CdnFox Posted Monday at 02:57 AM Author Report Posted Monday at 02:57 AM 3 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Do you truly believe that?? What do you expect him to say??? The conservative kool aid must taste good LOL How? Exactly? Well, he is a relatively new member of parliament representing his riding by a landslide and potentially a long career ahead of him and he steps away for a leader that actually lives over 3000 kms away from the riding?? yeah, my crystal ball is broken too. Like I said, this is the first time I could not vote conservative. Yes, it was my choice. LOL - hey @Army Guy Man honestly says he gave up his seat because he believes in the leader of his party for one election and is promised he'll get it back next election....."WHAT DID YOU EXPECT HIM TO SAY, HE"S CLEARLY BIAS AND A LIAR!!!!" Cupe, an organization who's job it is to be bias in for of it's interests, makes a political statement. "IT"S THE GOD'S HONEST TRUTH, YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY QUESTION IT, THEY COULD NEVER POSSIBLY BE BIAS!!!!!" Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
cougar Posted Monday at 03:55 AM Report Posted Monday at 03:55 AM (edited) 21 hours ago, CdnFox said: A 155 THOUSAND dollar political stunt? He's entitled to the money, that's a hell of a stunt. Can you name a time when any other political leader in history has given up 155 thouand dollars he's personally entitled to out of his own pocket for a 'stunt'? Hell Jaggers sold out his own party for a pension. What others did is not relevant. For sure PP has not scored any points with me on this one. What I would believe is something that affects my life in a positive way, not his life in supposedly a negative way! Edited Monday at 03:55 AM by cougar 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted Monday at 04:08 AM Author Report Posted Monday at 04:08 AM (edited) 13 hours ago, cougar said: What others did is not relevant. Of course it is. It establishes the president for such things and sets the Baseline. It is 100% relevant. If nobody has ever done anything like that before calling it a political stunt is a very tough sell and you'll have to provide some pretty convincing arguments. Quote For sure PP has not scored any points with me on this one. Then it's not much of a stunt is it? Quote What I would believe is something that affects my life in a positive way, not his life in supposedly a negative way! Close to 160,000 of taxpayers money isn't being spent. That affects everyone What you're really saying is that no matter what he does you hate him. Your hate is irrational and it's not based on logic or reason. I suspect he could have a note from god saying he's the best guy in the universe and you'd still find fault Based on hatred is not a healthy idea. The guy isn't your cup of tea that's fine but you can still acknowledge the gesture as being a good gesture. Instead you seem to be driven by anger and dislike. You should think about that Edited Monday at 05:52 PM by CdnFox Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
cougar Posted Monday at 05:04 AM Report Posted Monday at 05:04 AM (edited) 56 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Of course it is. It establishes the president for such things and sets the Baseline. It is 100% relevant. If nobody has ever done anything like that before calling it a political stunt is a very tough sell and you'll have to provide some pretty convincing arguments. Ten it's not much of a stunt is it? Close to 160,000 of taxpayers money isn't being spent. That affects everyone What you're really saying is that no matter what he does you hate him. Your hate is irrational and it's not based on logic or reason. I suspect he could have a note from god saying he's the best guy in the universe and you'd still find fault Based on hatred is not a healthy idea. The guy isn't your cup of tea that's fine but you can still acknowledge the gesture as being a good gesture. Instead you seem to be driven by anger and dislike. You should think about that Hate is a strong word. I dislike him, based on his behavior and what he is promising to do. His 155K......I am not managing his account to know what he has, what he receives from others and what promises someone else has made to him. Edited Monday at 05:05 AM by cougar 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted Monday at 05:47 AM Author Report Posted Monday at 05:47 AM 40 minutes ago, cougar said: Hate is a strong word. I dislike him, based on his behavior and what he is promising to do. His 155K......I am not managing his account to know what he has, what he receives from others and what promises someone else has made to him. But at the end of the day he's owed that money right now. That's his to take, that's what mp's get when they lose an election and stop being mp's. You know that much with certainty. So no matter what else is happening, he's giving up 155 thousand dollars he's absolutely entitled to. Do you not think that's at least laudable for a politician to do? Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
cougar Posted Monday at 06:27 AM Report Posted Monday at 06:27 AM 38 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Do you not think that's at least laudable for a politician to do? I said what I think. You want me to start repeating myself? 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted Monday at 12:26 PM Report Posted Monday at 12:26 PM 9 hours ago, CdnFox said: LOL - hey @Army Guy Man honestly says he gave up his seat because he believes in the leader of his party for one election and is promised he'll get it back next election....."WHAT DID YOU EXPECT HIM TO SAY, HE"S CLEARLY BIAS AND A LIAR!!!!" Cupe, an organization who's job it is to be bias in for of it's interests, makes a political statement. "IT"S THE GOD'S HONEST TRUTH, YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY QUESTION IT, THEY COULD NEVER POSSIBLY BE BIAS!!!!!" Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things. Oh? He was "promised he'll get it back next election" Now, there is another lie by confux. Prove your claim...Oh wait, you cannot?? So now you are down on the 750,000 members of CUPE??? Because your useless leader lost his seat?? Geez, you are pretty vindictive LOL But then again, what can we expect from a poo LOSER!!. Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
CdnFox Posted Monday at 05:37 PM Author Report Posted Monday at 05:37 PM 11 hours ago, cougar said: I said what I think. You want me to start repeating myself? "Think" may be a strong word. As i originally noted, this is more about hatred than it is about logic. You can't even bring yourself to admit that not taking the money is the right thing to do. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted Monday at 05:43 PM Author Report Posted Monday at 05:43 PM 5 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Oh? He was "promised he'll get it back next election" Now, there is another lie by confux. Prove your claim...Oh wait, you cannot?? Yawn Conservative MP will resign Alberta riding so Pierre Poilievre can run again | Globalnews.ca his resignation is only temporary, however, and that he intends to run in the same riding whenever the next federal election takes place. “The people of Battle River-Crowfoot will be represented well by Pierre for the remainder of this Parliamentary session, and I will keep working with our incredible local team to do everything I can to remain the strong voice for you as I support him in the process, and then run again here in Battle River-Crowfoot in the next general election,” he said. Damien’s selfless act to step aside temporarily as a Member of Parliament shows his commitment to change and restoring Canada’s promise. There's a dozen other quotes and stories saying the same thing PP will stay in the riding until the next election, and then he will run somewhere else and this guy will get it back, Ooopsieee!! You look stupid again! LOLOL 1 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
myata Posted Monday at 06:10 PM Report Posted Monday at 06:10 PM On 5/10/2025 at 5:07 PM, Aristides said: Or are you just referring to the upcoming bye election? Would it have been OK with you if the Liberals had just held a bye election to give Carney a seat until the fall instead of a general election in the spring? How is it the same thing? An election was due this year it could have been triggered in the fall we discussed that. But refusing the elected seat right after the election, it looks and feels like an abuse of the process. 1 Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
WestCanMan Posted Monday at 07:03 PM Report Posted Monday at 07:03 PM 52 minutes ago, myata said: How is it the same thing? An election was due this year it could have been triggered in the fall we discussed that. But refusing the elected seat right after the election, it looks and feels like an abuse of the process. WTF are you whining about now, dummy? Do you remember when Carney was the unelected PM or not? 1 Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
CdnFox Posted Monday at 07:25 PM Author Report Posted Monday at 07:25 PM 1 hour ago, myata said: How is it the same thing? An election was due this year it could have been triggered in the fall we discussed that. But refusing the elected seat right after the election, it looks and feels like an abuse of the process. It is how the process was designed, in fact it is specifically how the process was designed. It's not 'abuse' at all. ANd it's hardly the first time. You just don't like it because you're a facist socialist who thinks democracy should only be for people who agree with you Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
ExFlyer Posted Monday at 07:52 PM Report Posted Monday at 07:52 PM (edited) 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: Yawn Conservative MP will resign Alberta riding so Pierre Poilievre can run again | Globalnews.ca his resignation is only temporary, however, and that he intends to run in the same riding whenever the next federal election takes place. “The people of Battle River-Crowfoot will be represented well by Pierre for the remainder of this Parliamentary session, a PP will stay in the riding until the next election, and then he will run somewhere else and this guy will get it back, Ooopsieee!! You look stupid again! LOLOL So, PP will run in this riding this term. Then quit the riding Then hope the other guy wins in his old riding and PP will run in another riding? Sounds like a Trumpian scam to me. Use people for one term and then bail out on them and look for greener pastures where he really wants to be?? LOL Sounds like the CPC thinks the people of Blackfoot riding are fools. Yup, a typical PP scam game LOL Looks like the conservatives are being played for fools again by PP. LOL Edited Monday at 08:35 PM by ExFlyer Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
ExFlyer Posted Monday at 08:10 PM Report Posted Monday at 08:10 PM 1 hour ago, WestCanMan said: WTF are you whining about now, dummy? Do you remember when Carney was the unelected PM or not? He was appointed by his party. And now anointed by the majority of Canadians. PP lost the election and his seat and is not claim jumping to stay in the game. LOL Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
CdnFox Posted Monday at 08:44 PM Author Report Posted Monday at 08:44 PM 50 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: So, PP will run in this riding this term. Well DONE!!! You understood it with me only having to explain it ONCE!!!!! So far that's the best you've ever managed! Have a gold star, you've earned it The guy will be back in the riding next election and the party will owe him huge, so that riding can look forward to many years of being well taken care of. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted Monday at 08:47 PM Author Report Posted Monday at 08:47 PM 33 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: He was appointed by his party. And now anointed by the majority of Canadians. No he got less than 50 percent of the vote. Majority is MORE than 50 percent of the vote. Hell he didn't even get 50 percent of the seats. Tsk, i've explained THAT to you a BUNCH of times now. Man.... and after you did so well with the riding thing. You're such a disappointment. 43 percent is less than half! Now go punch your math teacher. And your parents. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
ExFlyer Posted Monday at 09:12 PM Report Posted Monday at 09:12 PM 27 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Well DONE!!! .... Have a gold star, you've earned it The guy will be back in the riding next election... As usual....selective reading LOL Poor poor puppy, no matter how many times you shit on the carpet, your mommy will always rub your belly. Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
ExFlyer Posted Monday at 09:16 PM Report Posted Monday at 09:16 PM 25 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No he got less than 50 percent of the vote. ... Tsk, i've explained THAT ... 43 percent is less than half! Now go punch your math teacher. And your parents. Never said by how many he won buy, just that he won by majority. "Tsk, i've explained THAT" It does not matter ...he won and you LOST. No math needed...jst the facts LOL LOSER. Here is the fact!!! Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
CdnFox Posted yesterday at 04:04 AM Author Report Posted yesterday at 04:04 AM 6 hours ago, ExFlyer said: As usual....selective reading LOL So no rebuttal. Sorry kiddo, your stuff is stupid no matter how much of it you read Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted yesterday at 04:10 AM Author Report Posted yesterday at 04:10 AM 7 hours ago, CdnFox said: No he got less than 50 percent of the vote. Majority is MORE than 50 percent of the vote. Hell he didn't even get 50 percent of the seats. 6 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Never said by how many he won buy, just that he won by majority. "Tsk, i've explained THAT" OHHH ... MY... GOD!! i I mean you just can't make this stuff up Me - " he got less than 50 percent." You - " i didn't say how many he got, i said he got a majority" LOLOL - a majority is MORE THAN 50 PERCENT!!!! THATS WHAT MAJORITY MEANS!!! He didn't get a majority of the seats, he didn't get a majority of the votes, he did not get a majority And you screwed that up even after i explained it to you !!! ROFLMAO! Honestly i'm laughing so hard i'm having trouble typing, you have no idea You are easily one of the funniest imbecilic comedy relief posters on the internet at the moment Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
ExFlyer Posted 17 hours ago Report Posted 17 hours ago 7 hours ago, CdnFox said: So no rebuttal. Sorry kiddo, your stuff is stupid no matter how much of it you read Sometimes rebutting to you is a waste of time and effort because it is clear that it zooms above your head.... which is kinda OK because I am living up there in your head, fortunately rent free LOL Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
ExFlyer Posted 17 hours ago Report Posted 17 hours ago 7 hours ago, CdnFox said: OHHH ... MY... GOD!! i I mean you just can't make this stuff up Me - " he got less than 50 percent." You - " i didn't say how many he got, i said he got a majority" LOLOL - a majority is MORE THAN 50 PERCENT!!!! THATS WHAT MAJORITY MEANS!!! He didn't get a majority of the seats, he didn't get a majority of the votes, he did not get a majority And you screwed that up even after i explained it to you !!! ROFLMAO! Honestly i'm laughing so hard i'm having trouble typing, you have no idea You are easily one of the funniest imbecilic comedy relief posters on the internet at the moment FYI, more than 50% is called absolute majority. Majority means the greater quantity or share. But hey, he won the election and you did not. He is the PM and PP is not. Spin it any way you want but fact is...you are a LOSER LOL Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
CdnFox Posted 13 hours ago Author Report Posted 13 hours ago 3 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Sometimes rebutting to you is a waste of time and effort because it is clear that it zooms above your head.. In other words you can't so you just rely on childish lashing out lololol Sure kid, that's what adults do. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
ExFlyer Posted 13 hours ago Report Posted 13 hours ago 1 minute ago, CdnFox said: In other words you can't so you just rely on childish lashing out lololol Sure kid, that's what adults do. Ha Ha Ha, not t all. A rebuttal to you is like farting against thunder...the person getting farted on cannot or will not hear it LOL Hey, by the way...you LOST....hows that LOSE?? LOL Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
CdnFox Posted 13 hours ago Author Report Posted 13 hours ago 3 hours ago, ExFlyer said: FYI, more than 50% is called absolute majority. Majority means the greater quantity or share. SIGH!!! Holy shit kid. From Mirriam webster: majority noun ma·jor·i·ty mə-ˈjȯr-ə-tē -ˈjär- pluralmajorities Synonyms of majority 1 a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total a majority of voters a two-thirds majority That's even MORE true in politics. What you're describing is a PLURALITY. That's what it's called when someone has the most votes but less than half. plurality noun plu·ral·i·ty plu̇-ˈra-lə-tē pluralpluralities Synonyms of plurality : an excess of votes over those cast for an opposing candidate : a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast The liberals did not win a majority. They did not get a majority of the votes, they did not win the majority of seats. That's why we call it a minority. How stunningly dumb do you have to be in order to argue that a minority government means they want a majority? I mean I joke about you being a complete fool pretty regularly but you have just proven that you are one of the most ignorant twats currently occupying the internet Why did you THINK they called it a minority? It's like that old rice crispies commercial.... what did you THINK they were made of? LOLOLOL 2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Ha Ha Ha, not t all. Weren't you the guy who was mentioning a moment ago about how great he was in English compared to others ? LOLOL Kid let's get real. You would lose an argument with a boiled potato. It's no wonder that you run in fear of me and can't rebut anything that I argue Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.