This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left

[Shady]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Of course, anyone can argue anything but the question at hand is what is acceptable.  If an activist disagrees with your opinion then apparently you have lost "ability to disagree" as per the OP.  
2. By whom ?  I have been called a cuck because I called out some fake Trudeau news as the garbage it was.  Have I now been "labelled" ?  Can I say that I am being restricted by "the right" ?
3. I hadn't heard about this controversy.  It seems that she apologized for wording in her original statement.  It's hard to come back from such statements, but I don't know what the current environment is.
4. So let's hear the discussion.

It's quite ironic to me that the army of online trolls that comprises the alt-right is deployed on such a topic although they have no interest or stakes in women's rights or trans rights.  It's just stirring the pot for their own entertainment. 

How do you know they have no interest or stake in women’s rights, etc?  Have you asked them?  Regardless supporting trans women (biological men) in women’s sports is an attack and undermining of women’s (biological women) rights.  They should have the right to have their own leagues free of having to compete against men.

[taxme]

On 6/22/2020 at 5:56 PM, Independent1986 said:

The more I look at this issue it always goes back to the universities. When I received my degree, things were not that bad back then, the social sciences classes were not that big as they are now, the activism was not as blatant. You could walk around campus and exchange ideas with people.

Because the universities learnt that they can make good money on stupidity they started advertising to everyone the dream of going for higher learning. As a result of this you had individuals that scored 50-60 % in high school making it to university. Masses to be brainwashed by professors that never produced or provided a service for another human being, majority of them, in my opinion marxists to their core. 

As a result it downgraded the value of a degree and gave us the society that we live in today where we have pink haired individuals (forgiveness to the PC police) lecturing intellectuals about life and privilege. What an insult to intellectual minorities that succeed in life.

Most of those people who have a university degree are some of the most stupid and stunned people on earth. Look at all of our politicians today. Just about all of them have a university degree of some kind, and look what these politician morons have been doing to this once great country for decades now. They have turned this country into one big stupid and stunned looking country, and the more arse holes like them that we keep putting into power and politics to try and help keep this once great country up and running, the worse things seem to get. Believe it or not. 

[Argus]

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Of course, anyone can argue anything but the question at hand is what is acceptable.  If an activist disagrees with your opinion then apparently you have lost "ability to disagree" as per the OP.  

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous way of describing being banned and de-platformed, having people call your employer and threaten boycotts if you're not fired, and death threats and physical violence.

[Shady]

49 minutes ago, Argus said:

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous way of describing being banned and de-platformed, having people call your employer and threaten boycotts if you're not fired, and death threats and physical violence.

Exactly, but that’s what they do.  Just like describing somebody as falling asleep at a drive thu and getting shot.

[Shady]

Exhibit like #500 on the little ability to disagree with the left now.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I gave you the Seth Rich conspiracy.  You argued against it and now you're saying...what?  That I never brought up Seth Rich or...something?  Oookay.  

The Seth Rich 'conspiracy theory', your own words, isn't a 'lie'. It wasn't a 3 yr long lie disguised as a conspiracy theory either. Just a conspiracy theory which, truthfully, hasn't been de-bunked. 

Quote

He can't be in the drive-thru lane passed out drunk without being at the drive-thru.  What you're trying to say here is categorically absurd.   

You can be at a drive thru without being in the drive thru lane though, can't you? You don't even need to be in a car.

If he was just parked at a drive thru restaurant he could be sleeping in the parking lot. He wasn't even necessarily driving. When you say 'in the drive-thru lane' it specifically means that he was in control of the vehicle when he went to sleep.  

Quote

What part of that is a lie?  Do you know what lying actually means?  I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh at you or cry for you at this point.  

To be honest my lie wasn't really much of a lie. It was actually far more accurate than CTV's version. But it's a lie in that Rayshard didn't just attack the officers, he tried to escape an they tackled him. 

Omission is a form of lying, if that's what you're asking about. 

For your edification:

https://www.quickbase.com/blog/know-when-someone-is-lying-7-types-of-lies

Quote

Except it started at Fox with an  "investigative report" (quotations for mockery purposes) by Malia Zimmerman, referring to  "evidence" that Seth Rich had provided the emails to WikiLeaks.  There was no evidence, of course, but that didn't stop Fox and Friends from running the story, or for the world's dumbest news personality from jumping all over it (that's Hannity btw).  

