Black Dog

In terms of per capita funding, the CBC is one of the least subsidized public broadcasters in the western world. I should also point out that Canada's private television industry also receive large government subsidies that end up benefiting private broadcasters: would you argue against those as well? That would effectively kill the CBC, so why not just have the courage of your convictions and do that? Which one is that? If it's PBS or NPR, we're talking apples and oranges.

And that claim is the biggest joke of all given your content post road to Damascus conversion.

What is all about the CBC? The ads and the lobby group behind them? Well, duh. If you're implying the CBC itself is behind these things, though, you're gonna need to back that up.

But again, so we're clear: you, a newly converted libertarian, are demanding the government intervene directly to support private industry in its time of need. If there's any doubt about that, you've doubled down here: So I'm just curious: how do you square these beliefs with your alleged libertarianism? Is there still a lot of socialist left in socialist or what?

Why? The CBC is not affiliated with the organization putting these ads out.

And you of course have evidence the CBC is is involved, yes?

Heckuva game last night.

Yes it's self evident that you can't explain your position and are simply parroting the party line on this. Squawk!

Why?

So you're upset that the NDP in Alberta in insufficiently interventionist in the economy? Libertarianism: you're doing it wrong.

Having supporters at the CBC is not the same as having support from the CBC. The premise here depends on seeing the CBC as a monolith, when in fact it contains hundreds if not thousands of individuals with varying political beliefs and different interests.

But if the CBC was, as you claim "heavily invested in defeating Harper" why wouldn't they run the ads?

On the CBC?

I can't imagine why the OP neglected to mention that in his little rant there...

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Cut out the thread drift, eh.

Tax credits make a lot more sense when you dispense with the idea that they are about the economy.

This is what you said: That's the question we're all waiting for an answer to because your answer so far can be summed up as: "Meh."

Uh, it was a pure stroke of luck these guys were there at the time. Nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy.

"A few" who just happen to be the people at the forefront of the movement and who set the tone for others to follow. Like Farrell, like Paul Elam, like Karen Straughn etc .(none of whom are saying anything about men's issues that hasn't already been said by feminists decades ago).. So an internet troll can't be an MRA? No True Scotsman...? Don't forget several dozen rolls of toilet paper (because he's a turd, you see). Since you brought him up, he's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: a nobody "journalist" who hates games and gaming who jumped on the GG bandwagon to further his own anti-feminist agenda. If you're so concerned about how men's issues aren't getting enough attention, take a look at who is carrying the torch and what they are spending their energy on.

That's because, as we've discussed before, the main thrust of the men's rights movement as we know it is not men's rights, but anti-feminist/anti-woman (as the death threats, bomb threats, doxxing etc experienced by people like Anita Sarkesian show). Maybe if all the prominent MRAs weren't gross turds (and I'd include Warren "date rape is exciting" Farrrell in there), these issues would get more traction, but it's kinda hard to see past dumb ish like the claim we live in a "highly gynocentric society," which is clearly false given your other statements on the nature of social gender roles (such as "gender roles are such that only women can have problems and men need to 'man up', 'grow balls' and never complain about issues facing them.")

AA might not be around next year. His deal is up this season.

Given the matter is before the courts, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for comment. Or maybe do?

Well shit, then why have a specific section in the forum guidelines for it? Why did you recently take me to task for what you claimed was trolling if you can't even define what it is? If the instigator and retaliator were both being dealt with in an equitable fashion, you might have a point. But clearly they aren't. THAT'S the point. Again, it's clear you see the onus is on people to not respond to trolls as opposed to putting the onus on people not to troll. But then, you don't seem to believe in trolling (except when you're deleting posts for that reason), so I'm not sure how to read this.

Well, you know what they say about choosing between printing the truth or the legend...

Indeed:that's as direct an admission of trolling as you'll find without someone saying "I'm totally trolling all of you for the lulz."