CdnFox

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

And delete this exposed to a very real threat. If interest rates go up the debt can very quickly become completely unserviceable. And that can happen for several reasons. There's already one or two of the major financial houses suggesting Canada may very well find itself for the credit downgrade. That can trigger higher interest rates necessary to sell our bonds. It is possible for world interest rates to go up either through the cost of tariffs or is an anti-inflationary measure. And not just inflation in our own country, if we see inflation elsewhere the feds me have to raise their rates in other countries to combat that and we would have to raise ours to remain competitive. Interest as we saw in the 1980s would completely bankrupt us. We're hugely exposed

He's being as pedantic as you were and obviously throwing that in your face. When you got shown to be wrong you decided you would try and be technical and it isn't a good look as he is now trying to demonstrate back to you by being technically correct in what he's saying even though it's not particularly germane. Hopefully you can see how stupid it is and in the future you won't be participating in that kind of childishness again either

Oh look who's making up lies again to try and justify his own petty hatred and bigotry This is probably accurate That is probably less accurate. It was probably begging various contacts for support or money or both

You have to remember, he was raised by wild zucchini and may not have grown up with Christmas carols and songs

Umm being on the left IS being wrong all the time Again pretty much the left No still pretty much the left Pretty much anytime the left makes an accusation of something it's actually a confession of their own behavior and an attempt to deflect. You guys take projection to a new level And you demonstrated here all the time. You make ridiculous and nonsense statements either attacking the right Or defending the left and it's always childish nonsense. Let's have a demonstration. The PBO just announced that carney's budget violates every other countries definition versus capital. Including England which is where carney learned his version of this. Comment on that. Explain how that's okay without using any lies or deflecting or anything like that

Well it depends on how much you wanted to find things. Without a doubt some people are denied care. Does that mean it's a "death panel"? I guess if you wanted to find it that way maybe. Some people think math is racist. Well technically you could make an argument it's true depending on how you define things I think most people would call it a stretch of at least. That's really not what we're talking about here Let's use Obamacare as an example. Obama swore up and down you wouldn't have to give up your doctor. Turns out you had to give up your doctor. But was that a deliberate lie on his part, or did things just turn out a little differently in the end that he want it? I think he knew that that was going to be a likely outcome and he was being dishonest but that's not quite the same thing as out and out lying. Politicians stretch things and they spend things and I think we all accept that that's part of the game. But sometimes they go too far and it becomes a lie. And sometimes they deliberately lie with the intent of defrauding or misleading the public for an agenda and that's when it gets to be serious and frankly I don't find trump to be any worse than Obama or Biden

Yeah we did those too

Not really. We have some that do but the vast majority of things that leftists like you pretend protect the environment don't

Of course! IT was all harper's faut anyway!

No they don't. First off most of the studies that have been done including the most recent include government rebates on a number of the vehicles. So now that those rebate programs have ended those vehicle prices shoot up by 5 or $6,000 and that changes the results entirely Secondly they tend to only go out for 5 years. So they don't include replacing the batteries. The warranty. Is usually for 8 years or 100,000 km. So sometime after that you're going to have to replace the battery and suddenly you have a bill worth tens of thousands of dollars that isn't factored in. I have two trucks on my property that I've owned for years that are both older than 20 years. Both of them have engines that still run great and would drive around the city no problem, both are in pretty good condition one slightly better than the other. Both of them if they were EVS would have had to have their batteries replaced probably to the tune of about 40,000 to $50,000. Ontario man quoted $50,000 to replace an EV battery | Driving There are a large number of stories like this The studies are often done by people who are advocates for EBS and therefore they leave out calculations like that. So what the studies actually show is as long as there's government subsidies and as long as you only look at a very strict Length of time, EVS may be slightly cheaper but the reality is as near as we can tell they're actually more expensive when you do an Apples to Apples comparison over the life of a vehicle

I accept your admission of defeat Only when you are lying kiddo What you do constantly because unfortunately for you your opinions cannot stand up to the truth But you said it was simply dishonest and you know that, you knew it when you said it obviously. And now your big mad that someone points it out. Awwww muffin... it's always annoying when the adults tell you to behave yourself isn't it

You're a liar, and that is the only thing that's scientifically proven here. There is absolutely no science whatsoever that says conservatives are corrupt consciously around consciously to enrich the most powerful You are a liar sent here to provoke discord amongst Canadians and you feel miserably because you're so bad at it we can tell right off the bat you're not a real person

Well I don't know about Trump supporters per se but They were talking about the files themselves not releasing them is the proper and correct thing to do. There will be a lot of information in there that will hurt innocent people including the victims. That's why these piles are sealed normally in the first place, Epstein is hardly some sort of exception or unusual circumstance But as to why trump is so ardently protecting their release, I'm giving it a fair bit of thought and honestly my conclusion is that the most likely reason is that he will consider it a loss of power or a blow to his authority. He said they're not releasing it, he said he will make the decisions, and now someone is taking that away from him. Based on his previous activities and reactions it is entirely plausible that he just does not want to give up control. We saw this with the files he took from the last time he was president In addition to that but probably to a lower degree there's probably a number of things that are more dangerous than an actual out and out statement that he was involved. And that's information that could be interpreted creatively either way. We've already seen that in action, a birthday card that may or may not have been written by him that half the country says is nothing and the other half says it's absolute ironclad proof. And it plagued him for weeks. If there's more stuff like that then this never goes away and for the next century they'll still be debating whether or not it was some sort of pedophile, and even if he's absolutely not that will honk him off like crazy. Okay got in the Epstein file the cops would have already gone after trump, they would have had that information before he even ran for president the first time, and the democrats certainly would have pursued it, they were willing to create any number of fake charges to go after him so if they had a real one they would have for sure. But I suspect there's lots of pictures of trump hanging around with beautiful young women and saying nice things about Epstein and there are always those who will take that as proof that he was guilty of something.

I understand why you feel you need to lie about Poilievre when we're discussing carney. Anything you can do to distract and not have to address the issues the better right? As it is the PBO will always be in a better position when it comes to budgets. He has access to information that the opposition party simply don't and has a full-time staff and budget just to analyze this stuff. That's why Stephen Harper created the position in the first place, and then famously fought with the guy all the time. Conservatives support more information being available even when it's inconvenient It would seem the liberals are looking for someone who they can shut up or get to speak the way they want. What do you have to say about that as a liberal supporter? They've got the track record to suggest they're more likely to be correct than not. There's no particular reason to doubt them. This isn't a judgment, these are calculations based on their knowledge training experience and data. It's possible to be wrong but it's unlikely to be substantially wrong. So a reasonable person would assume that until evidence shows otherwise it's most likely to be correct If he hits all of his projections. If carney is right and doesn't go over budget or doesn't have lower revenues and the revenue increases that he's predicting come true. But if that's not the case then we are well under sustainability. And the rest of his report says that there is only a 7% chance carney is going to hit all of his targets. So now what do you say to that?

Yeah, but aside from that evidence there's no evidence!! Unless there's other evidence in which case aside from THIS evidence and That evidence there's NO EVIDENCE!! ADMIT IT!!! Told ya,

It was definitely a considered answer if you will. You did not say they would all vote against it, he said they all were against it which is different if he expects a couple not to show up. There's also the obvious question of what's his name who is retiring, who may not choose to show up just cuz he's kind of mad at the party but has been very clear that he doesn't support the budget