Jump to content

CdnFox

Senior Member
  • Posts

    24,411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    253

Everything posted by CdnFox

  1. Bullshit. Not all countries are participating. We don't control all countries. We control this country. So what you mean is you dodged teh question and you're angry i'm bringing it back up again. Again, show me what difference canada can make as part of the solution. End of story. Whether it's part of a collective effort or singly it probably doesn't make a difference as far as what we as a country achieve, our contribution would be the same. So show me that anything that we can do would actually make a difference. as far as the criminal goes this would be easy. I can say in one second if you steal one less car then the outcome will be that one less car will be stolen. I can go on further and say that means that based on the average car the insurance company will lose $50,000 less that year than they would have. I can even show impact statements from those directly affected by the theft (the owners) to show the human impact of their actions. And i don't mean someone who was indirectly affected at some future point. I can even go a step further and point out that the benefit to him would be that he won't go to jail in the future. So we have the whole picture. See how it works? Yet for some strange reason you can't tell me a single thing about what Canada can or cannot do or what kind of contribution it can make or what that contributions affect would have. Yet you expect us to believe in it. As to the rest what a load of horseshit. It says canada would benefit. That was the FIRST thing i found And you STILL haven't posted a single scrap of data answering my two very simple questions. NOT ONE OF YOUR LINKS SCIENTIFICALLY ADDRESSES THOSE QUESTIONS. Did I miss something? Point out the specific research section that addresses them and I'll apologize. I didn't see it I said that when I posted them. It is hilarious that the first two things I searched for after your statement that everybody agrees that it's terrible his articles saying how good it could be for Canada. Meanwhile you still haven't posted a single thing to answer my questions. So lets recap. I started this off by saying despite being asked numerous times by numerous people nobody has put forward any evidence that Canada could make a significant difference or that the climate change issue is a crisis. Despite numerous posts you still have not provided anything scientific to address those two questions. And in fact have dodged around it like a maniac. Furthermore, when I pointed out that when I did a search as you suggested the first dozen articles are so that come up our articles about how climate change might benefit Canada. Now you're having a hissy fit and a meltdown and you still have not actually provided any proof of those two simple easy to comprehend statements. Nobody could work harder than you to prove that climate change crisis is a hoax or that Canada can't do anything about it. Your utter inability to provide anything and your pathetic and sad whimpering about somebody else posting something that you don't like makes it crystal clear that you do not believe in climate change being a crisis either you just like the idea
  2. they did. The dems like you on the other hand tried to claim that a man who's got dementia and parkinsons was fit for presidency and lied about it until it was impossible to cover up anymore. I think it's people like you who should be rethinking their integrity. You should be deeply ashamed. Of course - given the way you write perhaps you found the thought of a mentally-deficient candidate appealing and relatable.
  3. Mainly because she's losing. At this point in time the odds are that trump will win. That is by no means guaranteed but it is the most likely outcome at this point. People who are winning don't need a debate. In fact people who are winning take a risk by having debates. Trump has already shown good faith by accepting Biden's terms without negotiation. Now that Biden is gone and Kamala once to have a debate it's more than reasonable for him to say I agree to everything last time you can agree to everything this time. Or don't debate me. Frankly I don't know why she would want a debate. She did very badly in the debates against Biden, it's very obvious that her speaking skills without the benefit of a teleprompter are horrible, and she's going to get asked tons of questions by trump if he's as disciplined as he was last time that she cannot answer and wouldn't want to answer if she could. So I think she'll chicken out.
  4. I think at htis point we have to stop calling it word salad - its far more complex than that. It's more like Kamala-slaw.
  5. Good luck trying to explain that to him. Back to the subject on hand I really don't see how there's enough time to end either war. Maybe if he was a strong leader and had a strong grasp on his house And what was happening around him maybe. But even then it would be tight . My suspicion is that he will give a huge aid package again to zalensky and then what Kamala use it to say trump is pro russian when he complains, and as far as isael goes he'll claim he gave them a good talking to and hes' waiting to see if they smarten up and do the right thing (without saying that that is). "i called them up ,... and I said... Hey man! Hey!! Man? Man? Hey. Hey man. And i really feel they got that message. He can't afford to offend either side so it'll be something stupid like that.
  6. It's important that we all comprehend the significance of the power of the clarity and of the history of the clarity that we're making clear here now through significant comprehension. Read that out loud and tell me you coudln't hear her saying exactly that
  7. For sure. This isn't a winning strategy for him, and if it's like this for the next 3 months then she wins. Right now she's not in front of any cameras because she does not know how to talk without a teleprompter. Nobody is asking her any hard questions. They're not forcing her to have to address issues. He's lobbing up this softball crap and it's just not going to gain any ground. He's got to be forcing her to answer questions about all of these videos surfacing showing that she thinks nobody should ever wish anyone a Merry Christmas, or how she's going to ban all guns on the first day, or how she wants to end all fracking, or any of the other billion crazy things she said and painter as a radical which she is Everyday he wastes talking about whether she passed some exam for something she's not even doing anymore or what race she is for the debates moves her closer to victory and him farther from it. He's got to get serious again and make this about her and her ability to govern the nation not just her ability to drop her g's
  8. well that's the problem - she's not both at the same time. She's black complete with an accent she never grew up with part of the time, and an indian who's ancestors were slave owenrs the other part of the time. And she doesn't want people to remember that she's really not either one entirely What she is woudl be a black-indian woman. But she dosen't want that, she wants to be black. Or indian. It ain't that complicated homie! (and the fact you turn to 'archie bunker' as your souce of education on racial issues says it all )
