CdnFox

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

Sure !! - take a gun point it at the attendant and you can probably get your gas for free!!!! Because yelling at the gas station is clearly EXACTLY What i mean!!! Why do left wing nutbars always insist on reducio ad absurdum? Most people grow out of that by age 7. Enough = the number of times they say no +1. Oh absolutely - its guaranteed for sure - go gett'em big guy!!!! God its' amazing you can figure out how to even pump gas. Now if you're finished being dumber than the gasoline you want to buy - maybe get serious and do your job as a citizen in a democracy and push for change if you don't like it. That's what living in a democracy is all about

It would if you would complain enough to the gov't to kill carbon taxes and reduce the price. They have more headroom than the oil companies right now.

ALmost forgot this.... this just shows how out of touch you are. What the allies are doing is getting maaive amounts of positive live fire data in a real shooting war and getting rid of the their old stock of crap. Their defense industries are loving it, you can't pay for this kind of data. Now the next generations of systems coming off the line will be even better and more improved - and it hardly cost them anything. For peanuts they're getting the best data which they'll use to replenish stocks and adapt tactics for the next war while russia is out of everything and all they know is their crap doesn't work. THis could NOT have gone better for the allies. Russia has been utterly trashed for peanuts and no manpower losses to the allies, and their economy has been badly damaged. Meanwhile the nato countries will be replenishing their stockpiles of ammo and developing their next generation systems and stimulating their economy to do it, They can afford it VERY easily. Putin was a total loser to do this.

Yes. Putin drove his tanks across the boarder and invades with the intent of conquoring the nation and adding it to his empire. This has left many ukranians very upset and is now regarded as a bad move. If you're trying to claim now that putin isn't interested in expanding his empire i'll acknowledge you're a lying sack of poo and we can go our merry ways right now. AN election that has been widely recognized as not a free and fair election. If they were so pro russian why not do a free and fair election? But as you say, we're not talking about the invasion of crimea - we're talking about the invasion of ukraine. Which there was NO legitimate justification for. Bull Shit. Aboslute russian propaganda - Even PUTIN didn't claim that was the reason and he didn't try to take over donbas - he tried to take over the whole country. And he killed tens of thousands of innocent men women and children to do it. How can you stand over the bodies of dead children and say "this was totally justified"? No they did not, and if they did he would have invaded donbas. He did not. The ukrainans will take donbas back and russia can burn in hell if it picks a nuclear fight. If their nukes even still work anymore. Putin is a coward who talks tough but that's it. He's been threatening nukes since day one - no balls at all on that loser. Putin wanted to be a modern day conqueror and got his nutsack handed to him. Hes' pathetic.

I hate you for the fact i laughed...

well - hopefully even more so But the thing is - your significant other did not give you reason to believe that they WERN'T a hit man. So you haven't deceived them, they just don't have ALL the facts about you which is what dating is for. However - they DID give you reason to believe they were female. And they are not biologically. I would argue one is simply a matter of not having told you everything yet while the other is having indicated something that isn't true. It's not the same. Everyone has things about them you can't know till you start talking. But - if someone presents themselves as female, that's the same as if she had said up front she didn't drink and then admitted later she was recovering. Well again that would be a case where she deliberately deceived you and i would say you'd be right to walk. Sure and if they're important to you then you should ask - and they should answer honestly. BUt if they've already said "i'm a girl" by their behavior, manner and dress then if they're not they've been deceptive. True enough

Sure. Trudeau said 'this will be the last election that's first past the post". That was three elections ago

He absolutely did. 100 percent. He mentioned it frequently. Here - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-times-trump-called-hillary-clinton-democrats-investigated/story?id=51138506 Yet - as soon as he was elected he specifically stated that he wouldn't bother prosecuting her becuase 'she's suffered enough' . That was about day three after his win. Pretty fast backtrack. I"m not picking on him - all presidents are like this. I was pretty clear he was an example, not the only one. They all promise change and there's a LITTLE ... not what they promise tho. Obama went from "Yes we can' to "we probably can't" pretty damn fast. They all do.

Well like i say- the big difference is that there's no reasonable expectation that they would know if you were a hitman or not. They don't have any reason to believe you are or are not a felon, or if you've served time in jail or any of that. So that's something you can discuss later - it's fair to say you can't impart all knowledge about yourself at once. BUT - THERE IS a reason to believe they think you're a biological girl/boy. they PROBABLY think that. SO - allowing them to CONTINUE to believe that instead of correcting that is dishonest. It would be like meeting at a dating website called "totally-NOT - former-hitman.Com' and then mentioning date three - ooh by the way... You can't give people the impression you're a girl/boy and allow them to hold that belief and then do a bait and switch later. It's dishonest in the extreme.

