Trudeau test drives his smear campaign

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The fact the state funds and controls crown corporations was never in doubt.  The notion that the state controls the news however....Thanks for keeping the shits and giggles coming.

 

Agreed...if it's good enough for Trudeau's favourite island paradise (Cuba) and dictator...then it is good enough for Liberal Canada.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Agreed...

Avoided...you accounting for decades of stupidly implying that the state controls our news.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Avoided...you accounting for decades of stupidly implying that the state controls our news.

 

Good move....Trudeau will use every state controlled asset to sidestep his sins and seek another Liberal majority.  

"Sunny ways" was never really a credible campaign slogan.    Let the dirt fly...Canadian style.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I will never admit to stupidly implying that the state controls your news.

Why not?

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why not hold Trudeau accountable for his smear campaign using the CBC ?

 

The voters will decide in October.

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The voters will decide in October.

Its a wonder how, especially given all the control you say the state has over everything. 

[egghead]

14 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The voters will decide in October.

You overestimate the voters' IQ; 
 

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, egghead said:

You overestimate the voters' IQ; 
 

You underestimate the power bush_cheney is suggesting our government has.  So that said why would a political party with the means to control the news it wants broadcasted not use its control over Elections Canada to determine the outcome it wants?  Why go thru all the hassle of doing the former when the latter would be so much easier? Controlling the news must be like operating a chemtrail program it would have to be vast and involve thousands of people at the very least.

[scribblet]

C

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You underestimate the power bush_cheney is suggesting our government has.  So that said why would a political party with the means to control the news it wants broadcasted not use its control over Elections Canada to determine the outcome it wants?  Why go thru all the hassle of doing the former when the latter would be so much easier? Controlling the news must be like operating a chemtrail program it would have to be vast and involve thousands of people at the very least.

Considering that Trudeau is making noises now about controlling social media and monitoring news it's not too far fetched. 

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Considering that Trudeau is making noises now about controlling social media and monitoring news it's not too far fetched. 

Has anyone considered how much effort or how much it will cost to exert this media control?  Do you think it might be comparable to a chemtrail program?  Infowars figures a chemtrail program would cost about 5 billion a year to run.

The CBC gets about 1.5 billion.

Edited April 16, 2019 by eyeball

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. When you make an environment that is unsafe for a group you have restricted their freedom. 

There is no such environment. You are paranoid.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. No - freedoms are always balanced.  You never have absolute freedom.

Nor do we have that now.  But we do not forsake the one freedom which is most intrinsic to our democratic values because some people are hiding under their beds in fear of a largely imaginary enemy.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I'm sad for them but I rarely cry.  If there is something the collective can do to reduce misery then I'm all for it.

Well, let's see. We could reduce the speed limit to ten km an hour on the highways. That would save many, many lives. We could force everyone to wear football padding and helmets everywhere they went. No telling how many lives that would save. Ban swimming, ban skiing and snowboarding. People die in such sports. Ban boating, too. There's no need of these things. Ban alcohol. It kills people very year. How far do you want to take this reducing of misery?

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. They weren't "simply murders", no.  You seem to have now discovered an idea that denying the existence of hate crime is a good idea.

No, I mean, they seem to have impacted you far more than any other terrorist attacks in the last fifteen years you have been posting here. You have gone from being mostly reasonable to being a man running around with his arms in the air screaming at the top of his lungs with his eyes bugging out.  Your posts have lost all sense of perspective and logic.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. Please don't "what about" me on this.  I have stated that terrorism is of a similar scale from alt-right idiots as well as so-called Islamists. 

But it isn't. Anti-Muslim terrorism is a minuscule fraction of Muslim terrorism.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6.The threat from both aforementioned groups is primarily from "nut jobs" who are egged on.  Would you not prevent an Imam from demonizing groups ?  I think we know the answer.

We have laws against hate speech, including on the internet, which I largely, though reluctantly support. That isn't what you are calling for. You are calling for laws against speech you hate. There is a difference.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. Please don't try to imply I'm anti-semitic.  I have indeed posted on this, saying it's the same threat as the one against Muslims, ie. it's the same root causes.

