WestCanMan

1) Why would we expect that the people who were dumb enough to cause this war would be smart enough to be able to stop it? You should just be hoping that they don't escalate it. 2) I think that a lot of people in the US gov't will be more sad to see this war end than they were to see it start. On an unrelated note ? - the US is really pimping their weapon systems hard over there.

Maybe there was an "OMG FREE SPEECH! WE'RE ALL GONN DIE!" party and we weren't invited.

Hilarious - leftists are suddenly figuring out that Twitter can be used to silence people or influence elections after spending years paying(?) stupid.

Google translate doesn't have a "Gibberish to English" option, can you turn this word soup into a meaningful paragraph?

This was just more Democrat/FBI douchebaggery. A mini-version of the Russian collusion witch hunt. There was no shortage of leftists who wanted to kill/kidnap or do whatever to Trump, there were even assassination attempts, but the FBI didn't use entrapment techniques to turn them into grand spectacles and then create a media frenzy around them. The US is even more of a shithole country than Canada is.

The CBC's tripe would be elevated to "journalism" if they gave the article a non-partisan title, led with the facts, did a better job of stating and explaining the facts, and then reported on worthwhile opinions - FROM BOTH SIDES. The CBC did none of that. Their title was an homage to vitriolic leftist disinformation, the picture at the top of the page was another homage to the same false narrative, the facts were just a tiny portion of the article, the smidgeon of facts only came out after they had already told you how to feel about them, and they exclusively gave opinions from the side that they are clearly on. The CBC article met the exact definition of propaganda, they didn't miss a beat. The Fox article states all of the pertinent facts in sufficient detail, lays out the arguments from both sides clearly, Fox's criticisms were backed up with cites, there was nothing at all misleading or missing from their article. How would you rate both articles on a scale from 1 - 10 MH? 1) If you went into this debate without knowing any of the facts would you learn more about the bill from the Fox article or CBC's? 2) Did one article do a better job of detailing the most important and relevant favourable/negative opinions of the bill? 3) Does one of the articles contain far more emotional & misleading partisan content than the other? 4) If you were a journalism student and you were supposed to write an article giving people all of the pertinent information about the bill, and get them up to speed on the most worthwhile favourable/negative comments about it, which article would you plagiarize? 5) Can you show me the places in the CBC article where they reported on opinions that were favourable to the bill from people standing more than ten feet from DeSantis? FYI the CBC article was just shit MH. It wasn't the least bit objective, there was one informative paragraph and 24 out of the other 26 paragraphs were just leftist vitriol. Honest to God, you're the one who wanted to compare Fox's reporting to CBC's reporting, now you wanna stay mum on the topic.

I read most of the Fox article and the vast majority of what I see is facts, not emotional lies, which is good imo. I don't see anything misleading or disingenuous. I pointed out several parts of the CBC article which contained disinformation, can you point out some parts of the Fox article which contain disinformation? It seems pretty straightforward and accurate imo. I'd say Fox has about 95% accuracy and CBC is at about 0.5%.

The facts in that article are a tiny nugget of worthwhile information that's awash in a sea of emotionally charged lies and propaganda. For real, if you redacted that one paragraph, all that's left is propaganda. Look: So that's what a CBC article looks like once you strip it of the tiny nugget of truth. Honestly dude, just within the last couple of days you wrote a post which chastised conservatives for disregarding the CBC and other MSM outlets, then you posted this link which is a perfect example of why anyone with any brains would completely disregard those disinformers out of hand. Mods - my post wouldn't have made sense without copying & pasting the entire article. I was just showing how much of it was vile filth. FWIW CBC is state owned, so we actually own part of that clown car - that means that it's not really 'plagiarism' in my books. If they didn't want their article used as proof of their own worthlessness then they should have done better.

I agree that the new greeting is just fine, and if they would have just switched it without fanfare then that would have been fine too, but they chose to use that moment as their coming out woke party, which was a real wakeup call to parents who use the words mom, dad, boy and girl and who aren't interested in changing their vocabulary to conform to woke stupidity.

Yes, the single paragraph which quotes the wording of the bill backs up my claim, but the entire rest of the article throws shade. The photo below is the top 1/4 of the page. Anyone who just casually glances at the article gets a eyeful of "homophobia", and that's a large percentage of our population. Then there's a sub-heading that looks exactly like this: There's this quote: That's what the CBC and CTV do when they want to skew opinions - they give all of the oxygen in the room to the people who are telling the most emotional lies which support their narrative. That woman's voice didn't need to be heard, she's a lying idiot. But she's the lying idiot with the right message.

