Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by CdnFox

  1. 6 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

    The page explains pretty clearly where this theory comes from. Its an updated version of the "cultural bolshevism" conspiracy, with the references to Jews being slightly less obvious.

    Nope. Sorry - it's completely bunk and irrelevant.

    6 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

    You're strawmanning because you can't argue against my point. The "cultural marxism" conspiracy is a nazi theory.

    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.


    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.

  2. 1 hour ago, Aristides said:

    If it doesn't matter, why tag it? Twitter is making an ideological statement of its own. 

    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.

    1 hour ago, Aristides said:

    Disclose the primary funding source of all media on Twitter if you want to really inform people so they can make their own determination of  its validity.

    they wouldn't likely know it. THey've basically broken it into public and private.

  3. Welp - the CBC is dropping the hammer apperently :)


    ""Twitter can be a powerful tool for our journalists to communicate with Canadians, but it undermines the accuracy and professionalism of the work they do to allow our independence to be falsely described in this way,""


  4. On 4/11/2023 at 4:16 PM, Nefarious Banana said:

    Besides the damage this Liberal government has inflicted on Canada  . . .  eg. massive debt, lost investor confidence, over-reach into many personal/private initiatives, ratcheting-up tax increases with nothing to show for it, soft on crime, etc., etc. . . .   It has done damage to the inherent enthusiasm the Canadian citizens have to make this country work as a country.  We are divided as never before, all on the whims of a fool.

    True, but as concerning is the fact it appears more and more clear every day he's sold our soverignty to the highest bidder. The chinese put money in his foundation and support his candidates - we're to think he gives nothing in return?

    • Like 1
  5. 3 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    It is considered bad form to make a claim on a public forum, then expect someone else to prove that claim for you. 

    Not anymore. It was recognized quite some time ago that the practice of 'sealioning' was becoming prevalent and that it should NOT be expected at all to provide facts that are simple to look up.

    If you're providing something really obscure then fine, but it's a super quick google search with all the results you need on the front page.

    3 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

    If you cannot prove your own claim, through citations, just admit you were wrong, or admit your claim is only opinion, and move forward.

    if you cannot disprove me through citations, just admit i'm right and that my claim is fact.

    Works both ways.

    It is ESPECIALLY a common game on the left - demand a source. Then claim the source is not suitable because you think it's bias or similar flaw, demand more. Claim those are not good enough for whatever reason and claim that there's some nebulous problem with the data. Demand more. Then eventually just move on to the person's next point and repeat.

    If you are unable to do BASIC elementary research - then you are too stupid for this conversation and should restrain yourself to something a little more kindergarten oriented. If you ARE capable - do your own lookups, you're a big boy/girl/whatever

  6. 11 minutes ago, reason10 said:

    Here's a factual clue, Schultz. You have lost the argument on the facts.

    Wow - you must REALLY think i won and that you lost badly to try to sell it that hard :)

    Sorry kiddo - i didn't mean to cause you emotional damage.

    11 minutes ago, reason10 said:


    You keep arguing the same facts that you lost on. And unlike you I have a job to go to. This discussion is not worth my time to  keep putting you in your uneducated place.

    But it is worth your time to keep coming back and begging me to agree you won :) ROFLMAO - hoooo kaaay little guy

    11 minutes ago, reason10 said:


    We're done here. Move on.

    Followed by more begging and crying :)  PLEAAAAASE LET ME WIN you say ;)

    Dude you're going from pathetic down to pitiable. Like i genuinely feel sorry for you.

    Lets recap the facts:

    Women don't know right away when they get pregnant - it takes time for the tests to be effective so 6 weeks isn't much time at all.

    If you're going to claim that a fetus is a human being from conception then you'll have to explain why that is, and you have failed to even try to do that.

    Roe vs wade was not about abortion per se, it was about whether it was covered by the constitution.

    You're an !diot.

    Those are the facts.

    Now - cope with that, and stop begging me to let you win, it's getting pretty damn sad.

    And i'm sorry for causing you emotional damage.



