Jump to content

CdnFox

Senior Member
  • Posts

    27,613
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    287

Posts posted by CdnFox

  1. 4 minutes ago, herbie said:

    Why do all the Free Speechers rants boil down to the mistaken idea they have the right to LIE in order to simply promote hatred and public disorder?

    Why do all lefties lie about that being teh case :)

    I know - the left would LOVE to be the only ones to determine what is truth and what isn't. 

    Anything they don't like, no matter how factually accurate, is "lying simply to promote hatred'.  Also the person is a nazi.

    Free speech is predicated on the idea that if YOU think it's a lie, you can make your own case and explain why.

    But being the socailist totalitarians you are - you don't want to go through that work so everyone who disagrees is a liar and should be canceled.


    This lady's concerns, which  i doubt you've even listened to, were perfectly factual and legit.  What did she say that you feel was a lie? Or was spreading hate? Or are you just full of shit as usual?

  2. 3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    Oh for Gawd's sake Dweebles...

    I have no idea if Musk believes this replacement theory or not...but so f'ing what if he does? Maybe he agreed with something you and your dweebey friends have taken completely out of context. Its not like that hasn't happened before...

    Well - it's interesting actually.

     

    Here's what was said by the poster elon agreed with

    Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical
    hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using
    against them.
    I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western
    Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those
    hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like
    them too much.
    You want truth said to your face, there it is

     

    So - what the guy said was that the jewish communities in the west (us) have supported people saying the same thing about white people that is now being said about them - specifically that whites are privlidged and try to take over the world and control everything etc, basically the whole critical race theory argument. He seems to be suggesting many jewish communities are on the left and have supported left wing ideology.

    And now people are saying that about them and they don't like it - the jews are privlidged the jews repress people etc etc

    And he notes that many of the immigrants that the jews supported  with this (muslim immigrants presumably) turn out not to like the jews and they've shot themselves in the foot.

    Elon agrees this is true.

     

    Is that anti semetic? I'm not sure it is. He's not saying all jews, and it is demonstrable that many jewish communities did support this kind of thing. It's a broad statement so maybe it is.

    And is it 'replacment theory'?  I don't see that AT ALL - he's not talking about jews trying to REPLACE white people with foreigners, he's saying that their arguments for letting these foreigners in are now being used against them.  That's not really got anything to do with replacement theory.

     

    Soooo - kinda feels like the left making shit up to suit them again.

    • Like 1
  3. Just now, Nationalist said:

    Well its "illegal" and a DUI in some provinces for e bikes.

     

    I guess it depends how you define dui - that normally is a very specific charge and it is a federal charge which only applies to motorvehicles but it is true that you can be charged  based on provincial laws.  So a very specific federal "DUI" charge isn't going to happen but for sure you might face a similar charge under provincial law.

     

  4. 39 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

    This was one of the funniest thing I've read, ever.

    I remember the crisis in 2011 when Germany forced southern countries to pay back loans Germany gave to them with very high interest rates while they knew these southern countries could not pay them back.

    Germany totally dominates the EU.

  5. 22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. 7. 8. 9.  Am too.  Why do you think I'm not ?  Because I support Trans rights ?  

    I've gone over why not many times with you.  And right there is another example of your dishonest methods of debate. Sealioning, asking someone to prove over and over the same things already proven. I've never seen you once even dispute the numerous examples i've given.  At best you try the 'oh was i? i didn't realize i did that" excuse.

     

    Quote

    2. Yes.  "Don't be stupid" is something one would say to someone who is not naturally stupid, so...

    And here we have that misdirection i spoke of. You misquote me deliberately, and then reframe it as an argument. Those words you quoted were actually you and had nothing to do with my position. I was responding to something else and quoted you to show my reasoning, and you've taken that out of context.

    Dishonest in the extreme.  You have to literally misquote someone to try to make your point. Pathetic.

    Quote


    3. Keep repeating it and I will keep denying it.

    You've already proven its true.  Numerous times.  What you mean is you intend to lie to yourself, The truth is plain to anyone else.

    Quote


    4. Admission of wrong is a good first step.

    I'm sure you think that's what happened :)  you use of chud is constant.  Anyone can look at your posts and see it. You've used it already today.

    Quote


    5. Please do

    I doubt you'll like it  i suspect you'll pretend to block me again and pretend you didn't see it because you can't cope with it

     

    Quote

    6. Who cares how I 'look' ?  Surely not you.  Me neither.

    You VERY obviously do  It's clearly important to you.


