good news for liberals....

[eyeball]

Just now, blackbird said:

Comparisons like that don't really serve as a guide as to what is right or wrong though.  Do you have any way to determine right from wrong?

I prefer to think in terms of what's appropriate or inappropriate, and the stupidity of an idea is usually the first clue.

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Income trusts really stand out given how many seniors lost thousands of dollars over it.

Not a lie tho.  He intended to do it - got in  - realized he was wrong and couldn't  - stood up and said so and took the heat. A major screw up for sure - but not a lie

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

But wait, there's more!

Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence

An omnibus of sins, topping 50. Tell us ones we’ve missed, we’ll add to the PM’s rap sheet.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/06/Stephen-Harper-Abuses-of-Power-2/

None of those are lies. Those are just things you don't like. And that's very common for the left - they try to claim that lies and corruption are equal to "things i don't like".  That's not how it works.

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I can only speculate how many times PP might have told lies or reiterated them when asked about his bosses lying.

So in other words not a single example. He's been in teh gov't for 20 years, he's been in teh public eye for much of that - not a single example

Well there you go.

As it is they can spin a story but they don't tend to lie. Trudeau out and out lies and has been caught at it many times.

Edited May 9, 2023 by CdnFox

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

I prefer to think in terms of what's appropriate or inappropriate, and the stupidity of an idea is usually the first clue.

That might work for some things.   We did learn certain things as we grew up from our parents, from our education, and from reading and on the media about right and wrong.  But these days much on the media is wrong because it is part of the new world of woke.  So people who have no Biblical faith or Bible knowledge are left without any foundation.  They watch what is on TV and maybe even the commercials and see two men riding a bike together on a dating commercial and think this is normal.

[blackbird]

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Income trusts really stand out given how many seniors lost thousands of dollars over it.

But wait, there's more!

Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence

An omnibus of sins, topping 50. Tell us ones we’ve missed, we’ll add to the PM’s rap sheet.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/06/Stephen-Harper-Abuses-of-Power-2/

I can only speculate how many times PP might have told lies or reiterated them when asked about his bosses lying.

I wouldn't trust much that the Tyee news says.  It is a tiny radical left propaganda site to begin with.

Don't forget lefties and liberals made much of Harper's government minister Bev Oda spending $15 for a glass of orange juice;  yet Trudeau stayed in a $6,000 a night hotel in London during the Queen's funeral and recently took a $100,000 vacation to the Caribbean on taxpayer's expense.  You can't go by what a website like that posts.

Edited May 9, 2023 by blackbird

[Moonbox]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You mean where you coudln't come up with a single example of either lying 

I mean where you made excuses for every example provided, taking the absurd position that PM Harper never lied over 9 years in government.  

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Thats not me being partisan. Thats just you being wrong.

That's exactly what being partisan is, and "I'm right and you're wrong" is not nearly as compelling an argument as you seem to think.  ?

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody has called me on it - and that is not a "strawman".

Numerous people have, sorry! 

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

A strawman would be something else. That is an accurate account of what you said. Anyone who agrees with PP is stupid.

No, that's the strawman-characterization of what I said, because what I actually said was certainly not that.  At least you've cleared up whether you're doing it intentionally.  You obviously don't have a clue what you're doing.  ?

If you're going to make up your own version of what people say to argue against, go for it.  You don't need our input and you can just sit here debating yourself.  ?

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

I mean where you made excuses for every example provided, taking the absurd position that PM Harper never lied over 9 years in government.  

You didn't provide a single example of them lying.  You said a bunch of things you didn't like. But couldn't come up with a single one where they lied   I noted i could come up with plenty where trudeau out and out lied and you got pouty and took your ball and went home

Want to try again? Show where he actually lied.

Just now, Moonbox said:

That's exactly hat being partisan is,

No, it isn't. If you say 2 +2 = 425  and i say that's wrong i'm not being 'partisan'.

Just now, Moonbox said:

and "I'm right and you're wrong" is not nearly as compelling an argument as you seem to think.  ?

Wasn't an argument - it was just an observation  

Just now, Moonbox said:

Numerous people have, sorry! 

Nobody has,  not sorry.

Just now, Moonbox said:

No, that's the strawman-characterization of what I said, because what I actually said was certainly not that.  At least you've cleared up whether you're doing it intentionally.  You obviously don't even realize what you're doing.  ?

it is what you plainly said.  And for heaven's sake that is NOT what a "straw man" is in either case. A straw man argument is something entirely different.

Just now, Moonbox said:

If you're going to make up your own version of what people say to argue against, go for it.  You don't need our input and you can just sit here debating yourself.  ?

