New Submarines: Carney vs Poilievre

[blackbird]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sure there is when you say science can't debunk your religious beliefs while using your religious beliefs to debunk science.

 

Are you a Roman Catholic or what is your religious background?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yup, it's all lies. 😇

Says Satan   

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Are you a Roman Catholic or what is your religious background?

I dropped out of Sunday School...it cut into my TV cartoons time.

[herbie]

Oh FFS more 1950 armchair warriors.

Cdn subs won't be sneaking undetected to the other end of the earth tp hide underwater. They're role is not attack subs or boomers.
They're defensive and operate off our shores and the odd manouvers with allies and surface every day or two.
And if your paranoid delusion of a Russian sub attack another submarine is about the least effective means to detect and deal with them. They won't be carrying landing craft in them or hunting other warships, they'll be boomers that don't need to enter our waters to launch.
In the case of which, they wouldn't need to be dealt with because there'd be nothing left for them to go home to within minutes.

Is that you're thinking, following a war of utter devastation, your plan is endless attrition? 

These things are sovereignty showmanship, sword waving,  not much more. More likely to be delivering supplies and medivacs in the Arctic than any imagined military scenarios.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I dropped out of Sunday School...it cut into my TV cartoons time.

Yes, you might be a closet Catholic.  I think ExFlyer is a closet Catholic, same as herbie.  There has to be some religious reason why they hate Bible-believing Christians so much.

Edited November 17, 2025 by blackbird

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS more 1950 armchair warriors.

Cdn subs won't be sneaking undetected to the other end of the earth tp hide underwater. They're role is not attack subs or boomers.
They're defensive and operate off our shores and the odd manouvers with allies and surface every day or two.
And if your paranoid delusion of a Russian sub attack another submarine is about the least effective means to detect and deal with them. They won't be carrying landing craft in them or hunting other warships, they'll be boomers that don't need to enter our waters to launch.
In the case of which, they wouldn't need to be dealt with because there'd be nothing left for them to go home to within minutes.

Is that you're thinking, following a war of utter devastation, your plan is endless attrition? 

These things are sovereignty showmanship, sword waving,  not much more. More likely to be delivering supplies and medivacs in the Arctic than any imagined military scenarios.

Again your posting stuff you have no idea about what your talking about...Any if not all your posting here on this topic is false....all of which could be confirmed by a simple google search....It is actually sad how Canadians could be this uneducated about our military then again interest in our military is practically nil...the Herbies of the world are proving that over and over...

Subs being used to deliver supplies or doing medivacs in the artic...That requires a poop load of imagination, good job on stretching that truth beyond the breaking point....I mean i might be wrong and maybe some NAVY guy can correct me, has anyone seen a sub delivering supplies or picking up medivacs...We do have ships that do that kind of stuff....

[herbie]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Subs being used to deliver supplies or doing medivacs in the artic...That requires a poop load of imagination

about as much imagination as soldiers fighting forest fires and shovelling snow does.
Or do you think you'll spend your tour shooting people and blowing shit up? Hoof it South if you want that.
We're not at war and we're not the ones to start one.

[User]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

When you note that there are many interpretations you prove my point. 

No, I don't. Feel free to explain how. 

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

nobody is questioning the validity, i'm saying that humans are imperfect communicators. That doesn't make the bible wrong, it just means you can't take it word for word. 

Yes, that is exactly what you are doing and continue to do. Now you are trying to have it both ways, trying to say The Bible is not wrong... but humans wrote it and they are imperfect. So, which is it? 

Explain what you mean when you say we can't take it word for word. I have already pointed out the problems with your use of this terminology. 

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There are numerous elements in the bible which are unclear and are the subject of debate as a result, so yes there are "errors" like that, tho i wouldn't call them that. 

Being unclear is not an error, and you just got done saying The Bible is not wrong. I already explained to you why being unclear doesn't make something wrong, and being "unclear" is a subjective claim anyhow. 

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody ownplayed the bible, you've got that in your head and you're not paying attention to what's being said. 

Yet... you keep downplaying it by saying imperfect men wrote it, and that we can't take it word for word, still not grasping the concept of divine inspiration. 