You're making this worse for yourself every time you reply. 

LMAO. 

You're saying here that you know for a fact that Hannity started that conspiracy theory? That's either a lie or your idiocy is rearing it's ugly head again. The second that a body hits the floor that had crossed paths with Hillary at any point in time there are simultaneously 117,000 conspiracy theories started.

The de-bunking of "Hannity's conspiracy theory" re: Seth Rich included 'the fact that 13 Russians had been indicted for hacking the emails' lol. It has since come out that crowdstrike at no point has ever found any evidence that Russians hacked the server. That was all just a red herring. 

The emails came out shortly after it was revealed that the Dems had conspired against Bernie, and at that point it was highly likely that the source of the emails was a disgruntled Dem insider. 

Further to that, Assange himself has hinted that Seth Rich did leak the emails: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/will-julian-assange-and-wikileaks-finally-tell-the-truth-about-seth-rich-918946/

Quote

In the Dutch TV interview, Assange demurred on how he obtained the DNC emails, then dropped a tantalizing hint. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.”

“That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?” the host interjected.

“No,” Assange said. “There’s no finding.”

“What are you suggesting?”

“I’m suggesting that our sources take risks,” Assange said, “and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”

You're making things worse each time you reply.

Quote

the world's dumbest news personality from jumping all over it (that's Hannity btw).  

Ooh let's plumb the depths of your most recent idiotic comment.

FYI Sean Hannity predicted in advance that McCabe was going to be fired. CNN barely covered it, if at all. Hannity also correctly predicted the trouble that other high-level FBI agents like Strzok were going to be in. Did CNN even do much coverage of all those high-level FBI agents being fired and demoted for their indiscretions? At the end of the day, those were the only crimes committed by Americans in that whole fiasco..... Weren't they really interested in finding some bigtime malfeasance to report on? 

Hannity reported well in advance that the FBI was using deceit to get FISA warrants. The IG report cited "17 serious errors and omissions" by the FBI to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Americans. (Do you remember earlier when I explained to you that omission can be a form of lying? Is 17 errors and omissions, all mysteriously aligned with the desire to get a warrant where the truth would have prevented it, sound like a pattern of deceit to you?) 

At the end of the whole Russian collusion fiasco, Hannity was right and the whole liberal MSM that you love, on both sides of the border, were exposed for LYING, and/or being stupid.

You'll not that the date on this video was 2017. That's way back before the Dems, the FBI and the idiot MSM ever let go of the Russian collusion theory: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows-cnns-van-jones-calling-russia-story-a-nothingburger

If Hannity is so dumb then how did he manage to run circles around MSNBC, CTV, CBC, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, WashPo, the NYT and global News for 3 straight  years Moonbox? The fact that you think Hannity is the dumbest news personality around makes you a flat-earther on the topic of media. 

 

[Independent1986]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

so many foreigners so quickly that Canada's home-grown values, traditions and customs are swept away.

That's propaganda that the right wing media is using to give people like yourself a reason to blame outsiders. That's how they make their money. Same as the left makes its money on illegal immigrants.

I know a direct contact that works closely with asylum seekers, he is a left wing fanatic and he laughs every time he hears that the liberals are for immigration. That is what people like yourself are saying hipped up by ultra nationalistic sentiments. 

The immigration in Canada is strict, some might argue even stricter than the USA.   Sure, they show you pictures from the border, we are welcoming but the truth: the selection process is mostly by merit and the troublemakers get sent quietly home. You might have a few individuals slipping through the cracks but overall it is not the doomsday scenarios that the Rebel Media low intellect newspapers are pushing. 

[WestCanMan]

On 6/22/2020 at 5:56 PM, Independent1986 said:

The more I look at this issue it always goes back to the universities. When I received my degree, things were not that bad back then, the social sciences classes were not that big as they are now, the activism was not as blatant. You could walk around campus and exchange ideas with people.

Because the universities learnt that they can make good money on stupidity they started advertising to everyone the dream of going for higher learning. As a result of this you had individuals that scored 50-60 % in high school making it to university. Masses to be brainwashed by professors that never produced or provided a service for another human being, majority of them, in my opinion marxists to their core. 

As a result it downgraded the value of a degree and gave us the society that we live in today where we have pink haired individuals (forgiveness to the PC police) lecturing intellectuals about life and privilege. What an insult to intellectual minorities that succeed in life.

