CdnFox

In other words you knew you were lying and you expect somebody to call you on it. Fair enough

And rightly so. There have been many articles with regards to this, productive High Talent High skilled people leaving the country and those remaining behind are simply not the same quality. It's an issue

First ladies are always supposed to look dignified and regal, why the hell does she always look like he brought along his cleaning lady?

No, the problem is that he's still a better choice than the democrats

This is (shockingly) true. And every time it comes up, and it has come up CONSTANTLY, the public says 'just do it! Do it now! Noooooowwwww" But for whatever reason they sluff it off. I personally hope that David Eby trips on a rusty nail, gets hit by a dirty truck catches aids and dies in the emergency room waiting for care. he's the worst premier ever times cancer. BUt this was the right call and credit where credit is due

Yep. we both reailze at this point you failed economics 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂

Do you? Well I suppose that's what we should expect from you considering you're our resident Twit LOL you're projecting there kid Tell us the story of how you tripled your house value with your credit card again

They came into being in order to form a framework. Think back to the constitution of America for example. This is the founding document and explains why they came together, look at the preamble We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice and promote domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, propose the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty That's why they did it. They created a nation and founded a constitution to create a framework for law order and for the provision to protect these things from others who would try to take them away But without that framework there is no basis for any law. If two guys are just living in the woods they can make agreements as to what they're going to do or not do but there cannot be a law. By what power would the law exist? If one were going to sue the other for breech of 'law', to what authority would he appeal? And what legislative framework would he say that law exists under? There's none. No. Always between recognized and about nations. Somebody stood forward and said I represent these people. But your sidestepping the point, the issue is the creation of law Conquest brings someone else under your law by force, but you still have a nation that is a framework for those laws. You can't have law without a national framework whether it's on the scale of a city or a continent. Otherwise there is no framework for the law. It has never happened in history, it can't happen. Before there can be law, there MUST be the formation of a nation that will provide the framework for those laws, it's enforcement and usually it's defense. otherwise, there's no law, there's just strong personal opinions on stuff.

For a lot to be a law there must be a central authority and framework you agree to it and that is a nation. Or derived from a nation., such as in the case of municiple law or strata law or the like where smaller groups create biding rules. otherwise there's no law. At best there's agreement between a few people that they could break at any time with no legal consequence. Give me one example of there ever being a set of actual law (not just an agreement) without an established nation enabling it?

That's a nation. sorry. You're not nitpicking, you're just wrong. The local towns etc operate under the authority of the main state who may allow them to do their own thing... or not. Just like we have municiple laws. And in antiquity even a city state is still a nation. They don't have to be big to be a nation. A nation is a large group of people sharing a collective identity based on common culture, language, history, or ethnicity, often inhabiting a specific territory. They exercise control and authority over that territory. Again, you're not nitpicking, you're just wrong. Babylon was a nation. Could Babylon have been described as a nation - Google Search "Yes, Babylon was a powerful ancient nation, often described as a kingdom or empire (specifically the Babylonian Empire) that reigned over Mesopotamia" You're just plain out and out wrong. And i see you at least dropped the inter NATIONAL law argument Basically all of that is completely untrue. Anarchy and conservatism have absolutely nothing in common. Anarchy and libertarianism have nothing in common. Libertarianism and conservatism barely scratch each other at all but there's a couple of overlying areas, but then again there's a overlying areas between conservatism and liberals in many cases. So that whole comment was just absolutely nonsense. But you were originally correct that to the best of my recollection I have not sat around early in the morning smoking weed with an anarchist And as to what I have to eat or stop I'm afraid you have absolutely no controller say over that The best way to avoid me insulting you is to make a good argument. Doesn't have to be an argument I agree with but it has to be good. Meanwhile if you act like a complete douche you're probably going to get called douchey things.

That is untrue. I think you've not read your history very well. But perhaps i'm wrong, give a couple of examples. Hammurabi also spelled Hammurapi, was the sixth Amorite king of the Old Babylonian Empire, reigning from c. 1792 to c. 1750 BC. Sigh. Not just a nation but a nation that ruled over other nations. Well that was a pretty horrible example And inter....what? inter.. NATIONAL law? Inter NATIONAL law says there's law without nations? literally anything it procaims as law derrives from the powers given to it by nations. C',mon mike. I mean.... not untrue but i'm questioning it's relevance Here's your bowl captian Insulting someone to say that insulting people is bad is.. well... dumb. You're not having your best day today.

