CdnFox

I know the evidence is there, i've seen it before but i want to make you go look it up for me because i'm that kind of scum! LOL - nice try kid. I see you sure backed down from putting money up if i found it pretty quick Imagine claiming nobody's been canceled by the left who the hell did you think you were kidding.

This has already been responded to. You ready to put up some cash? Do one web search and you'll have all the examples you need without leaving the first page.

It's actual free speech. No, it's pretty much code for "women think they need the gov't to solve their problems because it's too tough for them to". I think those women are wrong, but i get where they learn that they're too repressed and too victimized to stand on their own without gov't. It's a pretty constant message these days from those on the left.

Well - that certainly was a compelling and well thought out response. Everyone involved will now take the next 18 hours to re evaluate their lives. Thank you for your guidance.

translation - Waaaaaahhhhh if we continue to lie about him we might get sued!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAHHHHH! Please. If you think that's the same as a foreign gov't attempting to buy our officials you're on glue.

You mean the "high fibre' blend? Why you're lucky you don't have to pay extra for that! Frosted. Frosted toast. And 'aged' creamer. The WeSaySo Party appreciates your feedback. Now shut up and eat your breakfast peon.

Alright, so there's tonnes of examples but you're going to continue to lie about it. You KNOW you were wrong but are sticking with the old 'deflect deflect deflect'. And then blame others for deflecting. We both know i didn't. but i love that you've at least conceded you said what you said about conservatives and jews. That's a start. It tells me that you need to lie to yourself about what you say and others say to try to live with what a pathetic slimeball you are. You're a racist, you're sexist, you're a bigot, you're an anti Semite, you lie. I would imagine it takes quite a bit of self delusion just to get to sleep at nights.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-419327-4-.htm#419327 This will be interesting. It's one thing for the commissioner to find they were within the law - but if a court does that ENDS any complaints the next time it's used which could be against first nations blockades or blm marches, etc. Will a judge be willing to say Justin got it wrong? Or will they leave the door open to abuses in the future?

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/419418/Terrorism-charges-added-in-Surrey-bus-attempted-murder-case Well - at least it's not yet another RANDOM attack. Knowing that crazy people are being backed up by the terrorists isn't doing much for my desire to take transit anytime soon tho.

(well i mean he did forgive them for nailing him to a tree just for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, soooooo....)

The snake was the first politician. The devil was the first voter.

why though? why would you encourage him like that?

well they probably got it from the bible LOL Joking aside, it's true. Conservatives including federal ones were the first proponents of a carbon tax. The initial modelling looked very promsing. But - it soon became apparent with further study that energy use was no where near as 'elastic' as was first thought in the early models and the idea therefore wouldn't work. The libs/ndp picked it up as a great way to raise revenues and taxes without upsetting people and looking good on the environmental front, and the cpc meanwhile dropped it.

well ... in fairness they haven't been voting as long as we have. Maybe they'll get better at it?

Its' a weird thing about humans - if you take all of people's money and then give back just enough to survive. a shockingly large percent of them will say "thank god for those people or i wouldn't have the money to survive". They don't realize if the gov't wasn't takeing their money in the first place they'd have more than enough to survive. And we wonder why intelligent aliens don't want to talk to us.

I normally don't do the 'cite' thing but you're a pretty honest debater so, sure. Here's an example. There's some others out there that go into more detail. There was something similar over SNC. https://archive.ph/u3RqJ The documents show the RCMP believed there were “reasonable grounds” to think fraud may have been committed, but the force decided it would not be in the public interest to lay charges because of a lack of clarity in federal rules that apply to accepting gifts. Because Mr. Trudeau is the head of government, the RCMP said, “it cannot be definitely determined whether or not Mr. Trudeau can simply provide consent to himself.” Lawyers? Or just ones you approve of that you enjoy the scare mongering from. Because the legal community is not saying that's likely. The papers love the headlines but no. Real lawyers are't buying it - and if you read the decisions you will see why. And on top of that there's practical reasons. The constituton recogizes that if something is entrenched it should be considered under the special section as constitutionally protected as well. How are you going to unwind all the lives and families built around it? Here's a blurb on the practical elements: https://getoutspoken.com/news/why-same-sex-marriage-will-never-be-overturned-despite-media-fear-mongering It's a complete lie scare tactic - just like how conservatives in canada will ban abortions the moment the CPC takes power. Despite the fact they didn't the 10 years they were in power. Well you can't have it both ways. If it's far greater than 50 percent then it's enough for a constitutioal amendment. The constitution can be amended by a vote of 3/4 in the houses - and then ratified by 3/4 of the states i believe. Are you saying less than that would like to see no-limit abortions? I don't think it works that way for the constitution. Either it's a protected right or it isn't basically under the constitution. I suppose it MIGHT be possible to amend the constitution to make it a federal matter and then the feds could impose that on everyone - but i'm sure you can see the danger there. The next gov't could wipe it out entirely. Sorry - but here's the facts. Trump did it. You can play what if to your hearts content - but trump did it and it worked. Obama is a recent president and the numbers are there. Which is literally not relevant. It's like saying Oh - he was stabbing that girl for 10 minutes but technially he's not RIGHT NOW so he's the same as the rest of us. And again - you're ignoring the interest rates. He's exchanged high inflation for high interest. So when you look at what happened you see he did much worse. We'll see - but a lot of people are predicting the recession will be longer and deeper than previously suggested. THey're saying the same of canada. It went from 'slow down but no recession" to "MAAAAYBE a short and very mild technical recession" To "there's going to be a recession" to 'it's probably deeper than we thought". Well not canada. Europe. But - it also has a higher interest rate which is what fights inflation - but that brings on recessions. No - it's much worse. I get you don't understand this - i get that you're looking at ONE MONTH and thinking you have a clear picture. But it's bad. And businesses in the states know it's bad. Of course time will tell but i bet we're having a conversation in a year and i'm doing a whole lot of 'i told you so' and you're doing a whole lot of trying to play it off that it isn't that bad

