CdnFox

That's an unusual level of self-awareness from you

for forever liberals have been saying "you know i'd totally be a conservative if Mike Chong were the leader" Interrupted only briefly for "i'd consider it if jean charest was' during the leadership "honest, we just really want to see you guys win so we're giving you really good advice.... "

I accept your unusually enthusiastic admission of defeat

Sigh. A:exa generate random nonsense sentences alexa "of course, activating Herbie now...."

Literally everything you say is wrong. You say he can't win. You're almost frantic and panicked about it, desperate and begging us to believe he can't win That probably means he's going to win

I think recession or not there's going to be a lot of pressure from both ends there. The traditional liberal mantra is always said to be run on the left rule on the right. He kind of did that backwards this time, running on the right but he's still playing tiddlywinks with a lot of left-wing ideals but not really being serious about them. So as a result he's going to get criticized for getting rid of the environmental policies he did get rid of while at the same time getting no marks for the economy from the right because there's still some in place. That sort of thing. Carney keeps sending at a pipeline deal being almost there with Alberta, but that's a lose-lose for him. If he does it he gives up ground to the NDP and if he doesn't he gives up ground to the CPC. We'll see how it plays out

There's been a gentle but consistent and noticeable decline in his popularity and in Canadians faith in which direction the country is: For several months now. I think a lot of people our emotionally invested in their choice you don't want to admit that they're wrong yet but they are quickly becoming concerned and disenfranchised. I think a lot of people are resigned to giving him at least a year to see what he can do even if they aren't really happy so far. But I think come next spring, when the NDP has a new leader and it's the one year anniversary of him coming into power and we still don't have a good deal with the united states and our economy is still in the tank and they're already pipelines being built and people are still struggling to afford food and inflation is still fairly high for primary goods like food and housing, I think suddenly people are going to decide they had enough

Says Satan

It isn't though. It's a conclusion that's driven by your bias. The evidence is extremely weak. The fact is we do have a lot of information about actual pedophiles and those who sleep with People under the age of consent. And the one thing that comes across loud and clear is that for the most part Even their close friends and often even their family members and close families such as kids and such have absolutely no idea what's going on, even though in retrospect you look at things and think they really should have had some suspicion. The majority of the girls that were underage were in the 16 year old range. You know as well as I do that it's not hard for a 16-year-old to look like an 18 year old. So maybe trump was around and thought the girls were young, and probably suspected they were fooling around with them and such and maybe in the back of his mind he wondered but the vast majority of people unless they have actual evidence or unless the kid comes out and says by the way I'm 16 just assume that they're probably wrong. And that is historically how it works in the vast majority of cases. A shocking number of comments when someone is caught begin along the lines of "I thought something was weird but I never thought......" So far the only "Evidence" Is that we know trump saw the girls hanging around Epstein and didn't ask any questions. A crime

I accept your admission of defeat Mind you what were you going to say, the facts are clear and you were wrong. LOL i love when you get so mad at the fact you're wrong that you start in with the grade school 'insult names' The fact that so many other people chose someone other than carney must really have gotten under your skin. Seems to really bother you. And they didn't even like him enough to give him a majority. At any other time in history getting 42% of the vote would definitely give you a majority but it wasn't good enough for him to do that. I guess just not enough people trusted him

you said this about Russian collusion for years till it was finally proven that the whole thing was an absolute hoax and in fact the intelligence community had said that there was no threat and trump wasn't colluding but for political reasons Obama ordered them to report otherwise

uhhhhhh..... Did you think that ALL the way through, robosmith? I kinda feel like you didn't.

Because we watch people like you lying so hard To desperately try and talk us into getting rid of Poilievre for our own good apparently If you're that scared of him we probably better keep him

That's not true. In fact it wasn't even close to most. About 43% voted liberal. The rest of thought someone else would be a better choice. It's telling that you feel the need to lie like that to try and make your point

