CdnFox

I would NEVER try to take away your coveted position Yeah i think so - but you do seem to be ok with doing just that. Again - you constantly 'creatively interpret' the evidence. if it's as clear as you claim - just point to the line that says they agree there was conspiracy or 'collusion' as the left called it for 4 years. Go on. The evidence is so obvious they must have said so clearly. Lets see that line. Or any time. Period. Not even enough for charges. And that's really the end of that. YOU on the other hand insist he's guilty and anyone who says otherwise is dishonest. There's no evidence kiddo. What YOU'VE 'spoon fed' is just pure pablum. You've indicated that a guy who works for trump talked to another guy he did business with for years and bragged about campaign strategy and polls. None of it classifed or in any way privileged information - all of it lawfully owned by trump, so he'd be the only one who would have had a right to complain. But you have utterly failed to show that there was any agreement between them to interfere with the election, or that the information was ever used for that purpose, or that it was even likely used - or even a single instance where you could say "there - they only did THAT because they had the information". None. Nothing, Zero Instead what you say is "ohhhh..welll... there's no evidence of course but he MUST have!!!" Nope. THat's not how it works. And no matter how you've come at it we still get to THAT point where there's a gap between your so called evidence and any kind of collusion or conspiracy or anything. YOU are the dishonest poster here. And you should be deeply ashamed.

I don't consider a chihuahua to be a big dog But you can keep yapping if it makes you feel better about yourself, i don't mind

You mean i can't cite a finding that says trump is guilty? Well - i can't cite something that doesn't exist. You were kind enough to post more than enough cites that show he's not guilty. They all noted the same things - no evidence of collusion or conspiracy, no illegal transfer of info or anything like that, no wrongdoing. They may not like that manafort shared the campaign strategy with a guy he did business with forever who would eventually tell the russians but they all agree it was his data and there's nothing wrong with sharing it. And zero charges were ever laid against anyone in connection with russian 'collusion' in any form in connection with trump and the campaign. This after YEARS of investigation by a huge team of FBI WHO WERE PREJUDICED AGAINST TRUMP AND WANTED TO FIND ANYTHING THEY COULD ON THE GUY. Highly motivated - still couldn't. Of course there are losers out there who claim "just because we found no evidence doesn't mean that somewhere there is evidence". It's the kind of bullshit losers say. Just because i haven't found evidence that Hodad isnt' a child rapist doesn't mean that he ISN'T one and the evidence is out there! ", Right? It's technically true - but if i were to go around calling you a child rapist that would be a very very wrong thing to do. You see how that works.

A ruling that creates prejudice and imbalance is never a step in the right direction. There are limits to free speech - defamation or slander is probably a reasonable one. You can't just say anything you like without any evidence about any person in order to try to cancel them, But it should be applied to everyone equally or its just discrimination no different than racism. IF however they decide it is ok - then it must be ok for everyone. For the same reason. Then at least a person who defames someone else knows they may face that in return. Why does this even need to be explained to you? what kind of person are you that this isn't pretty obvious?

No, you misunderstand it. I can see why you made that mistake tho. Defamation has always been unlawful and actionable for everyone. That really isn't considered to be free speech. The complaintant exercised his legitimate free speech. The accused defamed him and made accusations, which is in essence punishing his use of free speech and unlawfully harming him. It's not free speech in and of itself. The judge has ruled that because the accused was of a minority that it was OK for the accused to make accusations and defame the person unlawfully because such groups must be protected. So - person a from protected group says something - person b is not allowed to defame or slander them Person b from a non protected group says something - person a is ALLOWED to defame or slander them. Person a can exercise their free speech without worring about defamation Person b must be subject to defamation if he does. Do you see the free speech issue now?

Oh my god i directly mentioned a number - the RIGHT unike NON citizens to travel to and from any state which cannot be denied, the RIGHT not to be taxed differently in a state than the residents which does NOT extend to non citizens, the right to enter and leave the country which does NOT extend to non citizens etc etc etc. Well - you've proven yourself to be a dishonest little penis. I was kind enough to answer your question and all you do is make me repeat it again and again. Typical sealioning from the left. How pathetic. After your little performance? Block away retard. I'm not surprised in the sligthest that sticking your head in the sand is your reaction to people telling the truth about you. I dont' really care what you have to say to me, but i'll still be making fun of what you say so that others can read.

Sure kid. I believe you entirely

oh there was MUCH talk of that - liberals organizing on line claiming they were buying memberships to throw the vote towards a candidate they saw as 'better'. I have zero doubt that many did - but clearly they were the minority. Remember that the vast majority of people voting were first time members - not even renewals from the past but first time. So its not the 'party faithful' that decided that one

That was thought to be the case at one time, but nevermore.