     

    Quote

    10. It's a meaningless tag... don't take offense

    Boy you're all over the map on this.  It's "Meaningless".  It's "the only way i can tag people i really need to - i TRIED to think of another way and i couldn't!" "I'm not using it to dehumanize, i just use it as a meaningless dehumanization!!"

    Kid - you use it to dehumanize people so you can justify ignoring them.  Simple truth.


     

    Quote

    11. It IS identifying.  It identifies a new political persona that has arrived on the scene - you have defined it personally.  "Chuds" are adherents to the new political populism of our time.  What could be pejorative in that ?  Sure sounds better than 'groomer'.  If you can get all the right-of-centre people on the board to agree not to call people groomers/pedophiles I will stop using my harmless term.

    But it didn't have a meaning. And it is just a meaningless tag. Now it has all this meaning.  And as i predicted - when you realized that if it has no meaning it's just pejorative you suddenly come up wiht a "meaning".

    All it means is you're the kind of person who dehumanizes people he disagrees with and then uses that as pretext why he can't address their points.

    As i have shown.

    Sorry. You're well on the left, and you're the kind of leftie that dehumanizes people rather than makes reasonable arguments back.  If that's not who you want to be, then you need to make changes.

  6. 25 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

    ?

    <Immigration was not even tried! Let's try harder! If we didn't have those levels, we'd be even poorer! We must go forward!> is the new <Communism was not even tried! Let's try harder! If we didn't adopted it, we'd be even poorer!>.

     

    Ok ok - settle down - take your pills :) 

    Its a complex topic and you could make the argument. I'm sorry if you don't like  that but it's a simple fact. That doesn't make the argument correct, and it wouldn't address the long term problems that come with it, but it would be a potentially defenseable argument. Doesn't mean i agree with it but it would be a point that would need to be addressed.

    Quote

    Inflation being inflated by... increasing the consumer base ... inflated by... immigration.

    I literally just said that.

    So - while someone could say that immigration increases the economy you would have to point out that even if that's true its' also having a major impact on inflation, which reduces the value of the economy even if it increases, so is the 'gain' to the ecomomy worth the 'pain' of inflation devaluing the economy.

    My guess is oh hell no, but my point is that would be the discussion and both sides would have to make their case.

  7. 4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    About the logic you were using to arrive at a conclusion, not the two conflicts.

    This is a common leftie trick - if i say 'comparing gaza to bernardo is like comparing apples to oranges" then you say "so you're saying bernardo is the same as a fruit!?!?!! *angry pikachu face*

    I never compared the two at all - i compared the logical thought process you applied to one and showed what it would look like if applied to another thing,

    But thanks for admitting you lied to try to make a bad point again :) Hissy fit now? or later.

    • Haha 1
  8. 31 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

    Its sad. We hear all sorts of stories about how these schools and the programs were full of one racist or another...and I'm sure some cases are quite true. But apologizing endlessly for the mistakes of a few, and completely ignoring the potential for enhanced racial relations is...counter productive.

    and maybe that's the point?

    A whole industry has grown up around being a professional victim unfortunately. Those people will not want to give up their money

    • Like 1
  9. 26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. The part about depictions of sex... the article said her concerns were elsewhere.
     

    That doesn't make sense - what do you mean?

    Quote

    2. She is asserting that she was defamed but that doesn't speak to whether it was done vengefully or not.  I didn't see anything in the description that indicated these were personal vendettas.

    Part of defamation's definition in canadian law indicates that.


     

    Quote

    3. But "charge" her ?  With what ? 

    Oh they couldn't but they claimed it was a violation of the human rights act and blah blah blah. Of course as we see now, no it wasn't, but that didnt stop them from threatening

    Quote


    5. Reputation ?  Yes possibly.  But they won't be personally impacted at least not as much as she waas.

    Hard to say. Might be harder to get reelected if you just lost the school system a hundred grand or so,

     

    Quote

    6.  Supposed to, why ?  You think that you are allowed to say anything at all in a School Board meeting ?  The fact that YOU think it's acceptable is utterly meaningless.  They have business to conduct, and they don't have to listen to every Chud who wants to expound on his flat earth theories... 

