CdnFox

All right, the article that you posted specifically doesn't say that they had okayed this with the Colombians prior to the flight, therefore by your own logic it's proof that they didn't. You're being an !diot And seeing as it's your claim that they did it's incumbent upon you to make that proof which you have failed to do Sure I can. There's hundreds of articles that don't mention them not doing something they didn't do either. Seeing as that's your new measure of proof There is no proof that they did and the president of Columbia says they didn't. So there you go. And again, It is YOUR claim that they did, so the burden of proof is on you. And you have failed to prove they did. But I love that you're trying desperately to suggest somehow it's my job to prove that something that you claimed happened never happend instead of your job to prove it did 😮 LOLOLOL Sorry kiddo, you made a claim and it's turned out not to be accurate as far as anyone can tell. And as I said it's too bad that they didn't because it would have avoided all of this crap

I have not said whether I agree with it or I disagree with it. I asked you to provide a source that indicates that your definition is accurate. I'm sorry, is English you or third or fourth language or something? You seem to be really struggling with it

Uhhh one in 50,000 is a lot higher than 1 in 150 thousand. I know. Math is hard for you.

A trade war is a war. That's why it's called a war. But everybody here knows you're already a traitor to Canada so it's not like it'll matter to you.

I think you would have a hard time characterizing this as trump backing down. I think the best you could say is that one avenue forward was blocked and he clearly intends to pursue other avenues to try and make this happen. I'm not seeing where he backed down

Sorry but that doesn't support your claim of your definition. You gave a very specific definition I'm asking you specifically to provide proof that that is the definition. In fact the source you provided suggests that it isn't the definition of that identity is actually something different than what you proposed. So were you lying before with your definition or are you lying now with your current citation? I have never asked where it came from, I simply asked what the definition was and asked you to defend the definition you provided

No he has announced his intention to resign at some point in the future. He has not actually resigned. If an election was called tomorrow he would be the person leading the liberal election campaign. If trump creates a trade war tomorrow he will be the one in charge of responding Virtually every party leader will resign one day. But right now he is the Prime minister of Canada. And is this April? No? So what you're saying is what I claimed was 100% accurate and he's currently the prime minister Sorry that's not the way it works. Not to mention the fact that the liberals that backed him are still the liberals who will be in power. Nothing will have changed. If you want him to be history then he should resign this very moment but he chose not to. And his party won't be changing either way until the next election. And you don't get to say sorry we screwed you over for 10 years and let this guy run amok but you have to forgive us of that right now because we would find it convenient for you to do so. If Canadians suffer for it then Canadians can learn the powerful lesson that if you put someone like him in power you may pay a horrible price and maybe they won't do it the next time. You cannot blame us for other people's bad choices For now.

No it wasn't. You just had a panic attack because you realize you couldn't defend your position. I've noticed that that's a bit of a thing with you. I never mentioned the brain. I was told By you that identity is defined as who you are. It is made up of your self-awareness, your consciousness, your perspectives, your motivations, your interpretations, your sense of self, your particular way of framing the world, your intuitions, the manner in which you process information,. All I asked was that you provide medical evidence that that is the definition of identity. And then you freaked out and peed a little So, go ahead. provide.

There is no requirement that the Prime Minister the elected to parliament or even be sitting in parliament. There are some practical considerations as you do have to be a sitting MP to be asking questions or taking questions in question period. However if it makes you feel better you can sign up right now for the liberal leadership race for free and vote on who you want to be the leader

So you just realized you said something mind meltingly stupid and can't defend your position. Got you. I don't know why you enjoy making yourself look like you're full of shit so often but you know, you do you.

Which the doctors are saying isn't accounting for it. Why do you on the left always refuse to follow the science? There's really no gotcha. Well there was for moonbox a little bit because we got to relive one of his more stupid moments in the past but that's not really a gotcha As you say the dangers of the vaccine were already known, this is news that it might be worse than we previously believed and that more research is necessary. That's not a gotcha that's just an interesting point for discussion and ties into the concerns many have shared about trusting untested medical technology out of hand. We probably should not have forced people to take the vaccine as much as we did and it's worth having that discussion for the next time we face that particular circumstance. But it's just a discussion there's no gotcha

Well as you are alluding to in order to see how our leadership does we will have to wait until we have leadership. He is literally prime minister right now. The earliest he's likely to stop being prime minister is may. And even that's questionable because jagmeet is seriously considering backing him because they are doing crappy in the polls. I think you're going to have a tough time claiming that the man who is currently sitting in the Prime Minister seat is history and long gone

I literally had to explain what a congressional vote was to you moments ago It's like a 7 week old puppy claiming to understand advanced calculus

No I didn't ask anything remotely like that. You were offering a definition of what identity is. You're really not terribly bright are you? As soon as someone asks you a question that you don't have bullet point pre approved answers for you go to pieces so Fast that people get hit by the shrapnel

LOL oh dear. Did we get triggered by our past failures little guy ? Simple truth I'm afraid. We actually had that discussion and you actually did provide proof that the original proof that I had provided was accurate And me laughing at you about it isn't actually a tantrum LOL. Your reaction is a Little Closer, although I would probably say meltdown is more accurate. In any case during that exchange we learned that the shot was considerably more dangerous than covid itself and if you got the shot and didn't get covid you were really taking an unnecessary risk. Now it looks like that situation may be even worse. It says there's been a 40% increase in cardiac issues and they're very worried it's tied to covid shots and vaccines. Looks like I may have been even more right at the time than we thought. Which is fairly disturbing. Well it's disturbing to us normal people anyway. I'm sure you will put your fractured ego ahead of this issue That wasn't too long for you was it? You didn't get tired reading that and have to take a nap or anything did you?

