CdnFox
-
Posts
27,901 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
288
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CdnFox
-
-
On 11/30/2023 at 5:43 PM, WestCanMan said:
Our PM doesn't see it like that. He'd take immigrants from Kabul tomorrow if he could.
Maybe don't give him any ideas...
-
7 hours ago, eyeball said:
Progressives and conservatives were with us before Neanderthals.
No, they weren't. That's an amazingly stupid thing to say. It wasn't even with us DURING neanderthals.
QuoteYou guys were screaming in fear and raining shit down from your perches in the highest branches of the trees when we were bravely exploring the ground below for greener less smelly pastures. You'd still be stuck pissing up a tree if it wasn't for us.
ROFLMAO - wow, looks like your brain cracked and you went into full on hissy fit mode about an hour early today
LOL
Always a pleasure to watch your poor little leftist brain overheat and melt down from trying to think with it every day
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. I use the term to warn people off them. It's kind of like 'troll'. Therefore she is not one.
You have a different explanation every day. At any rate, i guess you wanted to warn people off of her for some reason then.
QuoteI do support Trans rights but not unequivocally and furthermore I understand that the concepts are new and strange and that THAT has to be considered. I also recognize my own biases in not giving enough respect to opponents at times, so I have to go back and look at examples to see if I overstepped or made a mistake. Talking through these things clarifies, smoothes over mistrust and reinforces institutional strength IMO.
To me this isn't so much about the 'trans' issue at the heart of it. It could just as easily be about pink pony tails or whatever.
To me the big issue is that a long time teacher with a sterling record had legitimate concerns to be discussed and because of left wing political correctness she was not only not allowed to speak but was driven out and defamed. Harassed to the point of suffering medical issues.
Presumably because they felt she was a Chud. And chuds don't deserve to speak right? Apparently they also don't get to live in peace after they dare to try to speak.
SO what you should be 'supporting' is the right of EVERYONE to speak - and that people like yourself don't get to determine if someone should be allowed to or if its a 'waste of time' or is a 'chud'.
And that's what makes this a victory. Those on the left who attack people for exercising their rights, chud or not, need to learn that's not ok
Quote( That's why I consider myself conservative... I know, I know, I know...)
LOL
-
1 minute ago, eyeball said:
No you couldn't. At the first sign of a school lunch program you'd be back to hating everything else we stand for too.
Ahhh - we're at the 'deflection' stage of your daily mental issues i see. Can't address the argument so you just make a nonsense argument to complain about
Amusing if somewhat childish.
-
4 minutes ago, robosmith said:
Thanks for demonstrating you're unable to post anything more than a childish meme that carries no WEIGHT in rebutting an article from "The Economist."
Very sad that's the best you got.
LOL - sounds like he struck a nerve
-
7 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Secular progress is the only real victim here. However mangled the angry discourse gets the question posed in the above video is just a variation of the question about Palestinian rights that still remains unanswered after 75 years.
I'm not holding my breath - it took 359 years for the just about the most conservative organization in history to acknowledge Galileo was right.
So you've given up on logic and reason and just spout whatever fantasies pop into your head now? Right and left wing didn't even exist until just before the 1800's. But sure - they were controlling things centuries before they came into existance because that's how time works.
-
38 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Sure but how much longer will you put up with it?
Are you kidding? Forever - you guys are comedy gold
QuoteYou know us progressives, we never stop ever - because we're right.
You never stop because you THINK you're right - it's like watching a dog chase it's tail
It's SURE it'll catch it if it just goes a little faster LOL
-
9 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:
If we were to compare IQ scores, Michael would likely come on top by at least 40 points. My guess is 128-88. You ahve a limited intellect, I commend you for trying. There is nothing wrong with being in the bottom 1/3 of the general public when it comes to intelligence. God just made you that way.
Actually, this forum does not have the best reputation. I've actually had to dumb myself down just to fit in. This is a borderline White supremacist site.
ROFLMAO - sure kid
You're a frikkin' genius for sure, we can all tell LOL!!!
-
Just now, DUI_Offender said:
What the hell are you going on about?
Your statement. Hell kid if you're not going to pay attention to what you say i'm not sure why you think the rest of us will.
QuoteNot if the kid decides to go over to a friends house, where the parents do not supervise their child.
Sure kid. Post your research showing that happens all the time - kids run over to their buddies and immediately immerses himself in double penetration porn.
QuoteThis happened to me as a child. I was not allowed to watch old reruns of Three's Company, but if I was at my friends house, they had no problem letting us view the sitcom, so I watched it there.
Sure - three's company is basically the same as group sex porn.