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

and yes, if something can be interpreted in numerous ways then it is imperfect in conveying the author's intent.  That doesn't make it wrong, but it means that it can't be taken literally word for word ipso facto. 

The issue was not if something was imperfect, in conveying the author's intent, though. What can't be taken literally word for word? You speak of this in vague, general terms. Are you saying absolutely nothing in The Bible can be taken lierally word for word and as I asked before, what do you think that means when you say "word for word?" 

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And I haven't made any emotional arguments, I am observing you becoming emotional and irrational and I'm advising you that that's not necessary because it's a result of your misunderstanding rather than somebody attacking your beliefs.

LOL, you chose to trying to deride me instead of responding to my comments, that is emotional and even now, instead of dealing with what is being said, you continue to go after me. 

IF something I said is irrational, then make that argument and respond to what I say.

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It is literally the same thing as me saying the bible should not be taken literally as a result of man and his communication being flawed.

So... back to the beginning, you are downplaying the Bible and continue to fail to understand the meaning of divine inspiration. 

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I noticed you tried to switch that into me saying the bible is flawed. I did not say that, I said man wrote the bible and he is flawed as a communicator.

OK, then explain how in one breath you say we can't read the Bible and take it word for word because the people who wrote it were flawed, but then say The Bible is not flawed. You are literally sitting here saying we can't take The Bible at its word. 
 

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The fact that there are many interpretations to various passages proves that Beyond any arguable doubt. If the communication was perfect it would be crystal clear what was intended and there would be no arguing it

Interpretation is a matter of personal subjectivity. You continue to conflate the concepts of translation and interpretation. You are just asserting the same thing you did before and ignoring my previous response:

If 2+2=4, that doesn't cease to be true or accurate because I disagree. 
 

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And nobody is saying that making an effort to interpret or understand the work somehow invalidates it or means it isn't from god. That's something you got into your head and can't seem to shake out of your head no matter how many times you are told that it's ridiculous to think that

It is not that "it is from God" it is the concept of divine inspiration. You keep arguing we can't take The Bible at its word because it was written by men... 

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Now get over yourself. Nobody challenged your bible, nobody challenged god, and I'm about fed up with your childishness. There is no possible way for human communication to be precise and perfect and you cannot take the bible verbatim word for word which is agreed upon by every single religious expert out there. So give your head a shake and move on

You get over yourself. You made ignorant comments and clearly do not understand basic concepts of Christianity. 

31 minutes ago, herbie said:

about as much imagination as soldiers fighting forest fires and shovelling snow does.
Or do you think you'll spend your tour shooting people and blowing shit up? Hoof it South if you want that.
We're not at war and we're not the ones to start one.

So, in your brilliance, you don't need any military, because you are not at war!

What if... someone else starts one?

You are such a brain-dead simpleton. 

[User]

14 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

And you have gone off topic for pages and pages... LOL

So, still going to cry about being off topic then? Well, next time, don't say ignorant and wrong things that are off topic. 

14 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope, it is over but you cannot seem to get it...as usual.

Get back on topic LOSER LOL

If it is over, why are you still crying?

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, User said:

No, I don't. Feel free to explain how. 

Yes, that is exactly what you are doing and continue to do. Now you are trying to have it both ways, trying to say The Bible is not wrong... but humans wrote it and they are imperfect. So, which is it? 

Explain what you mean when you say we can't take it word for word. I have already pointed out the problems with your use of this terminology. 

Being unclear is not an error, and you just got done saying The Bible is not wrong. I already explained to you why being unclear doesn't make something wrong, and being "unclear" is a subjective claim anyhow. 

Yet... you keep downplaying it by saying imperfect men wrote it, and that we can't take it word for word, still not grasping the concept of divine inspiration. 

The issue was not if something was imperfect, in conveying the author's intent, though. What can't be taken literally word for word? You speak of this in vague, general terms. Are you saying absolutely nothing in The Bible can be taken lierally word for word and as I asked before, what do you think that means when you say "word for word?" 

LOL, you chose to trying to deride me instead of responding to my comments, that is emotional and even now, instead of dealing with what is being said, you continue to go after me. 

