CdnFox

Chuds don't exist. It's just your term for people who disagree with you so that you can dehumanize them and therefore dismiss the valid arguments they make. Lefties like you always feel the need to dehumanize the opposition before anything else. Stalin did, mao did, hitler did, we've got the 'basket of deplorables, trudeau's "bigots and wastes of space' comments, etc etc. Whereas those on the right think people like you are the worst people on earth - but still people.

I'm pretty sure the problem here isn't with my knowledge So he didn't know he put them there? Lets be clear - this wasn't just something that was laying around his office - this was at his home and obviously he moved them from a place of work and deliberately put them there. And it's not like he came forward and said "oh i found these the other day', my understanding is that someone else found them. You mean after he got caught. Sure, and no surprise they let him slide on it because 'not trump'. But he still knowingly and willfully did not return the documents when he was supposed to. As i understand it those files were moved there AFTER he left office and his personal office changed, but your argument is he accidentally closed his eyes and accidentally moved classified documents and accidentally put them in his personal garage with his corvette. At the end of the day he broke the law. And returning the documents after getting caught wouldn't change that.

Some of those tweets are pretty strong. There's no doubt about one thing - justin AWAYS finds a way to divide canadians, and this is no exception. A lot of people really believe in the support and feel it's a important part of keeping russia in line. Others think maybe we should buy food for our people first, or get the first nations drinking water, or the like. I think this is yet one more thing that can go on the ever growing pile of things Trudeau managed to divide us over

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/canadians-divided-justin-trudeau-federal-government-ukraine-aid-182023007.html Canada has pledged a multi-year commitment in supporting Ukraine amid its war with Russia. Canadians were divided on social media following the federal government's recent announcement that it'd be sending hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Ukraine. On Friday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged a multi-year commitment in providing steady support for Ukrainians as the eastern European country's war with Russia continues. "As part of this approach, I'm announcing $650 million in new military assistance over the next three years to supply Ukraine with 50 armoured vehicles, including armoured medical evacuation vehicles that will be built by Canadian workers in London, Ont.," Trudeau told Parliament on Sept. 22. During a surprise visit to Kyiv in June, Trudeau announced another $500 million in military support for Ukraine. Initially, the prime minister didn't offer up details on the allocation of that aid. Now, the federal government indicated the $500 million will go towards providing 35 drone cameras to Ukraine. It will also assist in sending Canadian trainers to help Ukrainian pilots and maintenance workers use donated fighter jets. Canadians were divided on social media following the federal government's recent announcement that it'd be sending hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Ukraine. On Friday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged a multi-year commitment in providing steady support for Ukrainians as the eastern European country's war with Russia continues. "As part of this approach, I'm announcing $650 million in new military assistance over the next three years to supply Ukraine with 50 armoured vehicles, including armoured medical evacuation vehicles that will be built by Canadian workers in London, Ont.," Trudeau told Parliament on Sept. 22. During a surprise visit to Kyiv in June, Trudeau announced another $500 million in military support for Ukraine. Initially, the prime minister didn't offer up details on the allocation of that aid. Following the the federal government's aid announcement, some Canadians showed their support for the move. (tweets in article) Others expressed their anger and frustration at Canada deciding to spend large amounts of money on supporting another country while its own citizens face a housing crisis, rising food costs and unstable health care. (tweets in article.

So if a criminal returns the things he stole after he gets caught then he's not a criminal? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works And even if he declassified them now they would still have been classified when he had them unlawfully.

It is if you're going to voice your concerns for something that is being abused to kill people. "I support the nazi's fully - Now i don't think they should be gassing people but it's not up to me to say what should be done about the gas chambers. So they have my full support!" See how that works? if you support it you have to be willing to discuss how that's to be addressed OR you're saying you support the abuses. Pretending that they're not completely connected is irrational. It would appear this is over your head. You seem to believe you can support something entirely and still not address the abuses that are occuring in the real world. That's not rational. I think we're done here. You're never going to get your head around the concept that if you say you support something but you're unwilling to address the abuses then in the end you're supporting the abuses OR you don't really mean what you say when you claim to support it. As to the rest - back to your dishonest discussion tactics. Very predictable.

And then he doesn't Or did you mean that "sure - you'll prove you're a lying sack of crap' again? In which case , mission accomplished This is why everyone knows you as a liar.

