CdnFox

Do you think lying about the impirical evidence is going to help YOU? I quoted from your own source that you were wrong. The paper you cited, which is almost 30 years old, has been debunked already some time ago Here's something a little more 'modern' https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pop-psych/201608/homophobia-isnt-repressed-homosexuality So all you do is search the web for things that feed your confirmation bias. If the resaerch has to be 30 years out of date before you find something that confirms it - then so be it as long as it agrees with you and to hell with anything newer. Swing and a miss kiddo.

Yes, But that's not what you claim. Yet when asked for a source you freak out and try to blame others. If you believe what you say you should be happy to provide one. But you won't, because you know i was right. That WOULD be true, but i wasn't trying to prove you were right or wrong. I was trying to prove you're a hypocrite. Which is exactly what happened. I already knew you were wrong. LOL - no, you're not. You're proving you didn't believe your own contention and are a hypocrite. Which is what i suspected would happen. Hence the smiley face below the request I knew you woudln't live up to your own standards. They're hilarious Now that we've firmly established your hypocrisy and that you don't believe what you yourself demanded, i think we can do away with pretending you care about sources You were just sealioning from the start.

How you gonna call everyone a nazi and sub human and complain about people hatin''?

That is not even a little bit true. Some think that ONE reason SOME people have hostility is confusion over there own sexuality. There is NOT ONE who thinks that people are like that in general. From your own link: "Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they 'doth protest too much,'" From the second link. From this perspective, assaults on homosexuals and other individuals who deviate from sex role norms are viewed as a learned form of social control of deviance rather than a defensive response to personal threat. Neither article claims that the reason folks who hate homosexuals is closeted feelings - they both mention there are MANY reasons for it. And you are literally trying to gay shame him here. "Oh you don't like gays? you must be gay! You should feel terrible about yourself because you're gay". That's the gist of your message. What the hell are you doing? You think it's ok to gay shame people like that? Why not just call him a 'f*ggot' and be done with it? Yeash - do better.

Aristtides - it's a DUMB argument! If I think fox news is bias i don't have to buy their product. But if a GOV"T FUNDED news agency is bias then they are accountable to nobody! So it's important to know that if you're looking at their stories - they will never be held to account just as the cbc is not being held to account, but in the meantime everyone knows and can quickly discover that fox and cnn are bias!

No, its not. It only means the gov't can't officially interfere against the Cbc's will. But - in fact the liberals interfere all the time, day and night. As long as the CBC are willing stooges it's fine. And perfectly legal. And they are. And that's a problem when they're publicly funded. Unless they're planning on giving conservatives a rebate

So you have no source - so you actually proved my point for me You seem like a nice person, but you are absolutely a hypocrite.

There's no such restriction with the gov't when it's the liberals. All they have to do to 'interfere' is call up their contacts at the cbc and have a chat. It's only when the CPC is in power that its' called interference and they hang up the phone. And at the end of the day the private media answers to the customers. if they don't like their crap, then the paper goes out of business. But the cbc keeps afloat from gov't funds. So the restrictions on the CBC are far less

Doesn't matter - if it doesn't come from the gov't then the market sources pay for it and will sort it out. But gov't money is taking funds form taxpayers who totally disagree with their practices. And for things that are not gov't services and are provided by the free market already. That is grossly unfair to those people.

There is a big difference between 'recieved some gov't funds' and 'govt funded.' A paper that recieves a few bucks here and there but primarily survives on it's own revenues is not really 'govt' funded' . It's private revenue funded. If it stopped getting any gov't money it would continue. Meanwhile an org that's SEVENTY percent gov't funded is funded by the gov't. Period. If that funding goes away so does that org unless it becomes something ENTIRELY different. In other words - is the org dependent on it's money for survival? If so - gov't funded. I think pbs etc has a case that they shouldn't be called gov't funded - but cbc? no way in hell. That is a gov't funded org.

ROFLMAO - more begging followed by you taking your time to tell me i'm not worth you taking your time Honestly kid you're better than having my own pet monkey to watch

You... lied.... period. Very obviously. Your claim is that you put renovations on your credit card and those renovations tripled the value of the home. That is a blatant lie. It's that simple. Which is fine, everyone would have been happy to write it off as a little internet bluster that got out of hand and was obviously not true but you double, triple quadruple down on it. You lied. You're a dishonest person in the extreme and you're defending your dishonesty. Can't take that back kiddo.

