User

An imbicile is someone like you who believes trans women are really women. A disgusting, perverted, sick, and demented person is someone like you who wants to push dudes into girls' personal spaces. An evil depraved person is someone like you who wants to butcher children and drug them up to push the trans madness onto them.

You defended a President who was not mentally competent, and you are going to talk to us about disqualifying character and behavior?

An id1ot is someone like you who believes trans women are really women. A disgusting, perverted, sick, and demented person is someone like you who wants to push dudes into girls' personal spaces. An evil depraved person is someone like you who wants to butcher children and drug them up to push the trans madness onto them.

Yes, that is the general feeling after all of your posts on here.

You are the one crying about all this, because the tide has turned against the Trans madness you evil people are pushing. I will keep pushing to completely eradicate it altogether, to save the children from your butchering them and drugging them.

Once again, all this thread proves is the irrational hate of Trump some on this forum have. As if Obama and Biden and Clinton did not "abuse" their pardons and pardon people who went on to commit more crimes.

We don't need 45 days to rebuild our stocks. There is no such thing as international law. If it were that easy, why isn't everyone doing it?

Nothing strange about it. Why would they have all been informed? So it can be leaked, and they no longer have the initiative? Why don't you show us the quote from Trump you are arguing against instead of the opinion of a forum member. Bush Cheney isn't the one in charge, he is offering his own commentary on why he supports this.

No, this is the lie evil people like you use to butcher and drug children. A dullard is someone like you who believes trans women are really women. A disgusting, perverted, sick, and demented person is someone like you who wants to push dudes into girls' personal spaces. An evil depraved person is someone like you who wants to butcher children and drug them up to push the trans madness onto them.

You are the one engaged in an emotional outburst right now.

Yes, it is quite evident you don't know what I am saying because you keep making up crap and have demonstrated no reading comprehension.

Well, feel free to actually quote me next time instead of making up crap. You are the one crying. Once again, not what I said. Once again, not what I said. Keep crying.

Says the guy who pulled out a meme to respond to me because you have no reading comprehension and make up crap I never said...

Try this again, only in English this time.

Still crying. Then the only point you have is that you have no reading comprehension.

And you are still crying. Once more, did you have a point?

This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

I’m not claiming they’re the same thing. I’m taking your rule and applying it somewhere else to show why that rule breaks down. If your logic only works in one very specific case and sounds ridiculous everywhere else, that’s usually a sign the logic itself is the problem. That’s exactly where your argument fails. Yes, Canada didn’t exist before Confederation. No disagreement there. But it didn’t appear out of nothing either. It came directly out of existing colonies, legal systems, populations, and institutions. You’re treating “newly formed” as if it means “historically disconnected,” and those are not the same thing. The constitution didn’t summon a legal system out of the void. It formalized and reorganized systems that already existed. British common law didn’t suddenly materialize in 1867. Governance structures didn’t spring into existence like a game loading screen. They were carried forward and reshaped. This is just flatly not how history works. People didn’t lose their property overnight. Legal traditions didn’t vanish. Courts, systems, and administrative structures didn’t evaporate and get replaced with brand new ones from scratch. There was continuity, adaptation, and consolidation. Not a total wipe. No, and this is where you’re forcing a false choice. Something can be a new entity and still be a continuation of what came before. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive. The U.S. is not Britain, but it absolutely emerged from British colonies and inherited legal, political, and cultural structures from them. Same concept here. No, that’s something you keep inserting so you can argue against it. No one is saying Canada “personally owned slaves” like an individual commits an act. The point is about continuity of origin, not moral or legal guilt. And yet it is still born into a context shaped entirely by what came before. It doesn’t pop into existence in a vacuum. It inherits conditions, environment, and structure from its origins. That’s the only parallel being drawn. This was never about legal liability. This is about historical continuity. You keep pivoting to “legal responsibility” because it’s easier to argue, but that’s not the claim being made. In a narrow, post-Confederation legal sense, sure. But that framing only works if you ignore the continuity between Canada and the colonies, systems, and societies that became it. You’re drawing a hard line at the label and pretending everything before it is unrelated. That’s not how history works, it’s just a convenient cutoff point. A new entity can be legally new and still historically continuous with what created it You’re trying to treat those as mutually exclusive, and that’s where your argument keeps falling apart.

This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

No, just pointing out that you are a sick depraved evil person who wants to butcher children and drug them up to further prop up your love for this fetish and mental illness so you can feel better about yourself. Again, you keep ignoring: This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

Animals engage in all sorts of activities. So once again... This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

Nope, you were the one crying. I am merely pointing out the obvious, that if you clowns are not going to act like our allies, why should we continue to prop you up? It seems you agree with me now, so did you have a point?

Yes, humans do those things, but they are condemned as wrong... not celebrated as "natural" and OK like you are trying to do here. Again, you keep ignoring: This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

You are the one who tried to compare humans to animals in their sexual activity to say it was "natural." Lots of shit is "natural," and that doesn't make it OK. Again, you keep ignoring: This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.