Moonbox

My guess is it would be really easy for CRA to investigate their own employees on this because they already have the information at their fingertips. As for the rest of the federal public sector...well...the Liberals really need those votes. 😑

Your audience is yourself, and nobody else...so I guess you're right in a way. 🤡

If you're saying categorically retarded things, that's the best response you're going to get. You're literally too stupid to debate with.

Yap yap yap yap yap. 🙄

Oh you sweet innocent child. This is way too smart and complex for the person you're responding to.

So...let's get this straight: You felt compelled to rehash a previous discussion in which at least three people laughed you out of the conversation, but I'm the one who just can't help myself. I need to admit that I'm wrong, because...you quoted the Kazakh Prime Minister? Or because you said so? 🙄 That's some funny shit man.

Like so much of the rest of your useless natter, insisting on something doesn't make it true. 🤡

You can make up whatever dumb nonsense you like, everyone can see it's coping after you made yourself look like an assclown. How many threads can you get laughed out of today, do you figure? More than yesterday, or less? It'll be entertaining regardless!

Have a couple more conversations with the guy. You'll figure it out pretty quick. 😆

You're not the first person to tell him that, or even the 10th, and you won't be the last.

I have to say, I've come to appreciate your posts more and more over the last year, even if I frequently disagreed with you. Whatever your positions are, they're at least very clearly your own. You're not just another ignorant opinion shouter regurgitating tribal mantra. I always get a laugh out of the geniuses who've never opened an economic textbook try to teach us about trickle-down economics, and how sheltering the wealth and reducing the taxes of the ultra-rich who are exporting their jobs to Bangladesh is good for them.

It said nothing about missiles whatsoever. Once again, you're just making up what you want your sources to say. Regardless, you're unironically citing the Kazakh Prime Minister proclaiming Russia's military as invincible, while it faceplants in Ukraine. 🤣 You haven't shown squat. Dumping dozens of useless/irrelevant news articles doesn't somehow re-organize reality and re-draw the maps for you. Even on the hottest part of the front, Russian progress is measured in meters per day. At no point over the last two years have they managed any sort of sustained progress beyond that, and what little there has been has been highly local. At Russia's current rates of advance, they'll complete their conquest of Ukraine in around 1000 years. That's the math, and it doesn't give a shit about your snowflake opinion. You complained I wasn't reading your longwinded rants. I told you why. If you're too lazy to organize your thoughts and write concisely, you're wasting nobody's time but your own. Barfing out cites that don't say what you pretend they do is similarly worthless. I always get a chuckle out of this sort of clueless whine-post though. You're complaining that I argue to the death while you...argue to the death. It's kind of like crying like a child about marshmallow insults after you just finished calling another poster retarded. Look at the mirror and grow up.

Yes, we both know the truth. You've said some utterly ridiculous, easily-disproven things and fully humiliated yourself...again. All that's left now is your flailing and pitiful attempts to re-arrange reality to try and save face. It's all there, in black and white. Your coping mechanism doesn't require much of a response. 🤡

Who do you think you're convincing here? 🤣

Yep: but in clownworld: Flailing flailing flailing, look at Foxey Flailing. 🤡🤡🤡

Nope, that only happened in your clownworld fantasy: Like I said, there's literally no floor for how dumb you're able to make yourself look. 🤡

Considering I just brought up the British North America Act, that's a probably the dumbest conclusion you could have possibly made. You never miss an opportunity to make a fool of yourself though. Bravo👌

Forum rules specifically dictate not to do what you have been doing 😆. Somehow everyone else manages to get by... If I can see in your first sentence that you've missed the point entirely of whatever you're responding to, why would I read the next 6 paragraphs of irrelevant rambling? Like...what did you figure you were getting at citing the Kazakh Prime Minister proclaiming the Russian military was invincible? Seriously. W.T.F? Meters per day, wasteful, coming at atrocious cost, not noticeable on a map unless you zoom in on individual streets, farms and villages - THAT's what I've been saying, and that's been explained to you dozens of times. Still, despite that, you keep repeating that I deny they're making any gains, and then posting proof that the Russians are, in fact, advancing meters per day. 🙄

Yeah real clever there, genius. "How can there be a Parliament, if the Constitution created Parliament!?" 🤣 Nevermind the absurd chicken-before-egg reasoning you're using, I've got you covered anyway. It was an Act of British Parliament that formed the basis of our Constitution. You keep finding new ways to look stupid every time your fat fingers touch your keyboard. You're having a banner week - keep up the good work.

At no point have I ever said Russia hasn't made any gains. This isn't the first, the second, or even the 10th time I've told you that either. You're brazenly lying now. I'm not reading your long rants because: 1) Your formatting sucks. You refuse to use the quotation function properly like everyone else, so it's never really clear what exactly you're responding to. 2) You drop long walls of text - a bunch of stream-of-consciousness rambling that buries whatever relevant points (if any) in a deluge of worthless exposition and irrelevant "citation". 3) You don't respond to what people are saying, but rather what you decide you want them to be saying. The bolded part above is a good example. Whether that's intentional dishonesty and bad-faith on your part, or a reading comprehension problem makes no difference. It's not worth putting any energy into it. 😑

Yes, by Laws made by Parliament (Acts). Considering the Constitution itself was formed as an Act, your argument is just as stupid now as it was yesterday. Keep flailing. 🤡

You're wrong because you said Laws don't give rights, followed by listing Laws that...provide rights. There's not much more to it. That you're too belligerent, too stupid and that your ego is too fragile to reconcile that is just entertainment for the rest of us. We will continue laughing at you, and you will continue to uselessly flail and further prove you have absolutely nothing else to do with your life. 🤡

What fight is that? Where you're trying to tell us the Constitution isn't law? I gladly invite anyone to check that out that spectacle: This forum has never seen a bigger buffoon than you. Why are you linking WW2 history to us? Who said Germany didn't use forced labour? Hello!? 🤣

22,000 posts in less than two years is where the mockery comes from, no-life. Nobody has even come close to this level of lonely spamming in the 20+ years this forum has been around. I see the difference, but it doesn't make your claim any less hilarious. The Constitution is a set of Laws, so claiming that Laws don't give rights is retarded. A reasonable person would concede that point, but not you. As I said before, you're going to contort your spine (and logic) to lick your own butthole, and then try to tell us that makes you right. 🤡

He's not the deluded muppet trying to say Hitler was a leftist, and that he was a big proponent of immigration. "Working captured slave labour to death = promoting immigration" Yet another fabulously dumb statement from re:Politics' most spectacular clown.