LinkSoul60

Liar

The subject was/is about climate change so of course you would think asking about transvestites and unborn children are normal questions. That's what you clowns do.... They have been. Just not usually in a conversation about climate change. It's beyond silly, but better said asinine when the topic and conversation is about climate change.... 🤡

No, most think taking away a persons rights because of their choice of sexuality was/is an issue. The only reason you fools are on this is because your orange idol decided to make it part of his narrative. ~10 trans out of ~550K NCAA athletes and it's one of society's most pressing concerns.... 😂

Because you asked the question. Pay attention.... Two faced nature of my point....which was answering your question. Okay

Userless.... follow the convo. But yes, the WH is a joke.

See. Spot. Run.... Follow the convo.... The question was 'Can you provide anything of substance here to respond to? Anything?' What is it about the answer that you continue to struggle with...?

Barquentine can answer for themselves, but think for a minute about the stupidity of your question.... 'Tell us more about your thoughts on men who think they are women.' 'Can you define woman in any meaningful way?' 'Let’s talk about the unborn child, is it a human life with any right to life?' How and why would he or anyone with half a brain for that matter try to answer those moronic so-called questions. You id*ots are just that....id*ots, but sure as hell fun to laugh at!

Where and when did I make any comment opposing military action in Iran? Read again..... I said 'The majority of American's are more concerned with their own domestic concerns than going to war for.... (not sure exactly why yet)?' What does Ukraine have to do with this.... military action against Ukraine.... what are you even talking about?

Yes, I do support financially backing Ukraine. Why don't you?

He did. The majority of American's are more concerned with their own domestic concerns than going to war for.... (not sure exactly why yet)?

No, he's only aware that Justin Trudeau was PM for 10 years and Carney is PM now. Otherwise, he's not aware of much at all...

Poilievre is losing votes every time he talks...which is hard to do considering not many vote for him anyway....unless of course you have to go to a riding 3 provinces over to secure a seat. He'll never change..... can't answer simple questions other than....'look what the liberals did the last 10 years'...'Mark Carney promised this'...'it's the liberals fault'. Great, answer the questions clown... He's a year behind in everything he wants to talk about because looking in the rear view mirror is all he has and his only schtick. Why conservative members would vote to keep someone in the leadership role that continually polls below the party is mind boggling. Small wonder we've had a liberal gov the last 11 years and why we'll have one for most likely another 11 years. Find something better Con's....

A good insight into accounting and reporting. There were a few 'unclears' which means we'll find out how much was actually spent in the year end audit. I get it though.... we have to spend the money on actual 'things'.

No sources provided in what you sent me so yes, you were wrong. Suppose we'll find out when the 25/26 government financial audit is done. I'll assume with the planned military spending the liberals can count on your vote going forward.

I'm always happy. Thanks for asking... 🤡

You are truly one of the most stunned SOB's I've ever seen (listened to).... Congrats. Little Sally The Clown needs to get her word in....

This topic reminds me of the circus. Every time climate change is mentioned the clowns come out to do their 10 second comedy show of denial.... Been talked about too many times... Climate change is unequivocal and estimated to cost Canadian's ~$700 annually and American's in the most affected areas ~$1,300 annually, with national average ~$400- $900 annually through higher home insurance from damaged/lost housing, higher energy costs to heat and cool homes, higher food costs from lost/damaged crops, higher health care costs from heat and poor air quality, and reduced labor productivity.

Facts don't apply if they don't align with your Trump Dick Sucking syndrome? Get used to the new supreme leader Carney.... he's going to be here a long time so ample opportunity for you and the other cry hards to weep for another decade.

So again... point out what was not factual. I don't recall mentioning anything about GDP, US vs Cdn unemployment or the price of cars.

What exactly are you trying to say... You're correct that we certainly haven't 'spent' enough on our military and defence. The key word here in case you missed it is 'haven't'. Your complaint this time is about....what?

Other than my missed typo which should have read 'lost 92K more jobs', point out anything that's not factual.

No, you're mistaken. The US and Israel started bombing Iran which by most any definition is "starting a war".

So... he's blowing smoke up your *ss and you're okay with it. Probably the only time the guy has told an untruth so all good. I have a tough time buying his defence of protestors. Look no further than LA or MN... WTF does Charlie Kirk have to do with starting a war in the ME? Not surprising... that's how Iran rolls. Again, couldn't care less about Iran but seems to me that Trump and his buddy Nutenyahoo really like the idea of bombing things, and people...

I get all that, and honestly couldn't care less if the regime lived another day or not. That said, why do you think Trump said the US had "completely and totally obliterated" their capabilities but now say's it was an imminent threat... Was he blowing smoke up your *ss then, or is he blowing it up your *ss now?

I have zero sympathy for Iran but they give everyone the finger. Not following the nuclear comments.... I thought Trump said in June of last year that the US had "completely and totally obliterated" their enrichment facilitates with the bombing campaign? I know nothing about nuclear enrichment programs but I'd have to think it takes a bit longer than 8 months to stockpile enough to be able to produce nuclear weapons....don't you?