I get that you posted a link from CBC, but what do you think it actually says once you cut to the chase? Sure, they tried to tie it to the leftist brand of "Don't say gay" by referencing the leftist misnomer in the title, and then saying "which critics say marginalizes LGBTQ people", but does the CBC actually mention anything from the bill to support their own title, or what the vaunted critics say? No, not at all. So your own link is just another perfect example of why people who don't appreciate BS & spin shun the leftist MSM. If I wrote about your post, and said: "Michael Hardner's "I love Nazis post" was his 7th post today", and I said that "critics say that your post favours Nazis", would that be legitimate? Would the title and opening lines be supported by any actual evidence worth noting? Of course not, but it would be matching the form and character of the CBC's article on the Florida bill. All that CBC could come up with to describe the bill is: Does that mean "Don't say gay"? Not the least little bit, because it also means "Don't say heterosexual". It just means "Don't talk to young children about what you do with your naughty bits or what they should do with their naughty bits". Don't be a groomer. Don't be a pervert. Don't try to indoctrinate children with your own sexual beliefs. CBC actually knows that because they have their own legal analysts who have looked at the bill but yet they did their level best to characterize the bill as "Don't say gay" because they have to toe the party line.

The word "gay" isn't even in the bill anywhere. The bill doesn't differentiate between talking about heterosexual relationships or homosexual relationships or anything else. It just makes any discussions of a sexual nature off-limits between teachers and students that are K-3. DeSantis is probably the most popular Republican not named Trump right now, and even that's up for debate, so he's squarely in the MSM's sights. Anything that he says or does will instantly be vilified by the Dem's operators.

I didn't say that it was forbidden, but they were way out of their lane, especially when they lied about it. Just like you can't say "bomb" in an airport, and it's inadvisable to put up a billboard that says "so and so is a pedophile" when you have no evidence of it, there are reasonable repercussions for saying the wrong things and freedom of speech is no protection from that. Disney said the wrong things, they paid a price for it. The topic of sexuality/sexual orientation is off-limits between teachers and K-3 students. A teacher might casually say "I got married" and then, "open your math books" but they shouldn't weigh the merits of how right or wrong their relationship is, whether they're gay, straight or whatever. I ? That's a fair-ish enough point, but Disney only had their special status because they were considered to be a unique and special business which brought a lot of positive attention to the state of Florida. Now they're a bigtime political operator and a source of political disinformation. All that happened is that they had special status removed. That's not really 'overreach' imo. Especially when it was voted on in their legislature.

If you changed the name from CRT to "All white people are inherently racist and no one else is, and almost everything bad that happens to POC is because of [insert racist insult against white people here]" the title would not seem the least bit unsupported by the content and underlying themes. So there ya go. Critical Race Theory could just as easily be called "The Woke Clown-Car Constitution" or "The Lexicon of Leftist Loserness". At the very best it's crack for reprobate trolls who failed at life and need some scapegoats because they can't look in a mirror or at their own family upbringing, at worst it's inflammatory, divisive drivel from the same people who tried to tell you that Brionna was killed for sleeping black and that "George Floyd's murder was a racist tragedy while Tony Timpa's unfortunate death was a completely dissimilar non-tragedy". Don't get me wrong: it's not a case where there's nothing in critical race theory that's worth discussing, the problem is that the overarching theme of it is so rabidly bigoted, stupid and hypocritical that it's a complete non-starter for intelligent discussion. A good comp for CRT is "Main Kampf". There's probably something in that book that makes sense, but if there is it's not worth discussing it because that would be lending credibility to a book/ideology that doesn't deserve to see the light of day.

1) Disney had absolutely no business whatsoever opining about Florida legislation. 2) Chiming in with the common lie about "Don't say gay" was just bizarre and disgusting. 3) They never should have had "self-governing, tax-free status" to begin with 4) DeSantis runs Florida democratically, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't stand up to Disney's BS. Disney stepped up publicly, Disney got gob-smacked publicly. Easy peasy.

