WestCanMan

What kind of deal do you think Trump wanted to make Cannucklehead? Think really hard on this one, don't access your memory files of what CNN did because that would basically amount to diarrhea of the keyboard. Think...... What did Trump want to accomplish in his dealings with the Taliban? I'll give you a hint: check out how many American soldiers died (not just in Afghanistan but all over the world for that matter) while Trump was POTUS, and then compare that to the number of soldiers that have already died or been left stranded in Afghanistan since Biden has been prez. The difference is tragic, and there's no denying whose record is light years better. Then, after you swallow that heaping crow entree, try to figure out whether or not Trump was actually putting an end to Americans dying there, period.... Do you get it, cannucklehead? If Trump was trying to strike a deal where the Taliban would just cease to exist then it was a waste of time, but if his deal was something like: "Don't kill any American GIs or I'll kill your leaders - we'll be out of this shithole next year" then he struck a pretty great deal imo, but hey, I just care about people's lives, not CNN talking points. That's your area of expertise. I can promise you that if Trump finished off the evacuation of Afghanistan there wouldn't still be Americans trapped there, and in the unlikely event that there even was a terrorist attack, it would not have resulted in "a drone strike against a foreign aid worker and a family" lol. This is Biden's second Benghazi, but it makes the first one look like a dress rehearsal. Biden's Afghan withdrawal was the biggest American military debacle since Custer's last stand. Terrorists learned not to F with America when Trump was POTUS. When Biden came into power it was like an open invitation to dominate America.

You do realize that you just tried to make a statement of fact but you offered no supporting evidence, right? You basically just wasted 3 bytes of space on a server somewhere and showed a general lack of knowledge on the topic at hand.

It just cracks me up that vaxx-nazis never acknowledge that covid only kills unvaccinated people when they're elderly with compromised immune systems, but when you mention vaxxed people who die with covid they always say "but it's only elderly people with compromised immune systems". Would it kill you to just talk honestly and accurately about a topic for once? I really hate having to correct you every time I reply.

You're underestimating the number of fully vaxxed people who die. There were 1,400 fully vaxxed Americans dead back in July, and that's from the very beginning of when people were starting to get fully vaxxed. The vaccines aren't giving us herd immunity, they're not stopping people from dying and they're making people sick/killing them.

It sounds like you're cheering for covid. Do you have pom-poms?

They always say that. Seems dodgy to me. Maybe they're 1 Pfizer, 1 Moderna people, or people who got the 2nd shot outside of the recommended timeline. Who knows.

My son just turned 12 and we had to turn down an opportunity for him to play in a baseball tournament in Vegas just because he's unvaccinated. I know that it's the least of anyone's real concerns, but it sucks that there's that kind of pressure being put on a kid to get vaccinated under the current circumstances.

What you're saying equals editing, which is a form of content 'creation'. It's also disinformation to have a section called 'comments' when it's really only 'favourable comments'. Lastly, CBC shouldn't be editing the comments of their own tax base.

1) A restaurant can't refuse you service because you're black, but sites discriminate against commentary that is accurate and highly appropriate, but unwanted (ie, conservative). You're protecting the restriction of people's right to free speech, and being coy about it because you personally like this brand of particular discrimination. That's disgusting. FYI CBC, which cougar mentioned specifically, is a public broadcaster. I pay them a lot more taxes than most people do, they have no right to stifle my opinion as a taxpayer.

On FB, when you see "Most Relevant" in the comments section, it means 'the post that they want people to see'.

OK, thanks for that. I just got it emailed to me from a friend who's famous for spreading some crazy BS.

For sure they are editing. They edit every narrative on their site by shadow banning, limiting the spread of content, deleting posts, covering posts with "fact-checked" etc. Not really. They leave violent content on there, including calls to violent action by terrorist groups. They remove "things that the Dems want removed". Antifa can organize riots there, leftists can say whatever they want about Trump there regardless of how unsubstantiated and inaccurate it is, but conservative content is targeted bigtime. Case in point, the Hunter laptop story was banned, and even the NYPost was banned. That may sound like a one-off to you, but it's normal for conservative content. I've had FB posts removed before that weren't incorrect or inaccurate, and I've reported all kinds of bigotry that doesn't get removed. Just look at AJ+, it's 50% lies and bigotry. Nothing gets blocked there.

Is that story legitimate though, or just an unverified internet video?

