CdnFox

So here's a few of my concerns when thinking about it as a "compromise". A lot of girls won't even realize they are pregnant until almost 6 weeks. You miss a period and then you start to wonder - well you're already potentially 4 weeks at that point. It could be 6 weeks before you even take a pregnancy test and figure it out. It's not very much time at all. Remember - it's not 6 weeks after you find out - it's 6 weeks after you get pregnant whether you know about the pregnancy or not. A lot of people get pregnant even with protection. It happens. But more importantly - pregancy tests require you to miss a period before they're accurate. IT's not like if you have sex today then tomorrow you're going to test positive. So yeah even if a girl has unprotected sex once and thinks "i may be preggers", it might be weeks before she can even find out. A lot of traumatized women won't go to the police right away . Get raped a few times and then talk about it. However this law does allow for rape to be an exception Well this is the argument from those who believe that the fetus is a human being from conception of course. And that's fine - but that is NOT a compromise solution. A compromise solution would have to at least give a reasonable chance for the woman to discover she's pregnant and have time to arrange a medical procedure.

Well that depends on what you mean by 'co-ops'. And how big the 'co op' you're talking about is. If you mean like a farmer's co-op or co-op store, no. Sorry, you're dead wrong. If you mean co-op housing, certainly not. The best you can say about that is it helps keep prices lower but that's because it has less value. But perhaps you mean something else, 'co-op' is a pretty wide reaching term. Frankly i think we'll see pretty quick this is another one of your ... ahhh... "less than true" facts Communism isn't about working together. Even capitalism REQUIRES that people work together. But communism suggests that their is no such thing as 'hierarchy', and that is simply against human nature entirely. We are definitely pack animals - but like almost all pack animals we are hierarchy based. This is something the left often pretends doesn't exist, which is why they THINK its possible for the 'communal' model to work on any kind of scale. But it doesn't. And at the end of the day that's the problem with the left these days - they don't care about facts, they don't care about science, they don't care about human nautre - they care about 'muh feels' and what they perceive as desirable and demand that their vision of utopia is true despite any evidence to the contrary.

Well lets put it this way - if they do then they did before tucker showed up. Like i said, news today tends to be less about informing people and more about manipulating their confirmation bias. Either postively by stroking the things they believe already in some manner or negatively by enraging they by refuting things they believe already in some manner - both get you clicks and both get you discussed around the web etc etc. The article you posted is no different, it uses emotionally charged language and really tries to press the buttons of those who dislike fox in an exaggerated and over-the-top manner that those who do will point to and say "not fair not true". These days its all about pushing people's tribal buttons rather than actually informing.

That would be true, if i had said anything remotely close to that. Which i did not. Go read it again. Slowly.

Well, in fairness you're complaining about tuckers's gross and partisan spin on the truth designed to appeal to the confirmation bias of his viewers by offering as an example an article which is a gross and partisan spin on the truth designed to appeal to the confirmation bias of it's viewers I would argue that the article and tucker share a great deal in common. They're meant to leave their target audiences chuckling and saying to themselves 'it's funny because it's true', while leaving opponents sputtering in fury over the "Unfairness" of the exaggerated or ridiculous portions of the show/article. Both are excellent examples of the art - inciting enough to get both sides reading with just enough truth to make it hard to dismiss entirely. Infotainment - how to get people riled up for clicks and giggles.

Well as i noted if people are aware he's not telling the truth, then when he doesn't tell the truth it's not really propaganda If you're aware watching it that it's a lie then it can't be considered as such. Pretty much all the media lies now. And even when ones like cnn do is in many cases i'm reluctant to call it 'propaganda', which would imply they were attempting to promote a narrative, and more 'pandering to their demographic for clicks'. Sure - some news stories are propaganda and some FEELS like it, like when NBC altered the tape on the trevon martin case for example, but even there i think it was to generate outrage for the purpose of selling papers, not policy. It's my contention that the legal opinion which you posted is correct and that the viewers know that the show "lies" and that tucker's opinions are meant to be taken as not an accurate representation of the truth. Yikes. We just met - leave my balls out of your tripe thank you very much Testify brother! Well - thats probably good. We all need our rest, you can't be staying up EVERY night. Look, joking and rhetoric aside obviously you lean left and i'm more of a center-right guy so there's going to be disagreements and such, but if we're keeping it real i think we both know that tucker's show isn't meant to be taken terribly seriously, That isn't to say he doesn't sometimes raise good points etc or subject worth discussing one way or another but most of the time it's feel good confirmation bias based infoainment of which there's many left wing examples as well.

Yeah, i think it's going to be tough. But the fact is it'll drag out well into the nomination for the Rebpuclicans. I mean they're not even going back to trial till december. And it'll be a long process after that. Trumps' going to campaign with that hanging over his head? We'll see but while it wont' affect his core much i think it will sting him a little

Yes - i noted that. HE was - briefly I didn't miss anyone i just didn't name everyone. I mentioned turner because he was a good example of the ones i mentioned who didn't make it long. They do historically but they havent' always been winners. He would have lost just as bad. Dion was pretty bad tho. Yeah. Politics will always be a rich environment for 'what if'.