    So now she's a 'chud'.  And we don't listen to 'chuds'.  Tell me again that you odn't use the term to dehumanize,

    And yes - if it relates to the school at all they have to listen to the 'chuds'. Which is what this judge just said


     

    Quote

    7. Yes we established that.  "Tossed out" = "Suspended" , "Quit" = "Retired with full pension" ... clarity, my son...

    Don't know what you're saying here either. Sounds like another attempt to obfuscate.


     

    Quote

    8. We shall see... at least if she loses you won't be able to crow that the courts are compromised, there's not any justice etc... which is a good thing.

    I think you mean if she wins.

    And no - that would not be the case.  The courts can get some cases right and still be heavily influenced by bias and politics.  IT's not a 100 percent either or situation.

    But - based on your comment does that mean if she DOES lose you agree that the courts are compromised? :)  It must if a victory proves they're not :)

  10. 22 minutes ago, taxme said:

    I do not need to try and cover up anything,
     

    Well that's a good thing, because you're not.  It's plain as day.

     

    Quote

    All i did was say ....

    And more fantasies about father figures and their penises and coming.  Dude. It's not healthy to repress your homosexual feelings - were you worried your dad woudln't approve if you told him?  Is that why you keep having these weird daddy fantasies?  I'd talk to someone, this doesn't sound entirely healthy.

    Quote

    Hey, i was watching the news this morning and they were showing those Jews that were being released from Hamas. They all looked well, not wearing raggedy looking clothes, smiling at Hamas and shaking hands.

     

    Nope.  we never got to see hamas - if you saw them smiling and shaking hands that's with the israelis.  Post vids otherwise if you have them.

    As to the prisoners:

    Biden said the 4-year-old hostage, Abigail Edan, had witnessed her parents being killed by Hamas fighters during their Oct. 7 raid into Israel and had been held since then.

    Hamas, Israel release prisoners; American girl, 4, is freed | Reuters

     

    So these 'nice guys" that you're so supportive of - they MURDERED a 4 year old girls'parents right in front of her then held her prisoner for a month.

    This is your "treats people well" terrorist buddies?

    And now she's on the way to the hospital to see what else she's suffered.

     

    These are the poeple you've been lying ot support. They did this to a 4 year old girl.  Not for any military gain or to get a ta  military target, they just came to her home without warning and did this,

    How the hell do you sleep at night.

     

  11. 2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

    Israel is not responsible for casulties as Hamas is using them as human shields but Israel has to do its best to minimize deaths and suffering on civilians caught in between. I don't think Israel is doing that.

    They drop leaflets in advance of the attacks to warn people, they allow inspectors to travel with their troops on the front to see what they see at the same time as they capture territory, they've done a lot.

    What more could they do?

  12. 1 hour ago, robosmith said:

    Why should anyone believe the legal opinions of a college dropout from Canada who ONLY gets his info from right wing propaganda outlets?

    I know I don't.

    You're not from Canada, and your outlets are left wing.  And nobody does believe you so i dont know what you're complaining about,

    Yeash - you don't even know what country your'e in.  :) 

  13. 19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. I'm a conservative.  And I have never called you a Chud.  Do you think you're one ?  You seem to be upset and yet I have never said that to you.
     

    You are not and everyone on this entire board is aware of it. You're not even a blue liberal.  You're pretty firmly on the left in your opinions, debate style, beliefs, and support.

    And i was responding to where you specifically said if I don't want to be called a chud don't be a chud (which you couldn't define earlier so... not sure how people are supposed to avoid it :) ) I dont' really care what you call me.

    21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

    2.  I already addressed that ?  Why are you repeating yourself ?

     

    To point out your dishonesty on the subject. You very clearly do use it to dehumanize people. When someone says a falsehood, sometimes its necessary to repeat the truth.

    Quote

    3. I have used the term 40 times this year, before this post.  So not daily.  I care about principles so point it out when I don't follow them.

    Close enough.  I'm not going to go back and count but i see you use it very frequently. And always in the context of dehumanizing someone rather than addressing a point.
     

    Quote

    4. Ok then.  I don't think I dodge questions.  Again, point it out and I will answer.  I'm certainly not consciously using such a tactic.

    I feel that you are aware, and it happens often enough that it seems more of a tactic than a mistake. I'll point it out more often.

     

    Quote

    5. What's the definition of Chud ?  I haven't given one.

    Do you honestly think that makes you look better? If the term has no definition you're aware of (which must be the case if you're asking me for one) then clearly you're only using it as a pejorative to dehumanize people you don't like.  Not to 'tag' people for any specific reason, not to accurately identify a group or the like, but just to dehumanize. 

