CdnFox

Yes, to sane people this is obvious. And it would be fine as well normally. There's no law that says a media outlet can't have a bias, or can't tailor the stories it chooses to produce to appeal to it's target audience. As one american character once said "go ahead, i'll just start my own paper to lie the other way" Except - the CBC is publicly funded. And that's why people have a problem with them right now. If they get defunded they can go on their own and try to make a business model out of their bias;, but i think they'll have a hard time convincing people to give them ad dollars and subscriptions if they're being that selective.

ROFLMAO - ahhh, no, you quoted me. So that would literally be what I said. Man, every time you get shown up you go to pieces so fast people are in danger of getting hit by the shrapnel

Oh how witty! With that kind of mental agility you'll soon be qualified to debate people in grade 3, maybe even 4! A big step up in your skills Well at least you admit you made it up

Comfortably. China builds a lot of computer chips but they don't actually have all that much in the way of heavy industrial output capacity. I mean they're not exaclty without it but it's nothing compared to the us, and with the us, germany, britian etc etc added up china and russia can't even come close. Further china isn't actually supplying lethal equipment to russia yet. And if they do it will be on a fairly limited basis. They'll face sanctions for what they do so they won't want to go TOO far - just enough to get the russians to sell their souls There is no need for nato troops for ukraine to win, just nato equipment. With enough gear they can cause an insane amount of damage to the russians and the russians don't seem to have their crap together to fight effectively. Basically there is a small risk of escallation if we continue what we're doing now. If we stop and the russians feel they gained something then this will be happening again shortly and the risk goes up at that point until the situation stabilizes as it has here. Think of it like this - the us and allies let poutine have crimea in order to prevent the risk of an escallation if ukraine opposed that. But that has lead to where we are now and the increased risk that we face. And it could have been worse, so far the confrontation has been pretty manageable. So - there is an equivalent risk to doing nothing as there is dealing with the situation which at least we know right now The USA is far less likely to attack germany than russia is. Well.... attack them again anyway Are you trying to suggest that the US is an equal hostile threat to germany as russia is?

Or boot print, as the case may be

If you're referring to his first election he most certainly did not. If you're referring to his second one, he mostly won by just not showing up and letting everyone get a good look at the 'other choices'

That's never held you back before it is precisely what you said. And i never suggested they were making anything up. You posted what i said - do YOU see the words "Making it up" in my post anywhere? So look who's backtracking again There is tonnes of evidence. You're just in denial. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE! - i post evidence - "ER.. Ummm..drat!..umm ... THERE"S NO EVIDENCE" - post more evidence - "(goddamnit). ER.... WHY CAN NO ONE FIND ANY EVIDENCE!!!! (rending of garments intensifies...) " Simply repeating there's no evidence when there's tonnes doesn't change anything. If you're hearing lots of people say the media is bias then you're hearing people speak the truth. The left wing media is especially so for various reasons. It's not a conspiracy, it's not some weird unproven allegation, it's simple fact.

I'm afraid that's not true. They weren't "Forcably" put anywhere. You're thinking of the US. And first nations are not the 'poorest of the poor'. For the most part the yhave all the access to education and other resources they would need. Moreso than many poor people from other nations or ethnic groups. It is racist and demeaning beyond belief to suggest that first nations people could not make their way in life off the resere as well as any other group.

Dude i'm not watching some random shit you post. Make your point yourself and then you can always use a video for a reference. Funny story - there are countries that sell oil that aren't the USA But given a choice between moscow and washington - i'm sure they WOULD rather be the US's biatch. Beats the hell out of answering to putin. Why not? The US and their allies can produce war material far far faster than Russia or it's allies can. They seem to be inflicting casualties on the russian side at a higher rate than they're taking them. I don't think it's "really that simple" at all. The escallation risk is the same whether there is peace or not. But otherwise, sure. The best thing would for everyone to go away equally unhappy. I don't we're going to see that yet - we might before it's over. Well - I think it makes MORE sense to get all your oil and gas from a country or countries that are more stable and less prone to invading people than Russia but i get that may not be an option for a while.