The actual case that needs to be made is that sites like FB and Twitter aren't held to "journalistic standards" (lol) and subjected to certain laws (which I don't recall) because they're not considered content creators or editors. They are, however, carefully cultivating their highly political narratives with the use of selective content-blocking, and in a lot of cases they get their "fact-checks" 100% wrong.

I'm sure that the forum is pretty intent on not being used for libel against influential people. I'm comfortable defending my position that Trudeau is a crook if I have to go to court, and I'm also comfortable defending the fact that I called you a liar when I caught you lying. If you can prove that you have any decent reason at all for calling O'Toole a crook I will stop saying that you're a liar. So far, the only place that I've ever seen O'Toole called a crook is here, by you, and your accusation was 100% unsubstantiated, aside from "I got some mail from O'Toole that indicates he's a crook" lol. I guess his propagandists really need to smarten up. I'd never let my peeps put "WCM's a crook" in my ads.

Only the very elderly and people with co-morbidities are at an elevated risk of dying from Covid. I never limited covid's threat to 'terminally ill people'. The only claim I've related here, that was to that extent, actually came from my Dr who said that "the vaxxed deaths came from chemo patients, etc". The risk level that I personally stated has never changed since about June of last year, afer a significant amount of data had rolled in from the US. People over 40 should take covid seriously. Chain-smokers, morbidly obese, and people who are just very unhealthy in general should probably treat covid the same as a 75 yr old with a heart condition would.

My point is that covid actually poses a threat to people over 40, and they should know whether or not they should take a chance on the vaccines. Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that someone is an idiot for disbelieving what they see on CTV and CBC. Those two have lied/omitted so much since the beginning of covid that it's outrageous.

Maybe there's a different standard for putting people in the ICU in both areas, and it's also possible that Alberta has a higher capacity per capita. It's also possible that they're using therapeutics in England that they're not using in Alberta, which are keeping people out of the hospital. *CNN level of credibility alert* - I saw a video of a guy who claims that he worked weekends in some Alberta hospitals, and said that when he worked in a hospital in Rimby they weren't giving some of their ICU patients any treatment - not even vitamins - after their situation had 'deteriorated'. It's like they were in palliative care but still within in the ICU. He claims to have helped two of the 3 back to recovery within a day, but I have no clue how legitimate the video is, and he didn't say what treatments they were giving to new arrivals at the hospital either. He also claimed that he was receiving patients from the Red Deer hospital who had been released but not prescribed any subsequent medications, like inhalers, etc. Again, when I see a guy blabbing on the internet I have no way of knowing whether or not he's who he claims to be or if there's any truth to his story at all. This is no more reliable than a story that you'd see on CNN or MSNBC, but even I consider it to be less reliable than CTV or CBC. Truth be told, covid deaths are extremely political, and the MSM blames covid deaths on whomever they want, so in provinces like Alberta and Ont with conservative premiers, it's all on them, so leftists feel pressured to ramp up the numbers. In BC and Ont they were actually keeping them artificially low right before the federal election (coincidentally, I'm sure). We all know that there are pro-vaxxers who have openly stated that unvaxxed should just be left to die, and people who work in gov't (Cuomo for example) and in hospitals (94% of "covid" deaths in the US are from people who also have other causes of listed on their D Certs) fudge numbers to make people look good/bad, so covid numbers are never any more than a rough and partly politicized estimate.

I said that there are two kinds of covidiots, and named them. You referenced a group of people that don't fit into either category, unless you think that 12-40 yr olds are swamping the hospitals.

For sure you have a point, and hopefully there can be a distinction drawn between "defending your gang's drug house" and defending your actual home. But then I wouldn't put it past these guys to move a baby into their gang crib just to call it a home.

Ummmmm..... not 12-40 yr olds? Can't you read?

You're a liar, for sure, until you provide some type of real evidence that O'Toole is a crook.

Grow up.

Just learn from it. Don't lie in the future and then you won't get pressed.

I call people liars when I can show where they just lied, or bigots when I can point out their bigotry, I think it's actually important. I don't like seeing people lie on TV and not called out for being exactly what they are. If there's an accurate criticism that someone wants to make about O'Toole that's fair. Yz's comment that he was a cuck is partly true, but I also think that O'Toole has no choice but to play within the constraints that the alt-left media has him in, or he'll sink the boat. On the other hand, when someone calls O'Toole a crook just because I correctly labelled Trudeau a crook and their feelings are hurt, that's childish. The short answer is, no - I don't engage in 'name-calling' when it's inaccurate.