WestCanMan

Jimmy Kimmel showed his true colours after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and he knows about all of the assassination attempts against Trump, and all the calls for violence against Trump from prominent leftists, so his sickening comment about Trump's imminent death can't be considered anything other than 1) a thinly veiled call for extremist violence against Trump or 2) tacit support for another assassination attempt. If you're being honest, you know that Trump is much closer to dying from an assassin's bullet in the next few days than of old age. CBC glossed over that aspect of the story, and then just briefly mentioned that an assassin came into the WH 2 days later, without even mentioning that the guy shot people there, or that his manifesto basically read "at the centre of Jimmy Kimmel's target demographic". Dude, if a guy came into the WH while Obama was president, shooting at people, and then his alt-right manifesto was made public, the CBC would have been all over that story like ugly on an ape. It wouldn't just be an afterthought. FYI there were more shots fired by leftist extremists in the WH this weekend than were fired at the capitol on J6th, and CBC didn't blaze by the J6 story, or make it about something that Pelosi did wrong. Edit: Also this... CBC: "Trump has repeatedly urged broadcasters to remove comedy or news programs he dislikes or that have been critical of ⁠him, and has pressed regulators to take action to revoke the licences of broadcasters he says treat him unfairly." That's a total fabrication. Trump's concerns are made to appear as if they were selfish and without merit, but Trump's main attack on the media prior to was regarding their treatment of Charlie Kirk, and he has successfully sued some of those people. It was the exact same joke genre... "A woman is excited to think about her husband's imminent death." Kinda hard to call it a joke though... the level of darkness isn't overcome by the amount of humour generated. Hitler was popular too, and still has lots of followers. Mohammed was a pedophile who chopped the heads off of people for refusing to convert to islam, and then he sold their wives and children into r4pe-slavery, and he has 1B followers 1400 years later. What's your point? Kimmel is a f'ing loser. Where do you see -5? I don't even know what you're talking about... FYI my skill is my ability to get along with decent people, while exposing disgusting hypocrites like you, who cheer on the sinking of oil tankers to protect the ayatollah. Do you have any idea how many plastic straws you'd have to dump into the ocean to equal the devastation of a 2M barrel oil-spill? You had it dude, then Elon went and wrecked it, but you never even knew that, did you? FYI CBC was in bed with WashPo, NYT, Reuters, AP, FB, Google, Twitter and YouTube, among others, spreading disinformation and banning actual news across the entire planet, like for example ALL talk of the BSL4 lab, and talk about the Hunter laptop (the NYPost was banned from Twitter just for saying things that the FBI knew to be true, while "51 former intelligence officials" were lying about it on FB and Twitter 24/7). The reason leftists turned on Elon so harshly was because he ended the social media monopoly that leftists had previously enjoyed. YOU, and ALL OF YOUR OPINIONS, are the product of MSM disinformation on a global scale and you can't even name the group that did all of that. Your dream world is eerily similar to that of hitler, stalin and mohammed.

If an MP has a better reason than "Now my riding gets federal money", I will listen.

