Bryan

The statement he made is consistent with opinions expressed by people who are experts in that field. Just because someone "could" drink it, doesn't mean he specifically would want to. When dealing with an activist with an agenda like he was, it would be particularly unwise to take a drink of ANYTHING that was being offered. It was clearly a set-up, not an honest interview. Moore has a reason to be upset by the trick.

The lying over who was even being interviewed, and the context over which his remarks were made is laughable. Patrick Moore doesn't work for Monsanto in any capacity. He's not an expert on Glyphosate, nor did he purport to be one. He agreed to an interview about golden rice, was ambushed with an irrelevant misdirection.

The stupid part of this move is Future Shop was profitable, Best Buy is not. I think BB head office is going to find that this move will make things worse for them, not better. They won't be merging those Future Shop profits into Best Buy, they will simply be losing them to someone else.

People absolutely do make those choices. Many even change their minds about it (in either direction). The choice may be subconscious, but it's as much a choice as preferred foods, clothes, music, religion, literary genres, etc. People get persecuted to various degrees all over the world for these pretty mundane choices that could easily be concealed, yet they very often choose to proudly accept being victims for their choices.

The argument that no one would choose to be gay is ridiculous. People in all walks of life routinely make choices that go against their own self-interest.

I wish that were true. Unfortunately it's not.

http://assets.numeris.ca/Downloads/March%209%20-%20March%2015,%202015%20(National).pdf Not a single CBC broadcast of any kind, including news, was even in the top 30 in the most recent ratings (including PVR numbers). CTV News, on the other hand, held several spots in that top 30. The people who ever watch anything on CBC television are a very small minority. They are in the thousands, not millions. People who do get their news from CBC are mostly getting it from the website and the radio. I've said it before, and I still believe it to be true: CBC should be reduced to just the website and podcasts of their radio shows. The actual broadcasting should be completely shut down.

Heyman (and by extension Obama) have to take the loin's share of the blame on this. In the initial meeting with Baird, Heyman was told what the biggest areas of concern were for Canada so that future meeting could be scheduled around them. Heyman is the one who said those things were not open for discussion. There's no point in any further meetings until that situation changes from the American side.

Exactly, the group which purports to support victims of racism openly admits that they themselves are a bunch of racists.

Irony, the gift that keeps on giving.

You're engaging in the the same illogical line of thinking as the students' group.

I wouldn't defend the actions, but I think I have a probable explanation: It's a student group. Immature people do immature things. They probably don't even see the hypocrisy.

Also, according to many who knew Kyle, the book was largely a work of fiction.

Then you've got nothing to worry about.

Terrorists don't need, nor should ever have had, rights.

About time.

Not just CTV. Both CBC and CTV's news channels also had mandatory carriage when they were launched, and for several years after. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/13/sun-news-mandatory-carriage-crtc_n_2122391.html Even when lambasting Sun News, Bell media properties make no attempt to hide this either: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/despite-the-irony-in-sun-tvs-plea-critics-should-back-its-bid-for-mandatory-carriage/article7816874/

Some people are. The people opposed to stopping terrorism, for instance.

Yes, THAT is the quote I'm talking about. It's absolutely true, and it means exactly what it says. It does not mean anything else. There are no extra alternative meanings, no changes in tense that would be an entirely different discussion. You seem to be of the impression that if a situation changes, all those years of the previous conditions never happened.

You're still lying, trying to wedge in things I didn't claim. You even quoted what I actually said, then went off to try to argue against things I didn't.

Still lying I see. You are making things up that I never said, and insisting on arguing with that fictitious thing inside your head. You need help.

Thank You. Apology accepted.

You just did it again.

I never said it was. You and Guyser are both playing a game where you make up something I did not say, and insist that I address that. Guyser2 even went so far as to repost every thing I said in this thread, and not once did I ever make ANY claims about Newsworld. That's how Guyser2 does almost all of his debating on this site: he makes up something the other person did not say (he LIES), and insists on arguing against that. He even goes so far as to quote people, but change the wording in their quotes to make it appear that they said something they did not. He did that to me in this thread. That is why I'm calling him what he is, a liar.

Now you're lying too.