That's supposedly February 1st. According to trump anyway. He has indicated that he wishes to start a trade war and that he intends to try and force the people of Canada to become the 51st state through economic coercion. It's kind of been in the news. That was sort of a dumb thing to say

Show us the medical journal that lists that. I mean I assume you're not just making this up randomly, So provide the medical documentation that indicates that this is where a person's identity comes from

Sure chug.

I just provided proof that the constitution does not stand in the way of such laws. With explicit examples and everything. How? It would still need an act of congress. He'd still have to put a motion forward and it would still have to be voted on. You couldn't do it by executive order. You might not need a change to the constitution but you still need a new law. You really don't understand how any of this political stuff works do you?

That's because you can't prove a negative. What kind of proof would you like that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist? Here's what I said. I said that they should have confirmed what they were doing with the columbans and gotten approval to do it first and then this wouldn't be a problem. YOU are the one claiming they did so. So the burden of proof is on you So far you've provided no such evidence and in fact the evidence you have provided strongly suggests you are wrong. The president was surprised, previously this was not us policy, etc. So they jump on a plane, file a flight plan and say 'hey were' on our way down there and we've got deportees on board" and the gov't turns around and says "what the hell? No way" and turns them around And all of this could have been avoided by reaching out before hand and saying 'new policy, we're doing this now" and things would have been sorted. the information you provided says it is. I can't quite tell, are you calling your own sources a liar or yourself? or both somehow?

You and your weird fantasies again I take it that makes you the diaper?

LOL i guess moonbox thinks it's funny that he was wrong all this time I do remember when you tried to argue with me when i posted proof the shot was more dangerous for young men than covid was and you posted your OWN study that said.... the shot was more dangerous for young men than covid was LOL good times As it turns out the shot may well have been even more dangerous than previously believed

I had no idea you could be such a left-wing piece of shit and yet here we are. This is as simple as it gets. At no time did the united states contact Colombia and say we are flying a buttload of prisoners down on a military flight which we have never done before. Are you okay with that? Never happened. So everything else you say is wrong and normally we don't see this kind of self-delusion coming from anybody but the left. Congratulations you are now Kamala Harris level stupid That sounds like a flight plan. So they filed a flight plan and when the Colombians found out what they were hauling they canceled the authorization. So again, for the 15th billion time, uS military planes are allowed to fly and land in Columbia. But if it is discovered they are doing something that is not authorized in Columbia then that changes. What they needed to do is go and say hey we're bringing a bunch of prisoners back on a military flight just so you know are you guys okay with that. Because historically that wasn't allowed and wasn't you as policy. It's like if you file the flight plans to go land an airport And then it was discovered you were hauling nuclear weapons, the government might very well turn around and say the flight isn't a problem but your cargo is. I have absolutely no doubt that they filed a flight plan. Even when they're flying within the united states they file flight plans. When I was a pilot I filed flight plans all the time. That does not mean that the activity that they were doing was authorized or that it had been discussed beforehand All the flight plan says is hey, we're taking off at 11:00 from this airport and we intend to land at your airport at 12:00 and this is what type of plane we are etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with going to the government beforehand and saying listen it's our intention to begin shipping Deportees to your country using military aircraft. Do you get it now? The actual flight can be authorized but the activity that's happening can be unauthorized. Honestly if my dog was as dumb as you I'd shoot it out of sympathy

It's like the new borders are said, if you don't like the law then go to congress and change it. During the Biden and Obama years there were many opportunities where they could have made changes to the law if they wanted to. But this business of keeping the law and not enforcing it flies in the face of the principles of fundamental justice. A lot worth keeping is worth enforcing and if it's not worth enforcing then it's not worth keeping and it should have been changed. It was not changed therefore it should be enforced. The moment of society begins to pick and choose which laws it's going to enforce and which ones it won't is the moment where that society begins to break down and the social contract that holds a sovereign nation together begins to erode

It absolutely amazes me that you can actually be this stupid. So crayons it is. Both are true. Generally speaking American Military flights can land in Colombia. That is a true thing. Provided they file a flight plan they are allowed to do so That does not mean they can do anything they want. For example they would not be allowed to bring in tons of cocaine to distribute to Colombian citizens. They would not be allowed to land and dump garbage all over the runway and take off. They would not be allowed to disembark a plane load of people infected with bubonic plague. Therefore it is also true that while they can generally operate and land in Columbia, there are some things that they are not allowed to do specifically How do you not get this? How can you possibly not understand that while they are generally allowed to do something specifically they are not. As a licensed driver I am generally speaking allowed to operate my vehicle on public roads. However, that doesn't mean I can carry illegal contraband or wild animals or escaped felons or anything like that in the vehicle. Do you get this yet? So can us aircraft land in columbia generally? Yes. Do they need permission to do some activities specifically? Yes. Did they reach out to discuss this new activity prior to commencing it to see if it was allowed? No Did that cause problems? Yes. Could the problems have been avoided with communicating and getting authorization to ship deportees by military aircraft which previously had not been allowed? absolutely Hopefully that answers the rest of your questions. Pls find a gradeschooler to explain it to you.