CdnFox

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

ROFLMAO!!! I love that the self avowed communist calls me a leftie And nope, first time here Poor little guy, you're following me around like a puppy now? You lost one argument and looked like a fool and it's bothering you so much you have to chase me and yap to make yourself feel better? I hope you don't expect me to pay rent living in your head like that (although it is spacious in here )

They ran pretty well last summer I"m inclined to belleve you when you say that the Ukrainians have not now nor will they be armed well enough to actually defeat the russians entirely. However they have demonstrated that they are quite capable of limited offensives that break the russians locally and force them to give up a lot of ground. I don't think they're done with that yet. The russians have mass but it seems to me just looking at it that they have horrible coordination and communication. It seems like if you hit the right peg there a lot of that house might come crashing down. I feel like the ukrainians are just waiting till better weather and draining the russians as much as they can without using up their own forces more than necessary. I feel like they could very suddenly take the land below kherson right up to the crimea border and north a fair ways.

Didn't they have that before the war?

oh good, i'd hate for you to suggest it was a negative or anything Yeash! Probably need to start paying attention then. He's put a number of things out there. Obviously he's not stupid enough to go into extreme detail this far away from an election, that's death with the liberals. But - stop "printing" money to help ease inflation, we all get how that works (even tho there's no actual printing), that makes a big difference. Address the home issues - that's not going to happen overnight but he's on the right track with it and if he follows through that will help. Cut red tape - that is a HUGE issue that holds us back, that's the so-called 'gatekeeper' issue. Get the various gov't departments working again. People should be able to get a passport or go to an airport. Address immigraiton, bringing it more in line with what our capacity is to make sure we dont' jack up rents and housing costs by bringing in more than we can absorb. There's other things he can do as well but those are ones hes touched on. All of those would make a pretty big difference. It wouldn't be the first time - Canada bucked the world wide trend during the Great Recession as well, when harper was in power. Worst recession worldwide in 80 years but Canada blew right through it. No reason we can't do it again.

Quite possible. But i doubt the russkies will like that. That real estate gives them nothing other than a chance to say they didn't completely lose the war. But they lose much having pushed the Ukrainians firmly into the us hands and military.

That will depend on the terms of the ceasefire. Russia isn't going to like the idea of giving up all the land AND having a heavily militarized ukraine. They're either going to demand some of the land or an agreement that the allies not rearm the ukrainians. That's what i meant when i said something will have to give.

I doubt very much that putin wants to antagonize the US into a wider conflict like that. And i assure you land is strategic Even britannia who ruled the waves didn't live on them Russia is even more vunerable to those kinds of games. And if something were to 'happen' to their subs.... well it would likely happen so fast they would'nt get a chance to surface or report. Meanwhile, the grind continues. He still loses gear and men faster than he can replace them every day and that means his ability to project power elsewhere is limited. It can't go on forever.

I think they probably know that's optimistic, putin has to have SOMETHING to show for the massive dead and loss of equipment. And meanwhile they won't want to leave ukraine exposed to another attack as soon as putin can build up his arsenal again. So i think they'll be looking for a different ending there than that.

Anything's possible but i think that the US won't blink this time on a nuclear stand off. I think they'll simply say 'fine, get out of ukraine and this is over. Otherwise ..... " I think they never really felt good a bout how the cuban crisis ended. And putin has been rattling his nuclear saber since the get go. As you say - this is right on their doorstep. Starting a nuclear war there would be highly questionable for them. I think this will just grind on and grind on with them losing more and more resources and slowly bleeding them to death till they're sick of it. I think you're correct (previously) and the ukraine probably wont' have the gear or numbers to out and out win, but they'll have offensives that take back land and then the russians will slowly grind their way back only to get slaughtered again and back and forth it will go. But i dont think this is sustainable forever for the russians

This is what i was thinking. The west isn't suffering any 'deaths'. For the west it's like that scene from Shreck - "Many of you will die, but that's a sacrifice i'm willing to make". I think for the west it's more about coming up with the perfect number and types of arms to keep russia in a meat grinder without them actually losing. Right now russia is turning itself into a clawless tiger by burning through all it's tanks and men and that probably works for the allies nicely.

Awww muffin - you go have a cookie and a nap, you'll be fine LOL - communists get SO dramatic when you prove they're full of it It's cute to watch, like a monkey flipping out

we'll see. His people may be buying that now, but when they have a tough time buying other things and when their kids start to come home in body bags in huge numbers then I wonder how things will go. It would be different if they were winning. I think it's quite possible we'll see some opportunists looking to make a move. But - it's not my field of study so, you may be right.

Harper had three balanced budgets actually. And his last one was after the worst recession in the last year of his time in office so he didn't "inherit" that one for sure You might argue his first one was but not his second. So seeing as you got that wrong right off the bat, kinda feel like my point is made Prior to that mulroney ran structural surpluses for most of his time in office but of course couldn't pay the interest off of trudeau (the firsts) massive deficits. And chretien ran surpluses (if we don't include just downloading costs to the provinces) by stealing 70 billion from the EI fund but mostly from the GST and trade surplus from the free trade agreement that Mulroney brought in. Both of which he promised to scrap. So if you're talking 'inherited' then i guess we'll credit those to mulroney? Meanwhile harper's surpluses didn't require the theft of any insurance premiums, and didn't require cutting services or funding to the provinces. In fact funding to the provinces went up. Anyone with half a brain knows that we had surpluses because of the Conservatives. The liberals never run anything but deficits unless they steal from other gov'ts or people. No wonder they think budgets balance themselves, other people have always done all the work and they've never had to actually make it happen themselves And NOW they've literally borrowed MORE money than EVERY OTHER PRIME MINISTER IN HISTORY COMBINED in just 7 years. Yeah - i don't think anyone will be looking to them for a balanced budget

You didn't post crap. And what you did post proved that the ukraine wasn't joining nato any time soon. What you DID prove is that putin supporters are horrible people, ukraine is in the right, and that russia had no justification for the war they are now losing. And when other people post facts you freak out. GIVE ME SOURCES SHOWING RUSSIAN CASUALTIES.! - provides him several independant sources - " Well.... err..... umm... IF YOU BELIEVE THOSE CREDIBLE SOURCES YOUR A FOOL! " (no alternative sources given ) CHINA HAS NOT HAD A MILITARY INCIDENT IN YEARS, THEY NEVER ATTACK ANYONE!! HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE THEY ATTACKED? TELL ME! TEEEEEELLLL MEEEE!!! - posts list of chinese military attacks recently and in history. Kindly doesn't mention they're in the middle of a genocide as we speak. - HOW DAAAAAAAARRREEE YOU BRING UP CHINA'S MILITARY HISTORY!!?!?!?! See - this is why nobody likes communists. Putin started a war of conquest - and is currently getting his ass kicked. You started a dumb fight trying to defend that and likewise got your ass kicked. Thanks for playing kiddo

No I find you amusing. Liars would not find liars amusing is what i said. Jeez dude - that wasn't very complex, how did you manage to screw that up - see what I mean, liars are amusing!