So you admit that's exactly what you do. You falsely claim everything about socialist or communist agendas that people don't like is nazi propaganda. Yeah - we knew that. Thanks. And obviously you still haven't learned what deflection is.

Yeap. A loooong and grinding war actually benefits nato and it's allies quite a bit. it drains the russians constantly and wears down their economy over time, it allows them to keep their military production at reasonable rates, it pins the russians so they can't afford to respond anywhere else in the world leaving the allies more free to take actions anywhere else if they feel the need, it encourages other nations to look for alternate fuel supplies, etc. Another year or two of this would suit them fine.

Give it 5 minues - you'll be a nazi like the rest of us

Your.... renos.... did..not...triple.... the... value....of.... your.... home. So you lied. And no - you can't do 2 million dollars in 'renos', that's a tear down and rebuild. You not only lied which is bad enough you're doubling and tripling down on it in spite of the fact EVERYONE has already pointed out you're full of crap. And i love that you think you can put 2 million dollars of "renovations" on your credit card. You're totally busted kid - you should probably stop making it worse.

This current one should do nicely. Or pretty much every other time you have used that. I especially loved 'Jordan peterson isn't necessarily a nazi but he uses nazi propaganda". LOL - as i have often said, deflect is one of those words you use when you feel you're entirely losing the discussion Delfect, "get back here with those goalposts', and a few others When it gets REALLY bad you post pictures Here's a hint kiddo - that's not the proper use of the word, it wouldn't fit this instance Exactly. Which is precisely what your entire argument is for the 'nazi theory' idea you've been desperately foisting. And I LOVE that NOW you pretend you understand it's foolish Nazis didn't like commies - now YOU don't like commies - ergo you must be using nazi propaganda. This is one of the first logical fallacies people learn in school - All cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat. Yet you expect us to buy it. And clearly nobody does. I'd tell you to get back under your bridge for being a troll, but if you're going to be THIS childish perhaps back under the see saw on the playground would be more appropriate

Sorry kiddo - but there is no evidence there that he's talking about online discussions and there's no evidence it was said AFTER the time that sealioning became a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called 'sealioning'. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes. — Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Think Again: How to Reason and Argue (June 2018).[13] Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the "sea lion" may seem innocent, they're intended maliciously and have harmful consequences. — Amy Johnson, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (May 2019)[6] Sorry kiddo - YOU"RE wrong, And i just proved it If you disagree then you have to provide the proof. Gotcha

It's going to be that way regardless of whether or not the pressure to do so was internal or external. And it's worth noting that such a group could definitely exist within the university itself. Lindsey shepard. Although i haven't seen anything about where the complaint comes from yet the fact the school was the agency that took action doesn't in any way take away from the scenario he mentioned.

LOL - great minds it would seem...

Nope. Sorry - it's completely bunk and irrelevant. Sorry punkin - all you're doing is taking everything that touches on communists or socailsim and branding it as 'cultural marxism' and trying to pass it off as nazi. Nope. Hey - did you know welfare was a nazi social practice? You support welfare rigth? Now... i'm not saying YOU'RE a nazi but,,,,,,''https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_People's_Welfare It's a dumb trick played by dumb people. It's just your way of calline people nazis. if you're going to peddle that kind of stupidity then you really need to start hanging around with 8 year olds or younger who might believe that crap.

What sucks is that you can't. Now you don't have any reason to say i'm wrong. Sucks to be you jr

Source?

The problem is that this isn't just the cbc. THey've felt the need to note when a source is gov't funded. They're clear that this does not mean the gov't controls it but it's something to keep in mind when looking at stories. And that's valid. And if tehy tagged pbs for a 5 percent gov't contribution how could they let cbc go with 70 percent? Honestly the cbc is being babies about this. They are state funded. and twitter is very clear that doesnt' mean that the state controls or even influences a news source tagged as state funded. Don't want to get called state funded -don't take the state's money. they wouldn't likely know it. THey've basically broken it into public and private.

Yes, well, as always the world is full of possibilities and the gov'ts heads are filled with air.