All Activity

Aren't you the one that wines whenever someone posts a link you deamed biased? Then you post that? Come on man. If you are going to be demanding, try to meet your own standards. Since biased opinions are now acceptable to you, her is the Hill's reporting on the tax cuts: A careful analysis of the IRS tax data, one that includes the effects of tax credits and other reforms to the tax code, shows that filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $15,000 to $50,000 enjoyed an average tax cut of 16 percent to 26 percent in 2018, the first year Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went into effect and the most recent year for which data is available. ADVERTISING  Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent.  By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least $500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9 percent, and the average tax cut for brackets starting at $1 million was less than 6 percent. (For more detailed data, see my table published here.)  That means most middle-income and working-class earners enjoyed a tax cut that was at least double the size of tax cuts received by households earning $1 million or more. Looks there. Your report was

That clip is similar to "apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" That was one of many riots related to Floyd. In the other link I provided, damages were estimated to be in the range of $2 billion. It's not just in politics either. In the post by WestCanMan above, even the bloody weather reporters have no qualms about misleading the public.

I'll ask one more time, what wasn't factual about that clip? FOX News reporting is no different, factual but selective.

"Around 94% of the native Arabic speaking people (Arabs plus Arabized people) are Muslims. The highest proportions are in the seven Gulf Arab states where altogether 99.9% are Muslims. Libya and the four Maghrebi Arab states together have at least 99% Muslims. Sudan, Jordan, Palestine and Iraq have 95% or more Muslims.Mar 20, 2019"

Hitler was "appointed" chancellor. He only got 32% of the vote. Internal politics with other parties enabled his rise. He and other patriotic Germans were outraged and humiliated by the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which the Allies compelled the new German government, the Weimar Republic, to accept along with an obligation to pay $33 billion in war reparations. Germany also had to give up its prized overseas colonies and surrender valued parcels of home territory to France and Poland. Point is that he had support from a disgruntle population....kinda like the Palestinians? My questioning your use was simply why not even worse dictators? Because we are dealing with jews again you (and others) bring up Hilter? Why no free elections since? I don't know and am sure it is not the only population that has been denied elections. They are not even a country so... The action is over an Oct 7 event. Clearly Israel has dominated and won, why continue? To teach a lesson? To spank them? To wipe them out entirely? I have no qualm about self protection. Where have I ever said that? I did have a problem when the revenge and defence has gone beyond its need. they won, now what??

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.

I like these ones too: AC 'describing' flooding: (Not CNN below, it's the Weather Network)

What are the inequalities in the NBA? NHL? How about the people in jail? That's a tough one for you to discuss.

Showing how you don't even know what 'woke' is, just a parrot that uses woke, liberal, leftist for anything at all you don't personally like. Now you're applying it using tax dollars and incentives to encourage business development which is exactly what a do-called conservative would do, And you can't seem to understand a dingle thing anyone posts correctly, sarcasm included.

I make it my business to know what the CBC is saying. I don't watch it expecting to see the truth. Do you understand the difference? You "follow" CBC, blindly. What's said there instantly becomes your new opinion. I literally never need wonder "what does Aristedes think about this?" because I know it as soon as I see what CBC is saying, or CNN, just like I know where the train is gonna go when I hear the whistle: straight down the tracks. Did you ever hear a train and expect it to come down the back alley? Me neither. I get news from a variety of sources, including Fox News, and I verify what's important to me, to what extent I can. As business owners, we can't be unaware of what CBC, and especially Global BC are saying. Most people in BC watch Global, or at least they're quoted the most often imo, so we can't be caught unaware of what's on "the news".

Again, you guys on the left are sugar coating all the damage done by leftist riots. Take the George Floyd riots alone. https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billion-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/ And these numbers are virtually ignored by the MSM. According to the MSN, the worst day in the entire history of the US is Jan 6.

The real surprise is how many people had absolutely no clue how big the drug use issue was until the users flaunted themselves right in their face. They tried to make laws just a few months ago and it got held up in court (which ppl seem to have already forgotten), so now they're pushing this one with federal approval. Yes, the public outcry made them do it quickly. The ruling over the previous law would take over a year. Plus Eby also admits the public use ban should've been part of the original plan. Now you can hate the NDP even more for admitting a f*ck up and not doubling down out of sheer obstinance. BTW possession wasn't recriminalized, public use was, it is still legal to carry 2.5g and it's highly unlikely you'd be charged simply possessing drugs in a park. More likely they'd just seize it, same as pouring out your liquor bottle.

What about a network that's funded by Xinhua, NoKo News, TASS, or Al Jazeera? They're "news" outlets, right?

What exactly is your problem with that? They are showing the fires and destruction but he says protests didn't get violent until the evening. Are you saying that is wrong? Are you saying that isn't factual? Based on what? Every news agency selects what they report. FOX news reporting does the same thing. If you don't think your sources do the same thing you are really naive. Sure you are. You know everything about stuff you don't follow. Obviously someone else is telling you what you "know".

I, for one, stopped "following it" a long time ago. That doesn't mean that I'm unaware of every single thing they've said in the past ten years...

Is the national AFN chief exploiting the head dress controversy for all it's worth? No. But you sure as f*ck are.

