Michael Hardner

1. No, I mean digital outfits like Black lock. We should be promoting these on here. 2. The digital ones, yes I would say so. 3. If it does, I can just say I'll be sad. If you're entertained by my sadness, sure... Mark it on the calendar. 4. Strange. Why do you think that I won't? Care to compare how much we spend annually on Canadian media? And we're establishing that the CBC won't disappear altogether, good. 5. Yes, it seems we're looking at the same source. Interesting that TV across the board was more trusted than newspaper. 6. Well, if you accept that bias happens and it's a thing to be monitored then I'm sure that Russian, Chinese, and Iranian propaganda is also a concern.

1. These exist today. And I think that it's a stronger differentiator to distinguish between real journalism and muckraking. 2. Point taken. I meant autonomous from the central corp in terms of programming. I doubt that Poilievre will have the guts to completely remove one of the most trusted public information sources, as per recent polling. The rest of your points are valid, except that governments absolutely have to do something about offshore propaganda.

Indie news would be one way. Also autonomous local CBC digital sites are an option. Unfortunately our governments, plural, tend to only listen to the big fish in the pond. That's how you get the government writing checks for millions to the National Post...

Cause? No, they don't cause it. They do have an impact though. As was pointed out, inflation is a worldwide phenomenon after the pandemic. Housing prices were increasing in Japan. So... Impact yes, cause no. Unless you're saying inflation is now going down is due to reduced government spending? We also had huge spike in government spending under Obama and Harper 2008 2009. ... And to those those on the sidelines here, I'm not saying Trudeau and Biden are good economic leaders. Far from it. But DUIs point is valid, and people shouldn't automatically jump into partisanship when it comes to complicated economic questions.

It's Trudeau and Biden to blame though...

I have defended them as much as I can. That's the point. I don't want to keep replying, replying, replying replying.. I lost I guess.

1. I would say that if my cabinet members developed something, the definition says I'm associated. 2. I'm associated with those posts, yes. ... I don't think that there's much more to discuss here, as we're getting down to arguing semantics. So I'd rather not continue. If you want to say that I'm running away, then go ahead. Cheers...

1. My argument is that someone is associated to a policy document architected by their associates, by definition. 2. I like posts based on the content of the post, not because I agree with the points. That's the zero sum game I have talked about. I respected Nationalist's position on trade though I disagree. Some can't get their heads around that idea.

Bingo. In other news, right wingers hate the Tech Billionaire barons until they say the magic words like woke or conmie. Repeat and reverse for left wingers...

1. Given he IS associated with the architects I would disagree but it's arguable. 2. Mine? Pray tell what is*my* record? 🤔

Paul Ryan is conservative. Trump is not. I didn't say he had anything to do with the policy development, but I believe he will be open to implementing some of it despite his denials.

Trump's denials are suspect, given the proximity of the participants to his past activities. Given that Chud conspiracies have tied Canadian MPs (including Poilievre) to the WEF, it would be consistent if they also tied Trump to this one. It's also far more specific and targeted than, say, "sustainable cities".

As for the controversy, what there is if it, normal people stopped responding years ago. So all you hear is fringe noise. I'm hoping that this means we have adjusted our natural filters to tune out Chud nonsense such as Fauchi wanted to kill people etc. I did engage with such topics during the pandemic but, hey it was Covid and everyone was bored 🥱

Sars is one that I can remember....

1. Do you think that? I don't think I would even guess as to who I engage with more in here. It feels like the people I engage with the most are skeptical, centrists or center left types 2. I'm sure that's your impression. I'm not sure if it's true though. The last big conversation I can remember having... Last two were with nationalist I think.

Has there ever been a global health emergency that scared you more than the public health response? It just strikes me at some point the actual threat should start to bother you.

Offenders meaning that they exhibit poor behaviour, yes. Whether or not I agree with that, or even anything they post is beside the point I can still discuss with them and get to some kind of end point...

It's not that I don't like the posts. It's that I don't agree with the method of discussion. It's a waste of time for me to talk to someone who doesn't speak English for example. So why would I? Why would I discussion with someone who just sees the discussion as a contest? I did respond, I think, to a post of yours today. Did I? Something like an improvement of wording I had... And acknowledged the point...

1. I said POSSIBLE contradictions. I did point some out and you answered. The more answers I get the more I understand your stance. For example, I now know you actually include our... not sure how to call them... our sub nations of FN and Quebec. We're never going to agree, but as a countryman I have to accept your opinion if it's well founded. 2. Got it.

1. I only ask about your logical foundations and ask you about them when I see a possible contradiction. 2. Speaking of warping... I never said that.

Yes that's a better way to say that.

My #1 source of frustration here... folks who stop engaging in good faith when you start questioning their logical foundations. I think that too many on here see discussion as a contest. If it were, why do we never see any victories?

1. Ok, a solid take. So I have known a few "pure" nationalist types in my day and they were ALL for the NDP. Excluding the influence of America, sometimes including money, was their way forward. I can't say I agreed with that, but only because it seemed impossible. Just a comment, not an endorsement...

Funny, we just had a discussion of Temporary Foreign Workers and what's clear is that industry lobbies heavily to not be hamstrung by immigration rules. Another observation from me, please don't read into this comment (as many do) that I want open borders etc. Just an observation that flourishing industry doesn't necessarily equate to better standards of living for Canadians. Amazon wants to close down every store in your town. Wal Mart too. How are we supposed to create Canadian Walmarts and Amazons? Food for thought....

It's an observation, not an expression of MY values or preferences... "We" includes you and me too. I'm pretty sure you're not a big Quebec booster amirite?