In our naiveté, most of us looked at universities as purely being institutes of higher learning for all these years.

Most of us never paid much attention to the fact that young, impressionable kids were leaving their homes to live in relative isolation from their families, where they could easily be indoctrinated by deceitful scumbags whom we had actually taught those kids to look up to. 

There are people with masters degrees and doctorates, who are at an age where they should have been able to accumulate a lifetime worth of wisdom, who were shrieking that Dr Ford just had to be believed despite the mountain of evidence against her, the extreme lack of specificity in her accusations, and the fact that she was caught lying at several points in her testimony. My favourite part of that whole fiasco was how many people believed the girl who HERO AVANATTI trotted out that said that she had been to TEN Kavanaugh-gang-rape parties lol. Because going to one gang rape part is just never enough for a 19 year old girl, they just keep going, and going, and going.... And hero Avanatti lol. At one point he was hailed as a strong candidate for the Dem nomination. Dems and their toadies are and endless source of humour. Sorry Newfies & blondes, but there's a new gang on the block that makes you look like sages. 

I got off on a tangent there, but honestly - getting a doctorate and being 60 years old should mean that a person's opinion is actually worth something. It's almost the opposite. In fact, if you got that PhD at Berkeley or some such, it's actually like a proof of idiocy. Pathetic hapless Dolt. 

[Argus]

24 minutes ago, Independent1986 said:

That's propaganda that the right wing media is using to give people like yourself a reason to blame outsiders. That's how they make their money. Same as the left makes its money on illegal immigrants.

Propaganda? I can count. According to the last census 22% of Canadians are now foreign born. The Liberals multiyear plan is for immigration to be 350,000 per year, though that may be raised. which means that 22% will rise to at least 42% within 20 years and 50% shortly thereafter. That's only if there are no further increases in immigration levels, which is unlikely. The majority of Torontonians are already foreign born (51%)

Quote

I know a direct contact that works closely with asylum seekers, he is a left wing fanatic and he laughs every time he hears that the liberals are for immigration. That is what people like yourself are saying hipped up by ultra nationalistic sentiments. 

So the fact they  keep raising the immigration numbers is not evidence they're for immigration?

Quote

The immigration in Canada is strict, some might argue even stricter than the USA.   Sure, they show you pictures from the border, we are welcoming but the truth: the selection process is mostly by merit and the troublemakers get sent quietly home. You might have a few individuals slipping through the cracks but overall it is not the doomsday scenarios that the Rebel Media low intellect newspapers are pushing. 

There is very little evidence troublemakers are sent home in any numbers. It can take years of court cases to force someone out of Canada. As for strictness, as revealed in previous posts potential immigrants rarely even have to show up for an interview. All they do is put in their paperwork and get accepted by mail. There are no interviews to determine their values, adaptability or indeed anything else unless their paperwork is suspicious. And only a small minority have to demonstrate economic skills.  You might have a look at the following by a former head of Immigration Canada

In fact, only about 15 to 17 per cent of the annual flow consists of immigrants selected because they have skills, education and experience. Because of the pressure to get high numbers, few of these workers are seen or interviewed by visa officers. The selection is done by a paper review. The remainder of the movement is made up of the spouses and children accompanying the workers, family members sponsored by relatives in Canada, immigrants selected by the provinces (who do not have to meet federal selection criteria ), refugees and humanitarian cases.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

Wokeness as a religion.

Over the past several years, a social justice philosophy has arisen that is less a political program than a religion in all but name. Where Christianity calls for people to display their moral worth through faith in Jesus, modern Third-Wave Antiracism (henceforth TWA) calls for people to display their moral worth through opposition to racism. In the wake of the murder of George Floyd, this vision has increasingly been expressed through procedures, routines, and phraseology directly patterned on Abrahamic religion.

...

These are real things, upon which we must behold scenes like in Bethesda, where protesters kneeled on the pavement in droves, chanting allegiance with upraised hands to a series of anti-white privilege tenets incanted by what a naïve anthropologist would recognize as a flock's pastor. On a similar occasion, white protesters bowed down in front of black people standing in attendance. In Cary, North Carolina, whites washed black protesters' feet as a symbol of subservience and sympathy. Elsewhere, when a group of white activists painted whip scars upon themselves in sympathy with black America's past, many black protesters found it a bit much.

https://reason.com/2020/06/29/kneeling-in-the-church-of-social-justice/

[Army Guy]

55 minutes ago, Independent1986 said:

That's propaganda that the right wing media is using to give people like yourself a reason to blame outsiders. That's how they make their money. Same as the left makes its money on illegal immigrants.