If you're just going to lie about what you said then you shouldn't be surprised when you get mocked

And you doubled down on it after when i called you on it, saying PP was appealing to the stupid in the party.

Then when i pointed out that wasn't a very smart thing to say, you got real quiet about it LOL - instead you're now claiming you said NOTHING of the KIND!!! What? Never!!!  STRAW MAAAAAAN!

 Yeash.

[Moonbox]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You didn't provide a single example of them lying.  You said a bunch of things you didn't like. But couldn't come up with a single one where they lied   I noted i could come up with plenty where trudeau out and out lied and you got pouty and took your ball and went home

and here, folks, is the other pillar of CdnFox's debating repertoire - emotional projection.  

I'm super interested in learning more about how I feel.  ? 

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

it is what you plainly said. 

No, it's really not.  ?

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And for heaven's sake that is NOT what a "straw man" is in either case. A straw man argument is something entirely different.

That's exactly what a strawman is.  You're not arguing my point.  You're arguing with a nonsense version of your own interpretation/creation...as is so often the case with you.  

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If you're just going to lie about what you said then you shouldn't be surprised when you get mocked

The quotes are there.  People can go back and read what I said, and compare it to your boneheaded version.  I'm pretty comfortable letting this exchange stand and moving on.  Feel free to keep debating with yourself if you must, and make sure you provide a properly detailed version of my inner-monologue.  You know better than anyone about my emotional state.  ? 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

So in your case I'm guessing there are procedures and a process that ensures evidence and proof can actually be  obtained so discussions, investigations and consequences are relevant. A process that can be audited to validate, verify and separate opinions, hearsay and conjecture from facts, testimony and conclusions.  This is a process that I have to adhere to as well in my profession and at times the process involves using cameras, GPS and human observers to keep it honest.

This is what's missing in our governance.

In the past swearing on a Bible was enough to satisfy most of society that someone or something was keeping an eye on politicians and protecting the public interest. These days...the old adage 'in God we trust all others pay cash' couldn't be more appropriate in the case of politicians, and especially lobbyists.

 

Yes.  Making accusation based on ones opinion without positive proof is well, irrelevant.

And yes.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Yes - you can. You can do so with your words and by not acting like an ass.  Give that some thought while you contemplate your 'morals'.

Again, an opinion.

As I already said "I cannot control how you perceive a post or discussion but it is clearly with a jaundiced eye.

To call someone elses post bullshit only indicated your disagreement,"

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As it is they can spin a story but they don't tend to lie. Trudeau out and out lies and has been caught at it many times.

Prove it, with a process that audits, verifies and validates your evidence and that separates it from a spun story.

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

and here, folks, is the other pillar of CdnFox's debating repertoire - emotional projection.  

I'm super interested in learning more about how I feel.  ? 

ROFLMAO -  so  still no examples?  Well how about that

Nice attempt at changing the channel   nobody said how you felt - i recounted your actions

 

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, it's really not.  ?

Sure it is   I can see why you'd choose to lie about it tho. If you say less stupid things to begin with you won't be embarrassed by them later. Try that.

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That's exactly what a strawman is.  You're not arguing my point.  You're arguing with a nonsense version of your own interpretation/creation...as is so often the case with you. 

Awww sorry punkin -  no dice   Hell you confirmed what i said in your next post by clarifying you believed that PP is targeting the stupid in the party.  So swing and a miss there

 

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

The quotes are there.  People can go back and read what I said, and compare it to your boneheaded version.  I'm pretty comfortable letting this exchange stand and moving on. 

Sure they can. And look at them all leaping to your defense   People already know you're a dishonest debater so i can imagine leaving it there wont' hurt your rep any futher.

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

Feel free to keep debating with yourself if you must, and make sure you provide a properly detailed version of my inner-monologue.  You know better than anyone about my emotional state.  ? 

I think everyone knows your emotional state   Broken 

You run along home again if you like.

 

 

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Again, an opinion.

Again - pretty commonly accepted.

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

As I already said "I cannot control how you perceive a post or discussion but it is clearly with a jaundiced eye.

Sure - but repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

To call someone elses post bullshit only indicated your disagreement,"

And if the disagreement is valid - and it is - then it's actually an indication that your actions or statements are wrong.

At the end of the day you actually DID IN FACT do what i pointed out. And in fact that behavior is seen generally as poor behavior.

Behave better.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes.  Making accusation based on ones opinion without positive proof is well, irrelevant.

Isn't that just your opinion?

Hypocrite  

[Moonbox]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hell you confirmed what i said in your next post by clarifying you believed that PP is targeting the stupid in the party. 

Yes.  That's what I said.  I did not say, as you keep insisting, "anyone who agrees with PP is stupid."  