Right! Well... that and he hasn't killed anybody.

LOL - well fair enough We'll leave it there then shall we?

this was in all the papers. Sorry but you're just wrong. The cops were clear - he broke the law but we think he can give himself permisson to break the law as pm. I'm not sure he realized he wasn't supposed to break the law in teh first place. I think he thought mortal laws didn't apply to him Who knows. If they haven't charged him with anything else or convicted him by then he's basically in the clear anyway. yeah but they're wrong. Sorry. It's just fear mongering. I mean they're right that if it wasn't found to be constitutionally protected it would be a state issue, but it has been found on pretty solid ground to be constitutional. well what is the percent who want it then? You seem to be suggesting that at least 50 percent want constitutional protection of abortion, which means no restrictions on it. Is that true? They are both works of fiction and they are both dogmatically and blindly followed by their adherents. Another president didn't. Trump did. Period. Trudeau didn't even tho he was given teh opportunity. So no - not all leaders. And the dems are fond of claiming his record was bad but in reality it was pretty good, and biden's was no better, Biden just followed and continued trumps plan to the letter while claiming there was no plan. Nope - better than most if you look at the numbers. Especially coming out of an economic slow period. CERTAINLY much better than obama and i mean after the recession. That's literally one month. Yeah -they are. their inflation is now just turning into recession. That's why their interest rates are higher than britian for example. they've had to hurt their people and economy with higher interest rates to get the inflation under control, and it will work - at the cost of a recession. But their inflation over time is worse. Biden SERIOUSLY crapped the bed on the economy. You cannot dump unearned dollars into the economy and not have runaway inflation. Also - america produces it's own oil, food etc, Many of those countries with 'higher' inflation are directly impacted by the war. The us is not. There was NO reason for the us or Canada to experience it that high. We should have been more like japan.

Because punishment isn't a treatment. You can't punish someone into good mental health. But - it IS fair to say that you can say they're too dangerous to be let into the public. That's not punishment - you're not 'punishing' a rabid dog by saying it can't play with the children. You just recognize that it would be too dangerous. Now, humans are more complex than that and hopefully in time the person can be treated and be returned to society and you'll note that my first thoughts on the subject were 'locked up until you can prove you're not a threat anymore". So i'm all over increasing treatment and perhaps releasing them to a secure hospital facility in time and eventually reintegrating them if they can be successfully treated and housing them permanently if not. But - no more letting killers out to kill again. Especially just because of the colour of their skin. I would support more care for mental health issues for sure, but that will be province by province.

I agree but that's provincial. The feds are responsible for crimes. I agree the provinces should do more on the mental health front but the feds should be making sure that one way or another these people don't have the freedom to kill again I'm sorry - but dead teen agers and women are the worse of the two evils. And removing the bad guys from public doesn't mean they can't be treated but dead is dead.

dude i think they just want your money

welllllll - scandal definitely, sure. But corruption is a little bit less 'opinion' and is a little more tangible and definable i think. We can debate whether or not it's a scandal to buy 14 dolllar OJ or spend 6 grand on a hotel room or not, but for example influence peddling is pretty cut and dry. And in this case while no law is broken i think 100 percent of people can agree that it has teh APPEARANCE of corruption if not the reality of it, and that is the issue. SO - a little more 'definable' universally if you will. Probably not. It LOOKS like corruption and that erodes people's confidence in the institutions

Well you'll have to ask the ndp gov't of bc - they're in charge of mental health in bc and have been for 7 years but have done nothing. You realize it's not a federal responsibility right? Harper btw actually tried to push several initiatives on mental health reform. it was a pet project of his. But - he can't tell the provinces what to do, You're complaining to the wrong party.