Michael Hardner

... OR ... 😂

Get a grip ? If you had a good argue, you wouldn't have to imply that my point isn't even arguable. And, yes, Russia is a threat to it's neighbours if you haven't read the news lately. And you never got back to me on the Ivermectin thread. Probably for the better... Back to ignore then....

Seems like a good deal to have the US aligned with us on keeping Russia at bay. Your tax money pays for a fraction of the coverage.

It's exactly that, based on your cranky old man rant. Let's see you post a cite of the number of children who have "cut their balls off" in Canada.

Are you commenting on this? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-crackdown-temporary-foreign-workers-1.7304819

Trump indicated he wants to fund IVF, I read. I would support that, even though the cost is likely $1B-$5B

They have no idea. They don't want energy to fail though. They want big companies to succeed even if they're not viable.

Here you go... Shoe on the other foot now... Slate and Drudge ( not Business Insider ) say Twitter is CENSORING the Cemetery story 😂 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-x-trump-arlington-national-cemetery-visit-spam-unsafe-2024-8

1. I can dismiss some, if it's a repetitive argument. I gave them all their due, including the one I cited. I get zero credit for that, presumably because I come to a different conclusion than you. So I have to be marked deficient. Isn't that what you say your opponents do?

1. I find it odd that people assume I only listen to the MSM. Why do you think that ? Because I disagree with you? It's like me accusing you of watching FOX news. I have no idea where you get your information. I get most of mine on here. 2. Yes, I realize that. I made my mind up about this issue a long time ago. I did look at counter evidence, most recently when Nationalist (I think) posted that Invermectin Study. The claims that I have seen don't usually hold up to close scrutiny. Anyway, I don't think there's much for us to discuss here. We don't agree.

Nothing will happen. Just look at what you're saying "Biden administration demanded censorship" ... If the government was doing this illegally then there's likely no traceability. If not, then there's an order and likely some legal rationale. Back to the courts if that is the case. But this word "Censorship" is being overused these days. On a private platform you have zero right to express yourself. Is it 'censorship' if FOX doesn't give me time on their network to speak my "truths" ? The word might be apt, in terms of English usage, but if that's we're talking about it's really a big nothing. These people stifle all kinds of voices for various reasons all the time. Every platform does it daily for many different reasons, ultimately legal liability and/or money are at the root of it And likewise, the platforms have ironclad rationales do do what they want to do, whether that means compliance or not. If we walk around in mock shock mouthing "Zuckerberg censored somebody" then it comes across to me as beyond naive.

The thumbs up juxtaposed with the gravestone, obviously. I can't understand the sentiment...

It's not political. It's just an odd picture. I can't make sense of it. Are you going to deny that it's a strange picture?

That photo though... 🤨

FOX is pretty blatantly censored. They're the number one TV Cable news source, and have somehow convinced their watchers that they're not mainstream...

Agreed. And... There are about 4 posters on here who would find some blame on both sides.

The point is that expertise itself is moving under the political realm. That's not a good thing in any sense. No money to be made in objectivity anymore.

1. Average tattoo cost for a medium sized tattoo= $200 https://tattoostudiopro.com/tattoo-prices/#:~:text=Generally%2C small tattoos can cost,and large tattoos over %24250. Low average for rent in Montreal= $1281 https://www.centris.ca/en/blog/real-estate/average-rent-for-montreal-apartments-in-2024 $200/$1281 as a percentage = 15.61 % Proven: a tattoo costs a fraction of rent. (In Ontario, we use math) 2. I don't think that you can say that these people aren't poor. You don't know if they are or not. Believe it or not, poor people can also make poor spending decisions. 3. Chauncey Gardener spoke this way in Being There.

You should put them on ignore 😉

Ok, well they'll also see my response, which is: what are your reasons for saying that? Callous means insensitive or uncaring. Disingenuous means cagey or slightly dishonest. The invectin thing is to be worked out by the doctors. When yours says you can take it, I'll be happy for you.

1. Yeah but if it means nothing to me, how can you say I'm being callous? For example, blackbird flips out when people say they don't believe in God..... My truth is my own and likewise with you. I'm just telling you to keep a lid on it if you want to chat on this topic. Or don't I guess ... 2. Interesting interpretation. Maybe that's true. Who knows. If somebody asked me something and I say... Sorry, I can't say.... I would be surprised if they interpreted it as somebody preventing me from saying it. Just saying... 😉

1. Yes, but they don't accept a single study as evidence. And that one's a few years old. I found studies that claimed the opposite so we're at a point when we're looking for consensus. I have zero stake in this issue either way, so save the name calling. This small issue means way more to you than to me. 2. Well what did you think of that? He didn't seem to agree that it's sufficiently proven.

1. You didn't. 2. And yet we've been doing this since forever without much opposition. 3. You are most welcome. The reason I pointed out that there's value in this discussion is that many on the board hate discussion to the point where they jump in and call you a name for considering abstract principles...

1. By your definition, I assume so. 2. The benefits haven't been sufficiently proven, so your last sentence must be taken as incorrect. I went to my trusted sources for this. 3. It's not only new, it's useful. Would you take that drug without consulting with your doctor?

I would not use the word caste. The fact is that we have never had civilizations where freedoms of expression are 100% allowed. I'm not saying the idea of allowing it is terrible, but there are costs. I'm 100% against the idea that mitigating disinformation is a revolutionary idea. The fact is that there are benefits, which is why we have been doing it since forever. So you have an idea here that's worth considering. It's debatable. But your use of the word caste makes me wonder if you want to have an honest discussion, or if you're going to paint the idea of information control, and by that I mean Central information control as some kind of revolting new development. And, yes, privately... Twitter Facebook Fox News... CBC... Physical spaces, of course... All of these things are governed by private management.