I'm just here to set the record straight. I'm not your mom and I'm not your therapist. Why should I pretend that you have character or integrity if you're just gonna lie to my face? Do you even have a f'ing clue what CBC is doing to our democracy? FYI it's a farce to say that we even have one right now. We're not even close. This isn't "my opinion": AI Query: "Does a free and balanced media play an important role in democracy?" Yes, a free and balanced media is crucial to democracy, serving as a "fourth pillar" that informs citizens, facilitates open debate, and holds powerful institutions accountable. It acts as a watchdog to prevent corruption and ensures a pluralistic range of viewpoints, empowering voters to make informed decisions. Key Roles of Media in Democracy Informing the Public: Provides accurate, credible news that enables citizens to participate in public affairs and make informed political choices. Watchdog Function: Scrutinizes government actions and institutions, holding elected officials accountable to the public. Providing Plurality: Offers a diverse range of perspectives and ideas, which is essential for healthy public discourse and the inclusion of various voices. Facilitating Debate: Encourages dialogue, critical thinking, and the free exchange of opinions, fostering a well-informed citizenry. Preventing Misinformation: Counteracts the spread of disinformation and ensures that democratic debate is based on facts. Media Freedom Coalition +9 Challenges and Threats Media Concentration: Increasing corporate ownership can limit the diversity of viewpoints. Disinformation Campaigns: Authoritarian actors and misinformation can undermine democratic vulnerabilities, polarizing the public. Lack of Independence: Without editorial independence, media can become a tool for propaganda rather than a source of truth. A free, independent, and professional media landscape is not just desirable but essential for the long-term health and, as outlined by the Parliamentary Assembly, the development of a democratic culture. Be HONEST, Mike. Last chance to salvage a teensy shred of integrity: Is the CBC heavily biased towards the LPoC? I don't come here to sit in an echo chamber. TBH, I came here at first to see if anyone could try to present intelligent leftist viewpoints. Now I know they don't exist. And they don't exist because they don't have to exist. With full control of the MSM, Liberals don't have to make sense, they can do whatever they want. 👍

That's weird. Never once have you said a word about the Dems' blatant BS about "white males being the biggest terrorist threat in America." We don't have metal detectors at the airport to stop whiteys from blowing up planes you m0r0n.

Cougar is too scared to use his words here lol. That's because the last time he popped off to me, I pointed out to people that he was actually cheering for 2M-barrel oil tankers to be sunk just to protect the ayatollah's regime. Hey coug... 🥰

Stop trying to use 6-letter words, dummy. I don't care if it's just a 4-letter word with a suffix, you look like a pug trying to hump a speeding truck when you do that. FYI the CBC tried to make Poilievre look like he was name-calling when he actually caught Carney lying and he proved it. I know that understanding that is a violation of your order, but it still needed to be said.

I don't need a cite to call those guys, and you, cultists. You're right here, in this thread, proving that you're a cultist. This is your cite. Follow along. Trump's quote came from a soundbite. When he said "I just grab 'em by the p....", he could have just as easily been saying "I' just grab 'im by the p....". It's only with proper context that you can tell that he means "'em", not "'im". So when I inititially heard it, I thought that he might have been talking about Justin Trudeau... "I just grab 'im by the pu...". Au contraire. They go much lower. we both know that I'm not saying Justin actually has a pu..., it's just a funny way of saying how much of a little femmeboy he is the CBC slanders people all the time, in a very meaningful and harmful way, and they are not joking about it. FYI that's far worse than just mentioning that Trudeau actually is a little biotch. For the CBC to insinuate that Poilievre was "accusing Carney of being a liar" is a very big deal. They knew that Carney lied. But they chose to make Poilievre look small while they downplayed Carney's lie, and pretended that some stuff was just said. Leave here understanding this, dummy: Carney lied, 100%, and it was improper for CBC to use that scenario to make Poilievre look like a name-caller. They let Trudeau say "the vaxed are very often racists and misogynists, and we, as Canadians, need to ask ourselves if we should tolerate them" and kept that from the public. CBC can say whatever the F they want, the fact remains that they are filth. The level their lying and slander makes them filth. You just pretended not to notice the difference between the way I framed that story above and the way the CBC frames stories. You know that you were lying, Micheal, but you're shameless. You even pretend to be a conservative to this day, and every single person in this forum knows that you're lying about that as well. The truth means nothing to you, Mike. Nothing. I think nothing of you. As a person, you have no character or integrity whatsoever. That makes you completely valueless as a human IMO. There is. I never thought about it before, but now that I think back on that article, I don't think it's possible for the CBC and Carney to align their stories so precisely without communicating where they were going to draw that line. In any event, Carney and the CBC are both worthless liars, so if I'm wrong there's no real harm. I guess it's possible that they could predict each lies, but I don't think that makes it "better" somehow. I would never advocate for 1-party rule. I'm not like you guys.