    You really just proved my point.

    And before you bother to scramble and say 'wait wait wait... er... there is one (i  just made up)" it's kind of too late for that.  If you have to ask what the definition is then you didn't know when you were calling people chuds.

     

    Quote

    6. HA HA HA ... everyone ? 

    Yes, everyone.

    You're not a conservative, everyone knows you're not a conservative at least not by any commonly used version of the term that's relevant today. As noted virtually every element of your body of replies speaks to a strong left ideology and position and support.


     

    Quote

    Again - I didn't call you one.  I don't know why you're so upset with me.

    Don't take it personal - i'd be just as upset with someone running around calling black people ni**ers or calling chinese ch*nks or the like. It's inappropriate to dehumanize people in that fashion with strongly pejorative group slurs.

    I gave americana antifa a hard time for calling everyone nazis and making anti jew remarks constantly. 

    I mean - i get it, people will call an individual a 'leftie' or a 'capitalist' or the like or say that "the democrats" are 1diots or the 'maga' supporters think trump is this or that or the like, but  when you repetitively come up with an 'undefined' pejorative term and apply it specifically to dehumanize rather than identify a block of policy or a specific political slate or agenda or something then it's over the line,

  14. 46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    I think it means to imply it's over and behind us

    It's literally over and behind us.  The penalties have been assessed, the schools shut down, reparations paid - if you can find a priest sill alive that can be charged with a sex crime i'm all over that but the school thing is over and behind us.

    She would like to lock me up in jail for sharing that opinion.

    Quote

    I think its main thrust is driven by the resentment people have over paying taxes to settle these things.

    Ahh - so  if i say " i don't think we should give them any more money for residential school issues than we already have" - i should go to jail.

    That seems pretty reasonable.

  15. 52 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Says the guy who suggests the ME conflict is the same as Paul Bernardo's murder spree.  I better stop here lest I spray more coffee all over my screen.

    Never said that once.  But of course you've got to lie to try to make  your point, you can't defend your point other wise

    Dare i say we're only a few posts away from your regularly scheduled hissy fit when you realize you're completely wrong and can't defend it :) 

  16. 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. Ok, how about "Dehumanization of groups happens in the name of policy discussion regularly" ?

    Says the guy who calls people 'chuds' all the time.

    Quote


    2. It is possible to debate ideas - especially if you do it in the right forum.  Going to a School Board meeting to try to assert that Transgenderism isn't real is a pointless waste of time.  They're there to discuss things that they have control over, not things that they don't.

    See - this is what i mean about you attempting to change the channel in a dishonest fashion.  AT  no time did anyone attempt to debate if transgenderism is real.  And to the best of my knowledge nobody has EVER brought that up as the main topic at a school board meeting.  At best they might claim that the school policy may be flawed because they're not convinced all kids who think they're transgendered are transgendered - and that's perfectly legit considering some of the school policies.


    But - no, you have to change it to something else.

    And the bottom line is this - if it is tied in any way to the schools, then you don't get to 'downplay' it and decide other people should be silenced and lose their rights to speak just because you disagree with them and therefore feel it's pointless.

    And you call yourself a conservative. Bah.

  17. 1 minute ago, DUI_Offender said:

    Can I take a dump in your mouth?

    OH i think you've shit yourself enough today :)   Go change your diaper and see someone about addressing your fecalphillia there

     

    Just now, Legato said:

    You are a little mixed up. Did you mean DUH instead of DUI?

     

    Best... line....  ever....    :)  :)  

    • Haha 1
  18. 6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    I'm very happy with the ruling, chiefly because it shows that the system is able to balance the rights of free expression and those who need to be protected.

    So, can those who make extreme and fatalistic claims about the state of our public sphere and institutions please take note

    IOW liberalism lives.

    That said, we have a clear indication that dialogue will continue.  If you are following what is happening, it would be great help to be precise and accurate in your language.

    1. The article doesn't say that at all.

    2. This is a framing of the actions of an institution that suspended someone they suspected of policy violation.  The language you use make it seem like it was a vengeful campaign but that's not supported by the source.

    3. I didn't see that in the article.  Charge her?

    4. Agree.

    5. I highly doubt that there would be serious ramifications for the School Board members.  I don't see any indication that they acted unprofessionally in the ruling, just that they were wrong to disallow her comments.