You might want to rethink this, according to some sources 20 % of all Canadians are new immigrants, and that number grows even larger to as high as 40 % of Canadians being 1 st or 2 and generation immigrants. Even with my bad math skills , how could those numbers not have some effect on Canada's home-grown values, traditions and customs. combine this with most immigrants gather around the larger city centers, Toronto, Vancouver etc, 51 % of people in Toronto are 1 st or 2 and generation immigrants. 80 % of Richmond BC are Chinese, Again I ask you how could those numbers not have an effect on Canadian home-grown values, traditions and customs. One has to question how much does other cultures really effect the overall  Canadian values, traditions, and customs... 

Quote

If you’re like most Canadians, you are perfectly happy with the way things are, you like Canadian culture.  You don’t want it to change.  But it will.  People, especially liberals, need to consider this. How will letting in millions of people who may not care for women’s rights impact women’s rights?  Will it not, almost axiomatically, make Canadian culture more misogynistic?

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/22/immigration-end-canadian-culture/

Quote

The immigration in Canada is strict, some might argue even stricter than the USA.   Sure, they show you pictures from the border, we are welcoming but the truth: the selection process is mostly by merit and the troublemakers get sent quietly home. You might have a few individuals slipping through the cracks but overall it is not the doomsday scenarios that the Rebel Media low intellect newspapers are pushing. 

There are plenty of examples of immigration losing track of immigrants who have been order to leave, lots of media coverage of known criminals spending years if not decades in Canada before being deported, and 9in the mean time this is all on the tax payers dime, the system is not perfect, in my opinion its very porous, with immigration not having the resources to track everyone. The standard should not be, well we are our immigration system is better than the US, we under fund all our security departments to the point they are barely function, and then act surprised when they fail...you get out of a system what you put into it, and ours is under funded...

https://globalnews.ca/news/3658241/somali-criminal-records-canada-us-deportation-intelligence/

 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/bill-horrace-war-crimes-london-ontario-canada-1.5624295

https://globalnews.ca/news/4087292/canada-deporting-dangerous-criminals-ineffective-still-here/

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Shady said:

1. How do you know they have no interest or stake in women’s rights, etc?  
2. Regardless supporting trans women (biological men) in women’s sports is an attack and undermining of women’s (biological women) rights.  
3. They should have the right to have their own leagues free of having to compete against men.

1. It's white males with no interest other than to troll.
2. An attack ?  No.  Is supporting the non-trans-women an 'attack' on trans women then ?
3. Obviously not going to happen.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 6/4/2020 at 5:35 PM, jacee said:

When did you last experience discrimination, harassment or abuse solely because of the colour of your skin? 

Everyday on twitter LOL.

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Rather than "better" use of social media, I'd instead they've been far more successful in weaponizing it.  

You're explaining tribalism at the end of your post here, but you have to realize that it's equally prominent on both sides of the debate.  Just as the right will dig their talons into a single issue and paint it on the entire left side of the "debate", so too will the "left" take any questioning or disagreement with a social issue and automatically paint it as "hateful".  

Well, speaking for myself I probably don't even know what half the social issues are that I'm so outraged about...I guess I'll have to start watching more Fox News if I expect to keep up.

Edited July 1, 2020 by eyeball

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

If you examine the fervour with which progressive activists treat climate change that's not really out of line.

Yeah well I've yet to get a real answer to a question I've been asking for a couple of months now.  How does the economic carnage being caused by COVID-19 compare to what you imagined would be caused by climate action?  By some accounts climate action would have reduced us to a hunting and gathering subsistence level civilization where 30 was a ripe old age.  Even you probably agree being forced to live according to Sharia would be a better deal.  Too bad that nightmare didn't come true instead.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Elsewhere, when a group of white activists painted whip scars upon themselves in sympathy with black America's past, many black protesters found it a bit much.

Nice... they have yet to begin actually whipping themselves, like the flagellants, but that would be kinda cool.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's white males with no interest other than to troll.

What a great blessing it must be to be able to understand the motivation of everyone who posts on subjects here. It must be comforting to be able to dismiss their opinions based not on what they write but on the magical ability to discern their 'real' views.

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. An attack ?  No.  Is supporting the non-trans-women an 'attack' on trans women then ?

Forcing natural women to compete with male bodied individuals who merely 'claim' to be women is ludicrously unfair. Almost everyone can see that. If 'trans women' want to compete they can start with a full and complete sex change operation.

 

[Argus]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yeah well I've yet to get a real answer to a question I've been asking for a couple of months now.  How does the economic carnage being caused by COVID-19 compare to what you imagined would be caused by climate action? 

Not something anyone can know. However, the carnage in the case of 'climate action' would be permanent. I don't know how long you imagine government can continue to pay millions of people to sit at home without going bankrupt but I assure you it can't do so permanently. Now, funny you should mention climate action for the topic of this discussions is about being unable to disagree with the holy subjects of the Left without punishment and deplatforming. So would you like to discuss the case of Michael Shellenberger?

This guy has been a Lefty all his life, and fighting climate change for a very long time. Only recently he came out and announced that he'd become convinced that much of what he was worried about was scientifically invalid and untrue. Despite a lifetime of impeccable leftist credentials he's become a non-person. And even the august Forbes magazine has been browbeaten into withdrawing his column. A pertinent part is highlighted in the Post.

It’s big news when somebody prominent apologizes for being badly wrong on a major public matter, promises to do better going forward and urges others to do the same, right? Unless the person commits heresy like, say, Michael Shellenberger.

“Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization, and called it a ‘crisis.’ But mostly I was scared. Yes. Scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.”

Heresy! Blasphemy! He must be cast out and all evidence of his unholy denial must be destroyed! If he had books you can be assured they'd be burning them. If it was legal they'd probably be burning HIM.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-forbes-falls-to-cancel-culture-as-it-erases-environmentalists-mea-culpa/wcm/370ca87c-37c3-4376-8e95-78231ae5fd46/

Edited July 1, 2020 by Argus

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

Not something anyone can know. However, the carnage in the case of 'climate action' would be permanent. I don't know how long you imagine government can continue to pay millions of people to sit at home without going bankrupt but I assure you it can't do so permanently.

It should be prepared to do so for at least the 18 months we've been given to understand it'll take to develop a vaccine don't you think?

Quote

Now, funny you should mention climate action for the topic of this discussions is about being unable to disagree with the holy subjects of the Left without punishment and deplatforming.

I simply raise it because the holiest of all right-wing subjects is the debt and ensuring the economy trumps virtue.

Quote

So would you like to discuss the case of Michael Shellenberger?

No, I'm pretty sure this pandemic has put a dent in our contributions to CO2 for the foreseeable future at least.  Personally, I don't think our economy will be much of a threat to the climate for some time if conservative sensibilities ultimately prevail in the economy.  Remember that village that had to be destroyed to save it?  Yes I do think conservatives would let that happen. 

[Argus]

An all-encompassing indictment of the fanaticism of social justice warriors who have infested every aspect of life now. It's a long, sad read about how universities have drastically watered down not only their standards in hiring professors, not only their standards for accepting minority students, but even what they teach. I'll pick a few items out for those with short attention spans.

Social-justice ideology is turning higher education into an engine of progressive political advocacy, according to a new report by the National Association of Scholars. Left-wing activists, masquerading as professors, are infiltrating traditional academic departments or creating new ones—departments such as “Solidarity and Social Justice”—to advance their cause. They are entering the highest rung of college administration, from which perch they require students to take social-justice courses, such as “Native Sexualities and Queer Discourse” or “Hip-hop Workshop,” and attend social-justice events—such as a Reparations, Repatriation, and Redress Symposium or a Power and Privilege Symposium—in order to graduate.

Conservative Harvard law students, a professor there recently told me, refrain from challenging the regnant dogmas in class, terrified that their remarks may end up on social media and thus jeopardize their careers. Many criminal law professors have given up teaching rape law, since female students claim to be traumatized by the very thought of a criminal defense in a rape case. Moot court has been similarly constrained; many law students are no longer willing to take on the role of advocate for even an imaginary political incorrect defendant.

What are the “white norms” and “culture” that “race talk” seeks to deconstruct? Objectivity, a strong work ethic, individualism, a respect for the written word, perfectionism, and promptness,

The solution to this lack of proportional representation is not greater effort on the part of students, according to social-justice and diversity proponents. Instead, it is watering down meritocratic standards. Professors are now taught about “inclusive grading” and how to assess writing without judging its quality, since such quality judgments maintain white language supremacy.