IF something I said is irrational, then make that argument and respond to what I say.

So... back to the beginning, you are downplaying the Bible and continue to fail to understand the meaning of divine inspiration. 

OK, then explain how in one breath you say we can't read the Bible and take it word for word because the people who wrote it were flawed, but then say The Bible is not flawed. You are literally sitting here saying we can't take The Bible at its word. 
 

Interpretation is a matter of personal subjectivity. You continue to conflate the concepts of translation and interpretation. You are just asserting the same thing you did before and ignoring my previous response:

If 2+2=4, that doesn't cease to be true or accurate because I disagree. 
 

It is not that "it is from God" it is the concept of divine inspiration. You keep arguing we can't take The Bible at its word because it was written by men... 

You get over yourself. You made ignorant comments and clearly do not understand basic concepts of Christianity. 

So, in your brilliance, you don't need any military, because you are not at war!

What if... someone else starts one?

You are such a brain-dead simpleton. 

I've explained how many times. If you can't grasp it the first three or four times you're not going to be able to wrap your head around it now. I think you've just gotten to the point where you're not listening and your ability to comprehend has gone down the toilet as a result

The rest of your stuff is just nonsense. It's the same delusional crap over and over again

This is simple. What I have claimed is that the bible cannot be taken verbatim. It is open to interpretation.

Every single christian sect or group agrees with me. If this upsets you then I'm afraid that you don't need a priest you need a therapist.

There's nothing more to say. Your arguments are laughable and just repetitive. Most of the time you make decent arguments but whenever you get shown up you wind up having these little weird freakouts

[User]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

I've explained how many times. If you can't grasp it the first three or four times you're not going to be able to wrap your head around it now. I think you've just gotten to the point where you're not listening and your ability to comprehend has gone down the toilet as a result

Translation: You can't defend or articulate yourself when faced with a challenge here. So instead of admitting that, you play this game instead. 

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The rest of your stuff is just nonsense. It's the same delusional crap over and over again

Feel free to contribute a substantive response if you can. 

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is simple. What I have claimed is that the bible cannot be taken verbatim. It is open to interpretation.

Well, yes, your comments are simple and do not grasp basic concepts of Christianity and you conflate things like translation with interpretation. Even now, you still don't understand what interpretation really means, as it is a subjective thing that is influenced by an individual's perceptions, bias, convictions, and views. 

Yes, you keep saying The Bible cannot be taken verbatim or some such terminology, but you won't explain what you really mean by that. I know why, because I explained this to you earlier, that the concept of not taking the Bible word for word is about understanding the historical context for when those words were used as well as knowing when the person writing is telling a story, a parable, or some other such figure of speech. 

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Every single christian sect or group agrees with me. If this upsets you then I'm afraid that you don't need a priest you need a therapist.

LOL, now you just make an outlandishly absurd claim that every single Christian sect or group agrees with you. LOL 

This doesn't upset me, it disappoints me that you resort to such silly comments like these.
 

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There's nothing more to say. Your arguments are laughable and just repetitive. Most of the time you make decent arguments but whenever you get shown up you wind up having these little weird freakouts

Projection on your part.  

 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, User said:

Translation: You can't defend or articulate yourself when faced with a challenge here. So instead of admitting that, you play this game instead. 

Feel free to contribute a substantive response if you can. 

Well, yes, your comments are simple and do not grasp basic concepts of Christianity and you conflate things like translation with interpretation. Even now, you still don't understand what interpretation really means, as it is a subjective thing that is influenced by an individual's perceptions, bias, convictions, and views. 

Yes, you keep saying The Bible cannot be taken verbatim or some such terminology, but you won't explain what you really mean by that. I know why, because I explained this to you earlier, that the concept of not taking the Bible word for word is about understanding the historical context for when those words were used as well as knowing when the person writing is telling a story, a parable, or some other such figure of speech. 

LOL, now you just make an outlandishly absurd claim that every single Christian sect or group agrees with you. LOL 

This doesn't upset me, it disappoints me that you resort to such silly comments like these.
 

Projection on your part.  

 

 

Translation, you think your inability to comprehend something simple is my fault. 

