Every time I see a post from bc, the first place I look is the source. It's always some very credible news organization like World Net Daily, Breitbart or Daily Caller.
You can't make up this stuff. No, what I really mean is you don't need to, because they already did.
Every time I see this tongue-in-cheek argument, I know I've won because the underlying facts were not addressed by the opposition.
Every time I see a post from bc, the first place I look is the source. It's always some very credible news organization like World Net Daily, Breitbart or Daily Caller.
You can't make up this stuff. No, what I really mean is you don't need to, because they already did.
Every time I see this tongue-in-cheek argument, I know I've won because the underlying facts were not addressed by the opposition.
I outlined what the "study" actually says and what it proves based on the limited data it used. You misrepresented it. It doesn't prove people are "fleeing" Canada for health care. Not even close. All it did was collect numbers of Canadians who obtained health care outside Canada. It did absolutely NOTHING to determine why they did so and under what circumstances. Therefore, you have no basis to say they were "fleeing."
Every time I see a post from bc, the first place I look is the source. It's always some very credible news organization like World Net Daily, Breitbart or Daily Caller.
You can't make up this stuff. No, what I really mean is you don't need to, because they already did.
Every time I see this tongue-in-cheek argument, I know I've won because the underlying facts were not addressed by the opposition.
I am impressed by the effectiveness of your blinders.
You deftly zipped right past all the serious posts that effectively refuted your "facts" and went straight to my casual comments about your yellow sources.
I guess that's how trolling works. It's not about serious discussion.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton