First Nations paying tax payers bills for services
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Post #111
You said, "It's not really surprising that you have nothing to offer to the conversation but personal insults.". I'm wondering what in that post you found to be a personal insult.
the fact that you thought we would believe you?
No, I don't expect CB to believe anything but the propaganda he spews.
I disagree. I've read a few private messages from CDNBear that suggests to me that he reads and considers my veiws even in an area where we disagreed.
Can you provide an exact quote please?
What propaganda?
You've yet to provide a counter to any assertions I've made, with anything but your imagination.
You see cranky, Cannuck has an issue with Natives in general. As I can easily prove with many quotes, in his own words.
Whereas, Cannuck, just makes claims, without ever actually proving a thing, with anything remotely tangible. Although, he thinks his imagination is proof enough. Which is a classic example of narcissism.
I'm sure he does but your views on this particular issue are close enough to his that I'm sure you could be one of his propaganda ministers.
I'm not selective in my postings on Native issues.
I can prove that.
You can't prove the contrary.
That's the biggest difference between you and I. You make silly unsupported claims, I don't.
But more importantly, your paranoia is troubling, you should seek some help.
No, the biggest difference between us is that I start from a philosophical position (such as "all Canadians should be treated equally under the law) and expand on that philosophy to try and develop practical solutions. You accept or reject the philosophical view based on whether it suits your agenda. Simply put, we start the discussion from different places. I understand this difference and you don't. Neither does Gerry. That is why he can use "the law says so" as an argument and conveniently ignore it when it suits his purpose. It's what I call logically inconsistent and despite pointing it out repeatedly, you fail to admit it. That's why serious discussion with you can never occur and why I've decided to use you as a source of amusement.
now we know that you comprehend these words, I thinks you as paint'd urself in2 a corner, masta
That's another reason. Good intelligent debaters don't need emoticons to put forward an idea. It's like Gerry and his continued use of vulgarity. While I have no problem per ce with vulgarity or emoticons, the need to use it constantly is a clear sign of a lack of wit and intelligent.
I see like Gerry and CB, you also have problems when a question is asked of you.
is a whole lot more effective than LOL
To those that are entertained by color and movement I suppose. I have an eight month old niece that finds them fascinating.
Good intelligent debaters provide evidence. Especially when they have the lack of credibility you do.
As are racial slurs, broad generalizations, false accusations, the use of fallacy after fallacy, and the many lies you continuously post.
But post and use them, you do.
You want me to respect you enough to prove it. By all means, show me you deserve it, and prove those claims of yours as a sign of good faith.
I don't want you to do anything. Clearly you lack a sarcasm gene. That's one more thing that amuses me about you.