  7. 1 minute ago, robosmith said:

    No, you're completely free to post ONLY YOUR OPINION. But there is no reason for me to confirm what YOU CANNOT.

    So you can't do it. I get it. You are both unable and unwilling to educate yourself and need me to do it for you.

    Man, that must be a pretty sad way to live. I do feel badly for you. I've always been able to look stuff up on my own, i can't imagine what that's like for you.

  8. 8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Horrific shame for something so bad that you can't recall what it is/was?

    I recall just fine and so do you.

    So at the end of the day that's what you are - the kind of person who would fake quotes deliberately and then attempt to cover the fact up when called on it.

    You get to live with that, and the fact that people know that about you now.

    • Like 1
  9. 44 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    He'll probably lose again.  If they want to nominate a guy who already lost because they can't read the room that's up to them.  The GOP just take everything too far.

    Honestly i'm not sure he will lose. I wouldn't bet too much against taht guy. Biden isn't inspiring people to get out there and vote that's for sure.

    The best thing for the GOP is for trump to lose the nomination to a strong candidate who then wins two terms.  But - that's not looking like it's in the cards.  The second best thing is for him to run and win. Do his four years, and then be out of the game permanently for life. If he doesn't he'll keep trying and this never goes away.

    So i think if he takes the nomination the GOP will pull out all stops, and lets face it - biden isn't going to be able to win by hiding in his basement again this time. He'll have to come out and defend his record. Which means he'll have to stay awake in front of the camera.

    Frankly it doesn't look great for the us either way right now. Trump did decently as far as results but his rhetoric is unsuitable for a president and the drama took away from his good works on things like the employment front. And his rhetoric is getting worse not better.

    Biden is a train wreck.

    So either way id' say the us is minimum 4 years out from good governance. At least. We'll see who runs next.

    • Thanks 1
  10. 1 hour ago, herbie said:

    Right you small thinking pinheads, if I'd reno'd the cabin for the same amount it would've only increased in value 50%. It was in a different area of the province and would've been a tiny level of profit compared to here. So I went by the ROI. And sold the cabin at current market for only triple what it cost me to buy, build and maintain for 40 years.


    So the renos did NOT increase your home's value the way you said it did. What increased your home's value was appreciation over time. If you had done NO renos it would still have apprecaited.

    SO you lied. Period.

    Yeah. We knew that. thanks for confirming? I guess? but - honestly we already were well aware you were full of it.

  11. 10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    When an employee is terminated without cause, it means they are being let go, but not for significant workplace misconduct (otherwise known as a termination “for cause“). The reasons behind a termination without cause may include restructuring, cost cutting, realignment, or poor work performance. A company can also let you go simply because they don’t like you. As long as the reason for the termination or lay off is not discriminatory, it is completely legal for the employer to terminate your employment. 



    As someone who's had to deal with this many times in court, i can tell you that is not exhaustive in the slighetst. Courts have and do demand reinstatement of positions, and/or demand payouts of wages vastly in excess of what the required minimum is by law.

    The issues will be things like how easy it is to get another similar job, if they feel there was any discrimination involved. etc.

    But i absolutely promise you that if you fire someone from a position like the cbc and it's considered wrongful dismissal you are NOT getting away with it that easily AND they're union so it gets to be an order of magnitude worse.

    I mean that was doug ford's plan too right, with hydro 1. He got in and tried and got slaughered.  it just doesn't work that way.

  12. 20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    Only seeks to PERSUADE action, NOT FORCE IT.


    perSUASION and FOrCe aRe EXtremeLY SiMiLaR.

    In essence force is power made operative against resistance; exertion. Persuasion is the same thing, but specifically using arguments only. It's just a more specific term for the same thing. You're trying to put pressure on someone to take action.

    And that's why we use pretty girls to sell things like beer.

    But as noted - it wasn't the advertising component that was the issue of force here.

  13. 6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    Advertising is NEVER about FORCE.

    Advertising is entirely about force, one way or another. It seeks to compel action.