QuoteWhat the hell are you talking about. Just because you fantasise about 7 year old girls, does not give you the right to project your sexual deviance on me.
You're the one who brought it up. You're the one claiming that we should give kids access to porn at ages as low as 6-7 unfettered because they might see it anyway.
And you say this is why kids should be able to make sex change decisions at 13.
The fact that your arguments are 1diotic and a little pedophilic is NOT my fault.
-
Yep - he had to go.
-
3 minutes ago, robosmith said:
... you have no reason. Nor am I.
Agreed - you have no reason that any of us can see.
-
12 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:
God, you're pathetic.
So that's a yes?
IT's starting to get easy to see what your "tells" are. When you know you're wrong you simply throw out an insult or fecal reference and then cower in the corner.
QuoteMichael, is one of the most intelligent and mild mannered people in the Political Forums he is a member of. If you can't get along with him, then you must be a piece of shi
Mike is a dishonest poster and not very smart. I thought initially he seemed intelligent as well but when i started reading his stuff - it's not. In fact, it's pretty low brow. He uses a series of debate tricks to come across as smart but in reality it's just obfuscation, misdirection avoidance and minimization with a healthy dollop of dehumanization thrown in of course.
The fact you're impressed by that suggests you're dumber than a slug. but your posts really had given that away Already.
You're really going to have to step up your game if you're going to hang around here or you're just going to wind up being a punching bag. Make better arguments. Be less stupid. Read carefully to make sure you know what you're replying to. Make strong arguments and avoid cheap tricks.
Or not - i can always use another good laugh and emotional scratching post
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:
Scott Moe probably drove drunk at least 300 times in his life. He was arrested twice on DUI charges (convicted once), and killed a woman by blowing through a stop sign. Moe eventually matured, but not before he had to face the consequences of a DUI conviction, which was not nearly as severe in the 90s as it is today.
Rumor has it that he was so drunk that he urinated in his pants while in the back of the squad car.
And?
Is this one of those weird left wing 'debate tricks' where you're trying to create an ad hominem argument without directly saying it? Sigh. Well i'm sure that's a very effective technique in elementary school.
-
On 11/5/2023 at 12:41 PM, herbie said:
"Alberta was polling close to wanting to split before harper got elected and believe it or not BC was polling even higher for it. "
And I can post the sky is orange and hope some people believe it's true.
Sure - the difference is everybody knows i look this stuff up before i post, and everybody knows you just make shit up and fail to contribute anything usefull
An August 2005 poll commissioned by the Western Standard pegged support for the idea that "Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country." at 42% in Alberta and 35.6% across the four Western provinces[31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_separatism
I also remember. There were a few polls just before that time before harper was elected leader - strangely bc actually polled HIGHER than alberta in wanting to seperate. Things got a little better after harper was elected leader.
So yeah - they were getting pretty close as i said.
But thankfully harper did get to be leader and did win the election and did treat the provinces better - and the bloc was reduced to 4 seats or something and the west calmed down.
But hey - always enjoy another chance to show that i know more than you
not that that's anything special.
-
45 minutes ago, eyeball said:
No, that's all radical right-wing bullshit.
See how it works?
Yes we do. He's right and your wrong.
That's usually how it works so were kind of used to it.
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, ironstone said:
I wonder if this is Ben Shapiro and...Gaetan?
This guy was just irrational and spewing complete nonsense and it was hard to understand what he was trying to say. Gaetan isn't that articulate
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, robosmith said:
He won (delay) by losing.
True. I'm pretty sure that's what the point was in the first place. If he can drag all this stuff out to the next election, if he wins it all goes away.
Side note- the cnn article is wrong. I read the ruling and some legal discussion about it and the judge was quite clear that they are NOT ruling out that as a valid defense. They are NOT ruling that it's not public business per se. What they're ruling is that this is not obvious and can't be used as grounds to set aside a trial, even though it MIGHT be a successful defense in a trial.
It's just interesting to me to watch cnn lie like that again. If you read their headline and such it sounds that the judge ruled that this defense was invalid completely - whereas he only ruled it wasn't grounds not to let it go to trial.
-
6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
3. Why would I say I support the decision and in the same thread call her a 'Chud' ?Why would you call anyone a chud at all? Don't ask me to explain your bigotry and hatred.