This is always fun, the part where you Realize you're wrong so you try and change the channel. The planet can exist just fine. Planets don't even need humans. But that's not what I said or what we were discussing. We were discussing the existence of a structure of laws etc And no that can't exist without a nation. By its very definition a nation is what creates and powers and structures such laws . If all you have is a planet with no people then there is no structure. If you have a planet with people but there's no nation then there's also no structure it's just anarchy. This isn't complicated or even controversial So what it's really like is you're saying you're stupid and you'd like to change your previous answer to something that you might be able to defend better

Nope. And I'm sorry to hear that you failed business 101 Even in the old days it wasn't much of a big deal. But in this day and age with the technology and services we have available it's an absolutely zero issue. websites, emails and other tools wipe that out. Business is global, it's not even the same DATE with some of the countries we deal with and it doesn't slow things down at all. I deal with other provinces all the time and they all have different time zones and it's just not a problem. The problem of different time zones etc has been with us for well over 100 years in practical terms, we've learned to cope.

As I understand it the problem is the rest of the world pays better

More than half the files he's hiding apparently is that your argument? 3.5 million pages have been released and you figure there is more than 3.5 million pages left. So around about 7 million or more pages to this file The complete work of William Shakespeare was 1200 pages The Encyclopedia Britannica has about 33,000 pages But with 3.6 million pages released your argument is that we just don't have enough information and they must be hiding another 3.5 million pages 7 million pages isn't a police file, it's a deciduous forest. You have completely lost your mind

This is something that the left really doesn't understand and frequently tries to use in debates incorrectly. While formal debate environments may have different rules, it has long been established the discussions on the internet don't have that same burden of proof that you see in a debate club. Did you make a statement the other person may choose to say that they don't believe that statement is true. If that happens it would normally be expected that you would provide some species of evidence be it in the form of a logical argument, citation from source which appears to support it, or some other form of convincing evidence. But you are not expected to provide proof. If you provide evidence which supports your claim then it would be up to him to provide some evidence to refute it if he didn't believe it. That evidence would have to be at least at or superior to the level of quality of your evidence. And again the definition of evidence isn't quite the same, it very frequently won't be in the form of a citation So if you say you think pierre is a trans because you heard it from someone, that's a fairly low bar, but it's some specieis of evidence. I might reasonably reply we have a pretty detailed account of his history and nowhere in his history is there any suggestion he's a trans or does anyone who know him seem to suggest that that's the case and you would expect that there would be if he was genuinely trans. That's not proof he's NOT but it IS evidence and more solid than yours If you reply "well i have a video",,, well that's pretty compelling proof, now it would be up to me to show the video was unreliable OR that it's out of context or some similar thing IF i wish to continue to argue it's not true. There is no burden of proof as you would find in a court case or a debate club or the like. You are expected to make your case for the circumstances and add whatever evidence you can or you feel is necessary and it is up to the other person to do the same thing and then it simply a question of who made the most compelling case for their position. And this is often where you lose discussions because you get so focused on my new show and detail that doesn't address the overall case that you wind up making mistakes and failing to put a good case together

You have got to be kidding.

I'm pretty sure those who do business can manage the complex mathematics involved with counting a head or backwards a couple of hours. This is one of the Dumber comments. Without a doubt BC exported a lot of goods to the US, which involved multiple states across multiple time zones in multiple parts of the country and yet despite the fact that not everybody was on the same time somehow this business got done Which proves the point that what you're saying is childish. We already deal with multiple times, we already deal with the fact that some of the states and provinces we do business with every single day don't have the same time as us It's really not a big deal and pretending it is flies in the face of what we already achieve every day

Generally speaking they have an extremely high work ethic So what? Not everybody works in the oil patch They have a gdp per capita of about 35 k. Much lower than canada. So no. I don't think you realize how math works And when they move to alberta they're albertans. And that IS an issue, many of the hardest working people in other provinces want to go where they'll be rewarded for hard work, and they head to alberta. Leaving less productive people behind. Sooo... there you go

So in other words you couldn't come up with an example of me saying anything like that and you couldn't address the points I made about the issue. Now you look stupid and now you're kind of big mad about it 😂😂😂 Well I can certainly recognize a line little shit stain when I see one, that's for sure.. Hiiiiiii! *waves" LOLOL Sorry Carney is such a dud.

One that glows in the dark, just for the irony.

The answer is yes-> ^YOU. Aw crap.... SOMEBODY GRAB HIM, he's attacking the mirror again!!!!

And just like that, as he loses the argument he involves into weird daydreams and fantasies about other men moaning.

Because it simply can't exist without structure and that's what a sovereign nation provides in a free or mostly free environment. I mean, if you have abject slavery you can get away with it i suppose. Nope, not a single one of those. And you knew that, you just randomly copied a list. Otherwise you wouldn't have labelled "Middle east" etc as a country. And for gods sake, most of those should have been OBVIOUSLY wrong. Kuwait? One of the most oil per capita producing states is an example of a country trying to "do better" by the planet? You have to be beyond stupid to think that Complete fail on your part. once again your degree from the university of facebook lets you down

No one to argue with maybe