CdnFox

But the man isn't trump. Duh Duh Duhhhhhhh

LOL ohhh noooes - black dog is SOOO upset and triggered for being wrong he gave me a little red down arroww!!!!!!!!!!! And still got that parrot thing going on i see ROFLMAO!! jeez kid you might as well wear a sign that says i made you cry And still pretending you don't know what we're talking about So now you pretend your inability to answer a question and efforts to dodge it are ... dun dun duuuuuuunnnn.... my fault How shocking. So obviously you agree biden's and the democrats speech with regards to trump being hilter etc is a call to violence. So why shouldn't Biden be investigated and charged for that?

Oh look - you're butt hurt because someone did to you what you did to them How very shocking. And of course you freak out about it. Hey kid - you change my quotes i'll change yours. You leave mine alone i'll leave yours alone. But like every bully ever you go after someone and get punched in the nose and cry "NOOOOO FAAAAAAAIIIIRRR". LOL - what a loser End of the day all you've got is your crying and b*tching left. SO. Setting aside your salty tears and lies...... No.' We we talking about rights. My argument was that human rights attach to a fetus when the brain starts to work andthat's when they can be considered to be a human being. Consciousness is irrelevant as i pointed out. Remember? You freaked out when i pointed that out. Did a big hissy fit about how you never said it and now you're back saying it And of course you can't kill a human, they have human rights. You have yet to even try to refute it. you claimed that if that were true any higher life that had a brain would be at the same level of a human. Nope, they're not a human nor do they have human rights etc etc. You've tried to twist it, you try to make it about 'consciousness' etc and tried to deny what you said but at the end of the day i'm right and you've not been able to refute it. And kid.... nobody's buying your whole "projection" sctick. Everyone on this forum knows that denial, melt downs and sad little sexual fantasy thingies are what you're all about and i've mentioned it many times. Again - you've achieved the intellectual level of a parrot and think somehow that's a good look

The cops must have a gaydar trap set up

Wow! thats a pretty salty failure-fit there kiddo Translation: "WAAAAAHAHHHH, I KNOW I"M WRONG BUT I WANT IT TO BE YOUR FAULT SO I"LL JUST BLAME YOU FOR MY FAILINGS!!!!! WAAAAAAHHHHHH Go change your diaper kid, sounds like it's full Still aren't. We're talking about his speech when he calls trump a nazi etc etc. I didn't say "a speech".' I said his speech. I guess once again I have to explain to you how English Works: speech noun ˈspēch Synonyms of speecha : the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words b : exchange of spoken words : conversation a : something that is spoken : utterance b : a usually public discourse : address 3 a : language, dialect b : an individual manner or style of speaking 4 : the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking Biden's and the democrats manner of speaking (speech) is such that they refer to trump as Hitler and Refer to him constantly as A threat to democracy, the end of voting, etc. But I love that you know you're wrong so badly that now you're trying to pretend that you had no idea what we were talking about With that tactic you might as well hold up a billboard stating that you know I'm right but don't want to admit it

So still don't want to give an example of what you were talking about huh? So you were making it up and lying. Now you're trying to say it's my fault because you lied and I asked you to give me an example. And it's even my fault that you can't keep your lies straight and half the time you say is something posted on truth social and the other half is something a late night host said. And you still can't even offer an example because you're making it up Sigh. Well you're dumber than a stamp hammer but at least you're consistent. So obviously to answer your original question we don't blame the dems for you making up crap that never happened, we blame you. We blame the dems for teaching you that it's ok to make stuff up and lie about it.

Anyone with a brain. So not you But i love your rebuttals have now become "duuuuhh, me no care about facts and truth ' Yep, Sorry kiddo but denying the truth doesn't make it true. Sure you did. You said it elevated them to the level of a human. Humans have rights. That's what we were talking about. Some how you're getting worse at this as you go As you say that's actually your trick. You do that constantly because it's a very left-wing popular technique. You know like when you put extra things in quotes from me that never got said Just to point something out at random Lots of fun However in this case what you're doing is the other technique you like so much which is to deny what you've said. You say something stupid, I point out it's stupid, you realize that I'm right and then you try and say that what you said isn't what you said. Sorry kid, what you said is what you said Sadly for you the truth remains the truth Naaaww we know you lie all the time. I've edited yours to be a little more truthful as well.

I thought you said this was a late night tv show you were talknig about? No wonder you didn't say what it was - you don't even know what you're talking about

No, but thanks for the demonstration of a dog chasing it's tail Always amusing LOL Awwww kiddo, you down to elementary school insults again? You should do kids parties, i mean if you're going to be a clown anyway you should get paid HAH you've mastered mimicry again Im sure a parrot would be impressed SO you admit you've got short term memory issues? We were just discussing this. Well trump is facing all kinds of legal challenges for it, so you agree that biden should be investigated and charged just as trump was?

I literally had to explain to you what a subpoena was. IT's what they said even if they phrased it differently. They said allowing states to enforce Section 3 for federal candidates could result in a scenario in which “a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record),” the court warned. And that could create a “patchwork” that could “dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times.” “Nothing in the Constitution,” the court wrote, “requires that we endure such chaos.” an unconstitutional law as it turns out. So in other words they were wrong, Which is PRECISELY what i told you. I told you that the colorado court could not rule on federal law. Guess what the decision said? They can't rule on FEDERAL law. And you INSISTED that was WRONG!!! and they COULD!!! But it turns out I know a lot more about the law than you do And in this case the supreme court has once again shot down your mistaken beliefs. So it's not "My" opinon ,it's THIEIR opinion. Swing and a miss again little guy Duh!