When you note that there are many interpretations you prove my point. nobody is questioning the validity, i'm saying that humans are imperfect communicators. That doesn't make the bible wrong, it just means you can't take it word for word. There are numerous elements in the bible which are unclear and are the subject of debate as a result, so yes there are "errors" like that, tho i wouldn't call them that. Nobody ownplayed the bible, you've got that in your head and you're not paying attention to what's being said. and yes, if something can be interpreted in numerous ways then it is imperfect in conveying the author's intent. That doesn't make it wrong, but it means that it can't be taken literally word for word ipso facto. And I haven't made any emotional arguments, I am observing you becoming emotional and irrational and I'm advising you that that's not necessary because it's a result of your misunderstanding rather than somebody attacking your beliefs. It is literally the same thing as me saying the bible should not be taken literally as a result of man and his communication being flawed. I noticed you tried to switch that into me saying the bible is flawed. I did not say that, I said man wrote the bible and he is flawed as a communicator. The fact that there are many interpretations to various passages proves that Beyond any arguable doubt. If the communication was perfect it would be crystal clear what was intended and there would be no arguing it And nobody is saying that making an effort to interpret or understand the work somehow invalidates it or means it isn't from god. That's something you got into your head and can't seem to shake out of your head no matter how many times you are told that it's ridiculous to think that And while there may be consensus on a great number of things that doesn't change what I said one tiny bit Now get over yourself. Nobody challenged your bible, nobody challenged god, and I'm about fed up with your childishness. There is no possible way for human communication to be precise and perfect and you cannot take the bible verbatim word for word which is agreed upon by every single religious expert out there. So give your head a shake and move on

True. Just most of it Have been using thing is if there are different interpretations And improves conclusively when I'm saying is correct Even if it is god inspired it is being written by man. I'm more importantly in man's own language and man's language is flawed Not really. But it was raised that way I have a very extensive experience studying Christianity They're really not that hard a concept. I have said nothing that conflicts with that. You can't take every word literally and I think that that is pretty much universally understood. As I noted, 6 days could mean 6 24 hour periods or it could mean six pages and the words would still be accurate. I am conflating nothing. You are becoming defensive because in your mind you are perceiving my argument as being the bible is inaccurate or not divinely inspired. And as a christian this concerns you obviously. However you are reading into my argument that which is not there. The bible can still be divinely inspired and still be written by men in the laws and language of men and not be meant to be taken 100% word for word syllable by syllable It comes down to the fact that you cannot take them literally because they are the words of men. If it was possible for it to be 100% accurate and all men would agree on what it says precisely. They do not. Further even where they do agree in the translation they can't always agree on what the actual verse or line means. Bible is not a literal document whether it's inspired by god or not. God is still working with the confines of what man is capable of. Just like I couldn't possibly Paint a color picture if all I have is black ink. You're getting yourself worked up over nothing. Catholic church has always maintained that the bible should be taken as literal but not Literalist. That involves attempting to determine the meaning or intent of the writer and that of course is often challenging and frequently we just don't know. the Catholic Church's position is that the Bible should be interpreted through a “literal” rather than a “literalist” sense. - Google Search

I'm afraid that's incorrect again. If you're using aI to generate nonsense you have to remember that if you say something stupid to it then the answer you get may contain stupidity as well. Science frequently deals in the theoretical. What actual tests can we do to prove what caused the beginning of the Big Bang? None. We don't even understand what the universe was, the laws of physics were not what they are today at the moment of the big bang. Most of science is still theoretical and they are still working out doing interesting ways to try and prove elements of it to complete our picture. But science is not based on experimentation exclusively at all. But again the whole thing misses the point. Science and religion don't conflict generally speaking. Just like science and science doesn't conflict generally speaking even though often there are many different scientific theories to explain a given phenomenon. You'll find out more about this stuff when you hit grade 11 science courses

Every single Christian I've spoken to or watched speak agrees the bible can't be taken super literally word for word. There are questions about the translations. And that's why there's different 'bibles'. And while I don't like to talk about my history too much because there are always nut bars to try and dox you We are talking about many. Not just a few I know that go to church. Even Charlie Kirk talked about this. The christians do you believe that the bible is god inspired but human language being what it is there is always room for interpretation even when you're speaking directly to the speaker never mind three or four language translations later Not going from anything. The original was written by man, it's been subsequently translated, And even the translations have different interpretations. And whether we're talking the original Hebrew or the translations people will sit and argue for hours over the meaning of one or two phrases which is absolute proof that the meaning is not clear in universal and must be open to interpretation. It is the way of written language. Sure. That was kind of my point too. But if you are correct and I am correct then it is fair to say that the bible is not incompatible with the existence of god at the same time as the science of creation. I think somehow we worked our way back to being Basically on the same page. You can read the bible and believe that the bible is the word of god and still believe in the big bang and not have a logical conflict Like exflyer tried to claim

