Search the Community

This poll is based on: ⬆️ Trending via CBC News - Trudeau said Canada will never meet NATO military spending target, leaked intel claims. 📹 Also includes a report with concerns from NATO allies on the state of the Canadian Military: Poll: Do you believe that the recent US intelligence leaked report accurately portrayed the state of the Canadian Armed Forces?

Today, Elon Musk released a statement in which he announced that he had updated the funding label for the CBC to "69% government funded" following protests by the organization, who claimed that their funding was less than 70%. 😎 The CBC has paused Twitter. They follow NPR and PBS in the United States after being labelled: "government funded." This got me thinking, for some reason, what would happen if Big Tech took on a more political role in Canada? I am curious to know your opinion on this matter: Would you be in favour of a Big Tech Federal Political Party in Canada? Options: Yes, I would support a Big Tech Federal Political Party in Canada because they have the expertise, resources, and influence to tackle complex issues related to technology, innovation, and the digital economy. Furthermore, they can leverage their vast networks and data-driven approaches to drive positive change and promote transparency, accountability, and ethical practices in the political system. No, I would not support a Big Tech Federal Political Party in Canada because it could create conflicts of interest, lead to monopolistic practices, and undermine democratic values such as diversity, representation, and fair competition. Moreover, it could exacerbate existing power imbalances and weaken the independence and autonomy of the political system. I am undecided or neutral on the question of supporting a Big Tech Federal Political Party in Canada because I need more information about their policies, values, and goals. I believe it is important to evaluate each party based on their track record, platform, and leadership, and to assess their potential impact on society, the economy, and the environment. Other.

This poll is based on the ⬆️ trending article from The Toronto Sun: Conservatives want Twitter to label CBC accounts as 'government-funded' media CBC said in a statement that that is 'clearly not the case'. Do you agree with labelling CBC accounts as ‘government-funded’ media?

Not a surprise for myself, to give my short opinion. Trending via the CBC Book alleges longstanding U.S. concerns. Canadian intel veteran who recalls probe to testify in Parliament. The United States ran a secret probe into national-security threats posed by Chinese overseas operations that drew alarming conclusions about Canada, alleges a new book co-authored by a former RCMP and military intelligence official. The book says the project, code-named Operation Dragon Lord, led to an unnerving takeaway: Beijing's activities in Canada represented a security threat to the United States. Full Article with a lot of text to read and interesting details: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-dragon-lord-probe-book-1.6783063?cmp=rss

The criminal element has moved its aims towards real estate fraud, as recently several stories are trending everywhere in the Canadian Media. The CBC (they have good things once in a while) also ran an article: How to protect yourself from real-estate title fraud. ---> Take steps to protect your identity: Be wary of who you share personal information with. Regularly check credit card reports, bank and credit card statements and report anything irregular. Shred documents containing personal information before placing them in the garbage. Limit mail theft by regularly retrieving mail. Notify the post office, financial institutions and other service providers of your new address when you move. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/prevent-title-insurance-fraud-1.6711615 and the last arrest: Three people have been charged after allegedly impersonating the owners of a Toronto home and selling it while they were out of the country. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/3-people-charged-after-allegedly-impersonating-homeowners-to-sell-toronto-property-1.6249621 For more information on how to prevent identity theft, visit the following links: Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Canada Revenue Agency Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

