Infidel Dog

I have no problem with hyperbole myself. Posturing BS kind of bugs me though. You know...like asking for peer-review on obvious hyperbole.

No. I said he expressed an opinion. Just like you do. The phrase "Out your butt" means it lacks any reason or fact-base. You know like your contention obvious hyperbole requires peer-review.

Oh cut the crap. That makes as much sense as asking you for hard evidence his obvious seat of the pants estimate is incorrect. 85% doesn't have to be 100% accurate to paint the picture of his opinion. You know it's an opinion. You just want to be all smarmy and smug and posture as superior. You'd be surprised how many of us know that. I'll say 85%. But no I don't have any peer reviewed literature determining that. Why don't you pretend it matters so we can have a laugh. And yes, there is a narrative. It's existence is well established. Anybody with a functioning BS detector knows there's a narrative. It's all the time ringing like crazy. Registering at 85% on mine, if you're interested. Trust in the media and its narratives is at an all time low. I can give you surveys on that if you want.

You know the one I'm starting to see the MSM "experts" not so much push for as prepare the ground for? A no-fly zone. Possibly even a ground war. Yeah...I know. Never going to happen, right? So why to these "experts" seem to be kind of checking out how much they can get away with endorsing as far as an increased western military presence? If I'm right the call will start to get more clear as the war continues along. Hope I'm wrong though.

Speaking of the Ukranian biolabs story it's kind of sneaky what the leftist panels of quote-unquote "experts" and their anchor, message controllers are doing there. They can't actually say the biolabs story is untrue because there are government officials on video acknowledging they exist. Tucker will show that video to you and they hate Tucker so what they'll do rather than try to sell the lie American backed biolabs don't exist in the Ukraine is they'll divert off to some fringe conspiracy theory claims. They'll pepper these with names a gullible will accept of unidentifiable, fringe baddies with their favorite, out there bogey men like the now almost mythical "Q Anon" or the undefinable "far right." Then they'll slip in some comment about how Tucker is making an issue of bio labs. Then Presto Changeo, Tucker, Fox and anybody that ever watched either or identifies right is a far right conspiracy theorist (most likely Q Anon - whatever that is) telling you Fauci is creating the next pandemic in the Ukraine for Putin as a false flag attack on the free west or something like that.

Can't speak for Boges, but myself, I've been making a bit of a personal study of cable news since the Ukraine thing began. I go for news updates now and sometimes stick around. It's interesting. I haven't spent so much time on those leftist cable news stations since the last big conflict. Can't even remember which one that was. CBC is on boycott with me, and I don't get Fox so not them, but Global and CTV 24 hrs. Also MSNBC and CNN. I find CNN and Global the worse. The blatancy of their BS is joke-worthy. CNN kind of surprised me because the new management has been saying he wants to get the network back to the days of long ago when the claim of "most trusted name in news' wasn't met with derision, mockery if not outright guffaws. To make a long story short don't hold your breath waiting for that one. It's not happening right now. That's for sure. Without having current knowledge of CBC TV news (personal boycott) I'll say Global is the worst in Canada for partisan, twisting, spinning contortion of something they like to call news. CTV and MSNBC are surprising me. They're locked into the narrative, of course, but the narrative doesn't necessarily always have to be wrong. The caution with those two would be when they start to present what they call experts and especially if there's a panel. When those guys come on change the channel. Save yourself some mind warp.

Now you have me curious. I'm curious how far you're willing to take that obvious lie. So which conservative did you vote for?

I've watched the odd Fox news brief on this subject and that's not the impression I get. They seem to be saying the opposite. Would you like an example?

Yeah, under Trump, America was energy independent and becoming a net energy exporter. Then Joe Biden took over and that stopped. But pay no attention to the obvious conclusion there. Apparently all this happened as a result of some sort of "Big Oil" magic where they apparently got voodooed somehow into not wanting to make money anymore, even though Biden's people tell us they are choked down with available leases. But the Big Government shills who tell you this leave out the part where there's a difference between leases and permits. Permits would allow oil companies to drill on productive land. Leases are just an offer to try to find oil and apply for a permit. Good luck with that last bit.

And it's not Anti-speech. It's "do no harm." It's the non-aggression principle. It's a core belief of Libertarianism.