If you can't see any difference between the two, it certainly clarifies a lot of the problems you're having here on this forum.  ?

 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Again - pretty commonly accepted.

Sure - but repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

And if the disagreement is valid - and it is - then it's actually an indication that your actions or statements are wrong.

At the end of the day you actually DID IN FACT do what i pointed out. And in fact that behavior is seen generally as poor behavior.

Behave better.

As i said, discussing this with you is not tenable any more.

Your political stance is singular and reasonable discussion cannot be held.

Disagreement with some of what you say only leads you to demeaning folks. Very Democrat/Republican behaviour of you.

Done with this subject with you.

See you on another topic.

Edited May 9, 2023 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

45 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Isn't that just your opinion?

Hypocrite  

No, it is an observation.

No facts, just accusation is just hot air, worthless

Edited May 9, 2023 by ExFlyer

[suds]

Margaret Atwood has (in my opinion) correctly referred to Bill C-11 as a form of 'creeping totalitarianism'. Totalitarianism is evil whether it be communism, fascism, or national socialism to name a few. Now it seems to be taking hold (though very creepingly) in a number of western liberal democracies (of all places). Atwood chose her words carefully as not to imply that C-11 or the government responsible for the bill was evil. Call it whatever you want, but It could lead to restrictions on fundamental freedoms that we all once took for granted.

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, suds said:

Margaret Atwood has (in my opinion) correctly referred to Bill C-11 as a form of 'creeping totalitarianism'. Totalitarianism is evil whether it be communism, fascism, or national socialism to name a few. Now it seems to be taking hold (though very creepingly) in a number of western liberal democracies (of all places). Atwood chose her words carefully as not to imply that C-11 or the government responsible for the bill was evil. Call it whatever you want, but It could lead to restrictions on fundamental freedoms that we all once took for granted.

Margaret Atwood,  well known as a right wing conspiracy theorist

oh,  wait . . .

[ExFlyer]

16 minutes ago, suds said:

Margaret Atwood has (in my opinion) correctly referred to Bill C-11 as a form of 'creeping totalitarianism'. Totalitarianism is evil whether it be communism, fascism, or national socialism to name a few. Now it seems to be taking hold (though very creepingly) in a number of western liberal democracies (of all places). Atwood chose her words carefully as not to imply that C-11 or the government responsible for the bill was evil. Call it whatever you want, but It could lead to restrictions on fundamental freedoms that we all once took for granted.

Says a media person.  ? 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Prove it, with a process that audits, verifies and validates your evidence and that separates it from a spun story.

 

You mean like the ethics commissioner? 

 

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

No, it is an observation.

Amazing how your opinions are observations and everyone else's observations are opinions.

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

No facts, just accusation is just hot air, worthless

It's literally what you did.

 

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

As i said, discussing this with you is not tenable any more.

Sure - when it becomes obvious your argumetns are bullcrap you turn and run. Gotcha.

30 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Your political stance is singular and reasonable discussion cannot be held.

Again - you get called on your bullshit and suddenly it's everyone else's fault you can't hold a conversation.

30 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Disagreement with some of what you say only leads you to demeaning folks. Very Democrat/Republican behaviour of you.

Pot - this is kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

30 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Done with this subject with you.

Sure - run home with your tail between your legs.  But you know i'm right. Next time be a little more honest

[ExFlyer]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Amazing how your opinions are observations and everyone else's observations are opinions.

It's literally what you did.

 

Nope, that is just your take on it.

BTW, I am allowed to have an opinion, just iike you. I am also allowed to make observations,  just like you.

Do not feel deprived. Tit for tat

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope, that is just your take on it.

Not at all = that's just observation. 

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

BTW, I am allowed to have an opinion, just iike you.

But i'm not apperently - remember all opinions on their own are useless.

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

I am also allowed to make observations,  just like you.

Uh huh.

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Do not feel deprived. Tit for tat

But it really isn't - everything you offer you claim is valid, everything anyone else says is baseless opinion that's useless.  So it would seem that you're all tit and no tat

[Moonbox]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure - when it becomes obvious your argumetns are bullcrap you turn and run. Gotcha.

If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you were a bot.  The consistency with which your programming trips and you revert back to these canned responses is remarkable.  

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure - run home with your tail between your legs.  But you know i'm right. Next time be a little more honest

This is funny stuff. 

IF

:OPPONENT: gets bored with responding to clueless belligerence

THEN:

Declare victory for :SELF:

AND:

Deliverer clichéd disparaging remark about :OPPONENT: out of following randomly chosen options:

a) Swing and a Miss

b) Run home with your tail between your legs

c) Aww muffin.  

 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Moonbox