It was absolutely the lefties. Sorry - that's just how it went.

Not remotely true. In fact - a close friend of mine just went through this recently and paid an insane amount of money fighting their ex in court, He's a bad guy and the kid wants nothing to so with him. I had the dubious pleasure of looking through the laws and judgements closely you're just plain wrong. If a kid wants to deny a parent the right to see them after the court has recognized their rights (ie not a druggie etc) then the kid has to sue. The kids' say has almost no weight at all. So now that we've established you're not quite as up on the law as you thought, lets continue You still have to draw a line. The law recognizes age restrictions on booze and voting as being valid. I'm sure some are quite mature enough to drink before that age and some aren't even when they hit that age. But you need a line. You're pretending this isn't true. And i'm afraid it is. You're pretending this doesn't involve parents, and it does. And you're pretending that these kids exist in a vacuum and that how this is handled won't have repercussions which could ruin them for the rest of their lives. And that's no accurate. They are CHILDREN. And their parents are their PARENTS. And until the age where the law says they no longer have to provide the necessaries for them they BETTER bloody well have a say in the kid's health. The trans community better think about that. There's a lot more of them than there are of you. Picking fights and pretending they dont matter is already leading to a backlash so large saskatchewan is using the notwithstanding clause to strip kids of their rights, and it gets worse from here.

Oh dear - look who's lying again Prove you're right- or prove you're a lying sack of crap. Again It really never gets old

Not for people who don't want it, and if they do it's wrong. But like all lefties whenever they can't defend their actions ... pretend it's no big deal!!! Even if we pretended that kind of thing was huge before. HOW DAAAAAARE YOU USE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT PERSON"S PREFERRED PRONOUN!!! IT"S DEHUMANIZING!! Also you - "Hey - if they call people by a name or term they don't like it's no big deal."

You can't support the one without the other. Nobody's asking you to write the language of the law - but if you cannot articulate a reasonable balance of intrusion vs choice then what you're saying is you agree with the concept but that you don't agree to implement it in canada. Then you don't believe what you previously said. You previously suggested that there shouldn't be restrictions and it should be the person's choice. So will you support the law if, for example, someone other than the person must make the decision? Lets put your statements to the example you did give. "I support the right of everyone to drive whenever they wish, it should be their choice alone if they wish to drive!" Ok - do you support licensing? YES! Manditory training as outlined by the state? YES! Age restrictions? YES! Requirements to have insurance as madated by the state? YES! Well then you DON"T believe it should just be a person's choice to drive at all, nor do you believe it should be a right. You think it's something that people should be allowed to do if the state agrees to it So - what does MAID look like in your mind? If you can't articulate at least the general parameters then you don't really believe in the reality of it and you certainly don't believe in the rights. You just believe it's a nice thought that you hope someday someone works out. I find it beyond hypocritical to think that way. So - do you actually believe in it and if so what does it look like, or do you not? And again you're dodging the question. Your answer is "i don't really want to answer' - which is by definition dodging it.

Do NOT encourage him to learn how to reproduce!! The hell's the matter with you?!!?

That is still not the same as deciding TO have NON life saving surgery. There are a lot of things they cannot consent to. And that would be a reasonable argument - but at the end of the day that person is going to die either way. Choosing not to have a medical proceedure that's torture is not the same thing. You're looking for an equivalency here were one doesn't really exist. Children for example can't arbitrarily decide which parent they want to live with. They would first have to apply for what is essentially a 'divorce' from the parent they didn't want to and that's not guaranteed to succeed at all. What you're talking about here is an operation that they 'want', but that they will live just fine without until they're older. However - if they have it they will be permanently altered and damaged. Even hormones are too far. They can make that decision when they're older - it's not like cancer.

Sure they did. Grooming is why he read them that book. It wasn't because he really liked the font

Of course it is. This is no different than misgendering people with their preferred pronouns - which you lefties consider to be a sin on par with rape Don't you believe people should have the right to choose how they identify? Careful - your hypocrisy is showing

That in and of itself is a judgement. What the judge said is that it does harm to parents to deny them information about their kids, and it does harm to kids to violate their privacy and rat them out to their parents, and of the two the greater harm is definitely to the kids not the parents so the injunction is passed. Future judges may rule that the law IS constitutional - but this ruling does set precedent. which means the province is breaking out the notwithstanding clause and moving forward that'll likely be automatic with all these laws and you're going to see setting aside 'gay' and 'trans' rights under the charter more normalized. They should not have pushed this.

