Ricky Ravioli Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Wait a minute.....you said he was lying about knowing and now you say his office didn't vet the guy.....which is it? Where did I say that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: Where did I say that? This you? 3 hours ago, Ricky Ravioli said: I know. I don't mind having a lying buffoon for a prime minister. What does it matter anyways? It's not like he can do anything or is responsible for anything right.? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 minute ago, RupertKBD said: This you? Where does it say he is lying about knowing about the nazi? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 minute ago, Ricky Ravioli said: Where does it say he is lying about knowing about the nazi? So, what do you think he was lying about then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 6 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: So, what do you think he was lying about then? I think he is a lying buffoon in general. Never once said he was lying about knowing ahead of time about the nazi Edited February 7 by Ricky Ravioli 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 36 minutes ago, 112 said: Social issues have always been something for conservatives to campaign on in lieu of actual good policy. Not always. There was a time that they didn't see social systems as the enemy. That was pre-merger with the victimhood reformers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 23 minutes ago, 4petesake said: Someone posted this already but it’s worth repeating because it’s an excellent example of the ignorance of the argument made by people like PP and Smith vs actual medical science. The Attorney General does not come out looking good here, but neither does Stewart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 12 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: I think he is a lying buffoon in general. Never once said he was lying about knowing ahead of time about the nazi Odd that you would make the claim immediately after posting a misleading article that suggested he was lying about the exact thing that you claim you weren't referring to....but okay... "Here's an article that says Trudeau lied about the Nazi!" "What a lying buffoon!" But I wasn't talking about the Nazi story..... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 13 minutes ago, Master Mind said: The Attorney General does not come out looking good here, but neither does Stewart. Looked pretty good to me.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 2 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Odd that you would make the claim immediately after posting a misleading article that suggested he was lying about the exact thing that you claim you weren't referring to....but okay... "Here's an article that says Trudeau lied about the Nazi!" "What a lying buffoon!" But I wasn't talking about the Nazi story..... So that's why I have blamed his office and party the entire time outside of one comment but that's all you take from this discussion. Why am I not surprised? Your lame attempt at a "gotcha" isn't what you think it is Edited February 7 by Ricky Ravioli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 4 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: So that's why I have blamed his office and party the entire time outside of one comment but that's all you take from this discussion. Why am I not surprised? Your lame attempt at a "gotcha" isn't what you think it is Disagree. You called him a liar, right after posting an article that called him a liar. Now you're claiming the two were not even related? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 4 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Disagree. You called him a liar, right after posting an article that called him a liar. Now you're claiming the two were not even related? And yet I never accused him of lying about knowing. Like you said, the article does it on its own no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: And yet I never accused him of lying about knowing. Like you said, the article does it on its own no? Let's just say I find your claims that the two are unrelated to be somewhat disingenuous.... ....but look at the bright side....at least I'm not calling you a "buffoon".... Edited February 7 by RupertKBD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 34 minutes ago, Master Mind said: The Attorney General does not come out looking good here, but neither does Stewart. Stewart looked as egotistical, glib, snarky, and smart ass (while unquestionably smart) as always but I believe he scored more points than the AG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Let's just say I find your claims that the two are unrelated to be somewhat disingenuous.... ....but look at the bright side....at least I'm not calling you a "buffoon".... Well let me make it clear for you. I don't think Justin Trudeau was lying about not knowing about the Nazi. I do think Pierre is correct in calling him a lier just not for that specific reason. Hope that helps I haven't called any posters a "buffoon" so thanks I guess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Master Mind said: The Attorney General does not come out looking good here, but neither does Stewart. The difference is the Attorney General is literally a branch of the law. Stewart is a comedian and an interviewer. Even if you were to make the argument of Stewart not looking good (which just saying "he didn't look good either" doesn't really show that)... one of these jobs is little more important than the other.... Edited February 7 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 11 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: Well let me make it clear for you. I don't think Justin Trudeau was lying about not knowing about the Nazi. I do think Pierre is correct in calling him a lier just not for that specific reason. Hope that helps I haven't called any posters a "buffoon" so thanks I guess? And what specific reason would that be? Not that I'm claiming JT has never lied about anything, but I'm curious which lie (or lies) make him a buffoon in your eyes. (obviously, my earlier reference to that word was too nuanced ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 6 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: And what specific reason would that be? Not that I'm claiming JT has never lied about anything, but I'm curious which lie (or lies) make him a buffoon in your eyes. (obviously, my earlier reference to that word was too nuanced ) The one that actually bothers me was his major campaign promise for electoral reform. He abandoned that basically as soon as he got into office. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/raymond-j-de-souza-the-meaning-of-justin-trudeaus-petty-falsehoods Bunch of minor stuff in there but it all adds up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 23 minutes ago, Satchmo said: Stewart looked as egotistical, glib, snarky, and smart ass (while unquestionably smart) as always but I believe he scored more points than the AG. 17 minutes ago, The Lock said: The difference is the Attorney General is literally a branch of the law. Stewart is a comedian and an interviewer. Even if you were to make the argument of Stewart not looking good (which just saying "he didn't look good either" doesn't really show that)... one of these jobs is little more important than the other.... If the purpose of having the interview was to try and have her see his points/where he's coming from, he's not going to be very effective with that approach. It feels like content intended for people who already share his beliefs. If both people come out of it looking poorly, I don't see how the interview has value. That'll likely just make both sides dig their heels in a bit more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Master Mind said: If the purpose of having the interview was to try and have her see his points/where he's coming from, he's not going to be very effective with that approach. It feels like content intended for people who already share his beliefs. If both people come out of it looking poorly, I don't see how the interview has value. That'll likely just make both sides dig their heels in a bit more. I guess my question for you then is what kind of approach in an interview would have got her to see his points? Like I see what you're saying in a way. I actually think a better interviewer would be someone like Trevor Noah where it's more about 2 people having a journey and figuring things out together. On the other hand, that does take a certain kind of interviewee to be able to go along with that. There are people I've tried to do that with on this very thread and they seem to stop replying as soon as something takes shape only to continue in their ways with other people. However, one thing I will point out is that there are people out there on the fence about a lot of things where an interview like this could still move a needle, but of course they'd have to already be on that fence. Edited February 7 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith admitted Monday that the proposed measures around gender-affirming surgeries are not based on current evidence of a problem, but rather a "concern of what will happen." https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/alberta-premier-says-transgender-policies-pursued-out-of-concern-of-what-will-happen-not-evidence-of-a-problem-1.6756959?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 4 minutes ago, Master Mind said: If the purpose of having the interview was to try and have her see his points/where he's coming from, he's not going to be very effective with that approach. It feels like content intended for people who already share his beliefs. If both people come out of it looking poorly, I don't see how the interview has value. That'll likely just make both sides dig their heels in a bit more. I doubt anyone's opinion was changed by what was said regardless of who they thought won the debate. Mine was not and, though presumptuous of me, I suspect your was not either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 3 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said: “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith admitted Monday that the proposed measures around gender-affirming surgeries are not based on current evidence of a problem, but rather a "concern of what will happen." https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/alberta-premier-says-transgender-policies-pursued-out-of-concern-of-what-will-happen-not-evidence-of-a-problem-1.6756959?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar I am not so much worried about some future offspring of some couple having a surgery before they are of legal age to even vote or drink or go to war for the nation, that is just pandering to a niche market of fearful loathers, but I can tell you with almost certainty that the Supreme Court of Canada will strike down large parts of her legislation once there is a test case willing to take it to the supreme court. Ratting out kids to possibly abusive parents against the child's wishes will not stand up to the charter. Children are not property. 1 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: The one that actually bothers me was his major campaign promise for electoral reform. He abandoned that basically as soon as he got into office. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/raymond-j-de-souza-the-meaning-of-justin-trudeaus-petty-falsehoods Bunch of minor stuff in there but it all adds up. Yeah, his reversal on ER bothered me as well, even though I'm not convinced it's a better system. That being said, for me it doesn't rise to the level of "buffoonery"...In any event, thanks for the clarification. Edited February 7 by RupertKBD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Strong start to home sales in 2024 unlikely to delay BoC rate cuts: economists https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/strong-start-home-sales-2024-202143946.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.