CdnFox

Are you suggesting that we pass a law that says they are only allowed in washrooms if there are only stalls and no common facilities? So public pools and such for example where there are showers or other facilities they would be barred from using female facilities if they are a biological male? You're okay with that? Absolute lie. But if that's true I assume you support laws that guarantee the parents right to know in every case right? Right? Barquentine?? Right? But they don't. It would be fine if they did but they expect other people to change their lives to suit their whims at once. So we can get rid of all of the trans laws and you'll be fine with that? After all you claim they want nothing to do with my life so obviously there's no need for laws that force me to do anything right? Right? Hello??

Ahhhh.... no. No the globe and mail is well recognized as being a left of center publication at best. And I'm being somewhat generous. It's not as far left as the star but it is definitely left Your problem is you think everyone right of Castro is a far right conservative I know I never called the national post leftist. I didn't actually comment on either of them it was you who called the national post leftist So you called them leftist I didn't mention it, and now you're claiming that I called them leftist. Every accusation is a confession with you people isn't it

Doesn't matter. You claimed that the fact that he was in a senior position proved he was expert. Trump is in the most senior position of all. So either being in a senior position doesn't prove that you are expert in anything or trump is an expert. Can't have it both ways kiddo

So you're saying that i'm right and you couldn't disprove it? Gotcha

Sure but you can't stay asleep dreaming like that ALL the time

Well she's completely incompetent. And blissfully unaware, imagine not getting a SINGLE vote in the nomination race, having to back out due to complete no interest, then lucking your way into the vice presidency and then losing horribly against trump in literally every corner of the country after spending more money than any one in history on your campaign and buying every famous person in the world to endorse you, and THEN saying publicly you're thinking of running again. 😆😆😆😆 THat's "Crayon up the nose" levels of stupidity.

Simple as one word for it. Stupid and juvenile would be another couple. But then again you're a simple kind of guy Yes, me and my appliances both accept your admission of defeat 😆😆🙄🙄🙄

There's no jury trial for civil cases. This wasn't a criminal case

Oh, and What risk? <-Define the risk Already answered several times above When did officials know? Already answered several times above What did they say publicly at the time? Already answered several times above What should they have said instead? Already answered several times above Fcuking lying little sealion. You should be deeply ashamed.

Trump has the highest position in the us gov't. So... are you acknowledging he's the highest EXPERT now?

review yourself dipshit. This was embarrassing and you need to do better. At this point you don't get to have an opinion on anything else, your dumbass sealioning just makes it worse. If all you can manage is lies and asking answered questions 100 times then go join the liberals. you're too stupid to be a conservative.

article: "The constant and invasive trans activism which encroaches on peoples' rights is starting to annoy some people" Eyeball: "Clearly it's those people's fault for being 'obsessed' "

Absolute lie. The lawyer has no authority to charge trump anything. He's not the one that won the lawsuit. Trump never agreed to pay him. The judge can't order trump to pay him without a trial He has a signed agreement with HIS CLIENT. That agreement specifically states that the client agrees to pay him a percentage of the judgements collected. That is the only legal way that the lawyer can receive payment. It would be illegal for a lawyer to receive payment from trump who is not his client. I have signed these contracts. I know exactly what they say and the law around them You are 100% entirely wrong absolutely. You do not understand this stuff and you talk as if you do but it just makes you look like a twat and an uneducated twat at that. Further the lawyer has to disclose any remuneration he gets to the client from any source. If he refers her to a doctor and gets a kick back from the doctor he has to disclose that. If somebody else gives him money for the legal bills he has to disclose that So she absolutely must have without a doubt known about the money

All right boy. Sit down and pay attention, you're getting scolded. Now, i'm not going to claim you're the smartest person on this board. But you are moderately intelligent. Around here we leave the lies, the stupidity and the self delusion to the liberals. You are not a liberal (despite sounding a hell of a lot like one at the moment). I made a simple and easy to verify statement, because of a newspaper article that came out that dayd. DOn't bother with your continued lies that it's not true, i've already proven a dozen times over it is. That's no longer the issue. The issue is you immediately freaked out and started making STUPID Statements attempting to attack the idea. You made an insanely weak argument that an obscure gov't website post that DOWNPLAYS the risk somehow is proof they properly advised of the risk, then ignored other proofs that they FURTHER downplayed the risk. This is NOT rational. This is you losing your logic and reason and desperately trying to defend a position that you have fallen in love with, based on nothing more than "Muh Feels". That is NOT what conseratives do. We leave that kind of crap to the libearls and other lefties. Consequently you look like a complete retarded twat and we both know that this isn't the case. It is not possible to credibly claim that the government substantially warned the people of Canada about the risk. That has already been proven and if you claim differently it's because your emotions are getting the better of you You need to learn to control your emotions better before replying. This is the second time I've seen you make a week an indefensible argument based on your emotional response. If the facts don't support your position once you look at them then you need to back your way and come at it from a different direction. It is painfully obvious that you have some reason in your teeny tiny little mind that you don't want anyone speaking against the government policy of enforcing vaccinations on people and you want to pretend that everybody made the decisions fully informed of the risks. I don't know why you want that, but it is simply not true. And if you need to lie to make your argument you don't have a very good argument. Conservatives pride ourselves on having good arguments. So you should reevaluate what led you to that kind of poor Behavior. Never ever ever fall in love with a position, you should always be reflecting on its accuracy given the latest information available to you rather than allowing your emotions to dictate your stand I've always thought of you as a good contributor, if somewhat young and still in need of experience, and I expect you to continue to grow and become stronger and stronger Reflect on this and do better. This was just embarrassing.

