against their will. And it is UNREASONABLE to accept them as BIOLOGICALLY the sex of their choice where segregation of sex is required or accepted. Yes some are left handed. Yes, where possible we should make sure both right and left handed people are accomodated. No, people should not be forced to call left handed people right handed if they don't want to. My thoughts anyway.

They are a huge majority. They've been talking about it non stop. It's a huge thing for the dems AND the left. And in canada - we've just been watching the repercussions of that. Politicans are now being hounded by the media for their 'defund' stance because it's caused so much harm. But - lets face it. Dems and the left don't CARE if people get hurt, as long as their ideology is preserved.

No it's just a real word. Period. You don't seem to understand how words work. Nope. Tonnes of pictures out there. Sorry sweetie - another swing and a miss for you. Oh MANY do. And even when they admit to it, their actions suggest there's other agendas. For example - you just claimed they don't wear sexy outfits. But - by and large they actually do. So... why did you lie? what is your actual agenda here? See - you lie constantly, so when you claim there's one agenda people are forced to ask themselves if you're lying about that too, and if there isn't ANOTHER agenda. That's the problem with being a chronic liar. If this is ONLY about accepting there's other genders - why do they need to dress in a sexual fashion? Teachers dont, doctors don't, other professionals don't, hell other children's performers don't. But these people do. Yes you did - trying to change the channel What's your favorite lie again? Ahh yes - 'get back here with those goalposts!" lol What we ACTUALLY were talking about is lead parent roles in families. And i was very specific. And i was quite right. And realizing i was right you tried to change it up. And utterly failed. That's the problem with being a chronic liar - sooner or later you slip up. So you're claiming disney is fascist? I see.... Of course it's about age. The left is the only group that censors things just because they don't like them. ROFLMAO!!! Man i love those salty leftist tears! WAAAAAAHHHHH - THE NASTY PERSON IS MAKING ME LOOK BAD WITH FACTS! AND LOGIC!!! IT"S SO MEAN - WHY CAN"T THEY JUST ACCEPT THAT EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A FASCIST!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!! LOL - it's precious to see you break down like that Sorry kiddo - you've made it quite clear that you're the only fascist here. You're all about hatred and lies and cancelling other people and denying simple truths. Plus the whole racism thing and the bigotry and the weird anti-jew 'jews are nazis' thing. You're not coming across as a very good person, and all i have to do to show the world that is stand here and speak the truth. I realize that must be very frustrating for you.

Ahhh no. I can do a lot about consumption. Regardless of the vehicle i choose to drive gas prices will remain the same. Sorry - you don't seem to understand how "price" works. So no matter what i do i will have to do x amount of driving and buy Y amount of gas. And the price for that will be higher than it should be. No, that's not true. It's a 'stated purpose' but research has shown that's not a motivating factor. That was the THEORY behind such taxes, and it was a nice theory. But in the real world it turns out that energy consumption is far less 'elastic' than the original models thought. In other words -people have far less control over their energy expenditures than you'd think. You can say whatever you like and punish a person as much as you want - but they still have to get to work. They still have to pick up the kids. They still need groceries. They still need to heat their homes and cool their stored food. ANd they can make a VERY LITTLE change to that - but not much. My primary vehicle was already extremely fuel efficient. Most people's are, unless they have need for one that isn't like a minivan to get the kids around or the like. So - what happens is they are NOT able to reduce consumption. That's just a fact. The higher prices just take money from them and they will spend less ELSEWHERE where they have more elasticity in their budgets. So all it does is reduce their quality of life and ability to afford homes and such without doing much else. What we ACTUALLY know is that Liberals would rather lie to themselves and PRETEND to do something rather than actually address the hard issues. the fact is fuel consumption per person is already fairly low considering our geography. All the liberals are doing is making single moms go hungry and feed their kids less quality food, deny them things like sports and experiences such as camping that require fuel, etc. The carbon tax is just a tax. The gov't uses it to take your money so they can have it to blow on their pet projects and to line their pockets and the pockets of their friends. It does almost nothing for the environment. It was never supposed to.

Lefties gotta lie. But it's disappointing to see the NDP, once upon a time considered to be the conscious of the parliament, riding shotgun for the liberals while average people and workers (the NDP's bread and butter) can't afford a place to live.

If Desantis enters trump is going to lose his mind. That will undoubtedly be one of THE most entertaining fights for some time. I would hope Epic Rap Battles does it

I don't think they care much about the kids on social media. They care about the fact that there's still a lot of people who support the tax and for reaasons i can't fathom think it makes some positive difference to the world. It reminds me of those self flagellationist of the past that think that if they whip themselves to atone for their sins god will stop whatever evil they think is happening. It's like "There's a really really bad ice storm!!! God is displeased! TAX ME HARDER!!!!" if we want change we have to speak louder than they do. And that may even mean speaking at the next election for a new party that won't pull that kind of crap.

Klinger from MASH would like to have a word with you...

no, it's a real word. It means what it's used for. "Goalposts" is a buzzword. Because most americans and Canadians think that there's nothing wrong with being gay. And just like most heteros most gays are decent people. But - groups like the far left and the far right have agendas that normal people are leery of. So when people like yo say "C'mon, there's no agenda here, we just think it'd be great if crossdressers in sexy outfits read gay positive stories to children for no reason!" there's a fair bit of distrust. That's why "woke" has become a pejorative. Nope - i was correct. You tried to change the question to 'displays heterosexual behavior' or some stupid thing but that wasn't the issue - the issue was how many have hetero married main characters - i noted that in almost every single disney film there is only one parent, or they're both dead. Sorry - what were you saying about goalposts The left always tries to accuse others of what they do Yeah we do. Ferociously so. Prove me wrong. Lets see any sources that contradict that. They were very left wing, I heard some interviews with a few of them. It would depend - i had undestood that these were only public libraries associated with schools. In such a case no, that's not authortarian the gov't is supposed to make decisions about what is or isn't age appropriate If they're saying NO libraries ANYWHERE can carry the book then yes that's very authortarian and i would be opposed to it.