You were unaware that Trudeau gave $675M to CBC right after they helped him get elected lol. That's just hard to believe. Were you also unaware that he gave $600M to "select media outlets" right before the 2019 election, and another $30M or so to media outlets in private before the 2021 election? No one was allowed to know who got that money in 2021... Isn't that weird in a "democracy"? Isn't it a bit disconcerting that Trudeau has a habit of giving media outlets vast sums of money right before and after elections? And that he's so adamant that the gov't should have a lead role in internet censorship? Meh, what's the worst that could come of all that, hey? It's just not very important to Canadians... 1. Like I said, it's weird that you were unaware. You seem very keen on media matters compared to everything else. Almost as if you have some vested interest. 2. You said this: "I can accept the assertion of bias but not exaggerated claims" That comes off as pretty high and mighty, imo. It's also non-sensical tbh... If they assert bias then obviously exaggeration would be a normal part of their bias-peddling arsenal, right? Aside from exaggeration and omission, what other way could their bias manifest itself? All that's left is fabrication, which is a step above the others. 3. This was "respectful" in your opinion? You're letting your personal feelings get in the way of analysis Your version of respectful is what I'd call condescending (that's "talking down to people"). I usually know when I'm being lied to, especially when it's as blatant as the CBC's 'news'. I have noticed our media keeping the truth from Canadians. Of course I have feelings about that, but that doesn't make it false. Also, you've seen the CBC's admission now. They just got pinned to that one because it happened to a Canadian of some importance, who had incontrovertible evidence in black and white, but the CBC is well-known for kissing up to Trudeau, covering up his scandals, dissing his political opponents, etc. The CBC's news division is pure crap. You'd be better off digging through tea leaves. At least you wouldn't have any ridiculous expectations about the accuracy or validity of what you're seeing. But you denied the existence of exaggeration, and like I said, how can they have one without the other? Do you think that omission is somehow better than exaggeration? I'd contend that it's worse... I rate the seriousness of lies thusly: 1 (worst) slander 2 fabrication 3 omission 4 exaggeration With omission, you don't even know that something happened, so you have no idea what to look for and where, and you will never have the chance to form an opinion on it. At least with exaggeration you've been made aware of something, which you can then check out for yourself, if you care about it. Exaggeration is the baby version of lying, imo. I'm making serious accusations, and serious accusations come with a burden of proof imo. That means full, concise replies, not brief, vague ones.

What's that attitude got to do with land issues? You think Surrey or London Ont. should have no say in municipal land issues either?

What I don't understand is how you can still f*cking argue even when I agree with you. If you have a non-working spouse, there is a deduction for that. Apply it and THEN argue about who doesn't know math.

So what you're saying is each job in the universe should have quotas...take nursing for example, it should be 50 /50 here is a job that is female dominate,90 % being women, should we have a cut off for each year of admissions, until 50 % of men reaches it's target...which means the quality of the men are not going to be at the same standard as the women, becasue you're taking all the men candidates and only 50 % of the women who will compete for positions...what about the bosses, do we do the same, 50 50 split once again your going to loss because the quality of men are not the same.. what about male dominated jobs, steel workers, iron workers, oil field workers, combat arms soldiers, the list goes on and on...do we make them 50 % women, even though there is next to none interest from females to enter these fields....you wall chart does nothing for equality, except dilute the present skill level in all jobs...as it works on the male side of the scale and female side of the scale... You've cherry picked you information here and chirp why is it not equal, but when we say lets make it all equal then there is a issue...perhaps give us examples of where women have been discriminated and refused entry in these fields.

So the whole attack was bullshit just one big made up story, do you think those videos shown to the media to prove what happened should have been shown to the public ? i mean it's obvious you're not a believer... So you'd choose the option of turn the other cheek...what do you think happens in a conflict, blankets, teddy bears, maybe some smarties...sorry all of that only exists in the movies, conflict is made up of evil, destruction, death, pain and suffering, lots of tears...and it happens to everyone mostly civilians....not sure why that is so hard to understand, unless you have never experienced it...

Palestinians are mainly Muslims and their religion is not a religion of peace. That is why Israel cannot ever consider allowing them to carve out a piece of Israel to form a state. They will never accept Israel's right to exist. It's as simple as that. All religions are not the same. Islam does not accept a non-Muslim country like Israel's right to exist in the middle east, surrounded by Muslim countries.

100 % true...they are not all violent, Extremists are everywhere, in almost every country including ours according to our PM, but the majority of Global terrorist groups are or seem to be muslim...

Well is my statement true or not, did Hitler have the support of millions or not ? The answer is it was the first name that popped into my head. and if you fact check it hitler's regime was responsible for 60 million deaths, much more than most of your examples, Stalin would be a close second to Hitler, but you had already got the point i was trying to make... Perhaps explain why there was no other free elections, could it be the opposition was hunted down and killed like dogs in the streets with those surviving moving to the west bank...no love lost they were terrorist as well... Yes Israel has used terrorism as well before it's creation...and has been condemned for it as well, so i guess thats it then they are even, one used terrorism for a couple of years before they were even a state...and the other has used terrorism for well over 50 years...is that the point your trying to make ? This current conflict in GAZA is all about the march attack, nothing more Israel is defending itself from said attacks... it has very little to do with past history, The Israelis government has set out objectives to destroy Hamas , it's abilities to carry out any more terrorist attacks, and to destroy its ability to govern over GAZA...to replace that entire government with another... Not sure why you have a problem with Israel defending itself, you seem to discount the whole march attack, and the action Israel is taking...