Those statements are not connected. The marian reforms changed how soldiers were orgainzed when the legions WERE formed - it has nothing to do with whether or not they kept a large standing army. For about 200 years ish after that The army was still conscripts as needed, with a very small number of legions kept active. They wouldn't even move to standing forces till much later and even then they still did a lot of it by conscription as needed. Swing and a miss kiddo. talking to your mirror again'? You have to station more even just to keep the peace when you can't get reinforcements there any time soon. They could easily raise more troops on the mainland if they needed them, they could move troops about, not much need for large forces everywhere. And the wall worked . That's the point. Did the celts ever threaten rome? Were the romans thrown off the island? Nope - they were a beaten people for the most part and at best there was a small amount of raiding. They weren't a major problem for the romans. As you proved - for the most part they had minor skirmishes and weren't much of an issue. Every few hundred years the'd have a limited success but otherwise just weren't an issue. The romans handled them easily. They weren't the reason the empire fell. It's more like gangs today in America. Sure - they're an issue and they cause problems but there's no chance the US is going to collapse because of gang violence or activity. Here's a clue - if something is going on for 700 years and still doesn't cause the civilization to fall - it's not why the civilization fell Rome fell because of worse and worse leadership due to the tendancy of picking strong leaders over smart ones and an increasing beurocracy that sucked up all the revenues and became increasingly inefficient. Sorry - you're just wrong here. Border fights were a thing that happened from the beginning to the end of the empire and all through the byzantine. They absolutely did not bring the country down. They weren't much of a problem, any more than crime is for modern culture today. Sorry kiddo ';) next time try reading BEFORE you talk.

The 'change' is often far less than advertised. obviously any gov't is going to be a 'change' from the one that came before. One might well argue that even in a second term gov'ts 'change' often enough. Obama did. But look at trump - "i'll build a wall, hillary will be in jail, i'll stop illegal immigraiton. i'll bring the good paying jobs back to america", etc etc. Sure - he improved the economy, there's no doubt, and he did do things different than obama - but a lot of the change he promised didn't materialize. And that's often the case, democrat or republican.

Yeah pretty much. BUT - the slogan works. So they keep using it.

YOU DIE NOW HERETIC!!!!! ' Well... the good news is if you ARE an 'arborsexual' i guess you won't be needing birth control. We're not here to judge, this is a safe space. I mean obviously you're entitled to an opinon for sure - and i can see arguments against it for various reasons. But i was just pointing out that beyond morality there IS a practical component to this. A single abortion costs a hell of a lot of money and they're already getting those for free.

Context DOES matter though. It makes a difference if you're the agressor - launching missiles into a civillian area first is different than going after missle sites that are shooting at you. Who fires the first shot matters. Shooting at civilians with intent vs shooting at bad guys who surround themselves with civilians is Very Very different. You can't dismiss that as the same thing. Everyone has a right to self defense. I don't see them doing that much - but if that's the case... make peace. Come to the table and say "enough - lets work this out". The world would support that - instead they elect a gov't who has "kill all isrealis and drive them into the sea" as a platform plank. Then they're angry they're getting occupied? They attack the isrelis constantly, they state they want to kill them, they use human shield tactics with their own people and such - sorry but i can't feel any sympathy for people like that. Context does matter - if they don't want peace then they can't complain about the war can they.

I think its pretty clear the initial one wasn't her - 'they treat the palisinians just like they were nazis'. Me - "hey - that's not really ok to call jews nazis". Her - "Ummm ummmmm i meant EVERYONE is a nazi .. like jamacans and stuff..." Dude - she said jews are the same as nazi's. Her attempts now to downplay it are hollow. And this is NOT the first time she's slagged jews, And she out and out tried to claim that she's saying the jewish GOV"T is nazi - not necessarily all the people which doesn't make much sense considering the people elected them. This really is who she is.

You did elsewhere - and schools are for education, not PROGRAMMING or sexual grooming. The 'normal' agenda for a school is quite clear - this is a seperate agenda that the Letter people deny and then have to admit to. As i said - nobody trusts you, you lie far too often both personally and as a community. Seriously. Go back and count. Cinderella - no parents except an evil step mom. Snow white - no dad. Ariel - no mom. Nemo - no mom, Belle in the original - no mom. Rapunzel - no dad. Bambi - Mom and dad divorced and dad is deadbeat until mom gets killed. So lets not lie. As i said disney doesn't really even do heterosexual couples. Do they. All of them because they don't have ANY couples. This is about protecting kids from learning about sex too early. That's the agenda - teach them about sexualization young. As noted - not a lot of shows where hetero couples were the main characters. The ones that are are all family sit coms that follow a specific model because it's popular and it's harder to explain how a gay couple has three children. Having a married couple hinders the writers, so you don't see it unless the show is anchored around the idea of the family and then hetero makes the most sense to explain the kids and requires the least amount of explaining. It's that simple. You also don't get shows with a married lead where one is crippled for the same reason. It's not "anti -disability", it's just harder to write. Nope - gays and bi's are well represented. There's thousands of gay characters. Sorry. And considering that gay marriage wasn't even legal anywhere in the US till 2004 - that kind of makes sense doesn't it. "GEE - WHY WEREN'T THERE ANY SHOWS ABOUT IT BEFORE IT EXISTED?!?!?!!?" Duhhhhhhhh And schools have been moving away from secularism and don't recognize ANY holidays that aren't offical ones. So - perfect example They do in time. When it's the best time to teach them. In Canada we have classes called "Scoial studies" which go over that stuff plenty. But that doesn't mean children need to be discussing which god is 'real' and which isn't in kindergarten. "The decision to cease publication and sales of the books was made last year after months of discussion with teachers, academics and a "panel of experts," the company told AP." https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/dr-seuss-books-publication-racist-images-1.5933033 Oh - and it turns out they were ALL on the left. They lobbied the Dr Seuss foundation - and successfully got the books banned. Swing and a miss kiddo. So let me guess - you're going to claim that this was actually a group of Far RIght teachers, Nazi achademics and the panel was actually trump and desantes? Banned from libraries unless they're very careful to hide them. I posted an artice about how creative they were having to be to hide them a while back. And you can't buy the books for sale any more unless you can find one used - and eventually all those will be gone. It's hilarious that you CONSTANTLY CLAIM that the republicans BANNNNNEEEEEDD BOOOOOOOKS - for taking them out of school libraries only but claim that ceasing the sale entirely and removing them from ALL libraries is not a book ban. Yes you are - and hypocrites too The left wing only promotes lies and hatred - then wonders why no one wants them grooming their kids.

More like you hope i won't. So - here's proof she lies to you again people. Both articles refer to the same speech - he mentioned it ONCE, at a FATHERS DAY EVENT (imagine talking about families at fathers day) - but the kicker is this was AFTER HE WAS PRESIDENT FOR 4 YEARS. I said he never used 'family values" during his campaign where he said he wanted to 'make america great again". SHe posts this. - from 4 years AFTER that campaign. Didn't check the dates didja kiddo So there's your proof people = all the left does is lie. They cannot actually make their point WITHOUT lying. No - it isn't. And this has already been proven. Its about exactly the same thing as leftist propaganada - change. If it was - you wouldn't have to lie as you just did about what they said during the campaign. Sure sure - children are our future - next generation will be the best - heard it all before. They all say the same thing, the next is our best and brightest because reasons. In reality the polling in canada is VERY clear that the youth are leaving the left and dogpililng on the right in numbers never previously believed possible. I suspect the american kids will be the same. But - biden will still claim they're the 'best generation ever' even if he knew they'd grow up to be nazi's. Or jews i guess - i know you think it's synonymous. He lies about it because what he REALLY thinks is that you're dumb enough to believe he actually thinks that way. Sorry kiddo. The only kids he worries about is hunter. And conservatives simply don't talk about family values much at all. Except for one paid speech on fathers day for their second election roflmao Democrats and Republicans say exactly the same thing when facing an incumbent - "Change! Vote for change!"

No - attempting to change the channel with terms like 'Deflection" and "projection" is what weak minded low brow thinkers use when they realize they can't defend their position. Makes them feel like they're making an argument when they're not. That's why you've got those images on hot standby at all times Whenever you realize you've painted yourself into a corner you whip them out and then stick your head in the sand. I mean hell even the jews are nazi's according to you. Well - isreali jews anyway, you weren't clear if you were bigoted to ALL jews or just most of them.

No - it does not. If i win a race, and then i'm going to race again and i say I hope i win again - i'm not saying that i want to go back to the previous race. I'm saying that moving forward i intend to repeat my success in a new race. As in - Americans built a great nation - we will repeat that success and build a great nation again. Doesn't mean it's going to be the SAME as last time but that americans will succeed in building something great again. Which is an obvious interpretation of 'again'. We did something before and we can do it again. It is your bias that prevents you from seeing the obvious there and interpreting it in a negative light.

You... ahhh - you realize i pointed that out. It's no contradiction at all. Kennedy said lets make america great as well. Sure. It's a common theme. Kennedy basically said the same thing - "Hey - things have gone off the rails, we can get back to being great as soon as we get rid of this guy who's ruined eveyrthing". To listen to you anyone who uses the word "again" means "lets bring back slavery" Even trump it wasn't about going back to values. His "again" was to bring good paying jobs back, to be respected and feared appropriately around the world, to have a strong economy. It wasn't to lock up gays. Obama was no different. Only diehard lefties would fail to see it's the same message over and over and over. Justin trudeau - a leader who's even futher right than anyone in american history - his theme was "canada is "back"". It's the same crap from all of them. The people challenging the incumbent argue for change. "Things are out of whack, we'll bring them back to what they should be and things will be awesome". It's the same message again and again. There is ZERO difference between the left and the right in that regard.