The CBC and Desmond Brown want you to believe that Black people are threatened by racist, violent whites in Canada. Why? No reason, it's just what they are obsessed with. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6455390 The absurd article above makes nonsensical and racist claims about the danger white people present to Blacks in Canada. The article fails to mention that Canada does not release race based stats on perpetrators of violent crimes to protect Black males aged 16 to 40 who if the data were to be released, would be by far the group most responsible for shootings, gun crimes, and homicide. Doubt me? Release the stats and prove me wrong. This demographic, Black males 16 to 40 make up around 1 % of Canada's total population and would likely be responsible for over 50% of all shootings in Canada. Take a look at one of the few sources of racial identity: https://www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php Look and see what demographic is the most represented in the most wanted list. There is data on victims which is convenient. They won't release stats for perpetrators or suspects but victims because blacks are highly represented as victims. This data shows 44% of victims of shootings are Black. This correlates to the likely race of the 44% of these perpetrators. See the data yourself for victims. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/new-uoft-research-sheds-light-on-homicides-1.6315931 Again, as Black fragility/black privilege does not allow for the government or media to release the stats for those who committed serious crimes, here are unofficial stats of suspects bases on police and reports from the media that does release the race. Unofficial stats support this projection of around 50% of homicide suspects being Black. In fact, this reports suggests that 50% would be a very low estimate for homicides and especially low for shooting deaths in the GTA. Why won't anyone research this? The above data and the US figures, the FBI data shows Blacks committ 53% of homicides, support the hypothesis of 1% of the population being responsible for about 50% of the shootings and homicides. Try finding a CBC/msm article that will mention a Black suspect in a serious crime. They hide the description when it is non white time and time again. In the US, Blacks are 13% of the population and responsible for over half the homicides. They are also responsible for 24% of hate crimes despite their 13% of the population. https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/offenders By race, ethnicity, and age (Based on Table 9.) Race In 2019, race was reported for 6,406 known hate crime offenders. Of these offenders: 52.5 percent were White. 23.9 percent were Black or African American. 6.6 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (group of multiple races). 1.1 percent were American Indian or Alaska Native. 0.9 percent (58 offenders) were Asian. 0.3 percent (22 offenders) were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. 14.6 percent were unknown. The article by Desmond, who seems to hate white people, claims that hate crimes increased against Blacks in Canada with no context or citing their source. It is important to note that the article does not reference convictions just reported hate crimes. There is an important distinction, one has been proven and the other is simply a complaint. Desmond also produces zero examples of any hate related white on black shooting. Remember the...oh yeah? There are no examples. The article does not mention the reality of Black on Asian hate or Black on white hate or Black on Jewish hate. Can you imagineif Samuel Opoku were White? Sam was the delightful fella who allegedly threw feces on Asians. https://nationalpost.com/news/it-was-feces-third-poop-attack-in-four-days-has-toronto-students-on-edge Did Desmond write anything about this. Or anything on Darrell Brooks? https://torontosun.com/newsletters/ The real problem with hate crimes, or any crime, does not rest with white on black violence. One should look at the data and examine the Muslim community for hate crimes for insight into the issue. https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8143311/isis-supporter-pleads-guilty-to-killing-toronto-woman-with-hammer/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/4347254/danforth-shooting-victim-reese-fallon/amp/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa On no level can any reasonable person suggest whites rob, shoot, kill Black more people more than Blacks do the same to whites in Canada. Every week in the GTA there is another serious shooting by Black suspects and no one wants to talk about it but we can talk abour fictional white on black violence in Canada? Our media and politicians have jumped the shark a long time ago. They transcend absurdity with their race baiting fake news. Imagine a state funded media organization publishing an article in 2022 about the lack of safety for Blacks in Canada from whites? I wonder if Mitch Marner, the family of Dante Andreatta, John Wheeler, and the victims of the 400 plus shootings each year just in the GTA agree with the theater of white on black violence in Canada? https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/local/toronto/2020/12/21/1_5240508.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/local/toronto/2020/9/17/1_5109430.html Anyone want to talk about the Just Dessert shooting? https://www.google.com/amp/s/toronto.citynews.ca/2008/05/02/man-convicted-in-just-desserts-killing-back-behind-bars/amp/ This article further proves that the CBC needs to be defended.

I did some quick searches on the BBC and CBC's 'Impartial' [suppressing laughter] 'news' sites. The BBC is applying for a domestic US broadcasting license and a bigger share of the US news market. Frightening. Why Bush would allow this, is beyond my ken. On the BBC site I found: 1) BBC's reporting of U.S. President George Bush's pledge of $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa makes a good case study. Approximating as it does to four times the entire GDP of Zambia, one might expect that such a gigantic aid package would be reported positively. However, a search of the BBC's Web site reveals an altogether different picture. >Of the articles that relate to the AIDS initiative, one reports President Bush's summer tour of five African countries, entitled: "Is the US Africa's friend or foe?" Within the piece its author remarks: "others saw ulterior motives behind Mr. Bush's visit. Some of the AIDS cash is dependent on deals with U.S. pharmaceutical companies, while others saw America's thirst for oil as the key motivation. Meanwhile the U.S. has refused to commit help to Liberia during [the] recent heavy conflict." >This is one way that the BBC achieves "impartiality" -- countering positive, real news about the U.S. with hostile "quotes" ascribed to anonymous "sources" or rent-a-rant pressure groups. The CBC adds 'The president's interest in the continent is a big change from his attitude during the 2000 presidential campaign, in which he called the continent a country and said the U.S. had no "national strategic interests" there.' Again not adding that Canada does nothing on AIDS relief and has no pharma industry to produce an antidote to the disease. They side swipe Bush's package with belittling comments. 2) When the BBC reported how U.S. troops had unearthed in early May a mass grave containing the bodies of 15,000 Iraqi men, women and children murdered by Sadam Hussein's regime, the BBC's radio newscaster announced the discovery thus: "Human-rights groups have today criticized the U.S. military for failing to protect the site of a mass grave in Iraq." In other words, the BBC reported the inconsequential (invented?) anti-U.S. reaction as the main issue rather than the far more newsworthy event vindicating U.S. policy from which that reaction emanated. The CBC adds: 'Some people who lost relatives told a CBC news crew that the world should be ashamed of itself for not doing anything to help protect them from a brutal dictatorship until now.' Again the CBC does not state that the war was moral, justified or a force for good, nor does it add details on the US efforts to secure the mass grave sites or the lack of Canadian efforts in anything to do with Iraq qua grave sites, security or military aid. It sticks on its front page to: There isn't a situation, event or initiative extolling conservative principles or institutions which the BBC or CBC does not actively seek to diminish, distort or alter completely through the inclusion of extraneous matter. Impartial ? Surely you jest.