    And nothing wrong with that really. But - that's not what i referred to. This isn't really about the advertising, at least not in the traditional sense. And people will very much feel that they're being pressured to accept transgenderism and a good thing by choosing to drink the beer if the beer is supporting this.

    So you're being 'forced' to choose - if you want the beer accept transgenderism and if you don't accept it you shouldn't drink this beer.

    And people are getting mad.  Frankly a lot of people are sick of the intersectional wars and the culture war

  14. 7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    What makes you believe ^this is NOT SOP?

    Because it isn't. Read up on what SOP is in these cases. They currently feel the best way to treat it is to lean into the mental health issue and "affirm' thier gender of choice hoping that will reduce their tensions and allow them to lead a semi normal life.  But there's not a lot of evidence that says they will.

    • Like 1
  15. 11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    I disagree. All it takes is a hard-nosed attitude.

    It's well past that.

    11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    Fire the more openly biased 'faces', and impose a sense of non-partisanship on the news and political affairs department, or whatever they're calling it.


    Oh you mean illegally terminate people for their beliefs without sufficient proof that they engaged in partisan activities permanently.  There is ZERO chance of getting away with that and any gov't who tried would find they'd go into the next election with the expensive lawsuits ongoing and be running as the 'mean to the beloved cbc' party.

    11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    Then hire some creative talent that doesn't live in Toronto. Maybe even consider what the people outside Toronto might like to see in the form of entertainment.

    You realize toronto largely elects who's gov't. Telling them they can't apply isn't going to go over well.

    11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    Fire anyone who objects to this.

    More lawsuits and wrongful dismissals and the people get their jobs back

    11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:


    Fire anyone who stands in the way.

    Dude....  no. Just no. This is not how it works in Canada. You can't  just 'fire' everyone.

    11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    Whether they're bureaucrats, producers or 'talent. Cut back on the number of bureaucrats. Way back. And prioritize local news. I can assure you that CTV sucks at that (and at national news for that matter). In fact, most of Canada's media suck at news. I include Postmedia in that. Their papers are a shadow of what they once were due to cost cutting. Global does a good job of covering local news. Way better than the CBC or CTV. See what they do and imitate it.

    So here's the thing. The cbc actaully iS able to distance itself from the govt' That's WHY they can favour the libs.

    So NONE of what you've suggested is possible. THe gov't doesnt' get to hire or fire anyone at the CBC

    And even if it did - the libs would just fire the people and hire back the ones they liked next time they got in.

    It is beyond saving. All you can do is defund it and let it burn itself to the ground.

    • Thanks 1
  16. 5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

    Even with a minority gov't he still seems like he can just do whatever he wants. 

    It's not a minority tho - it's a pimp majority :)  The ndp sold their independence to the libs and now it's more like a 'minority wif bitcches" where it's not a minority at all.

    5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

    I'm worried that voters might leave the NDP because they feel like the Singh NDP is only an extension of the LPOC, and just cast their vote directly with the Libs. 

    That certainly will be the lib angle to draw them.. Amazingly - right now the ndp is bleeding to the cpc. But the libs will pull their often  used and often successful ploy of "please ndp, you must join forces and vote with us to stop the terror of the evil conservative nazi's!!!!!!"

    And that may work. Traditionally when we see these deals the jr partner in the deal suffers greatly next election.

    However - sometimes when that happens it pushes the blue liberals into the camp of the tories. And there's strong indications that may happen here. People are worried about the deficit, they're worried about inflation and interest rates, they're worried about ever buying a home  Those are all CPC bread and butter issues and also ones that trudeau has a bad track record for.

    Generally politicians are great campaigners OR they are great leaders. Rarely do they excel at both. Harper for example was a terrible campaigner. Obama - gerat campaigner but very mediocre leader.

    I think PP is going to be one of those very very very rare ones where he does well at both. I think he's going to run a very solid campaign and really wow people and probably take a majority, and i think he'll do better than most as a leader. (tho trudeau is setting that bar pretty low).

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  • Create New...