? That's the dumbest load of crap that I ever saw. Here are just a few of the highlights of the "MSM corporate liberal progressive view of the world" lol: -Dr Ford said that she was almost raped "somewhere between 1982 and the mid-'80s". She couldn't name a place, and after she initially named a general location, she had to changer her mind about where the general location was. It went from by the country club (a 20 minute drive from her house, where none of the accused even lived) to being much closer to her home, and remember that she walked home from there. Her own witnesses were completely unaware of everything in her testimony. But the MSM was determined that we all had to believe her. "ALL WOMEN MUST BE BELIEVED!!!! (Except for the whores who accused Bill Clinton!)" -"TRUMP SAID THAT IMMIGRANTS ARE ANIMALS!" -"WHIPS!" -"SANDMAN IS A RACIST!" -"THE GENTLE GIANT!" -"IT WAS JUST A MASSIVE CAR ACCIDENT IN A CHRISTMAS PARADE!" -"THE FACT THAT THEY GUY IS A MUSLIM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS LONG KILLING SPREE, WHIC DOESN'T COUNT AS A TERRORIST ATTACK." -"THE VAN ATTACK IS MORE PROOF THAT GUNS NEED TO BE BANNED!" -"THE DON'T SAY GAY LAW!" -"BOMBSHELL EVIDENCE ABOUT RUSSIAN COLLUSION IS COMING THIS WEEKEND! (every week for two straight years)" -"UKRAINIAN COLLUSION" -"JOE BIDEN ABSOLUTELY DIDN'T KNOW HIS SON WAS WORKING AT BURISMA!". Two years later: "OK, WHEN HE SAW THE PHOTO HE SUDDENLY REMEMBERED A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE WAS LYING!" -"BLOCKING FLIGHTS FROM CHINA WAS RACIST BUT BLOCKING FLIGHTS FROM INIDA WAS SMART!" -"THE VIRUS CAME FROM A WETMARKET AND PEOPLE SHOULD BE BANNED FROM SOCIAL MEDIA FOR SAYING THAT IT MIGHT BE FROM THE CORONAVIRUS LAB RIGHT NEXT DOOR!" -"EVERYTHING ELSE WILL JUST KILL PEOPLE BUT THE VACCINES WILL BE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE - THEY WILL GET US TO HERD IMMUNITY!"... "SOME OF THE VACCINES MIGHT BE KILLING PEOPLE BUT THE VACCINES THAT WE DIDN'T DISCONTINUE ARE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!"....."OK, THEY'RE KIND OF SAFE AND PARTLY EFFECTIVE! - WE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HERD IMMUNITY!"... "PEOPLE WILL STILL GET COVID BUT THEY WON'T END UP IN ICU AND THEY WON'T SPREAD COVID!".... "People will end up in ICU bt they won't die. The vaccines are still awesome. Everyone should be forced to take them!"..... "Thousands of people are dying after 3 vaccines, but vaxed-infected people still don't spread covid so everyone still needs to be forced to take them!" I totally understand that you get sucked in by every idiotic BS narrative that the MSM is peddling, so even with the benefit of hindsight you don't think of those eventually rejected stories as lies, but for those of us who weren't stupid enough to believe any of that blatant horsechit in the first place, of course we get our news elsewhere. I knew all of that crap was nothing more than a bunch of lies at the time you were still gobbling it all up and regurgitating it as gospel truth. How stupid would I have to be to sit there knowing that I was being lied to on the current story but just thinking that their next story was going to be of the utmost integrity? Just how much credibility do you think the "MSM corporate liberal progressive view of the world" has now MH? 100%? 95%? 80%? 75%? 50%? 40%? 33%? 10%? 3%? 1%? 0%? I'm sure that you have it pegged at 95-100%, but if you believe that it's 75%, is there really such a thing as lying 25% of the time and still having 75% credibility? And how is it that you're "a conservative" yet you still manage to have all of this respect for the "MSM corporate liberal progressive view of the world"? That's like being a climate advocate with a 4 monster homes, a yacht and a private jet - no one would ever do that.... ? Leftist hypocrites/dolts crack me up.