Is it tho? I feel pretty strongly you DID argue that in more than one place. SO if that wasn't your intent then you might want to look at that. And here again. I've show that isn't entirely the case. it is for SOME people, absolutely. But - for others that just care about a decent ride it's not so obvious. My driving is extremely predictable, i'm not sure when the dust settled i'd be better off with an ev cost wise. It looks to me like i'm better off financially with a less expensive ICE There's a lot of people who are going to benefit (and are right now) from this tech. For sure. But i think it's probably still a little more niche than you think. A little anyway

Well i can certainly understand you changing your story (much like cbc nyuck nyuck )

https://financialpost.com/opinion/alberta-budget-jack-mintz "In the upcoming provincial election, Alberta’s opposition parties will likely promise more spending while the UCP will talk about fiscal prudence. The ballot question seems clear: do you support Alberta’s new fiscal framework or do you want a return to the profligate spending of earlier governments?"

Uhhhh - riiiighttt, soo - it's this large group of unidentified people who've formed some sort of alliance to constantly bombard you with theories about the leftist media. THAT'S the conspiracy theory here is it? I've told you before, The voices in your head are not your friend. That has nothing to do with being "on the fly". Nice attempt to change the topic again. no, you didn't. You literally asked the question and claimed it was of some importance. You suggested there weren't any people workng on this in the gov't, and snottily said "so how many people are there". I pointed out there's hundreds. Now you're saying 'Errr.. oh.. are there... ummm..... so what? Doesn't matter anyway". Followed by 'of course the media is bias". LOL Look - it all comes back to the same thing - media is bias and people often trust what they say instead of looking it up on their own. And the cbc is horribly bias. You've been forced to admit it yourself now. So there you go.' Jezuz what a long way to get back to the same thing i said in the first place. The media in geneeral is bias the cbc doubly so, and yes they absolutely downplay stories they don't want to see fussed over and promote stories they do want people pissed about. Thanks for playing

harper did more deals with more people than just about any prime minister in our history, it's true. But as i showed he was absolutely in their face when they did things he didn't like. Doing trade with countries is not an endorsement of the country of course. And it does give you a lever against them. If you've got no dealings with them then you have very little power other than the threat of war over them. Harper was often vocally critical, demanding, and aggressive with china. And that's when he wasn't just pissing them off (dalai lama sent them into apoplexy). And you know what? They did business with him and didn't call him little potato. Justin's weak stance had them holding our trade hostage, holding our people hostage And they didn't try to buy our elections.

I think you put at least a toe over that line. You suggested that it was appropriate for the gov't to set madates for conversion. That is not something that is done until the stated goal is possible, and you strongly agreed with it. You have argued that essentially the only reason not to own an ev is because you can't afford it. There are a number of other instances where you glossed over the issues to suggest that ev's are the only logical choice and even suggested or hinted that there's something a little wrong with anyone who just wants a comfortable commuter car. Now - i appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject and we can all get a little carried away defending the things we really like, but i think you'll have to admit you certainly did suggest that even if there were outstanding issues they weren't a big deal to resolve and we should just go full steam ahead with eliminating ice vehicle sales within 12 years and the budget will balance itself. Sorry - the problems will rectify themselves Well hydrogen or something else, i'm sure there will eventually be a solution. Maybe we'll get that whole cold fusion thing off the ground We moved ships with wind for a milennia We've only been using steam turbines for just over 100 years. The fact we're now moving towards other tech this fast is nothing short of incredible. We are over a decade away just from having the tech to make it realistically possible. Your analogy is off - what we're talking about here is the time it went from when bell first said "mr watson, come here" to "i can't live without my cell phone." And that time was closer to 150 years. Practical electric cars were only invented about 20 ish years ago. The fact we've moved this far this fast is actually quite an achievement. But, like the telephone we've got a very long way to go. We're not even at the 'landline in every home" stage, never mind the cellphone era comparatively. We're probably about 20-30 more years (optimistically) before we're really ready to eliminate the ICE option. It'll be at least 10 before the tech is even working in the labs, then there's commercialization. It'll happen. But - it's a ways off before we're ready