ROFLMAO!!!!! - you get your news from multiple LEFT WING sources and i notice that it's always the same You ignore anything that doesn't confirm your bias. That's why it's obvious to this guy and everyone around you that you are in fact ill-informed.

But not indoctrination. And it's not appropriate to be teaching children about sex and complex issues like that too early. And pretending that it's ok doesn't make it ok. Sorry for the inconvenience. And it's true - nobody trusts you. Thats why when people accuse you of grooming everyone finds it believable. Yawn. typical - i prove you're wrong and you resort to cheezy buzzwords. I said disney doesn't do hetero parent relationships. You claim oh yes they do they do all the time i just saw it freeeeaaak oooouttt. So i list 'em. And you claim that somehow is moving the goalposts. What a disgusting liar you are "a" child? YOu need 3 or 4 for a good family sit com. It's not really believable that a gay couple would do that, so it gets complicated to write. How many gay couples do you know that adopted 4 kids? It's not really a common thing. So you can pretend it is - but we both know you're lying. Much easier to say they're a hetero family with 4 kids. Definitely not - the radical left is in the minority and the vast majority did not have a problem with the books. That's the thing about cancel culture - you don't need a tonne of people for it to work. So a bunch of left wing freaks demanded it and got it. And of course the left supports that . The left is ALL about book banning when it suits their agenda. They only want books they like available. So here's the lie in what you said. The book company was approached and pressured by outside forces to give up their books. they didn't go seek those peole out - they came and said 'Your book is unacceptable, kill it or we'll cancel you". And desantis, the guy in charge of PUBLIC services is banning books from PUBLIC SCHOOL libraries that his gov't is directly responsible for. But the company can still sell the books, nobody's trying to cancel them. Soooooo. Yeah. The left wing's version is a lot closer to a book banning. And a gov't deciding what goes in a gov't run library is actually pretty normal. So you can complain about his non -ban 'book banning' after you decide that the leftwing actual book banning is not ok.

This is the result of the 'social experiments' in law enforcement the liberals have been doing along with their new laws. And the liberals know this and claim they're going to 'tweak' it to be 'more fair' ..... one of these days. Maybe right after they get around to those foreign interference laws. They don't wan to say what year it'll happen mind you. It'll be at the appropriate juncture. In the fullness of time. Meanwhile if people die - oh well. What's a few votes less at the polls either way.

Exactly. And that's not including the effect the carbon price has on extracton and delivery of gas which is hidden in the price. Gov'ts could do a hell of a lot about gas prices - if they gave a crap about people. The current ones don't seem to

So you're responding to yourself? What you do is say the silent part out loud and then try to pretend it was all a joke when you get called on it. That's several times now in several threads you've made anti semetic remarks. And comparing jews to nazi's is pretty bad. and we both know it wasn't just the gov't you were calling nazi's as you later claimed.

this is typical of you. In fact it's being shown you were wrong - as you often are becuase you attempt to learn topics as you go on google. When you realize you're wrong you just start lashing out like a child. Claiming that reforms that took place 600 years or so before the end of the empire prove the empire was in dire peril at the end is dumb. If it was it wouldn't have lasted another 600 years And the only thing you demonstrated is that you're trying to justify your position by reading google as fast as you can, and getting it wrong. Sure - well trained and drilled - AS NEEDED. That was one of their greatest strengths - they could raise and train a professional army in no time. Well mostly - occasionally it went badly. But it would be 100 years after marius before they kept any real standing forces. That was OVER 100 years later!!!!!! Holy shit boy - could you look like more of an illiterate dolt! so 100 years after marius they START to begin to have standing forces and EVEN THEN they still raise a lot of what they need when they need it Does NOBODY on the left check dates?!?! So your claim that the marius reforms created a standing army is only off by a century!!! LOL - no biggie Yeah - they didn't tend to keep them permanently, only based on need so if they abandoned the germanic areas they didn't need to replace them! DUUUUUUHHHHHH And again - that was it. THey never threatened rome and the empire went on for another 500 years. That battle made almost no difference to rome, other than to be the end of attempting to take the germanic lands. So no - the BIGGEST BADASS MAJOR ATTACK the "germans" launched.... basically fizzled. They killed 3 legions - very impressive - but that was it and then they fell back on attacking each other. Rome wasn't bothered a bit. Your understanding is so pathetic you don't even realize you've proven all my points. Marius's reforms had nothing to do with standing armies - it would be 100 years before rome bothered with having any other than the pretorian and a couple of standing legions for immeidate security (the legendary 13th being one). The border skirmishes lasted the entire history of rome and of the byzantine empire - it made no real difference. 1400 years worth of history there - gee for something you claim was catastrophic it sure takes it's time having a fatal impact The western roman empire died because of continuously worse and worse leadership focused on strength rather than skill and increasing beaurocracy that chewed up the available fund. Not 'germans'. You look like a fool.

well 'masculinity' itself has been deemed to be 'toxic', so even those who think like men have learned to hide it well.