  9. I feel like both sides are kind of wrong there. A corrupt foreign gov't took people hostage and was able to give back innocent people who were no real threat in exchange for some of the most dangerous people on earth. ANd this is not the first time by far. I'm happy for the familes, and maybe you could argue that this had to happen or was the lesser of evils but we've just normalized taking hostages to get bad guys back so that they can harm the country later. Is this really a victory? Should we be doing this regardless of who's in power?
  10. Biden laid down his challenge for the debates and trump agreed to them without negotiation and said they could have whatever they wanted. Now Biden is gone. So trump absolutely gets to do the same thing in reverse. Lay out the terms and conditions, give himself the home turf advantage instead of them, have a live audience instead of nothing, etc. But he's got to be very careful. the reason he won the last debate hands down was because he was extremely controlled and focused and calculating instead of just reacting and trying to wow an audience. If he has another debate like that where he is completely in control and disciplined he will crush her. If he is high on his successes and has another debate like his first debate in 2020 then she could turn the tables on him very fast.
  11. Does he claim he did? Was he a prosecutor? No. That's how, It makes sense. We may not be actual russians but we do have a lot of their hockey players. So....
  12. The real question is do wookies live on endor?
  13. Does she have to pee or something? the big distinguishing difference is that freeland always looks like she just came down from herion and is detoxing whereas Kamala always sounds like she's still high,.
  14. LOL yeah that was a pretty serious biatch slap
  15. Oh, and i almost forgot. I've already proven you were wrong of course, but none of that is really relevant. What is relevant is you claimed that i said Hitler wasn't racists. I never said anything of the kind at all So the relevant part here is you lied yet again because you KNEW you were wrong and now you're trying to change the channel. The nazis were racists, but most of their actions and poilcy wasn't about racism.
  16. LOL- talking to your mirror again? Nope. Their belief in military expansion had nothing to do with racial beliefs, Even their persecution of the jews wasn't 'racial', it was ethnic. Their belief that the communists and "Socialists" were evil had nothing to do with race. Their desire to put an end to france, the primary author of the treaty of versilles had nothing to do with race. They didn't come to power on race, they came to power opposing communism. Hitlers huge monetary policies to revalue the mark had nothing to do with race.. While he thought aryans were the best he also liked other races quite a bit, including the english which he spoke glowingly of and tried hard to avoid invading, and the italians. You're just plain wrong. Very little of what they did or their policy had anything to do with race in the slightest, and even their persecution of the jews was because hitler looked at the jews as being the front to some huge conspiracy and financial power (not surprising after what they did to his mom and dad). Jews after all weren't a 'race', and he famously shouted at one subordinate that he would be the one to say who was jewish and who was not when one of his people was found to have had jewish parents but hitler liked him. What hitler did to the jews is one of the things WE think of as a big part of ww2 but remember that nobody even knew it was happening till the end of the war. Very very little nazi policy addressed racism. Even when they didn't like jazz it wasn't that the blacks were inferior racially it was they were immoral and indecent as a culture. And the jews were about antisemitism, there were jews of Aryan decent as well after all. There's no doubt that hitler was a racist, and that the nazi's were a party that embraced racism and that many german people were racist. But it really wasn't something they spent a lot of time actually 'doing' anything about. Swing and a miss AGAING loser I'd say you were out but it's about strike 56 for you and you just keep swinging
  17. no, it's just Spam. Your stuff isn't necessarily bullshit, it's spam. Occasionally it's bullshit and spam but it's usually spam Spam spam spam spam...
  18. I don't think they can program bots with humour yet can they? Also he's a very old version, he originally ran on a commodore Vic-20.
  19. You literally just posted proof that i didn't and that it wasn't the way it is You posted that, not me What the hell is the matter with you left wing nutbars that you constantly provide proof that YOU"RE wrong? You get the idea that you're supposed to prove YOUR case, not mine, right? LOLOL Most of the nazi's policies had nothing to do with race. Hitler was a racist. Two things can be true Sorry doggie, looks like you rolled in your own sh*t again, (which makes sense seeing as you're so fond of talking about sh*t ) LOLOL Keep trying kiddo, maybe one day you'll find a subject you don't lose at.
  20. Why? It was funny - it's not like i was presenting an argument, just pointing out that the first searches aren't about how horrible it'll be for canada. i was just passing time waiting for that evidence you were going to post about how canasda can make a difference and how it's a crisis. ummm..... speaking of which, where's that now? What climate denier? It's referring to moody's research. And moody's doesn't deny that there's climate change they just simply said that for a number of sectors it will be actually a net positive rather than a negative. These guys claim that that may not be entirely true because of other factors, but then don't actually produce any numbers or information making that point. And of course the other one just simply says we'll be better off more or less. There were some others too, here's one from the CBC Canada could be a huge climate change winner when it comes to farmland | CBC News The point really wasn't that climate change is good, rather the point was your argument was that virtually every single source says it's terrible and yet when I do a search the first articles that pop up all talk about how great it'll be. And you still haven't provided your evidence or research papers indicating otherwise This one's going downhill for you quickly kiddo, did you want to take one more stab at it? And also it doesn't address the issues. It says that there's climate change (which i think we all agree is a thing that happens) and that it's going fast and there you go. It doesn't explain why it's a crisis, OR that canada could do anything whatsoever to have an impact on that.
  21. Nope. And her polling numbers are already beginning to show it. That sure didn't take long
  22. It says most of hitler's programs weren't racist, and that's true... but what you claimed i said was Hitler wasn't racist. And where does that say that hitler wasn't racist? Oh yeah it doesn't Thanks for admitting you lied. It's big of you to man up to it LOLOLOLL
  23. Nowehere in that whole post do i say it, other than quoting you saying it. Well - i guess that's one way of saying you're a lyng sack without saying it LOLOLOL It's always amusing when you break down and cry and beg and plead like this
×
×
  • Create New...