The chance of his name being "JS or JJs" are also very low. There's a far better chance that his/her name is non-western: most likely the kind of name that you'd associate with Iran, China or Russia. When you imagine that people like eyeball, exflyer, gaetan, herbie, etc, are islamic nutjobs or Russian/Chinese snakes, suddenly their posts and their history of lying make far more sense. Even their lies make more sense. Eg, Herbie never would have tried to make us believe that he "used his CC to make renos on his house, thereby tripling its value" if he had any clue whatsoever about the value of real estate. That's like saying "I just changed the carb on my '67 Beetle, then I wasted a Hellcat off the line." Only a person who has never driven a car would say such a thing.

It was actually stellar, you just didn't like it. Whether or not it's irrelevant is neither here nor there, MH. FYI CBC puts a lot of things into articles that are irrelevant, and they all serve an extremely important purpose, from an LPoC POV. For example, when the CBC had no choice but to address the fact that Carney was caught lying about Brookfield, they had to go to great lengths to ensure that their readers still came away with a favourable overall impression of him, otherwise they would have failed the LPoC handlers. So: they downgraded "was caught lying" to "was accused of lying by Poilievre" in the headline, and they started off the whole article with two paragraphs of irrelevant Carney-fluffing before they addressed the topic. In the first instance, they took a Poilievre positive and turned it into a negative, by changing him from "a guy who was clever enough to catch Carney lying and prove it to the Canadian people", which is a net-positive, into "a guy who was merely making an unfounded accusation against a political opponent", which is a negative. (and to this day, the CBC calls him "negative", they even say that he should be replaced as leader because of their own 'negative' portrayal of him... they don't portray him as a man who brings highly relevant truths into sharp focus, while the CBC ignores them). In the second instance, they turned the fact that Carney was caught lying into an opportunity to write a propaganda piece for him, by adding irrelevant details which were highly positive. An accurate, concise, and proper article about Brookfield would have: stated that Carney was "caught lying" in the headline, because he was clearly caught lying, in no uncertain terms laid out all the pertinent, verified facts, in chronological order gave Carney a chance to reply to it include a quote from Poilievre CBC would never do such a thing when a LPoC prime ministerial candidate was the subject. So they managed to turn a very strong negative about Carney into a routine political negative for Poilievre and a slight positive for Carney. Job well done. Billion dollars earned. Canadians were screwed by the unholy alliance of the CBC and LPoC once again. And if you think about the way it all went down, above, that BS article (I posted it here back when it happened) required a high level of collusion between the CBC and Carney, because his quote had to align with the way the CBC was laying out the narrative. The CBC couldn't very well go to all that trouble to lay a smackdown on Poilievre and lionize Carney, just to have Carney come out and say "Yeah, I lied about that, I'm sorry." They also couldn't just tell the truth about Carney, and have him lie about the same story again. CBC and Carney had to work together to create a reply by Carney that perfectly matched the false narrative in the article.

Well, FYI, the difference in the effect that those writing styles have on readers is quite dramatic, and the effect of writing like that day after day, for years on end, is enough to completely control the minds of people like eyeball and Flyer. The CBC's level of dishonestly, coming from an authority figure, while used to gin up hate, is nothing short of filth. That's actually quite an appropriate word there. CBC "News" is an absolute, massive pile of filth, with no redeeming qualities. 100%.

You never are. What was Biden doing when he was in control of the Epstein files?

The chances of them not being the same are pretty low imo.

"No wars" is inaccurate. Trump has always been up front about the fact that he was gonna "bomb the hell of out of Iran" if necessary. That's why he LITERALLY said that he was gonna "bomb the hell of out of Iran" if necessary. What he hasn't done yet is get his soldiers bogged down in a war where thousands of them come home dead every year. He also hasn't started a war that the ME is against. It's really only terrorist supporters and white liberals that are cheering for the ayatollah.

