CdnFox

The short-term cost is that they can't afford food. A lot of people aren't going to be okay with that

You realize you're making an assumption and basing your argument on people's emotional state right? You frequently see that kind of argument made by low brow low iq thinkers who have trouble articulating the problems with arguments in an effort to blame others for their own inability to respond to arguments. Surely you're better than that Mike.

How about the right not to be denied work based on the colour of their skin or sex or sexual preference? There are numerous ads for employment in ontario right now that have been posted here which refuse to allow white heterosexual men to apply. That's racism, sexism and heterphobia. Most people are protected against that kind of thing but not white hetero males. how about the right to have violence directed against them due to religion, race or sexual preference declared hate crimes where indicated? Right now if a non white person beats a white person screaming that they hate whites it's not a hate crime (real case.) How about some protection from hate speech? I don't gp a day on the internet and few days in public without hearing derogatory and insulting falsehoods and slurs against white males. we invented slavery you know? We're all stupid. Can't call someone a n*gger or a chug, but calling them a settler or a colonist is fine. All people should have the same rights and responsibilities. That is not currently the case. A right that isn't applied isn't a right.

For sure. But that's kind of the point, it's better to eliminate the need to supply weapons and support in order to retain political interest in an area in the face of the Russians offering the same thing. If the Russians are too busy worrying about their own needs to provide anyone else with weapons then the US doesn't run into the same problem where they have to. Or so the argument goes but it is probably having a significant impact in the situation in israel right now. Who can say with certainty? Even if the Ukrainians never turn against the US given the corruption there it's possible that the weapons that were given to them will fall into the hands of someone who would. Certainly the Russians didn't expect that the weapons would be used against their forces when they originally left them there back in the day. I mean let's get real, the best solution is that everybody stays in there own corner of the world and quit screwing around with everyone else. But that's not going to happen. So all you can do is make your best choice, and no choices without risk. I think it should be clear to everybody that regardless of whether or not you support the idea of weakening Russia or not, this war cannot go on forever. Russia has already been weakened, it's material stockpiles and supplies of war depleted, the effectiveness of its equipment has been discredited, it's reputation as a military power has been reduced. Meanwhile on the other side all of the stocks of older material that the allies were happy to get rid of have been used up, any of the weapons testing that they would have liked to see in real world experience has been done and the cost of maintaining the war is climbing. So there is severely diminishing return to keep it up even if you are a subscriber to the idea of weakening Russia by supporting the conflict. I mean, they can't just carry on paying 20 to 40 billion a year in perpetuity I would think

Again with the dishonesty and dehumanization. No law at all prevents these concepts from being addressed. What the law prevents is trying to address racism with racism. All races and does is breed more racism. Either racism is bad or it isn't, this idea that there is some sort of good racism that's necessary to counteract the bad racism is as stupid as saying there is some sort of good rape that can make bad rape better. It's all bad! There are many ways to address the remaining social issues that result from historical repression of certain groups. And let's be honest, the problems have already been greatly mitigated and eliminated. There is not much left. For example one of the problems that you see in America is that many black people are poor and poor people have less access to education and skills training that would allow them to become successful. Well, if you pour money into skills and education resources for poor areas you will not only help improve the black situation but also everybody's situation. You don't need racism to resolve that. And that's just one example. Conservatives are happy to address issues, they just don't believe that you solve the problem of rape with more rape. You seem to believe that actually is a viable solution. To be honest I feel that makes you more of a chud than the conservatives you're chastising.

We're talking about an Overt crime here. The criminals are definitely going to find a way to bypass whatever camera legislation you care to put out if they have treason in mind. It is insane to think otherwise, I think that should be obvious.

People were scared and they believed with the government told them. When there is a crisis and people are frightened they very often make very bad decisions. It is a time when it's critical for the government to stand up and do the right thing, and that did not happen here. The research that has been conducted since the pandemic overwhelmingly supports the idea that the lockdowns did more harm than good. Canadian expert's research finds lockdown harms are 10 times greater than benefits | Toronto Sun A Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' COVID lockdowns did more harm than good | Health News Florida (usf.edu) For the Greater Good? The Devastating Ripple Effects of the Covid-19 Crisis - PMC (nih.gov) The research has been overwhelming. The lockdowns by and large were a mistake. Canadians supported the lockdowns because trudeau stood up and said that they would save lives and they were necessary according to the science. But as we now know, there was no science. It was a guess. Now you can argue that given the circumstances they had to make a guess and did what they thought was best. But at the end of the day it was still a very bad choice and pretending otherwise or that the Canadian People supported it because of good reasons rather than the government told them to would not be honest at this point.

That's a bit of a false equivalency. And it's pretty misleading as far as that poll goes. I had a family member, he was a serious drug addict. He also did jail time for credit card fraud. It took us forever to get him help and he did get better before the end. Did I trust him? No, not at all. Did I love him and consider him to be dear to me? Absolutely. When you ask people if they trust their family, you're asking them if they trust all of their family. I would definitely have answered that question no. But that doesn't mean that I don't hold my family dear, or there there aren't members of my family that I would trust with my life. A little bit of bait and switch to try and make it cheesy Point Mike. Very disingenuous. I noticed that regardless of their answers, virtually nobody trusts Biden. That tells you something

Even you, with all your body camera wackiness, have to realize that there is a difference between lobbying and treason.

This is Herbie's brain. This is Herbie's brain on woke. Any questions?