Oh so you're saying you do want little pre-school kids trained in woke pervert sex. I'm just hoping it's not you playing teacher when you're imagining this. See this is why there needs to be a law against it.

Well, we can only guess the specifics of what Mike is talking about, but it's understandable, I guess. If he told us we could tell him why it's BS. I think he might be talking about this one: That anybody feels there's a need for a bill like that tells you they're most likely right. You can 'scream fire in a crowded building' so to speak, when there actually is a fire in a crowded building, so to speak. What the woke want to do to kids is the fire STS. So says the electorate of Florida and its representatives.

Really why? It's not even MSM. How could it be fake news? Also, what they claim is true. They claim a GOP Rep says 60,000 conservatives had their twitter accounts banned. Congressman Madison Cawthorn did say that. They show him saying it on video. It's an unmitigated fact. This appears to be one of those "Don't believe your lying eyes" things Progressive types are becoming famous for. Conservatives - actual conservatives - have to start calling these guys out more on these or they'll think they're getting away with it.

It's like I don't actually care but it is kind of an amusing mystery why you keep insisting anybody should. Why are you even on a thread about picking the new Conservative leader? Why would it be so important to you that we conservatives pick your selection? Things that make you go hmm...

I heard you the first time but why would I care what a Prog thinks about conservatism - mine or anybody else's.

Quite the non sequitur link you've got there Boges. It has nothing to do with what they were discussing. Would you like a link to a recipe for chicken cacciatore as evidence of that?

Some of us remember Brown as mayor of Brampton banning kids and others from public sporting facilities while he and his buddies enjoyed playing pickup hockey there: Then he got all pissy with Rebel Media for catching him:

How would you know? Be honest. What you mean is a Progressive Socialist doesn't like the idea of conservatism. Yeah OK...so...? But please, do continue telling us over here on the right how we need to vote for our new leader.

Not all warriors are wanting to rush into a war with Russia over the Ukraine. Here's a guy who will be asked to fight it if the Biden regime and the neocons are successful in making it happen. https://rumble.com/vwqptl-ufc-fighter-is-asked-about-ukraine.-his-response-will-make-you-proud-to-be-.html

All I'm saying is maybe there doesn't have to be a third world war. Let's check out this possibility it could all be squelched by simply convincing the Russians nobody wants NATO Missiles and weaponry on their Ukrainian border.

See here we run into the problem I often have in discussing something with progressives. You're dismissing a claim without viewing the evidence in the reference. My claim was Tucker made a good case for the idea the Biden regime was convincing the Russians there was support for a new Ukraine in NATO push. That evidence of a push could also be seen as coming from the neo-cons in the Republican party. Watch the video then tell me why he's wrong.

My point is clear. Tucker suggests there would be no invasion without the danger of the Ukraine joining NATO. It would be easy to prove him wrong by convincing Putin that is not going to happen and if the invasion continues he's wrong. So do that and Tucker is either right or he's wrong. It has nothing to do with "proving a negative." You were incorrect in stating it did.

Explain to me how proving or disproving Tucker's Ukraine in NATO contention by simply declaring the Ukraine will not be accepted into NATO is "proving a negative." Putin will either withdraw or he won't. If he does, Tucker is right. Right? How would that prove or disprove a negative? Tucker is implying a positive effect from an action. He's either right or he isn't. Biden and the NATO nations could even sign something. Why not see if that works?

Tucker makes a pretty good case for the idea this war is all about the Biden regime pushing the Ukraine for NATO narrative. But tucker is an Anti-vaxxer, Climate denying, racist Putin-lover, of course. However... If he's so wrong why not just prove it? Simply make it clear to the Globalist stenographers in the puppet media there will be no Ukraine in NATO. What's the worse that could happen? That Tucker might be right and the shelling of Ukraine would stop. That there would be no WW III with billions dead? Boo frickin Hoo. If Tucker's so wrong, prove it, Joe Biden. Tell the world there will be no NATO for the Ukraine.

"BETTER PEOPLE" ? Freudian slip, much? Or were you intentionally agreeing with Zeitgeist? In which case, good on you. You get it. Perhaps this education you're puffing yourself up about wasn't a total waste. Perhaps...