Are you talking to John Stone?

The fact that you can't empathize with a woman who just heard someone crack a crude joke about how awesome she feels knowing that her husband is probably gonna be killed soon is just more proof of how reprehensible leftists are. And make no mistake, Trump is in far greater danger of being murdered than he is of dying of old age. He's not even in his Biden years yet. To be sure there's some humour in that statement, but there's humour in a lot of things that one could say but definitely should not, it's just a matter of whether or not it meets certain criteria to qualify as a joke: is it said in good humour, or is it mean-spirited? worse yet, is it meant to be a dog-whistle for extreme violence? Will it be received that way? does the amount of humour make up for the level of darkness? is there a level of sensitivity that's too high to be ignored? Facts: Kimmel was definitely being mean-spirited. He doesn't make any jokes about Trump that aren't mean-spirited, and a lot of what he says just fits into the "routine & vile slander by Democrats" category the Dems and their cult-handlers are constantly dog-whistling to the sheeple about killing Trump and other members of the GOP, and of course it was received the way in which it was intended the amount of humour is noticeable, but it's a joke about the killing of a president who has already had 3 assassination attempts made on him recently. This fact is compounded by 1 and 2, above. I recently heard a joke about a kid with cancer that managed to be funny, and that's an art form, WHICH DEFINITELY requires ALL THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET Re: #4... The cancer joke: in K Hart's Funny AF series on Netflix, a comedian joked that he shoulda realized that his cousin had cancer when his lucrative gifts coincided with his "new haircut". There was obv no mean-spiritedness in that joke, and he's more greatly affected by the tragedy of his dead cousin than anyone else in the audience, so the sad reality of that joke was overlooked by many, but for some people, that joke is a dagger in the heart. I personally wouldn't have told it, but I'm not gonna go to social media to pound on him either. I assume some did, because that always happens to comedians. I think that Netflix might actually wanna think about whether or not they want those jokes told there in the future, because a lot of people will stop watching comedy shows on Netflix if they think they will see more jokes like that. Now, if that was a Jew/Muslim making jokes about dead kids from the other religion right now, that shit would just not be funny at all. It's like a location joke: you just gotta "be there" or it's not funny. And no one's there. This is all over your head, herbie... You're as capable of understanding nuance as an armadillo is of understanding the concept of a black hole. This is mostly said to help other people understand how much of a fking hateful weasel you are.

Michael, you don't see a problem with CBC's slant on the J Kimmel/D Trump story, so then you must find an article like this about the Access Hollywood tapes to be pretty legit too, right? ACCESS HOLLYWOOD SCANDAL U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday that Donald Trump should be immediately removed from the Republican ticket. He joined his wife Michelle in calling out the GOP candidate for a comment that he made to Billy Bush in private a decade ago, which was caught on tape by Access Hollywood. Ten years ago, in a comment that Trump made in private which was caught on tape by Access Hollywood, Trump was heard saying "I grab 'em by the pu**y", and he wasn't just talking about Justin Trudeau either. Obama has repeatedly urged the GOP to remove candidates that he dislikes or that have been critical of ⁠him, and has pressed the IRS, FBI and other government agencies to investigate and discriminate against conservatives and conservative-oriented groups. No comment, Michael? You don't see any slant there? You don't see a departure from objectivity?

What's stopping you from just accepting that some people would like to stay where they are, and just no longer be associated with Canada?

FYI "half of Quebec" is already more than 10% of Canadians, you effing idjit.

I don't see joining the USA as a positive. Would you wanna suddenly be a part of the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN clown-show? Would you wanna be represented by Danielle Smith, or Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris, etc? Would you be jumping up and down to join a gov't with Hakeem Jeffries in it? The squad? Schumer and Pelosi? Alberta needs to jump out of the frying pan for sure. Into the fire? Not so much.