Ahhh - here we go. So the letter people "NEED" to. So there IS an agenda and it is about sexuality. Well - thanks for admitting it. Not children's media. when was the last time a disney princess had a mother and father at the same time? If you mean at home there's plenty of gays in media. There's shows where most of the characters are gay. If you want to expose your children to that as a parent and you feel they and you can handle it there's tonnes of opportunity. there were plenty of main gay characters before. The vast majority of characters in EVERY show are not couples. Friends had no married couples (ross is too weird to call a 'married' anything and his wife was gay), seinfeild, etc etc. You get a few from back in the day like archie - which absolutely DID deal with homosexuallity - and brady bunch and cosby but for the most part it wasn't much of a popular theme. But there were plenty of gay characters. Gender and sex really can't be separated in kids minds. So - the quesiton is is it appropriate for kids to be dealing with this. Many people feel no - let them be kids and grow up and then address it. And there's evidence to suggest that's the correct answer. So let parents choose - keep it out of school and let parents decide at home if that's something they want to work on their kids with earlier or later. There's an agenda here. something the LBGTQRSPMOUSE community has been denying like crazy. Which is why there is now a lack of trust. And it may or may not be a positive one - how can parents be sure when that community has been so dishonest about it's intents before? They absolutely were - and they got cancelled. Thats 100 percent the left at work. See- when the right keeps a book out of schools, it's "Banning" the book and it's terrible. When the left actually forces the literal ban of a book which will now not be printed any longer and is being removed from libraries unless they get creative about hiding it ... ohhh that's nothing, yeah, no that's fine there's nothing to see there. Liar. Better be careful, your hypocrisy is showing So once again - the message from the left is "If you disagree with me you're a terrible evil person who should die". Also from the left "Why don't you trust me?" Put out as many gay childrens' books as you like - i'm sure others will put out books suggesting gays aren't such a great thing, You can have it out. And lets get real - it's already normalizing quite nicely. And that will continue apace. But - if you want to actually speed things up then attacking anyone who disagrees with you and acting in a disgustingly dishonest and disreputable way only breeds disrespect. the 'message' listening to you is "you can't trust gays and if you question then they will attack you. It's them vs you". Well... aside from the fact i don't believe that's a healthy or even accurate message - it will achieve the opposite of what you claim to want. THen again yours side is ALL about culture wars and hate. Maybe that's your goal in the end anyway and you don't actually WANT it to be normal. That certainly would explain your actions.

Yeah - that really doesn't prove your point at all No, he was about exploiting the public's desire for change. Same as the rest. Sorry. Regan never mentioned 'returning to values' in the slightest. He was all about the same thing as kennedy - exploit the public sense that things are going off track and say he'll put them on track. Nope -it's always the same. "Things are a mess, i'll change them". ti's the same message every time for the non incumbent. IF they want to win. The lie here is that the lefties think it's different when their person says exactly the same thing Nope - it s precisely the same for both. It's about being stupidly optimistic about the future for each and every one. And 'the children are our future' is also a popular one for both sides, but when it does show up it's secondary or tertiary. There's no difference. It's the same. It's a complete lie to say otherwise. And there's a reason it's the same - it works. All you have to do is try to think of a new way of saying "i'll change things for the better" that hopefully hasn't been used too much before. The difference here is that you're blinded by your hatred, bigotry and ideology so you are mentally unable to see it or cope with the idea that the republicans share ANYTHING in common with your beloved left. Where as i am sane and intelligent and assess things based on fact - so its clear as a bell. Republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, they all use the same line against an incumbent and it works. There's no difference except inside your teeny tiny little mind.

I come at this from a less 'moral' and more 'practical' position. Unplanned unwed pregnancies are known to lead to additional crime and other social problems. Less so with our canadian safety net than in the states, but still nonetheless. Truth be told, i ran a little side 'charity' when i was younger refurbing old computers that clients were disposing of and giving them to single moms who were looking at returning to school to upgrade their skills so that they could do the basics like use the internet and word/excel. I know what it was like for many of them. Are we likely to be able to get kids to stop having sex? Probably not. Is it reasonable to think kids under the age of 21 are going to always make the best decisions? Oh hell no. It is desirable to have fewer unplanned pregnancies. Kids are going to boink. Ergo - making birth control as accessable as possible does seem to have some merit. I HATE paying for things out of my tax dollars that only benefit one sex and that i will never get a benefit from personally in any way, but in this case i think it's justified.

well i'm sure that's how YOU really think about it. You've been pretty clear Ms "doesn't understand individualism".