You have to be kidding me. It was a huge thing in England and in Canada and to a degree in America as well Then there were the catholic school orphanages. Conditions there were almost identical to residential schools and reports of abuse are similar Sounds like you need a lot of history learning before you can comment on any of this We're sorry to hear about your thermal problems. Perhaps try wearing a sweater?

No you can't. The consequences of taking action could have been far worse than the theft itself. That's a complicated issue. We accept your admission of defeat

But the second article wasn't. And as I pointed out it was the globe and mail and then you came back and tried to claim that it wasn't that it was the national post. I have since proven that I was correct and that the second article question was in fact from the globe and mail however my quote was of the person and not of either of the articles. Is this going to be one of those cases again where you spend 10 pages trying desperately to backtrack because you said something kind of stupid and rather than just walking away you choose to Triple down on it ? Go back and look sparky. I didn't Quote the national post or the globe and mail. I quoted him and then he came back and tried to make it about the national post. I pointed out that it's just as much about the globe and mail if you're going to argue from that point of view because both were mentioned but that I quoted him. And yes, he's a leftie So at this point you've gone from a simple mistake to looking stupid. I have a side bet going with someone that you're going to double down on stupid and go full retarded because you can't help yourself I tried to get someone to bet that this all gets blamed on my post count but nobody was dumb enough to take that one

In contingency she absolutely pays the lawyer. It just means he's willing to wait until the trial has been done in order to receive payment and is paid on commission Your argument is as stupid as claiming that a car dealership doesn't pay a commissioned car salesman. Of course they do

Doing a photo op just not make someone buddy buddy. Doing business with someone doesn't mean you're cozying up to them. You're taking basic diplomatic relations and trying to twist them into something that never happened to suit your agenda. It's trite and childish.

No judges ever ruled Trump guilty of rape. So by your logic the judges have therefore indicated that no rape has been proven therefore it never happened You don't have much luck with thinking do you?

LOL bullshit You've NEVER suggested it was a fad in all the discussions ive seen you partake in here in years. In fact you've argued otherwise.

We imported more people of working age than have retired. You've actually got it backwards Canada's age pyramid 2015 Population of Canada 2015 - PopulationPyramid.net Canada's age pyramid 2025 Canada population pyramid 2026 - Demographics of Canada - Wikipedia Trudeau launched mass immigration of mostly working age people and students Facts aren't bias kiddo Well it had recovered substantially from it's time in recession. But it's true that you don't recover from a global recession in just a few years So, lets compare the two. The harper recession was brought on by a global recession that was triggered from the sub prime mortgage collapse and crashed the entire world banking system. Canada did BETTER than everyone else Carney's recession is ONLY in canada, most of the rest of the world is doing pretty decent and is no where near a recession. Canada is doing WORST Harper - didn't run on dealing with a recession, he just had to live with it and did well Carney - ran on being able to handle trump and avoid a recession and has done poorly. Hold on there tiger. You're putting words into my mouth. I have never said i blame him exclusively. In fact i've said many times that our current weak economic situation goes back to the trudeau liberals and their follies. But... he WAS an adviser there and it IS the same liberals in power. So yes even tho carney has been the pm for just over a year he and his party have to take ownership of our situation. He was part of it, and the party was part of it. Further, Carney RAN on delivering the 'fastest growing economy in the g7". That was his PROMISE. he knew what was coming, he knew what the situation was (which is more than harper got). And he promised that he'd deliver so it's 100 percent on him when he fails having known what he was getting into. Now, only a jerk would say that the tariffs etc didn't play a role and make the job hard. Of course it did. It's not the same as a world wide recession but it's still bad. But he promised that he'd make canada strong despite that. So of COURSE he's going to be held to it. Now - if we only had SLOW growth he MIGHT have a leg to stand on. But we're falling into recession. A week ago he was saying we were strong and doing great.

Oh my god. She is absolutely paying her lawyers in a contingency case. She just pays them at the end. And if they receive money from another source then they're supposed to reduce their contingency and they are required by law to disclose it So she absolutely would have known who is paying her legal bills. The fact that the bill hadn't come in yet doesn't change that You have no idea how long works do you

So not cozying up, but simply doing business with them. Well I do appreciate that you took the time to admit that you were lying even though it was by trying to rewrite what you said As always your dishonesty comes out within a post or two Wheeee, look at you go