Moonbox

The exchange is posted clearly here. Anyone can just scroll up and read it. It doesn't really matter if you have a make-believe version of it compiled in your little head. The funniest thing about all of this is that despite all your protests otherwise, you've been asked the same question now like 3 or 4 times, directly, and you still won't answer it: Did the October 7th attack give Israel carte-blanche to do whatever they want in the region, and make them immune to criticism? Being the intellectual coward that you are, you'll squeal and complain and do everything you can to change the subject. The bottom line is that you don't like the question and can't address it, so instead you RUN AWAY. 🤡👍

So are you pointing out that the Liberals use slogans sometimes, or rhetoric? Is this the zinger you think you landed? 🫠

The anonymous social media posts you've been regularly citing here for years are anonymous. It's f*cking ridiculous that anyone has to tell you that they're not useful sources, but you keep doing it anyway. The fact that this is obviously how you get your "news" is equally ridiculous, because it's literally an algorithm drip-feeding the content it knows you engage with, creating your own personal little Karen echo chamber. As for the committees, you keep referring to them, and you keep refusing to provide citation. If you say you saw something or read something from a committee, we need you to cite specifically what you're claiming. This: is gobblygook. It's uselessly vague and demonstrates nothing.

It was an observation. The Conservative base is the least educated demographic in the voting public. They're not all id1ots, but the majority of them never received any formal education on critical reasoning or *gasp* how to research or cite anything. They're very easy to fool, and very easy to play. They like THREE WORD SLOGANS. AXE THE TAX STOP THE STEAL CARBON TAX CARNEY DIRTY BACKROOM DEALS Of course you do. Pierre Polievre tells the doing-her-own-research Karens exactly what they want to hear.

No I accused you of answering the question with a question: I then repeated the question and addressed it directly to you, and you've predictably refused to answer. Please re-imagine this conversation more and give us more laughs.

I'm not asking about CBC articles. I'm asking you to cite the committees you referenced. What you're calling intellectual laziness is actually intellectual scrutiny. Every time you reference info you refuse to cite, and every time you offer an anonymous social media post to support one of your claims, your credibility drops further. Did you ever take calculus? I'm thinking that's doubtful... The more " information" you refer to but refuse to cite, the more your credibility goes down. People are less and less willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and as your credibility approaches zero, nobody's paying attention to anything you have to say. That's why you have a mega thread where you mostly talk to yourself about vaccines. If you're actually trying to convince anyone but yourself and the people who already agree with you, you need to have some standards on the information you post.

You quoted my question and responded directly to it, with a retarded question of your own. I subsequently repeated my question, directly to you, and I even bolded it for you. In what batshit fantasy world do imagine the question wasn't redirected to you? You're embarrassing yourself...again.🤡

Lots of them are. There are lots of Canadian to match them. The one thing that the MAGA trogs have in common with our Freedom Convoy dumdums is their poor levels of education.

Show me one saying what you say it does. You make a claim, someone asks you to verify it, and then you provide your verification. That's how this works. You don't get to just wave your hands and refer vaguely to the thousands of twitter links etc. that you've puked all over the forum.

I asked Army Guy, and you responded for him, with a question of your own - and a non-sequitur at that. If you don't want the question redirected to you, then don't respond to it? 🤡

They have. The Conservative "base" in Canada (ie. the die-hards) are amongst the least-educated people in the country. https://abacusdata.ca/who-is-in-the-conservative-party-base-and-how-does-it-differ-from-other-canadians/ The Conservative base represents 23 percent of Canadians. These voters would only consider voting Conservative and are deeply anchored in Conservative identity. Over 40% of the screeching monkeys in the base have high school or less levels of education. These are folks we hear the most from on this forum. Less than 1/4 of them even a bachelor's degree.

I'm not interested in sitting around watching committees debate for countless hours. I'm interested in the material you keep telling us you've seen, but can't actually cite. It's not my job to back up your claims. It's yours. 🙃

I think you have your tinfoil hat on a bit too snug, bud.

Ah yes, the committee meetings you can't reference, post or source for us. 🫠

This sort of blanket advice is poor guidance. Taking CPP early or delaying depends on each individual. Eyeball is a good example of someone who should take it early.

Whoa whoa whoa. Take your fancy book words and gtfo of here. 😉

No that's called a non-sequitur. I asked you a very straightforward, yes or no question, and the only response you could muster was to ask me a question of your own that has no relevance to the one I asked, and that I'm apparently not even expected to answer. That's also called running away. This braindead logic only works under the mistaken belief that you can only be critical of one side at a time. Any criticism of Israel, according to your logic, demonstrates full-hearted support for Hamas' terrorism? Is that how this works for you? If that's the case, then why can't you just answer the question: Did the October 7th attack give Israel carte-blanche to do whatever they want in the region, and make them immune to criticism?

It's less of an angle and more of a minimum baseline for thoughtful debate. It's all or nothing politics, and it makes everyone stupider. This thread is a great example. You point out the cherry picked nature of the data presented and the selective bias in posting it, and now you're one of "those people" who've been pushing gender politics on everyone for the last 10 years. If you're not on THIS side, then you're on THAT side, and there's nothing in between. It's good or bad. There is no nuance.

Answering a question with a question. As usual, you can't engage the logic so instead you deflect and try to change the subject. Here's a real question: What does your question have to do with the one I asked? The logic doesn't follow. 🤡

So in your estimation, +250,000 casualties (+70,000 dead) and having your cities pounded into oblivion is what carte blanche means? 🤔

Is barfing out copypasta supposed to be compelling content? As Flyer said, you have no problem with all of the conspiracy monkeys and uneducated culture war know-nothings flinging poo here 24/7, but it really bothers you that flyer flings it back in their face. Funny shit.

Semantic gymnastics is your specialty, not mine. You've been caught yet again spinning useless straw and projecting against vague "you guys" rather than debating in substance or specificity.

And you still can't answer the question. It's remarkable how often you criticize people for running away when you can't help do it yourself...all the time. Why so afraid of answering a simple question?

No, you literally just projected vaguely against "you guys", failed to address a single point he made, and then obliviously and ironically reinforced what he was saying by proclaiming that the "tides had changed" because of one Finnish study. You couldn't have faceplanted better if you tried.

No, what you said is that the polling data has little/no connection to the voting. Your attempt to scurry away from that typically clueless hot-take is cute, but you still look as stupid as you did from the beginning. 🤡👍