Quote4. The other example was something that we were on the same page over - remember ? That's actually a remarkable thing given the degree of distrust you have for me. If you didn't realize it, I was offering to use that as a test case to build upon the discussion we're having here. But I think that was before you posted that you were "loathe" to agree with me. It's fine either way, but I was offering to use that other case to examine the details of freedom-of-speech at a board meeting. I'll even suppress my use of the c-word to describe the complaintants there
And this is your excuse for why you had to re-write what you wrote in the first place? Just be clear in the future and if you change your mind just say so instead of trying to ret-con a new version.
Quote5. No, I feel the same about both rulings. I'm happy that the process is working both ways, and I don't "care" (ie. don't have personal stake in the outcomes). Hope that's clear.
6. See 5.But that's not what you said. Maybe it would be helpful if you could post an expiry date with each of your comments so we know when they're going to no longer be your valid opinion?
-
9 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:
You seriously think "Playboy magazine" is on par with today's hardcore pornography, where they have double anal penetration, and a girl having sex with 20 different guys, in every hole?
Ahhh - so now you think that 7 year olds should be watching double penetration. How messed up are you exactly?
Parents can control where 7 year olds go on the net. And they can supervise. Sure kids will see stuff now and again but your argument that 7 year olds should be given unfettered access to 'double penetration' porn is stupid.
-
9 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:
I'm not sure what World you live in, or if you were home schooled, but it is a good idea to have sex education by the time a kid is 13.
And you were still in grade 1 at age 13 were you? That explains a lot. Most kids are 6-7 in grade one. And they don't need to be thinking about that stuff. And that's what we're talking about here.
It'd really speed this up if you thought even a little before speaking. It's tiring explaining basic things to you.
-
25 minutes ago, robosmith said:
^Ridiculous and IGNORANT.
Ok - you're not just hilarious but rediulo Progressives have proven they can make peace - conservatives clearly suck at it. They're just not interested.us and ignorant if you insist
I don't think you thought about that post
Dude - your own article betrays you. The military did not "know" that there was going to be an attack at all, and they didn't even share the plans they captured with the gov't. so your claim that they all knew about the attack but decided to let it happen anyway so that Netters could avoid some scandals is completely disproven.Sucks to be you
-
33 minutes ago, eyeball said:
No they're not. To coin the phrase...they're simply mowing the lawn again instead of getting to the root causes.
You mean they haven't in the past and in the past they've 'mowed the lawn". I quite agree with you - what needs to happen now is to tear the sod up right down to the roots and then watch the field every day and exterminate the slightest hint of a weed or blade when it puts it's head up.
Hamas and it's supporters - which appears to be most of gaza - do not want peace. You can't have peace without removing them one way or another. It has been tried numerous times. It always fails.
So instead of mowing the grass, they really need to look at whaterver it takes to kill the grass permanently. and if that means salting the earth it grew in, if that's the only way - then so be it.
I notice once again you put all of this on the israelis - as if hamas and gaza has nothing to do with it and have been begging for peace and the israelis just won't listen. There is no peace with gaza as long as gaza refuses to accept israel, and that's just not happening. -
20 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:
18? lol.
Try 13. Most kids now days ahve seen porn videos by the time they are 10.
And 60 years ago they'd seen playboys by the same age. That hardly makes them adult enough to make their own decisions about sexuality ,
Are you suggesting that 10 year olds are old enough to have sex?
-
3 hours ago, robosmith said:
I don't recall you asking for ANYTHING to clarify YOUR CONFUSION.
i doubt you remember anything beyond 30 seconds ago. And if your statements cannot be understood without questioning then perhaps we need to work on your english?
QuoteJust remember, my hypothesis has been proven ACCURATE. The Israeli government KNEW in ADVANCE what was planned. Duh
Just remember a) that was never your hypothosis and b) no that hasn't been proven in the slightest. In fact the article proves the opposite - that while they'd seen the plan they didn't believe it was a real plan. They didn't believe it was a real plan.
That's what your article says.
Further - it says there's no evidence it was ever shown to the gov't. the military saw the plan, no dates, and believed it wasn't an actual intended plan, and that was it.
So if your belief was that the gov't knew the details of the plan looks like you're wrong. But - no surprise there
On 10/19/2023 at 2:20 PM, robosmith said:Shlomo Ben: How Netanyahu’s political calculations resulted in catastrophe
And paying homage to the West Bank expansion ambitions of the Israeli Settlers, left the South wide open to the Hamas invasion.
That's why you have to completely burn out the nest.
Israel Invites Media to Inspect Hamas' Terror Equipment
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Watching your brain explode by the end of the day amuses me. Sue me.
And it's pretty hilarious that you'd go on about pontificating when you're saying someone would freak out over a lunch program 
Naaahhh - you're just dumb. And when you get frustrated by that fact you act out towards people. It's not a good look.