Kid - you posted something as a 'quote' that i never said - you then edited the post and erased it when you got busted. And people saw that and can see the edit. You weren't misquoted. Think how pathetic that makes you. You literally are trying to lie your way out of something you did on the internet. How sad of a person do you have to be to do that, to go back and alter your post and lie about it? And never mind anyone else - YOU Know that's what you did. How can you be that kind of person and live with yourself? You can't undo it now. You will literally always be 'that' guy who was so petty and childish that he had to go back and edit something and then lie about it to cover up his own behavior in an internet forum.

Sure - its 'infotainment'. Most 'news' is these days. Hogwash. It's deemed that way because it suits a narrative. For something to be propaganda it must be mistakenly believed to be actual fact by the recpient but as you JUST posted... "The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' So. The viewer knows it's not fact. Ergo - it CANNOT be propaganda. I'll cancel the therapist then Truth be told i rather already gathered you were rugged enough not to be weeping if i didn't agree 100 percent

Well we've seen that before. I say we bring back 1970's post teenage identity angst and see if we can convince them not to wake anyone over 30

Well now we both konw you're lying. You wrote something i didn't say then you edited it out when you got called on it. And you can bet a bunch of people saw it. Now everyone knows you're a dishonest troll Well done

Thats nice. Bet they don't ask him back now Did i call it right wing propaganda? It would seem the problem here is your perspective not my claims. He's entertaining. Well whatever the origin and ignoring your somewhat typical left wing slant against jews, it's where we are. Well in a vague general sense perhaps. In reality that trend has somewhat reversed in recent years. Cancel culture is regressive, culture wars is regressive, intersectionality is regressive, defunding police is a regressive policy, segregation is rearing it's head as a desirable thing again, etc etc. Well i'm sure the left thinks so

To answer the question tho - PP is doing what he needs to in order to win. RIght now, people are getting scared about inflation and their pocketbook and the deficit, and that's going up every month. They're having trouble affording food, never mind a house. All he has to do is convince people he understands what their problems are and that he's got a solution and the skill to make it happen. And that's moving forward nicely for him. His polling is solid and slowly and surely getting better (which is what you want, you don't want a flash in the pan). All he's got to do right now is build the foundation. Then at the action election release a plan and keep hammering new ideas and keep the media momentum going and he'll be fine.

that isn't remotely true. Just in the 2000's we had celine dion.... Sorry, Stephan dion. He didn't become pm. Nor did ignatief who followed him And in the past some who did didn't for very long. Right John Turner? (Staaaaaaaaare) Well i would disagree a little. For ruse a i would say their real go to would be "we'll bring us closer by passing more regulation you like and spending money". What did they use? Gun control, larger beurocracy, so many 'climate' plans and accords that our emissions went up just printing them, etc. and for b - you forgot the tail end.... "And we're the experts". or in some cases "And we're the only ones who know who the experts are". He won because people liked him personally in quebec and ontario and they were absolutely petrified of the interest and inflation rates that were happening. People are freaking right now about 5 percent mortgage rates - imagine 20.

The lodge. That's what its' called. I'm not even kidding here.

Oh a few make it in VERY niche areas but seriously - tucker leaves fox and what would you say his chances are of getting hired at, say, cnn? Or just about any of the mainstream news outlets? And while i suppose i'ts fair -ish to call him an 'entertainer' rather than a news commentator (sort of), he's not really an entertainer the way a movie or tv star would be, or other actor. I don't know gutfield. Which suggests that he's probably not all that big a deal and probably a little niche as well I mean there's people like ben shapiro who've made it as commentators and such, and of course Alex Jones. But again - very niche. They're not going to go out and get a lead role in a movie or tv show.

Any ways, you guys are way too late to the party to complain at this point. This is NOT the first trans that Bud has hired. Remember this guy? Spuds Mckenzie? The most manly of dogs in the drinking world? Yep - actually a biological female.

This is the biggest lie you'll find on the left , and of course they HAVE to say that to try to keep the idea of communism and socialism from looking completely morally and practically bereft of value. Of course it's been tried. It always fails. All the varians of it fail. Once you try to expand the idea beyond a family sized unit it collapses. Socialism and communism simply don't work because they ignore human nature and pretend that humans will happily live against their nature. But they won't ,not for long.

No, but it edges pretty close. Cancel culture is where you go after and try to harm a person for what they say or represent etc. You demand they be fired for their personal views or the like. This is more people deciding not to spend money on bud. When you punish a company for what it's stance is or activities are then it's called a boycott, and honestly while it is different i don't really approve TOO much of that either but then again as a consumer you're going to buy the product you identify with. I mean, that's the point of advertising. Why would you give your money to someone who's supporting something you don't approve of. And that's fair.

Moreso than anything you've brought to the table. Although you are far more amusing if that helps

There you go - everyone can see you edited it and you can see that suddenly "my" quote is now blank. Previously you had your own text in there. Edit - here's the link null I just did. That isn't even close to the quote. Nice try. Your lies are catching up with you kiddo

Hard to say - but presumably based on the reaction noted not trans people.

True, that has been a problem of late. It used to be 'if it bleeds it leads" but now it's more of "If someone say, we print anyway"

It's also untrue, at least until AFTER he did it with me in the seciton you quoted. BUt as you can see - when he got called on it he went back and edited out the fake quote he did of me. So the new low would be his, and he's since tried to cover it up