I'm not trying to imply you are anti-semetic. I'm simply pointing out that there is no posting history of you having a fit over the Pittsburgh murders and demanding action to censor the internet. What seems to have broken your mind was first the shooting at the mosque in Quebec, where you seemed ready to get a club and mask and join ANTIFA in bashing anyone identified as 'the enemy', and now the shooting in New Zealand, literally on the other side of the planet. There have been any number of slaughters of Christians at churches between those two incidents which evidently affected you not at all. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

11. You really enjoy putting views on me that I don't have.

Simply trying to understand how far you want to go with this mission to protect Muslims.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

12. It also means to speak out against bad ideas.  

Righto. Doing that now.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

13. The religious idea was dreamt up by you in your own post, and then you use it as a basis for ad-hominem.  Very odd.  

No, it wasn't dreamed up by me. It came from Jonathan Haidt. And I'm just trying to figure out why you've gone off the deep end over these two (2) attacks at the mosques while no other terrorist event over the years seems to have similarly impacted you.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

14. What a backwards way to look at it.  Why not just state that hate speech doesn't incite racism and violence ?  It's false but that's what you're saying effectively.   Of course, history shows you are completely wrong.

I think hate speech can incite racism and violence, though I don't think it's primarily responsible for the sentiment against Muslims. That's coming from the news media coverage of Muslim terrorism and the crazy-assed religious happenings in Muslim countries, whether it's the death penalty for gays, court rulings on how to beat your wife at the UAE, or a Christian sentenced to prison in Indonesia for daring to utter a mild complaint about the Muslim call to prayer coming from a local mosque. 

Ultimately, though, I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedom of speech because you have an unreasonable and unrealistic fear of social media. 

[Argus]

Warren Kinsella  has a bone to pick with Trudeau's attempt to cast Andrew Scheer as a white supremacist/nazi sympathizer.

The Liberal government, desperate to move on from the Lavscam scandal, has landed on a repellant strategy: brand the Conservative leader as a Nazi sympathizer.

It’s dishonest and it’s despicable, but Trudeau is also undeterred. The Liberal leader is double-digits behind the Tory leader, some polls suggest. He is frantically attempting to change the channel from Lavscam.

But what Justin Trudeau is doing is dangerous. And it’s bad for the very minority communities Trudeau professes to support.

[egghead]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Has anyone considered how much effort or how much it will cost to exert this media control?  Do you think it might be comparable to a chemtrail program?  Infowars figures a chemtrail program would cost about 5 billion a year to run.

The CBC gets about 1.5 billion.

sry man, money is not the be-all and end-all, especially for idealistic 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, egghead said:

sry man, money is not the be-all and end-all, especially for idealistic 

Nonetheless controlling the news would still require money, even for the dedicated.

You'd also think by now there would have been a death-bed confession from a conspirator or a wikileak of emails/tweets from Peter Mansbridge putting inappropriate pressure on Trudeau.  But there's nothing, I don't get it.

[jacee]

On 4/14/2019 at 8:34 PM, bcsapper said:

I don't know about that.  The new stoning laws in Brunei apply to all men, apparently.  And if I remember correctly, Asia Bibi is a Christian.

We don't live in Brunei.

[jacee]

On 4/15/2019 at 4:03 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

Sharia applies to all living in a Sharia controlled society...Muslim and Non-Muslim alike.

We don't live in a Sharia controlled society.

[jacee]

On 4/15/2019 at 4:04 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

To you, everything not in agreement with you world view = Nazi.

You're a Goldy fan?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, jacee said:

We don't live in a Sharia controlled society.

Do you believe you have to post such obvious things ?  Peoples minds have been poisoned.

[jacee]

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you believe you have to post such obvious things ?  Peoples minds have been poisoned.

I do find it necessary to draw discussions back to the Canadian context.

 Some people are not here for discussion, but with a consistent agenda of inciting and promoting hatred against Muslims. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by jacee

[GostHacked]

33 minutes ago, jacee said:

I do find it necessary to draw discussions back to the Canadian context.

 Some people are not here for discussion, but with a consistent agenda of inciting and promoting hatred against Muslims. 

This is a fact. Typically done by the same members time and time again. Which eventually means the thread will be locked by moderation. Let's say it's their way of shutting up the conversation by shitting all over a thread to the point where it gets locked.

[scribblet]

Well,  Kenney won in Alberta which tells me people aren't al going to buy into Trudeau's campaign of smear and slander:  to do so and brand millions of patriotic Canadians as ‘racists,’ spending the whole campaign fearmongering will result in punishment at the polls.  

[Guest]

4 hours ago, jacee said:

We don't live in Brunei.

So what?  Your statement was incorrect, regardless of where either of us live.

Edited April 17, 2019 by bcsapper

[DogOnPorch]

4 hours ago, jacee said:

We don't live in a Sharia controlled society.

That can change.

 

4 hours ago, jacee said:

You're a Goldy fan?

 

 

Do you still kick your cat?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you believe you have to post such obvious things ?  Peoples minds have been poisoned.

Is it Islamophobic?  Jacee said Sharia Law applies only to Muslims, and I argued, correctly, that it does not.  Vile racism?

[scribblet]

Everything is 'vile racism' if it disagrees with a liberal.