All my responses have been substantial. Lying about it won't make your position any stronger

I have explained with examples in extreme detail what I'm saying and I have posted where others from various churches hold the same views. Leaving you yourself had to admit that the bible is open to interpretation which means I'm right.

My claim is not outlandish, it is not observed, it is universally accepted by sane people.

You just managed to put a stick up your butt because you think someone's picking on your imaginary friend. But that's your delusion

[User]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Translation, you think your inability to comprehend something simple is my fault. 

The issue is not comprehension when you are using vague terms and refuse to explain what you mean. 

Just now, CdnFox said:

All my responses have been substantial. Lying about it won't make your position any stronger

Well, you are a legend in your own mind. 

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

I have explained with examples in extreme detail what I'm saying and I have posted where others from various churches hold the same views. Leaving you yourself had to admit that the bible is open to interpretation which means I'm right.

And whatever you have said I have responded to as well. 

LOL, here you go again not understanding what interpretation means. 

Declaring yourself right doesn't make it so. 

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

My claim is not outlandish, it is not observed, it is universally accepted by sane people.

Ah, yes, the No True Scotsman fallacy now! 

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You just managed to put a stick up your butt because you think someone's picking on your imaginary friend. But that's your delusion

I am not interested in your sexual fantasies about me, keep them to yourself. 

Do I even need to point out the duplicity of yours here as you say no one is picking on my "imaginary friend?"

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, User said:

The issue is not comprehension when you are using vague terms and refuse to explain what you mean. 

Well, you are a legend in your own mind. 

And whatever you have said I have responded to as well. 

LOL, here you go again not understanding what interpretation means. 

Declaring yourself right doesn't make it so. 

Ah, yes, the No True Scotsman fallacy now! 

I am not interested in your sexual fantasies about me, keep them to yourself. 

Do I even need to point out the duplicity of yours here as you say no one is picking on my "imaginary friend?"

 

The issue is comprehension. Specifically your lack thereof.

Kiddo this is a simple concept and you can't get your head around it. Honestly it's disappointing to watch.

Nobody except you thinks that the bible should be able to be taken verbatim word for word. You got to be special stupid to think that

The new emotional problems

[User]

Just now, CdnFox said:

The issue is comprehension. Specifically your lack thereof.

You offered nothing to comprehend beyond a vague comment and refused to offer more. 

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Kiddo this is a simple concept and you can't get your head around it. Honestly it's disappointing to watch.

So simple you can't articulate actual substantive responses anymore and are melting down now. 

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody except you thinks that the bible should be able to be taken verbatim word for word. You got to be special stupid to think that

I already explained what I meant by not taking the Bible word for word... still waiting on you to do the same. 

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The new emotional problems

Talking about yourself now?

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, User said:

You offered nothing to comprehend beyond a vague comment and refused to offer more. 

So simple you can't articulate actual substantive responses anymore and are melting down now. 

I already explained what I meant by not taking the Bible word for word... still waiting on you to do the same. 

Talking about yourself now?

Yawn.  Yes yes, you're very pretty. I'll put the picture you made on the fridge. 

Sorry kid the bible was not meant to be taken verbatum. Sorry about your comprehension issues.  Say hi to your imaginary friend for me  

[User]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Sorry kid the bible was not meant to be taken verbatum. Sorry about your comprehension issues.  Say hi to your imaginary friend for me  

So, now you make up an entirely new assertion about the motives behind the Bible?! ROFL

Where do you get that the intention of the Bible was not meant to be taken verbatim from?

Again, it is not a comprehension issue when you refuse to supply anything substantive to comprehend. 

You can stop pretending/lying now about your motives as well, your mask is off now. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, User said:

Interpretation is a matter of personal subjectivity. You continue to conflate the concepts of translation and interpretation. You are just asserting the same thing you did before and ignoring my previous response:

If 2+2=4, that doesn't cease to be true or accurate because I disagree. 

You're such a liar.  Everyone knows a 2 and a 2 means 22.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

So, now you make up an entirely new assertion about the motives behind the Bible?! ROFL

This is the exact very same assertion I started with. Precisely. I even gave examples of how the unverse being made in 6 days doesn't necessarily mean 6 24 hour periods. The word can be used to mean different things. 