I can't deny what I don't know about. Three times you've been asked for clarification and haven't provided any. Which leads me to believe that you probably are lying about what was said. But based on what you claimed it sounds like he's talking about campaign financing laws. Campaign financing laws don't restrict free speech. There are tons and tons of packs and super packs out there. But it does mean that such speech has to be recognized and recorded appropriately as election spending. Once again you are forced to lie to try and make your point. You mean because Of that thing I didn't say about the thing you haven't provided any information on that i don't know anything about as a result? LOL you could at least make it a LITTLE more challenging to point out how stupid you are

In order for there to be election they would still need to be agreement from the NDP. At the end of February 2025 Jagmeet will qualify for his pension. That pension is worth many many millions of dollars. Currently the CPC is pulling higher in his writing than he is. If he goes to an election and loses before February then all he gets is the money he's put into his pension back and gets nothing. If he waits till after February he gets millions and millions of dollars What do you think the chances are of the MVP supporting and no confidence motion before February's end? We will not be going to the polls till after February of next year and my guess would be they would make it about the budget so probably closer to April or may depending on when trudeau releases his budget. The conservatives will say it spends too much we want an election, the NDP will say it doesn't spend enough we want an election, and that will be there excuses

Well that's true.

Nobody claimed you did., so sorry still you. It's gibberish to you because it's logic and reason I pointed out that it's not a problem of them not being the same thing, the issue is they aren't even related. but as usual your brain just skipped over the 'complicated' stuff. (well for you anyway) You said they were equivilant to a human Now you realize how stupid that is and you're trying to play the "well,,, umm,,, TECHNICALLY i didn't say they were an ACTUAL human sort of kind of... " Human rights attach to humans. So if you're saying something else is the same you're extending that humanity And it woudl be stupid do to so which was the point, a point you couldn't refute or address There's that trademark surrender insult again LOL - well now we know you're a hypocrite. Welll in fairness we knew that already Enjoy your 4 more years of trump So make it ENTIRELY for medical reasons ONLY. Problem solved. You're really doing badly today

Which means it happens. So pass laws so that it doesn't happen. Problem solved.

Show me where i denied it? I asked you to be specific so we knew what you were talking about. So you admit you lied LOLOL - poor little lefties Anyway you still havent' been specific so i can't look it up to see what you're talking about but if he says the gov't needs to do something about illegal contributions then he's presumably talking about campaign financing law. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's no constitutional right to campaign financing that i'm aware of, are you? There's lots of laws about that right now. But I think the fact that you had to lie about what I said is plenty of proof that you knew you were in the wrong to begin with

They never had any 😂🤣😆 Man you suck at this.

Something can be different but related. That was what you were proposing. An apple and an orange are related, theyre both fruits But they're not the same thing. LOL so you got busted again and you're butt hurt about it. Can't even address the point Why? That's stupid. The fact that something has a functioning brain doesnt' mean it's human, not ALL things with brains are humans. But all humans have a functioning brain. , When a human's brain starts functioning thats when it starts to be a human. All cats have 4 legs. My dog has 4 legs. therefore my dog is a cat. - Black dog Logic just isn't your thing is it That's not terribly complicated. Do you need me to find a grade 3 student to explain it to you? Good, good. Now make it 100 percent. Problem solved.

ROFLMAO - "i just realized he's right and i have no rebuttal" Agreed, your stupidity is pretty run of the mill. And your admission of failure continues. As normal So. Biden's speech was a call to violence. Now that you've been unable to refute that, what punishments or consequences should biden and the dems face for their hate speech?

LOL sorry kiddo but you're the one struggling with it For there to be a "then" there has to be an 'if" The statement is pointless if the democrats WEREN'T making a call to violence. LOL - didn't think that through did you So either the dems made a call to violence or your whole point went in the garbage. Which would make you dumber than the dumbest MF alive apperenty THat's pretty dumb

No they don't A handful of crank pots here and there believe those things, I'm not sure you'd even get it up to 10 thousand where are you getting these millions and millions from?

Utterly untrue. The two are somewhat unrelated. Which is why we are concerned about AI becomeing ACTUAL intelligence and how we will define their consciousness or when they achieve it, separate from life Nor do we attach the two to being human - a person in a coma is not conscious but they're not dead either and they're still a person with rights attached. At about 16 months a baby's brain "turns on" and begins to perform tasks. We're not talking about ransom neurons firing, it starts to regulate the heart beat etc. Most medical experts define death as when all brain activity stops, and for good reason. Even if the 'body' is alive by artificial means after that the person is considered dead and gone. You can do a heart transplant but not a brain transplant (more's the pity, we could fix you permanenty ) So if 'humanity' ends when the brain no longer functions at all then it is logical to say that it starts when the brain turns on. More than anything our brains define us as being a human being. It is a logical and reasonable and legally defensible answer to the question of when someone starts being a human rather than a lump of flesh So, back it off a little bit to make sure that we're not catching any fast Developers then somewhere in the 12 to 14 week range would make sense as a date after which no abortions should take place.

I swear to god my little brother was a virus till he was 23. If i'd have known i could kill him based on THAT....

Whoolle lotta hatred there Why don't you give us the specific example with quotes and context trump used? Everyone agrees that you can't actually call for a crime to be committed, is that what you mean? You create "Fake" examples and try to pass it off as somehow relevant. And people have never had the right to carry guns without permission on private property or at private events. even vermont with the most relaxed gun laws in the country is like that. And this is the way of the left. Come up with fake and non-existent examples and try and get people to argue with that. Because god knows you can't argue with the truth

so are you admitting that it was a call to violence then? You're admitting that that's the case? I mean it very clearly is so I can understand you doing that. But I think it's important that we're clear here that the democrats use language which is an excitement for violence.