No, it wasn't, and just basic reading comprehension tells you as much. The "I just grab 'em..." comment was about "women" in general, plural. The comment that I quoted from CBC referred to "a married woman", singular. The comments referenced about the married woman were printed later in the article: "Trump is heard saying he "did try and f—k her. She was married." He's referring to an unknown woman. He also used graphic terms to describe the woman's body and said he frequently tried to kiss beautiful women." Well, if I was to report on it with a conservative bias that's similar to CBC's leftist bias I guess I'd start the article by saying: U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday that Donald Trump should be immediately removed from the Republican ticket. He joined his wife Michelle in calling out the GOP candidate for a comment that he made to Billy Bush in private a decade ago, which was caught on tape by Access Hollywood. That would be the opening paragraph, running in perfect parallel to CBC's article about the Kimmel/Trump topic, shown here: U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by ABC and its parent company ‌Walt Disney. He joined his wife Melania Trump in calling out the late-night talk show host for a monologue he delivered prior to a shooting that took place over the weekend near a gathering of journalists and politicians. Do you see how my opening paragraph didn't touch on Trump's comment at all, like the CBC article avoided Kimmel's comment? And how I framed the article to condemn other people's reactions to Trump's comment, while not commenting on Trump's comment? That's how CBC rolls, so I guess that I should do the same thing if I wanted to be "objective", right MH? Then I would parallel CBC's article again, with a comment like this: Obama has repeatedly urged the GOP to remove candidates that he dislikes or that have been critical of ⁠him, and has pressed the IRS, FBI and other government agencies to investigate and discriminate against conservatives and conservative-oriented groups. That's an important addition to the article about Trump's comment, right? Because it mirrors this: Trump has repeatedly urged broadcasters to remove comedy or news programs he dislikes or that have been critical of ⁠him, and has pressed regulators to take action to revoke the licences of broadcasters he says treat him unfairly. What I said about Obama was true, just like what was said about Trump was technically true. Do you see how my comments, which are a direct parallel of the opening paragraph and another one from CBC's article, takes the heat off of Trump's comments, and instead turns the whole article into an attack on Obama? If you read this "article", would you find it a fair commentary on the Trump comments, from the Access Hollywood tape: ACCESS HOLLYWOOD COMMENTS CAUGHT ON TAPE U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday that Donald Trump should be immediately removed from the Republican ticket. He joined his wife Michelle in calling out the GOP candidate for a comment that he made to Billy Bush in private a decade ago, which was caught on tape by Access Hollywood. Ten years ago, in a comment that Trump made in private which was caught on tape by Access Hollywood, Trump was heard saying "I grab 'em by the pu**y", and he wasn't just talking about Justin Trudeau. Obama has repeatedly urged the GOP to remove candidates that he dislikes or that have been critical of ⁠him, and has pressed the IRS, FBI and other government agencies to investigate and discriminate against conservatives and conservative-oriented groups. If you read that article, would that cover the Access Hollywood comments story adequately and fairly? Is that what you needed to know about it, MH? Did you learn enough about Trump, Obama, and the comment? Surely you must think I nailed it, because I echoed CBC's methods perfectly.

For leftists, the highlight of babysitting is sniffing the diaper. JJ: "Eau de Lemon 🥰" Your voice-to-text is working just fine.

And oh how you resent him for that. That's literally the CBC you dolt.

He can just copy & paste a picture of the down-arrow into Word 300 times and print that on a piece of paper to bring with him. He should also bring this picture of him in his dad's uniform:

FYI when you're laughing about posts that prove how much of a m0ronic cultist you are, that's nothing to be proud of. You're another one that should be taking printouts of your posts to a therapist. You and robo should go together. Hold hands.

I did a search for David Morens on CBC and an article from 2013 popped up. That's it. Bird flu virus's pandemic potential assessed in lab animals CBC https://www.cbc.ca › news › health › bird-flu-virus-s-pa... Jul 10, 2013 — They have infected mammals including humans, study authors David Morens, Jeffery Taubenberger and Anthony Fauci said. In humans, H7 viruse