Meanwhile, chalk up another BT forced back into full deletion mode. Good old neo, after being called on his lies deleted this:
====== neo Sept 24 looks like i don't have to offer up my own opinion... ti-guy & liberal supporter... the mouth-breathing vanguard of canadian cynic's little band of potty-mouth squirrels... are only to happy gaze into their crystal balls and tell everyone what i think. Except ti-guy wasn't even here. Try to get your story straight eh? But I'm pleased you concede my point, since you chose not to refute it, but simply go for channel changing ad hominem as usual.
And in vintage neo fashion you quoted one of my comments without the context. Recall that I said Harper missed the photo op because he was in the loo, called the water closet in England, and he wouldn't want be photographed 'coming out of the closet'. Note to neo, that was a joke. A dumb one perhaps, but even someone as obtuse as you would get that. But don't let the truth get in the way of yet another smear, employed to avoid dealing with dissent yet again.
Well I think the stupid lefties bombing this place cannot really argue that neo is wrong about a slippery slope. He is in essence correct. No, he's wrong. The judge simply ruled that repeatedly trying to get a Crown to prosecute a case when earlier Crowns decided not to, is akin to double jeopardy. The AG screwed up.
Same sex marriage is a matter of rights. There is no other civil institution with restrictions on what genders may enter into it, and so it is with marriage. While in the case of polygamy, there is no Charter right based on numbers. You can restrict the number of partners in a partnership, a sole proprietorship may only have one person, and you can restrict the number of people in a bar, elevator or car. If polygamy was a Charter right, so would be driving alone in an HOV lane.
The difference is between restricting something based on who you are as opposed to how many you are. Polygamy laws will not be struck down on Charter reasons, and we already have established that religious rights do not trump the law. You can't legally kill people here simply because your religion says you can.
==== neo Sept 24 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You lose Jim. You are a liar and you've just proven it for all to see. Porn references indeed. Be careful you don't get outed, because that kind of libel is actionable. Though you have no credibility so an action would fail since nobody believes anything you say, instead they all laugh at you.
I knew you would start deleting when you clearly lost the argument. Your lame excuse just proves it.
At "Raphael Alexander's" he complained about lefties smearing shit in his comments section. Yet he won't leave said comments up for anyone to see and judge. He won't even take a screen shot of the comment and black out swear words if that was a problem (which is not for himself). Instead he puts up partial quotes out of context and tries to change the channel. Usually someone says something that gives him an excuse to put on the fake outrage and delete. Today it was his huffing and puffing about the same sex marriage slippery slope to polygamy. Someone asked what he would do if he found out his own son was gay, the exact wording being "likes to suck cock". Somehow he decided that is child pornography, which was his excuse to harrumph and delete.
Funniest was the other day when some anon reproduced the text of a news item about a nut in Belleville calling a Texas prayer line claiming he just killed his family. So he grumbles about that as if it is CC doing all the comments he doesn't like. Then he ends asking said bad person for the link!!
"cc-nonymous asks... been drinking again asshat?"
oh, bobby... embarrassing yourself yet again.
i'd appreciate the url for your comment though... can't believe i missed that one.
He's such a maroon, I find it hard to believe he's not a parody blog. I just like to tease him. Now he's claiming I'm spending all day bugging him, when he's the one hitting refresh every 2 minutes.
She is, boa. She taught me how to use that word. Along with all the others I know like harridan, shrew, shrike, vigaro, bastard, cocksucker, son-of-a-bitch, martinet...well, the list goes on... It's great to have mothers (and fathers) who are articulate.
My parents are funny when it comes to swearing. They find haughty and snide passive-aggressiveness much more offensive than an honest expletive that tells it like it is.
Meanwhile, chalk up another BT forced back into full deletion mode.
ReplyDeleteGood old neo, after being called on his lies deleted this:
====== neo Sept 24
looks like i don't have to offer up my own opinion... ti-guy & liberal supporter... the mouth-breathing vanguard of canadian cynic's little band of potty-mouth squirrels... are only to happy gaze into their crystal balls and tell everyone what i think.
Except ti-guy wasn't even here. Try to get your story straight eh? But I'm pleased you concede my point, since you chose not to refute it, but simply go for channel changing ad hominem as usual.