Really. Which benefits specifically is he promising to the wealthy and the oil and gas executives? I don't see Biden promising to end oil and gas use so I would guess that the damage in the future is going to be the same either way. Biden hasn't exactly done a lot for global warming. But in any case it's still appears that the average person is donating to trump in a large numbers.

That would be great if I'd mentioned prosecutors rather than judges. And while prosecutors and judges can both sometimes talk about the types of crimes they will like to pursue they're not supposed to actually name a person as someone they're going to get one way or another. It's one thing to say I'm going to put an end to jaywalking. It's another thing entirely to say I will lock up Donald Trump for something even if I don't know what yet. So charge him for that. But that's not what they did. They took an almost never used law that was past the expiration date and shoehorned a charge out of a nebulous other crime that they never had to prove existed, and they did this by waiting until he had declared his intent to run for president and not in all of the years between 2016 and now. Sorry bud, I know you don't like the guy but that's not what our laws are based on. And to wait until he is running for president to try and pull a case that is so completely made up as this, After running a campaign saying that one way or another you will get trump for something, there's nothing short of election interference and the weaponization of the court system. And it's hilarious that you and the democrats support that kind of thing considering that We both know you're going to be the first in line to complain when the republicans choose to bend the rules to strike back. I've helped the dams if the trump campaign wins the election regardless of this interference.

You CAN in fact, and it's happened numerous times. But it's not easy and i'm not sure he'd survive the political fall out. Most Conservatives Wouldn't back a 'whites only' policy. The left definitely wouldn't. It would be death.

70 plus million of it came in small donations of under $50. And I see that it's been growing a lot since then. Sounds like he has the support of both the rich and the poor.

Sounds pretty terrible the way you describe it. So why didn't Biden cancel it then? He certainly could have, it was entirely within his power to do so. So your argument is that trump made such a bad deal that it was obvious to everybody that it was terrible and nobody should go through with it. But it's also your contention that it's not Biden's fault that he chose to exercise this arrangement rather than cancel it or change it. I believe the appropriate phrase here would rhyme with clucking fullshit

I absolutely do and is very clear from your response that you absolutely don't. I also know what dishonesty means. As in your being extremely dishonest when you claim that you didn't say that he had no evidence. You absolutely did say that. Further he absolutely did show data and that is evidence. If you Knew what evidence was you would understand that someone's saying I have seen or done this thing is in fact evidence. Did you honestly believe that testimony is not evidence? What do you think they keep hauling people on to this witness stands for at trials? He has provided his methodology and what he says is his findings. That is in fact evidence by the actual definition of it. You can refute it, you can say that that evidence is not compelling or not compelling enough to find guilt or proof but you cannot say that there is no evidence. So all your whining about how stupid other people are just makes you look like an ignorant buffoon. You have the intellectual capacity of a 7-year-old and the legal understanding of a 2 year old. Absolutely provided evidence. While some of the sources you provided question the quality and validity of the evidence, none of them actually Out and out said that the evidence is false. And all you've proven is that you haven't got the capacity to understand the case, and that democrat supporters should not be trusted when they make the kind of allegations or claims that you did. Which leads an independent Observer to wonder if perhaps there's not some truths to the allegations considering that you feel the need to lie. If the truth won't make your case for you then why not?

Sex scandals are about the only thing our people get charged with and it's rare. The problems are politicians of course is that parliamentary privilege basically means that they don't have to give up any evidence. That makes pursuing any crime extremely difficult. If you can't question the person, can't subpoena the records or information, can't even talk to their associates that they work with proving they committed a crime is brutally hard. There are a lot of x politicians who have been convicted of crimes. Call them Thatcher comes to mind, he stepped down from office and 4 days later killed his wife and was convicted. But I kind of think you mean while they were in office and that is pretty rare. I do honestly believe that we should have a recall system. Something similar to BC, hard to pull off but possible. It's just enough that the threat of it keeps the MPS a little more honest and they don't assume that they've got till the next election to run amok. If the finance minister for example knew that she could face recall if her budget turned out to be faulty and that at the very least she would have to suffer the embarrassment of that even if she succeeded in defending her seat then it might very well color their thinking about some of the lies we've seen recently

The stupidity remains with those who refuse to be honest about what's involved with adapting. But keep lying and virtue signaling about it and see if it helps. I'm sure we'll be just as effective at climate change control as paying my carbon taxes were

If you Voted NDP you did You said that nothing you can do changes anything anyway. So at least you might as well not change anything using the method that requires the least energy Local government is fine but it isn't going to do a damn thing about the issues you've been raising. You might as well have volunteered to run the boy scouts, a worthwhile enough endeavor but it's not going to change federal politics. At the end of the day a democracy boils down to what the people do. If the people do their job then it works. If the people do not do their job then nothing works.

Absolutely , lying is way worse than weaponizing the courts to smash political opponents and interfere with democracy.🙄

That's not a fact, that's your personal delusion

Well voting for them again certainly isn't helping. Maybe stop doing that first. As to the rest if you honestly don't feel that voting or participating helps then don't. Sit in the sidelines and the rest of us will take care of it.

You know that if you ask him for an example of who would be considered reasonable for the republicans to put forward instead of trump he's going to say Ellen Degeneris.

Are you admitting there isn't?

So the committee's evidence that found it was most likely the lab wasn't convincing for you? Why not?