That's true as far as the age of consent goes, but it would never have been legal in Canada because he would have held a position of authority over those kids. Just like even today it's still illegal for a teacher to sleep with even a 17 year old student even though that's well above the age of consent. But at the risk of attempting to sound like I'm minimizing what happened it is true that it was not pedophilia. He was never accused of sleeping with children, what he would have been guilty of is hebephilia if the allegation of the 14 year old was true or just unlawful sexual conduct and of course trafficking if it's true that he 'rented' the girls out to others for the purposes of blackmail or influence as has been suggested. If those allegations are true, it's still horrible. Nothing can take away from that. But it has blown up into this weird myth. People have come to believe that he was trafficking women of all ages including children in a large numbers and selling them off to people in a sort of child slavery gig where you went to this island and picked out the two or three youngsters you like and took them home with you or something. In reality we're talking about a small number of girls, a few of which may have been under the age of consent as well as being employees, and we're talking about a few of them being pressured to sleep with a few men. Now that's still absolutely horrid, and there's no doubt that he exploited even the women who were above the age of consent and that's not legal. But it's also not this massive giant organization of evil servicing all the rich people of the world like many think Possible. There is at least one person where there is evidence (not proof but evidence) that they may have been being blackmailed. But to be honest it's kind of unlikely. That's not really something you do from inside a courtroom, it's something you do over the phone I'm preferably one that isn't attached to your number

Of course it was. It was childish and stupid, and you couldn't have shouted to the world "Oh my God I'm wrong but I'm too emotionally immature to cope with it" If you would tried. So @User made fun of you. Played your own game and immediately you realized how stupid it sounded when I was thrown back in your face I'm sure you were kind of logic really wins them over in whatever Elementary School you were still attending but here in the adult world it just makes you look like a complete twat. Be smarter than the twat. Both a petroleum gas tank and a battery are forms of storing electricity. Both will need a chemical process to occur to extract the energy but that's not really relevant. The point is we can store massively more energy in a gas can then we can in a similar size battery and with a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the weight. And we can convert that potential energy into electricity much easier and faster That's the simple truth. The rest of your nonsense is just you wetting yourself because you can't cope with a simple facts But we can store electricity as efficiently and cost-effectively as we store petroleum products then we can replace petroleum. Now go and change your diaper, and stop embarrassing yourself like that. I know for a fact you're not that dumb

There really isn't any conflict at all. Absolute strict interpretations of the language of the bible is not practical because the language comes from people not god. For example the bible translated into English says that god created the universe and everything within six days. But the Hebrew word for days could also mean ages the same way we stop talk about the days of the Dinosaurs or back in my day. And there's no doubt that the universe went through a large number of transitions before it settled down with the laws of science that we know today and the general configuration. Insane faster than light expansion, heat so intense the laws of phsycis didn't exist, we still don' t know why or how matter formed and wasn't annihilated with anti matter the way it is nowadays. I mean at first the four fundamental fields didn't even exist. The universe as we know it was not present after the big bang. So depending on how you look at it it absolutely Can be said that the bible accurately states that it took god 6 "days" to complete the universe to the point we know it

The bible does not say that Adam and Eve created the universe. The bible says that god created the universe. It does not specify the mechanism. The fact is science is in no way shape or form and compatible with god or in conflict. Let's take evolution. The bible says god created all of the creatures on the world including Adam and Eve and he created them from the soil. All of the creatures on this planet according to science began essentially from dirt and rocks which under the right conditions created RNA which under the right conditions created DNA and things evolve from there. Nothing says god waved a magic wand and everything appeared all at once, evolution is simply a process and it may have been a process that god created . So no, science doesn't conflict with god as a general rule. Which is why a lot of scientists are still religious About the only conflict is with Occam's razor, we can explain the universe without god and some people choose to take that as evidence that there is no god. But the fact that we can explain it without god doesn't mean that there isn't a god or the he's not the one who started it. If a cup falls off the table and smashes on the floor I can explain with gravity why it happened, that doesn't tell us if someone pushed it I don't really believe in god but I can't prove he doesn't exist

But not a nursery rhyme. Although you're still a big baby so its easy to see how you got confused.

Your grandma didn't have TV. I'm not even sure fire was invented yet But the American government does kill people all the time. That's a matter of recorded facts. I find it hilarious though that you try and deny this very simple truth in a desperate attempt to defend your indefensible position

I know how to shoot They probably have people like you who always snipe at fake issues while avoiding real targets and responsibilities