And in vintage neo fashion you quoted one of my comments without the context. Recall that I said Harper missed the photo op because he was in the loo, called the water closet in England, and he wouldn't want be photographed 'coming out of the closet'. Note to neo, that was a joke. A dumb one perhaps, but even someone as obtuse as you would get that. But don't let the truth get in the way of yet another smear, employed to avoid dealing with dissent yet again.
Well I think the stupid lefties bombing this place cannot really argue that neo is wrong about a slippery slope. He is in essence correct.
No, he's wrong. The judge simply ruled that repeatedly trying to get a Crown to prosecute a case when earlier Crowns decided not to, is akin to double jeopardy. The AG screwed up.
Same sex marriage is a matter of rights. There is no other civil institution with restrictions on what genders may enter into it, and so it is with marriage. While in the case of polygamy, there is no Charter right based on numbers. You can restrict the number of partners in a partnership, a sole proprietorship may only have one person, and you can restrict the number of people in a bar, elevator or car. If polygamy was a Charter right, so would be driving alone in an HOV lane.
The difference is between restricting something based on who you are as opposed to how many you are. Polygamy laws will not be struck down on Charter reasons, and we already have established that religious rights do not trump the law. You can't legally kill people here simply because your religion says you can.
He'll delete this too:
ReplyDelete==== neo Sept 24
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You lose Jim. You are a liar and you've just proven it for all to see. Porn references indeed. Be careful you don't get outed, because that kind of libel is actionable. Though you have no credibility so an action would fail since nobody believes anything you say, instead they all laugh at you.
I knew you would start deleting when you clearly lost the argument. Your lame excuse just proves it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
CC,you're about as funny as Warren Kinsella professing his manlove for Brad Lavigne on Tom Clark's Question Period the other day.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, here you are.
ReplyDelete,you're about as funny as Warren Kinsella professing his manlove for Brad Lavigne on Tom Clark's Question Period the other day.
ReplyDeleteThe irony of boacunt writing this to attack someone's wit.
What? I said "cunt."
CC said...
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, here you are.
Stupid me for wasting 2 minutes on your moronic ramblings.
lol! "boacunt" it is, then!
ReplyDeleteKEvron
"wasting 2 minutes"
ReplyDeletetime stamps tell a different story....
KEvron
Ti for the win!
ReplyDeleteTi Guy my hero
ReplyDeleteWhat's truly terrifying is that "neo" thinks his "Halls of Macademia" is a good blog.
ReplyDeleteAt "Raphael Alexander's" he complained about lefties smearing shit in his comments section.
As if his incoherent, moronic babbling isn't shit.
At "Raphael Alexander's" he complained about lefties smearing shit in his comments section.
ReplyDeleteYet he won't leave said comments up for anyone to see and judge. He won't even take a screen shot of the comment and black out swear words if that was a problem (which is not for himself). Instead he puts up partial quotes out of context and tries to change the channel. Usually someone says something that gives him an excuse to put on the fake outrage and delete. Today it was his huffing and puffing about the same sex marriage slippery slope to polygamy. Someone asked what he would do if he found out his own son was gay, the exact wording being "likes to suck cock". Somehow he decided that is child pornography, which was his excuse to harrumph and delete.
Funniest was the other day when some anon reproduced the text of a news item about a nut in Belleville calling a Texas prayer line claiming he just killed his family. So he grumbles about that as if it is CC doing all the comments he doesn't like. Then he ends asking said bad person for the link!!
"cc-nonymous asks... been drinking again asshat?"
oh, bobby... embarrassing yourself yet again.
i'd appreciate the url for your comment though... can't believe i missed that one.
He's such a maroon, I find it hard to believe he's not a parody blog. I just like to tease him. Now he's claiming I'm spending all day bugging him, when he's the one hitting refresh every 2 minutes.
Hahahahaha!
my vote for best CC line ever:
ReplyDelete``What? I said ``runt'' ''
Exactly.
"Ti-Guy said...
ReplyDeleteWhat? I said "cunt."
Your mother must be so proud.
She is, boa. She taught me how to use that word. Along with all the others I know like harridan, shrew, shrike, vigaro, bastard, cocksucker, son-of-a-bitch, martinet...well, the list goes on... It's great to have mothers (and fathers) who are articulate.
ReplyDeleteMy parents are funny when it comes to swearing. They find haughty and snide passive-aggressiveness much more offensive than an honest expletive that tells it like it is.
Articulate?
ReplyDeleteNow that's funny.
Oh, great ... "mahmood" is now posting under another pseudonym.
ReplyDelete