In fairness Putin does have an unusually firm grip on the politics and people. A poster here suggests there just isn't anyone with the political brass ones necessary to actually oust him. That MAY be true. But i do think there comes a point where SOMEONE decides it's easier to stop the war and blame it on putin who just died after horribly terribly cutting his own head off in a freak shaving accident

Sounds like that's still about your level of professional skill No i don't. In fact there doesn't need to be one. A media source can be bias without collusion with the gov't head. they can decide they don't like the conservatives on their own and that they're going to hurt the conservatives and help their opponents without any outside input. Frank Greaves for example said he hated Pierre Pollievre and would keep him from winning: "Pierre Poilievre is an acolyte of authoritarian populism. This is never healthy. You are on notice. Going to make sure you are never going to lead my country. I don’t make idle threats" You think EKOS isn't going to manipulate the data and how their polling is done now? And the fact you would make such a ridiculous demand for proof even if it were true is laughable. Who said anything about 'on the fly'? You know the easiest way to tell if a leftie knows he's losing an argument? He invents NEW things that were never said and argues against that instead How many in the gov't work in media relations? Are you serious? Hundreds and hundreds. And they can egg that on a little bit, they all have their favorite reporters that they give heads up to and winks and nods to. But it's not necessary as i showed earlier. Media companies can be bias on their own. Are you suggesting that the media wing of the gov't or any political party can't put out a press release in a day? I bet if you open your eyes and look around right now you can see your colon. So - bias is baked into our genes and is unavoidable and i've reached a panicked conclusion saying there's bias. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!! Tell me you know you lost without telling me HAHAHAHAAHAA!!!!!!! Yes - the media is bias. You're right. I don't know why i didn't think of that myself LOLOLOLOL!!!!! Thanks for playing kiddo, you've been great

Harper was actually VERY hawkish with china. Not only did he call them out in a fashion that was very embarassing for them but he also did things like meet with the dalai lama which is a MASSIVE no no for china as it flies in the face of their one china policy. Now - i get where you're going, it's easy to think no politician would jump up to stop something that's working to their advantage. And maybe some would turn a blind eye to a litlte help. And certainly many would try to downplay it if it was found that their people had been compromised, even if they were furious and aggressively pursuing it. But trudeau seems to have leaned into the whole thing. This is a massive issue and he knew about it and apperently has done nothing and is leaving that door open. I think most of our previous leaders would have been much more upset about this even if behind closed doors and taken action.

Yeah, sure, and fighting actual misconceptions and erroneous information is absolutely fair game. Like pointing out to me that it's not just fuel, it's maintenance like oil changes. Ok - legit point, that is a cost ev's wouldn't have as well, so lets address it. All above board. But you're taking some of that stuff and trying to stretch it to fit everyone and that's where the fabric of your argument starts to get a little thin. I haven't seen anyone suggest electric tech won't be the way of the future. But - that does not mean it's ready to go now. The supply chain was a hiccup and is already sorting itself. That's a blip, not an intrinsic problem with the industry. But EV's have some serious intrinsic problems. The materials for the batteries are not easily obtained. The grid does not exist and will be very very very difficult and expensive to build out. Things like charging time require new tech to resolve that doesn't exist yet. I have no doubt that over time this will be resolved. Who knows - maybe hyrdogen tech will take off and our EV's will be powered by a hydrogen generator instead and we will 'refuel' the same way we do now more or less. Super easy ot convert existing "Gas" stations. Or maybe they'll invent a power storage device that's light and easy to change that you can swap it out like a larger version of changing your aa battery in an electronic device. I don't know. But i do know we're not there. In the meantime i think we've made huge strides. We've gone from NO electric options or tech just 20 years ago to hybrids to Plugin hybrids to full ev's to multiple manufacturers of EV's, and the tech has radically improved every step of the way. That will continue. But we're not ready for widespread replacement of ICE vehicles and it looks like we're at least a decade away from being ready to seriously start that process. In the meantime i think it's great there's electric optins for those it makes sense for.