Due to the diversity imperative, medical schools admit black students with MCAT scores that would be automatically disqualifying if presented by a white or Asian student. Their academic performance is just what one would expect. Time to lower standards further. An oncology professor at an Ivy League medical school was berated by a supervisor for giving an exam in pharmacology that was too “fact-based.”

From the moment children enter school, they are berated for their white heteronormative patriarchal privilege if they fall outside a favored victim group. Any success that they enjoy is not due to their own efforts, they are told; it is due, rather, to the unfair advantages of a system deliberately designed to handicap minorities.

Teachers are now advised to ignore white male students, since asking or answering questions in class is another mark of male supremacy.

https://www.city-journal.org/social-justice-ideology

 

[Argus]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It should be prepared to do so for at least the 18 months we've been given to understand it'll take to develop a vaccine don't you think?

You're not replying to my point. We can pay people temporarily, but the policies the climate change crowd want would shut things down indefinitely. How do we afford that?

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I simply raise it because the holiest of all right-wing subjects is the debt and ensuring the economy trumps virtue.

The economy is the life blood of any nation, of every nation. As much as the Left likes to mock conservative determination to keep it strong they seem to forget that when economies go sour unemployment rockets up, and people die - in very large numbers. Suicide rises. Violence rises. And the worse an economy gets the less money government can spend to ameliorate the social ills of our society. It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that poor countries don't have employment insurance or welfare or national pensions, or minimum wages, or much in the way of public health care. They can't afford them.

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No,

Why not? It's directly on the point of this topic.

 

[Moonbox]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well, speaking for myself I probably don't even know what half the social issues are that I'm so outraged about...I guess I'll have to start watching more Fox News if I expect to keep up.

Instead I'd maybe just check out the late night shows.  They can sum it up for you, and at least it will be funny.  

[Moonbox]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The Seth Rich 'conspiracy theory', your own words, isn't a 'lie'. It wasn't a 3 yr long lie disguised as a conspiracy theory either. Just a conspiracy theory which, truthfully, hasn't been de-bunked. 

Except it wasn't just a conspiracy "theory".  When you claim you have evidence supporting the theory (but actually don't), then by definition that's a lie.  The theory has been debunked because not a shred of supporting evidence has been unearthed and we therefore have no reason to believe any of it.  This is as clear an example as we need of your ability to re-shape reality to suit your comical world views.  You were talking about cognitive dissonance earlier, and I thought that was pretty funny.  You're a shining exemplar of the concept.    

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're saying here that you know for a fact that Hannity started that conspiracy theory? That's either a lie or your idiocy is rearing it's ugly head again. The second that a body hits the floor that had crossed paths with Hillary at any point in time there are simultaneously 117,000 conspiracy theories started.

Wait...what!?  I never said anything even remotely to that effect.  Go back and read my post because I made it explicitly clear that fool Hannity didn't start the conspiracy theory.  I could not have been any clearer on that.  

The extent of your nonsense and your ability to befuddle yourself are starting to get pretty boring at this point.  It was funny for awhile, but I'm barely even reading your posts anymore.  It's largely incoherent ranting and not worth responding to.  

 

[Moonbox]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Of course, anyone can argue anything but the question at hand is what is acceptable.  If an activist disagrees with your opinion then apparently you have lost "ability to disagree" as per the OP.  
2. By whom ?  I have been called a cuck because I called out some fake Trudeau news as the garbage it was.  Have I now been "labelled" ?  Can I say that I am being restricted by "the right" ?
3. I hadn't heard about this controversy.  It seems that she apologized for wording in her original statement.  It's hard to come back from such statements, but I don't know what the current environment is.
4. So let's hear the discussion.

It's quite ironic to me that the army of online trolls that comprises the alt-right is deployed on such a topic although they have no interest or stakes in women's rights or trans rights.  It's just stirring the pot for their own entertainment. 

1)  You're being semantic. Nobody ever loses the ability to disagree, so if you're going to argue this point then you're assuming the OP is utter nonsense and you're arguing against utter nonsense.  

