CdnFox

Sure. That sounds like it really happened

I liked your first suggestion better On something? Sure but usually it's drugs. The guy quit on his own after the cops told him they're investigating to see if his comments broke the law. LOL The disgraced candidate that suggested his opponent should be killed for money has more integrity than Carney does.

You mean we should threaten to kill more liberals and turn them in for bounties? You may be on to something there

Seriously doubt that the guy who is keeping on a candidate who called for the killing of a conservative for money from china is going to step down willingly over a conflict of interest with china

Kid, you just proved you lied. She does not say he's in synch with Trump's policies. It's never said at all. She correctly says he's in synch with the new direction america is taking. They are now taking an isolationist trade and military position and poilievre's plans are totally appropriate to deal with that. He wants to see canada less dependent on the states, he wants to grow the military, he wants us to do more business with ourselves and expand our trade partners. That is 100 percent different with being in synch with his policies. If you didn't have dishonesty you'd have no honesty. But thanks for taking the time to prove you lied to everyone instead of me doing it.

Yep - it's pretty easy to predict i'll reply with the truth I always do That's how it works, you say something wrong or stupid, i correct you, you double down on being stupid for a bit and i finish off with laughing at you and proving you wrong and you being bitter about it, pretty easy to call LOLOL I did love your little smiley face of surrender tho You could always try and really throw me off my game, like being right for a change or something Anyway love to see those salty tears - keep em coming!

The other 55 thinks he won't actually do anything.

Sorry kiddo, but you've shown you don't understand what you're talking about again. First off while his 'laws' generally apply they don't always apply. they are approximations that are not universally applicable, particularly at very high speeds or in the presence of strong gravitational fields or at the quantum level, where theories like Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics become necessary. So nope. They're wrong. They're close enough that they make a good rule of thumb for most circumstances but they're not true. secondly a jet does not use newtons laws of motion to propel itself. Newton's laws of motion can be used to describe a portion of the forces at work but by no means do they provide or even perfectly describe the phenonmenon. So no, the plane does not fly on newton's laws nor does the bridge stand up on newtons laws etc. Newtons laws are at best an approximation where the errors aren't big enough to matter in some cases. It's like the conversion rule for Celsius to F, double it and add 30. THat will give you the wrong answer in 99.99999 percent of cases but its close enough people use it Sigh. You tried to educate yourself with a 3 second google search and you failed. Again.

Sigh. No, but i can believe you're stupid enough to think that's the case. His work was not 'imporved'. It was corrected. what you're saying is it was wrong and someone later replaced it with something more correct. Yes . You're such a failure

So you're saying the liberals are the sleaziest lame propagandaists? (think about it, you'll catch on )

It's pretty sad commentary on your life that you couldn't even deny it was true LOL And it's just observation. You asked me to think about it, i said yes it's easy to believe based on your past history. And your lack of denial suggests that even right now i'm living rent free in your head

Sure kid I guess that's one way of trying to cope ???? what the hell are you talking about now? That was what i said kiddo. You know, what you called 'fake news' LOLOL Was the people who 'wrote about it before' the voices in your head? This is easily the stupidest weird version of fake criticism we've seen from you people. Wow. Ok, no more late night television for you young man. So someone claimed something totally different in every way compared to what trump said so that proves they're exactly the same LOL Kid, people including politicians from both sides have been taking advantage of legal loopholes since the time of the romans. And the dems are no different, hillary's entire case was based on that and so was trump's criminal trial. There's tonnes of examples and nobody sane anywhere would suggest it's some sort of 'republican' thing. Your hatred and your bigotry is leading you to make very poor arguments. Calm down and step it up Kid, every president everywhere has done that or tried very hard to do it or both. Obama was horrible for it. He elevated presidential overreach to an art form. Biden was too, remember the several times he was going to push through loan forgiveness with a technicality (didn't work but by god he tried). And least it sound like i'm picking on the dems, republicans are no better This is the way it is whether i support it or not. Americans have not held gov'ts responsible for that in the past and now precedent is set. All it means is that you have to write better laws to minimize that. But part of the rule of law is that if the law can be interpreted to allow something then it's allowed. If trump pulls that crap the people of america will have the right to decide if they're ok with it and want to allow it or not by their vote. If it's even legal.

Hate to break it to you but carbon tax is actually a compounding tax, and with fuel price fluctuatons you may not see that at all. Or you might theoretically see an even greater reduction, but that's not likely.

Uhhh yeah i did. You clearly did not which is why you didn't provide a cite. I would imagine now you'll try to play some word game and claim his work was actually just 'incomplete'. Incomplete is wrong. Sigh. trust you to double down on the stupid I was talking to you, not your wife

If you had any self respect you'd stop saying things that stupid.

That's because they already ARE traitors, fascists, and fanatical bigots. That's actually pretty much the definition of the left these days

This is going to be another gaffe Carney standing by candidate Paul Chiang, who suggested Conservative be turned over to China for bounty | CBC News Standing by someone who threatens the life of a political rival is just not a good look. It'll come up again and again and he will have no way of justifying doing that.

well you ARE all about the hatred and violence so.... Sadly i don't care enough about you one way or another to worry about making your head explode. You're big job here is to keep me amused, and you do it very well, mr "let put body cams on mp's"

They learned it from the muslims. so yes you did then.

Wow. That would be unprecedented in what is already an unprecedented election called under unprecedented circumstances. I guess if we're already going that far down the unprecedented rabbit hole might as well keep going

Says the guy who just claimed Newtonian physics is still accurate LOLOL

Well it sounds like you got a ways to go to hit that mark. But anything's possible

No, it does not. Some of it is still interesting and works kind of at low speeds. He just did not know all the variables. Most of his work was shown to be horribly flawed by the time we got to general relativity. But it's still amazing what he did with what he had. No, they were completely rewritten. Sorry. His formulas were wrong. They made assumptions about speed in motion that unfortunately we're untrue, but of course he had no way of knowing that at the time. Why would they? He was an amazing pioneer who advanced the science in his day. His works have been replaced but he did amazing things. Columbus doesnt' stop being the guy who 'discovered' america just because america is different today. His work inspired others to continue to search and to experiment and test and even tho he was found to be wrong in the end he still advanced science tremendously. But he was wrong. Mind you you can still use some of his equasions in specific circumstances and get a more or less correct answer. He was on the right track at least LOL i love how you're already trying to excuse the fact you're wrong and blame it on me. Here's an emoji for you Have you ever thought looking up the truth of things before you go posting on the internet and looking like a drunken grade school drop out?

they knew about his conflicts before hand. it's hard to imagine he'd step down over them now. But at the very least it might bring more of them to light to more people on social media and that would be good

Aaww muffin, still have that allergy to the truth huh? Must be tough His supporters said he can't run for a third term under the law and he would require constitutional change to do so. That remains true. And no, you losers all claimed he would simply break the law and either end democracy or somehow illegally run for a third term. ANd that's not what he's proposing. I'm not floating anything. That's what he proposed in the article LOLOLOL Ahhh your reading comprehension skills are as sharp as ever IN fact i specifically noted i hadn't read the law and it would depend on the precise wording of the law. But at a glance it does seem it would circumvent the law. IF it's criminal he won't be sworn in. It'll go to a judge and get shot down. Grow up. But at the end of the day if it did turn out to be legal its what the american people would have voted for. Though i have to admit, that seems pretty damn unlikely To be honest i think it's more plausible he'll lose control of the senate enough in the midterms to get himself impeached before we ever get there. But it's a decision for the Americans to make.