and i see you are a homophobe. That would be the only thing that would explain why you would use these statements as a "put down" or in a negative connotation. You and your buddy's up there string up any "faggots" lately?
roflmao!
and i see you are a homophobe. That would be the only thing that would explain why you would use these statements as a "put down" or in a negative connotation. You and your buddy's up there string up any "faggots" lately?
Go back to banging nails. This is obviously WAY over your head.
and I see you are a homophobe. That would be the only thing that would explain why you would use these statements as a "put down" or in a negative connotation. You and your buddy's up there string up any "faggots" lately?
IF, he was breaking the "law", then that would have been a fairly simple thing to remedy. Instead, the NDP chose to be childish about it. No laws were broken. Limiting debate is a "legal" parliamentary procedure used by many in the past, both Liberal and Conservative. Do try and get a grip.
Opposition shenanigans are also part of the game (all parties) that has been played in the past. The difference here is the PM decided to do his own seating to avoid the opposition shenanigans. It kind of blew up on him.
Nice to know you can be bought.
My guess is you have a man-crush on Justin and want have prolonged homosexual relations with him. Face it, you are a closet Liberal. You couldn't get any more rabid in your support of his actions. Tell the truth now....you really want to suck his d*ck don't you?
Well, it "blew up" with some, not with all. From where I am sitting, the NDP came out with the short end of the stick with the cons being inconsequential.
I'm just trying to help you come to terms with your latent homosexual love for Justin. It is okay to admit it. We all accept homosexuality these days, you don't have to hide anymore.I guess it's perfectly justifiable to use gay's as a insult based on the fact they are gay.
You still see JT as the victim and not the instigator. Until you comprehend your mistake in that assumption you have zero credibility and look even more stupid than usual.I can see how that in your victim blaming mind that makes perfect sense :lol:
I'm just trying to help you come to terms with your latent homosexual love for Justin. It is okay to admit it. We all accept homosexuality these days, you don't have to hide anymore.
You still see JT as the victim and not the instigator. Until you comprehend your mistake in that assumption you have zero credibility and look even more stupid than usual.
Can you please give me the argument I asked for Gerryh. , :lol: I'll admit if I'm wrong you know I will.
Just because it's too shocking and in bad taste is not a logical argument that proves what I said wrong :lol:
Like I said, over your head. Go back to banging nails.
Well, it "blew up" with some, not with all. From where I am sitting, the NDP came out with the short end of the stick with the cons being inconsequential.
From my standpoint the Conservatives are not involved at all in the shenanigans at all.
I'm calling you on your bluff Gerryh.![]()
Your basically arguing two wrongs make a right
Two wrongs don't make a right politicalNick :lol:
What "bluff"? I've already stated that your comparison is "wrong". Using rape as a comparison to what happened here is beyond the pale. There is no comparison between the 2. People that use this type of comparison do so ONLY to get people to agree with them because disagreeing would mean supporting rape. It is small minded, ignorant, brainless twats that try to use this comparison in an "argument" that they don't have a clue about.
And I'll go back to banging my wife.