2)  Again, I think you're being disingenuous here.  You getting trolled on an internet forum is hardly the same thing as being publicly declared as a racist, misogynistic or "transphobic" for disagreeing with the cause of the day.  JK Rowling's attempt at distinguishing a "biological" woman from a trans woman is the sort of example we're talking about.  Writers, actors, celebrities etc have all piled on and she's being called "hateful" now because she doesn't agree with the LGBT's vague definition of "woman".  

3)  She apologized for the original statement (probably for the rhetoric, and hopefully for the claims that there are men who are deliberately getting hormone therapy to beat women in sports) but then doubled down on her conclusion later that the she doesn't think it's fair for them to participate in women's sports.  Again, this is another woman being labeled as "transphobic" for that.

4)  That's what we're doing here, isn't it?  

I do agree that the alt-right and their mooks are using the issue, but that's probably because it's a complaint that they can more easily articulate.  Keep in mind, of course, that not EVERYTHING the far right opines for is wrong.  On this topic, they actually have facts and science on their side, and will find broader support than their typically poorly-educated white male base.  This is low-hanging fruit where they can actually demonstrate that the nebulous "left" is overreaching.  

[WestCanMan]

47 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Except it wasn't just a conspiracy "theory".  When you claim you have evidence supporting the theory (but actually don't), then by definition that's a lie.  The theory has been debunked because not a shred of supporting evidence has been unearthed and we therefore have no reason to believe any of it.  This is as clear an example as we need of your ability to re-shape reality to suit your comical world views.  You were talking about cognitive dissonance earlier, and I thought that was pretty funny.  You're a shining exemplar of the concept.    

Anyone with half a brain knows that I provided evidence. Go back and look moonbox. Julian Assange, the person who leaked the emails, said that he got them from Seth Rich. What more evidence could you want than that? That right there is already more evidence than the whole 3 yr-long Russian collusion investigation had but you still say 'not a shred of supporting evidence'? Again, the Russian collusion investigation is an example of what "not a shred of supporting evidence" looks like. 

You are saying that I have comical world views, LMAO. We both agree on one thing: the absolute fact of the matter is that one of us is a stone cold dolt with his head up his ass. 

When you look at the length and breadth of all the proof I posted of CNN's actual, court-documented deceit, and the fact that all you have to offer is that 'you're offended by one conspiracy theory' that got floated around (with actual evidence - something that the Russian collusion farce never had) it becomes obvious who the dolt is. 

 

Quote

Wait...what!?  I never said anything even remotely to that effect.  Go back and read my post because I made it explicitly clear that fool Hannity didn't start the conspiracy theory.  I could not have been any clearer on that.  

OK, my bad, you said that Fox started the conspiracy with a report by some woman. Who cares? The fact is that you're wrong. If a butterfly flaps it's wings in the remote rain forests of the Amazon there's a race to blame Hillary for a murder. She's the most hated person in the history of US politics and she's never even been POTUS. 

Quote

The extent of your nonsense and your ability to befuddle yourself are starting to get pretty boring at this point.  It was funny for awhile, but I'm barely even reading your posts anymore.  It's largely incoherent ranting and not worth responding to.  

Typical lib. You jump past the point where your weak/idiotic/baseless talking points are completely destroyed by facts and then you jump straight to sandbox insults.

Your media sources are known liars (Kavanaugh/Russia/Ukraine/Sandman/Smollett/Brooks/riots) but according to you they're just an endless source of 'editorial bias' lol.

Can you honestly vouch for CNN/CTV's handling of even one of the above topics? Just go ahead and tell the world that you think that those media outlets covered any of those topics with the accuracy and fairness that you should be able to expect from a national media broadcaster, now that you have the benefit of hindsight. I can tell you that Fox covered them all accurately, and that hindsight doesn't make them look bad.

How did that lawsuit against CNN, NBC and WashPo go again? Oh yeah, CNN settled and now Sandman and his lawyers have some money to go after the other two. The kid received death threats, his school received bomb threats, all they did was attend a pro-life rally. What kind of a sick god-damned piece of garbage would think that Fox was the bad apple and CNN was a bastion of democracy? That's not just unfathomable stupidity, it takes equal amounts of ignorance.

Moonbox - my earlier criticism of you was bang on: you are a flat-earther on the topic of integrity of the mainstream media. Either your awareness and understanding is at a kindergarten level, or you're just a liar. The proof is all here. You can't deny. So just fire back some more of your baseless/childish insults and we'll call it a day.