1 hour ago, User said:

Where do you get that the intention of the Bible was not meant to be taken verbatim from?

Pretty much every serious bible expert including the pope. 

 

1 hour ago, User said:

Again, it is not a comprehension issue

It is 100% a comprehension issue on your part. Nothing I've said is controversial and it's all very obvious. Human languages and imperfect thing at the best of times.

At this point it's pretty obvious that you realize you've said something mind melting stupid. And you're sad attempts to try and backtrack and twist your way out of it just makes you look that much more of a twat.

There is no motive here kid. I correctly responded to somebody who claimed that science and religion is incompatible by saying that science and religion is in fact not incompatible.

Go play with your Lego. The adults are talking

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

This is the exact very same assertion I started with. Precisely. I even gave examples of how the unverse being made in 6 days doesn't necessarily mean 6 24 hour periods. The word can be used to mean different things. 

No, it was not the exact assertion you started with. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Pretty much every serious bible expert including the pope. 

Wrong again. I have already addressed your ignorance of what was meant here. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It is 100% a comprehension issue on your part. Nothing I've said is controversial and it's all very obvious. Human languages and imperfect thing at the best of times.

Once again, if you refuse to explain yourself, there is nothing to not comprehend. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

At this point it's pretty obvious that you realize you've said something mind melting stupid. And you're sad attempts to try and backtrack and twist your way out of it just makes you look that much more of a twat.

You certainly are not able to articulate why anything I said was stupid. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There is no motive here kid. I correctly responded to somebody who claimed that science and religion is incompatible by saying that science and religion is in fact not incompatible.

That is not all you said. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Go play with your Lego. The adults are talking

I do enjoy Legos, but that has nothing to do with your ignorance of basic concepts regarding Christianity. 

 

[ExFlyer]

11 hours ago, User said:

So, still going to cry about being off topic then? Well, next time, don't say ignorant and wrong things that are off topic. 

If it is over, why are you still crying?

Still cannot move on eh??? HA HA HA. 

LOSER LOL 

[John Stone]

On 11/14/2025 at 9:07 PM, herbie said:

Admiral 2025 says there's no need at all for a Cdn sub to remain submerged for an extended length of time. They're not nuclear missile subs nor is there an intention to be used in an attack roll.
If you can explain otherwise, then do so sparing the sales pitch for spending even more besides having an even bigger deficit to shreik at the Liberals  about.

re: They're not nuclear missile subs nor is there an intention to be used in an attack roll.

 

Let's compromise and  call them a p/o our NATO deterrence? Of course they're designed to attack......... hunter / killer. 

[ExFlyer]

44 minutes ago, John Stone said:

re: They're not nuclear missile subs nor is there an intention to be used in an attack roll.

 

Let's compromise and  call them a p/o our NATO deterrence? Of course they're designed to attack......... hunter / killer. 

I think you mean our NATO support? 

And of course, our defence of our northern passage as well.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, User said:

No, it was not the exact assertion you started with. 

Wrong again. I have already addressed your ignorance of what was meant here. 

Once again, if you refuse to explain yourself, there is nothing to not comprehend. 

You certainly are not able to articulate why anything I said was stupid. 

That is not all you said. 

I do enjoy Legos, but that has nothing to do with your ignorance of basic concepts regarding Christianity. 

 

Now you're just at the point where you're lying to make yourself feel better.

It is pretty much word for word the same assertion I started with. I know you didn't address anything. As I have pointed out multiple times. And I refuse to explain myself for the fifth time if the four times before that were too much for your brain.

You are literally operating under the belief that if you repeat a lie often enough it'll become true. I'm afraid this conversation is far over your head. Which is sad because it's one that a five year old that understand. The bible cannot be taken verbatim.

But the good news is x-flyer agrees with you so that's the level of mental support you've got for this issue   You're totally on the right side  

[John Stone]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I think you mean our NATO support? 

And of course, our defence of our northern passage as well.

............ subs would support Article 5, eh? Arctic surveillance is a side bar. ..........