I don't know that there will be or should be. Cancer treatments aren't life altering, they're life saving. And you're not likely to permanently alter your body form an abortion either. I know you won't like this and don't take it the wrong way - but this would be more like a kid consenting to sex with an adult. They just can't. Pedophilia orgs often argue along the same lines. "let children make their own choice' etc. But the damage is permanent and severe. This isn't a 'morality' issue like abortion, this is a permanent change to a person that could very easily screw up the rest of their lives both physically and emotionally and they're just children. Some things there can be little compromise on. I would say ZERO hormones or ANY treatments for anyone under 16 by law, and 16-18 if two doctors agree that the kid really needs it for health reasons.. After 18 - it's their call as it should be. That's about the closest we can come to a compromise i think.

My parents wouldn't have cared less either way. It's you left wing freaks who spend all their time worrying about your parents. Is that why you attack gay people so much, you feel that's how your parents would have reacted? Well - at least we can put to bed the idea that the left wing welcomes gays - they clearly don't. You always see the left making fun of gays, you really don't see that from the right nearly as much. And there would have been no need to stay in the closet with my parrents wheras lefties live in perpetual fear of their parents it seems. well - left wing culture IS steeped in hatred. I guess it's natural.

That you admitted i was right? Sure - not sure why YOU"RE happy about it but i'm happy you're happy Ahhh still with the homophobic insults - LOL always a class act, you lefties

Where the hell are you that it's frosty this morning? So - lets clarify a few points. 1 - i'm very pro choice when it comes to maid. I think people of sound mind who make the decision to end their lives should have that choice - what in the world do we own if not our own life. I put my dog down when he was sick and suffering rather than let it draw out and i'd want the same for me. So this isn't an 'anti' maid' issue 2 - no god. Here's the thing. My point was that if you say that it should be avaliable to all who want it AND you say that it should not be abused THEN you have to agree to a mechanism to prevent abuse while allowing people to access it reasonably, otherwise we can't have it and you're just talking about fairy tales. So my question to you was assuming it's something we want to implement in canada and not shut down, then what mechanism do you feel adequaltely gives access without allowing for abuses? Some sort of board or panel? That drags it out but tends to eliminate individual abuses especially if they're recorded. Simply a law saying 'don't pressure anyone'? Problem is that unlike the abortion thing the person isnt' around to testify after. It's hard for me to answer on your behalf because you made a strong statement regarding access and i don't know how much infringement your personal views will tolerate - but i don't think we will be able to continue with MAID if that question doesn't get answered.

Oh - and i forgot - the obligatory left wing homophobic remark LOL For a group who claims to respect gays, the left is CONSTANTLY using them as a perjorative. "I"m going to call you gay, that means you're icky". I would think that if you believed half of what you say, if i really WAS gay and struggling with coming out you'd have some sympathy. But - instead you treat it like gay people are losers. THey're the object of jokes. They're not real people or anything. So full of hatred. No wonder the population is turning against you.

No, that's just a lie the left tell themselves to distract from the fact they're guilty of what they're accused of. Radical left 101 - ALWAYS accuse others of doing what you do. "Every accusation is a confession!!!!" Right -as long as you say that you can't be accused of anything How childish. Here's how they used to say that when i was young enough to be as stupid as you and your friends are: "i'm rubber, you're glue - whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" Nyaaaaaaaaah! Sometimes it gives me a headache just trying to think down to your level.

Ahhh - so you've realized biden is dirty and in trouble here so you're trying the 'whataboutism' game to distract Fair enough - guess that's one way to admit i was right without admitting it

those who pretend to give a shit for virtue points are even worse. And that actually would be closer to what a sociopath is. As for the first nations - there's an old saying: "The best way to enslave a man is to provide for his every need. " Once you do that, pretty quick they can't survive without you. So if you REALLY actually gave a crap about the first nations you'd realize the kindest thing we could possibly do is cut them off and let them sink or swim on their own. Ignore ANY reference to 'Da Past" and demand they only talk about 'The Future" that they want to build for themselves. Then we can help as they start walking that path. Being professional victims is a one way ticket to slavery.