The horse was sent straight into the middle of the crowd. It ran her over. You're lying again. She wasn't "known" to not be elderly at all. And the cop that ran her over definitely thought that she was elderly, just like everyone else did. And for all we know she could be 79. It's just CBC saying that she's 49 and we have no reason to believe them. It was 100% true. Russia's reasons for keeping NATO out of Ukraine are the exact same as America's reasons for not wanting nukes in Cuba, but on a much larger scale. Americans just don't want to weight the merits of the issues, tekel tekel.... People who want warbucks don't agree with me. Ukraine is a proving grounds for American military ordnance and their propaganda is just a sales pitch for their shiny old toys. NATO was not a threat to Russia lol. And yet you're talking about brainwashed idiots ffs. Physician, heal thyself. I edited that to make you look smarter. No need to than me. Everything that not on CNN is made-up Kremlin bullshit, right Beave ? Tell that to the Americans who are busy trying to get their "non-bioweapons" out of bioweapons research facilities in Ukraine. The ones that they don't want terrorists to get for whatever reason. But hey, they're "just working on cures for the bioweapons that they have there", no biggie. https://www.dw.com/en/us-successfully-tests-mach-5-hypersonic-missile/a-59333155 That was from last year you uninformed "genius". Dude the Ukrainians and Americans said that there were 10K - 15K dead Russian soldiers about a month ago. By now that number must be 15-25K unless the Ukrainians just decided to stop killing them for whatever reason. Even if that's the case, then according to US/Ukrainian propaganda the Russian soldiers are dying 5x faster than the civilians that they're "massacring". What is it Beave, some kind of reverse-genocide where they send their own soldiers in to die 5x faster than the civilians that they're massacring? If you hate Russia so much, shouldn't you be cheering them on? Just in case the math there was too steep for you, I'll put this in terms you might be able to grasp. Many many many many many Russian troops are reported to have been killed by Ukrainians. The same source say that the number of Ukrainians killed is just 'many'. That's five manys vs just one many. Five is a lot more than one. Your partisan stupidity is out of control now Beave. You're a repugnant, sick person and you seriously need help.

If they're calling "showed up with a broken collarbone and tested positive for covid" as a "covid hospitalization" then how many "covid deaths" were also "lying in palliative with stage 4 cancer and tested positive for covid" deaths? Considering that the case fatality rate for covid is only about 1.2% (according to Ex-Flyers' stats from last week), including people who died of other things but may have sneezed within two weeks of their deaths, I'm having a hard time believing in this "PANDEMIC OF THE UNVACCINATED!"

Justin Trudeau's alma mater came up with a study which is 100% contrary to the most widely available statistics, but I'm sure it's just fine. No side-effects for the vax have been discovered at McGill yet either, hey? Strange. I guess that the vaccine is nearly perfect. Fill your socks, dude.

Last count (about 2 weeks ago) there were 1,616 triple jabbed deaths since mid Dec compared to 1,565 unvaccinated. There were no 3x jabbed people in mid december and 10% of the population was unvaxed at that time. McGill's numbers are wrong.

You don't see reality, you see CTV/CNN talking points. In your eyes, the vaccine works (false) but kids need to take it anyways as and aded layer of protection (stupidity), and it's perfectly safe (dangerous lie).

I'd rather lick doorknobs than vaccinate and hide like a lowly PM.

Above your 90%, sure, but that's more like 11% in human years ? 1) They are, and that's stats talking not just scientific conjecture. 2) Is it really a 'vaccine' when people take it 3x and then die of the thing that they're "vaccinated" against?

The vax-nazis claim that the "vaccine" protects people and only the unvaxed die, but then from the other side of their mouths they say that kids also need to take the jab (which is dangerous for them) to help slow the spread of covid because the vax barely even works. Which is it?

IIRC conservatives were the only people who reserved judgement of the vaccine until it was in use for a while. Conservatives had an open mind for HCQ, Ivermectin, Remdesivir, Vits + zinc, and all kinds of other therapeutics. Leftists started off with two camps of people saying either "NOTHING ELSE WILL EVER WORK. ONLY THE VACCINES WILL WORK. THEY WILL BE 100% SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!" or "I won't take the vax because Trump said to take it", and as soon as Biden was 'elected' 100% of them went full-vaxtard. The reason why I never got vaxed is 1) I didn't feel like I was in an at-risk demographic 2) I was waiting to see how effective the vax was and how many side-effects there were. Keep in mind, no one wanted the vaxes to be a total flop, we all wanted it to be safe and effective because we hate covid. It just wasn't, and we were following the 'stats', not 'scientific dogma'.