If we're defining 'winning' as taking back the territory they lost from the russians in this recent invasion then sure. I think they need nato GEAR but with enough of that they can win. No, and nobody is talking about doing that. So why are you bringing it up? The same thing that's happening now - nato will supply equipment and russia will suffer massive losses. IF they get enough equipment the russians will be beaten back. Then those countries would be acting unilaterally, and we've seen that before. Iraq for example, nato wouldn't get involved the un wouldn't sanction it so the us put together a small coalition on it's own and attacked. Forever. They might have thoughts about their relationship with the us, but they KNOW with certainty their relationship with the russians is a disaster. Russian oil will always be the stuff they cut first. Nobody wants to be moscow's biatch.

That's absolutely not how it works. You Very clearly have never worked in media. This requires next to no effort and virtually no co-ordination. The cbc editorial board leans left, they tend to hire like minded journalists, they set the story priorities and their people get the message and act accordingly. Boom, there's the cbc slanted. In fact, virtually every canadian media source (and every other one i'm aware of) has some bias baked in. Not only is it easy, it's unavoidable. The GOOD ones tend to look for balance, where both sides are told more. The bad ones, like the cbc. lean into their bias and run with it. Now - there's nothing wrong with that, PROVIDED you're not pretending to be fair and balanced and ESPECIALLY PROVIDED you're not taking public money to do it. I provided a very well known and respected source who spelled it out precisely. A person so sick of that crap she literally left her job and burned her bridges with them. And you said i'd have none. Sorry - you lose. I have proven my point. If you disagree you'll have to provide evidence i'm wrong. So lets see it - oh you don't have any? And i do? well how about that. The CBC is outrageously bias. Period.

That makes sense from the ukrainian side but the poster was suggesting that the russian resolve might falter if their people were attacked by these kinds of raids. I'm saying i'm not sure the russian people would be LESS likely to fight if you started blowing them up, I would worry they would be MORE likely to fight. Just as the british were MORE likely to fight after germany bombed them. I'm sure from the Ukrainian side it would bolster the morale of their people.

Another person who speaks truth which confuses and enrages you? Fraid so Take an advil. Depends on the paper. Editorial staff and publishers as a rule, although often such things are reflected in the reporter's bias as well. Sure. How about this: https://nypost.com/2022/01/05/canadian-journalist-tara-henley-quit-cbc-over-woke-agenda/ There's tonnes of analysis and such on the issue. And as a former professional writer myself i can easily point out the deliberate use of emotionally charged language to either highlight or downplay something. Many stories don't get covered by the CBC or get very poor coverage if they're embarrasing to the liberals but the cpc gets prime time if they screw up. And with the CBC there's the out and out fake news. They proudly insisted that the convoy was foreign funded, despite having been told there was no real evidence of that. They insisted that Smith wrote emails to the justice department, when an independant review found that never happened. And then doubled down on it even after admitting they'd never seen them but the 'unnamed source' was just SO reliable... These aren't mistakes or the like. Those are very deliberate examples of very poor and frowned upon reporting methods. Accusations with no evidence that happen to promote a political agenda. There is no trouble finding slews of examples and it's pretty blatant at this point. The CBC has even been chewed out by the ombudsman for "editing" harper's stuff to make it look like he responed in a way he didn't. IT's not new. They're called an "editor" and it takes one.

I don't know - bombing british cities in ww2 only had the effect of hardening britian's resolve, and that may happen here. I would guess doing things like blowing up electrical facilities or bridges or other infrastructure which made life inconvenient would actually do more

I understand that sentiment but honestly that always winds up looking bad for the people doing it. Trump never won a new vote picking fights with the media the way he did. I think that they have to work better with 'friendly' media and also pursue other ways to get the message and anger out to the public. PP has had some success doing that. They need to perfect those arts