Awwww - the liar feels that truth is pretty much worthless got your therapists number handy? Don't blame me for your failings in life

Not how he phrased it. And the way the topic was going it was relevant that he wasn't in the same house all that time. But i can understand why a chronic liar like yourself would feel the need to defend what he perceives to be a lie

Well they should have, because their base is moving to the cpc under PP. That's been confirmed by many polls. Time will tell. A lot of the reasons liberals tend to win is their propaganda machines, and with the cbc gone under a PP gov't and the left wing news outlets already faltering, the possibility of putting out a lot of good news stories is strong and that makes a big difference. During harper's time much of the media tried to downplay any positive and focus strongly on any negative.

nothing cleanses like sunlight.

I get that you have to lie to avoid dealing with the issues. Nice backpeddal I didn't declare that it was a lie at all. You claimed that when you moved you lived in the same place you moved into for nearly 50 years. You LATER claimed you built your house that you were living in now like 30 years ago or something. I pointed out the discrepancy and said you can't be living in the same place if you only built the place you're in 30 years ago and moved 50. And that actually turns out to be true. I discovered that using this crazy new thing called math And no you're not a settler. Why would you think moving 50 years ago makes you a sellter? This country was settled 150 years ago at least and arguably more. And that doesn't make you any less of a racist

The only thing more dangerous than people speaking out against something is people being forced to silence and stewing about what they were going to speak out against. You cannot legislate this away by taking people's freedoms. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. This will fester and either explode or lead to discrimination that's worse but more subtle.

No, you simply lie about it to hide your racism towards those you consider 'colonial' or 'setllers'. You've already suggested you feel that people arriving now are settlers. We know they're not - that's not in any reasonable sense a proper use of the word. IT's only purpose is to be used as a pejorative. Every racist and racist group in history has a justification for their racism and most claim 'they're not racist they're just stating the facts. " Tell me all about how you use the word ni@@er in a 'nice' way too while your'e at it. Yeash.

Justin was different than harper. people wanted to see the free hand outs and such - and harper was dull, boring, very effective but in a way that really didn't scratch that left leaning itch for social programs and spending. It's like the difference between eating a well balanced meal at home and wanting to go out for dinner even tho you know it' s more expensive and worse for you We just didn't realize how much more expensive. Or how bad he'd tear apart the country, , Interestingly Chretien got in on PROMISING to be better - then just kept all the stuff mulroney had put in anyway and ignored all his promises Not true. For 10 dollars ANYONE AT ALL could buy a membership for a year and vote in the last leadership for the cpc (and the ones before). Justin's leadership race didn't even charge - anyone at all anywhere could sign up and be a liberal for a year for free and vote for the leadership. So even those who aren't the party 'faithful' can have a say. 430 THOUSAND people voted in the last conservative leadership race.

I'm sure you are when we compare you to other chimps. : )

HAHAHAHAAHAHA!! - I LITERALLY POSTED it EXPLICITLY giving rights to citizens other than those of voting It's right there in black and white Citizens have rights other people do not have even excluding voting and i even highlighted it for you. Wow Rebound - You may be a liar and a retard but i have to say while i may not approve of your lying and !diocy I at leat admire your dedication to them And people wonder why more and more people every day think the left is just plain dishonest. Sigh.

THere are a few ways they can. One involves self delusion to a degree and scale hitherto unknown to man without the use of advanced narcotics, and the other way involves shoving a crayon up your nose and hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. The real question is WHY? Sure - i get some people really hated trump and fair enough, but to allow your hatred to descend SO far as to warp your very perception of reality like that... it's unnerving. And i mean it's not like there isn't plenty of OTHER things you could legitimately not like trump for. Meanwhile there's ACTUAL evidence of justin colluding with the chinese and left wing voters are like "oh, well.. whatever he probably shouldn't but y'know..... "

We've been over that. Pls keep up.

Yeah it is. The only difference is you want to pretend everyone today is ALSO a settler and a colonist so you can de-humanize them. You find it odd that I only agree with non-racists or truthful people? Tell the truth and don't be a racist-bigot and we probably won't have all that much to disagree about it's hilarious to me that you think i should be AGREEING with liars and racists

Ok. It's pretty much the same thing after all THat's why oj wasn't charged and didn't have to go to trial just like trump. Ohh.... wait.... Nope. Even said it clearly in the mueller report. And debunked just as many. Kid - you are WRONG. It's that simple. They did not find evidence of any kind of collusion or conspiracy or the like, nor did any later behavior during the campaign suggest there was. He didn't even get charged and they were clear that there was no evidence to charge him with. IF you ever wonder how a person can get so deluded that they can honestly believe the election was stolen and trump is actually president - go look in the mirror. You are every bit as delusional as they are and you should be deeply ashamed.

No, immigrants come from all over the world. but they're not settlers. The country has long been settled. the settlers who settled the land were vastly predominently white europeans, and mostly from england or france And when first nations people say settlers - that's pretty much what they mean. It's racist. This is where i came from. Sad to see you're a racist bigot tho , Good - go to mars and be home there seeing as you're home whereever you are. And traditionally earthlings are human. I'm not sure you' d qualify. Oh - right. No sense of humor. Sorry - i forgot that you're not a real little boy

Sooooo - wouldn't it have been trump's job too? So by your logic if he did collude with the russians he was just doing his job?