Michael Hardner

1. That's right. It may be hard for you to believe, but I don't have the CBC budget figures at the top of mind. 2. He gave money to the newspapers if that's what you mean. Like the National Post? How's that going for Trudeau? 3. Ok. But as I said, I accept the assertion of bias at the CBC. The exaggerated claims I was referring to were ones made here, not on the CBC. 4. Yes. Compare that to calling someone "your Lordship"... I'd say I was trying to politely refer to your perspective coming in to your analysis. 5. Opinion. Ok. 6. Claimed on here I mean 7. Ok. I'm busy with family stuff.

They are shutting down, so ... yes.

I just want them to fund a local news network.

1. That's right, I didn't know. That's why I asked for a cite. Thanks for providing it. 2. Implying that I lied... Calling me "your Lordship "? I'm actually being respectful to you so. 3. Actually I said above that I agree with the idea of bias. Shorter replies please. I already replied to your last post. Please consolidate your responses.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-wilson-raybould-attorney-general-snc-lavalin-1.5014271 Here's an article on their website that was last updated less than a month before the election. I'll await your response.

1. Ok, but that's not a necessary component of Green Policy. Some on here have pointed out it's actually a flaw in the Trudeau program exclusively. 2. Ok 3. Still, all of this presupposes democratic debate.

1. What? Why are you on a web forum if you can never be convinced of anything in this regard? This is a forum for discussion, not pushing an agenda. 2. Pushed? But there's a public forum in each democratic country where there's lots of pushback. So essentially you're against the ideas. But you also say that you're not going to accept them, you'll never be convinced. Hard to square all of that with your assessment of fascism. 3. Embedded in this is the possibility that a public can be convinced. Which wouldn't happen if we were in a fascist authoritarian state. Your claims don't align, sorry. You admit that you're closed minded on these topics, then accuse open democracies of shutting down opposition. Please just address that meta point this time if you reply. I don't want you to waste your time with another long post restating your opinions.

As I pointed out, the environmental programs are happening across the West more than in China even and certainly not places like Russia and North Korea. You're confusing ideas and practices that are discussed in the public sphere, with fascist ideas that are pushed down on people who do not have electoral or human rights. I don't think I can convince you anyway.

1. That one should be easy for you to cite. Just post budgets from 2016-2021. 2. You're letting your personal feelings get in the way of analysis. I can accept the assertion of bias but not exaggerated claims. 3. You didn't mention the economy. You don't think that that is a factor? 4. And you actually think that CBC (and CTV) have that kind of influence? No, you're wrong there. 5. It won't happen in Quebec and the North. Radio is still viable and hugely popular in Toronto, other parts of Canada. I don't want either one of us to waste time on this. I asked you for a few cites, let's see where that goes.

The next step of this would be for me to find a link where they actually did talk about the story or didn't. So you're saying that WE was in the news and CBC didn't mention it? Or SNC Lavalin during that election? That would be pretty good evidence of them being grossly unfair. Is that your claim? And if I found evidence otherwise, you would retract this claim and say you were wrong?

Where did you get that number? It's a fraction of their annual budget. Your last sentence is a gross exaggeration. You're going to need some parts of the CBC, even Poilievre is saying so. I stand by my assertion that their biases are less extreme than most on here say. According to insiders they're very aware of this part of their reputation.

1. True enough. I left that out on purpose. Nothing to do with with the context that you mentioned which doesn't apply anyway because corporate alignment isn't even the key part. The rest of your post is about climate policy... Which is a tangent. I would say climate policy has a good level of support which is why democracys are acting on it. But it's a drift in the best case...

I mean they ARE liberal. They're not 'left wing' but they're liberal. We need to come up with a framework that perhaps separates the classical terms from the current context. liberal = believes in freedom of expression and enterprise Right Wing = long term belief in business rights, individual rights, law and order, nationalism Left Wing = belief in unions, social contract, collective rights Marxist = an adherent of Karl Marx's philsophies Fascist = an adherent of strong police state totalitarianism Now need terms to explain today's drifting ideologies and stay away from MAGA, Chud, Globalist, Woke ... Populist seems to fit. But I can't think of any more

Are you saying that we don't need "news" ? It's an interesting point, if so. I'm not sure how I would approach that position. I'd have to think on that.

Well, news has always been a loss leader so... you can see what is happening with it now. Nobody really wants it - and I know "nobody" is overstating it. My point is that a major building block of rational policy since the early 20th century, a bridge between government and the public will be lost. The last time we were in that state we didn't have universal suffrage I would guess.