    6. With limits.  School board meetings are not the place to talk about everything.  Some parents think that you should be allowed to talk about whether transgenderism is real at a school board meeting.  I think it's irrelevant to the day-to-day business of running a school board.

     

    1 - yes it did. It didn't claim she was right - but it did claim her concerns were legitimate and not banned by the human rights act and she should have been heard.

    2 - It is absolutely a vengeful campaign - which is why it's a 'defamation' lawsuit.

    3 - Yup. Go do some research  THey were pretty brutal to her.

    4 - That's nice

    5 -  Of course there could be - they're now defendants in a defamation lawsuit that the judge here has all but said they're likely to lose and that she's got a valid case. The school just had to shell out 30  grand already for her legal fees - the suit could cost hundreds of thousands.  You think thats not going to have an impact on the reputation of the trustees who defamed her?

    6 - You don't get to "Think" about it. Which is for the best.  People are supposed to be free to raise any concerns they want that impact or involve the school system the board presides over.  The fact YOU don't think it's relevent or that THEY don't think it's important is utterly meaningless.

    Which is what has lead to the lawsuit.

     

    She brought up valid concerns, and rather than be allowed to express them she was tossed out and then attacked personally and harassed till she had to quit.

    This is a victory - and now the defamation suit can continue and hopefully she'll win there as well.

  19. 27 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    IF the "web developers" didn't get their copy from the firm's lawyers, they probably lifted it from a US website.

    It is fairly clear it was NOT proofread by anyone, let alone the firm's lawyers. LMAO

    It seems there are varying legal opinions about laws in Saskatchewan, but most say no you cannot get a dui on a bike.

    But all say it's not legal and you can be charged with a number of other offenses and fined to oblivion.

    DUI is what you are bringing up to try to change the subject. What i said is it's not legal.

    • Downvote 1
  20. 6 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

    I'm referring to DUI.  

     

    Having said that, the only way Police can do anything about drunk cyclists, is if the commit some kind of traffic infraction, or they are carrying open liquor. The cops can't pull over cyclists just for being drunk.

     

    So no, it;s not illegal to cycle drunk, you fool.

    Yes because you know you were wrong and i was right, so you're trying to change the discussion.


    Tell me you're a loser without telling me,

    AND NO - THEY DON"T NEED TO COMMIT ANY TRAFFIC INFRACTION.

    if they see you're driving the bike irradically and they test you and find out you're drunk - that is grounds for the charge of being intoxicated in public which means you are so drunk that your activities represent a danger. THey can then throw you in jail for the night and fine the bejeezuz out of you in the morning. '

    ON TOP of that you may be subject to other charges and fines under various highway or roadway laws.

    You can't operate a bike impaired lawfully in any province i've ever heard of in canada .

  21. 3 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

    You picked the one law firm in Saskatchewan that publishes legal information that is not even relevant to people in Saskatchewan, or anywhere else in Canada. 

    You're a bit of a slow learner aren't you.  You could easily have looked this up and found out he was completely correct.

    Here - dui specialists in ontario

    Other Legal Repercussions of Biking Under the Influence in Ontario

    Even though you may be shielded from a potential biking DUI in Canada, you can still be charged for other offences on your bike. In fact, if Ontario police spot you riding a bicycle erratically, in an unsafe manner, or in any other ways that suggests impairment, they will likely pull you over to test or otherwise evaluate your sobriety. If their evaluation proves impairment, you can be charged under the Ontario Liquor License Act with public intoxication. Depending on the circumstances, police can also charge you with careless driving under the province's Highway Traffic Act.

    While neither of these charges are criminal, they can lead nonetheless to a $50 fine for public intoxication, as well as fines between $400 and $2,000 for careless driving.

    https://torontodui.com/knowledge-centre/charged-dui-bike-heres-what-you-should-do/

    There's a few dozen others.

     

    So first you try to change the channel by going from 'illega' to "dui", then you insist that a sask law firm is somehow wrong without providing a single link or bit of evidence.


    And  you could easily have looked it up on your own but didn't.

    BTW - if you ARE found to be 'drunk in public' because you're on a bike impaired then they can throw you in jail for the night and lock up your bike as well.  Fun fact

    It is not lawful to operate a bike while you're impaired in every province i'm aware of.  Yeash,

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...