CTV & Global News are Pure Filth, CBC Needs to be Defunded

[WestCanMan]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well now you just have to prove that by getting everyone to say so. Clearing that should be a snap. 

You don't have to do anything eyeball. It's not a free country anymore but I for one still respect people's basic freedoms.

You can lie, snivel, dodge and make baseless accusations all you want here and that's been proven ad nauseam, but if you want to join in adult dialogue you just have to 1) know what's going on in the world and 2) be honest.

Regardless of whether or not you knew that CNN supported riots, everyone else here did.

Regardless of whether or not I was bound by the conventions of polite discourse to prove to you that CNN supported riots, I did that anyways, just because I hold myself to a higher standard than the bare minimum.

Meanwhile, here you are, still defending serious & baseless accusations after 20+ posts, so they're understood to be lies now. 

I'd hate to be in your position, having to lie and dodge questions constantly just to get my two worthless bits in. 

[Accountability Now]

The part to the media that bothers me the most is the corrections. The news will issue their story with false data which everyone reads and remembers….then a time after initial print, they realize the error and subtly correct it in the article with the only mention of the correction at the bottom of the page. 
 

Here’s a prime example 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2021/12/16/1_5709786.html

Correction:

 

A previous version of this article stated that the risk of contracting a serious side-effect after COVID-19 vaccination is less than one in a million. The correct figure, based on data reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada, is roughly one in 10,000.
 

So the initial article left 99% of the readers thinking vaccination causes a serious side effect in one out of 1,000,000 yet the true number is actually 1 out of 10,000. No wonder why people are so misinformed!! 

[Moonbox]

23 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

The part to the media that bothers me the most is the corrections. The news will issue their story with false data which everyone reads and remembers….then a time after initial print, they realize the error and subtly correct it in the article with the only mention of the correction at the bottom of the page. 

So it's bad that they correct themselves?  It's much better to get your internet off monkey brain conspiracy websites then, because they just say whatever they want and even when they're 100% bullshit they just repeat it enough times in enough different ways that the clown parade convinces itself it's real.  

"Everyone knows that...."

[Accountability Now]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

So it's bad that they correct themselves?  

For something as sensitive as this they should be printing a retraction article clearly letting people know they made the mistake. Not burying it at the bottom of the previous article where no one that previously read the article will find 

How many tImes do you return to a site to read the SAME article? And if so. Do you read to the very bottom to look for corrections?

it’s done in bad faith…plain and simple

[Moonbox]

If it was in bad faith they'd not update the article at all.  Regardless, the link you posted doesn't even work.  

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, but you guys are messing your sources up far too often and need to get it sorted out.  

[WestCanMan]

On 2/12/2022 at 9:20 PM, Accountability Now said:

The part to the media that bothers me the most is the corrections.

They have hundreds of dirty tricks to misinform or push a false narrative, but explaining it to leftists is like de-programming cultists: they refuse to take in any information that runs contrary to their dogma. They'll lie, spit, slander, cancel, dodge, accuse, deflect and go apoplectic like Reagan from the exorcist when the priest came in.

[eyeball]

On 2/12/2022 at 10:05 AM, WestCanMan said:

Regardless of whether or not you knew that CNN supported riots, everyone else here did.

 

Also known as the “everybody knows…” fallacy, arguments from popularity occur when one urges another to accept a claim because a substantial number of people (other than authorities or experts) agree with your claim. People often employ this fallacy in an effort to mask the fact they do not actually have an argument.

https://ethics.miami.edu/_assets/pdf/um-ethics-society/logical_fallacies.pdf

 

Quote

They have hundreds of dirty tricks

You need to find a few new ones.   

Edited February 14, 2022 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

Also known as the “everybody knows…” fallacy, arguments from popularity occur when one urges another to accept a claim because a substantial number of people (other than authorities or experts) agree with your claim. People often employ this fallacy in an effort to mask the fact they do not actually have an argument.

https://ethics.miami.edu/_assets/pdf/um-ethics-society/logical_fallacies.pdf

 

You need to find a few new ones.   

1) Just because YOU reject a well-known, truthful claim doesn't make it a logical fallacy. Literally everyone here knows that CNN supported the 12014-2016 riots and the 2020 riots and that they called the Jan 6th riot an insurrection. EVERYONE.

2) I provided you with proof that CNN was supporting the riots anyways because you just whine about it to deflect from the fact that you've been exposed as a fraud.

Remember the "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests", when they said: "There are a bunch of fires like this...." in the mostly peaceful protests? CNN's producers allowed the chyron to support the reporter's false narrative/disinformation. 

CNN lied and misrepresented the riots to support the people engaging in that activity. Look at how they characterized the Jan 6th riot, they could have easily said the same things about the attack on the whitehouse or the CHAZ occupation. Instead they ignored all of the assaults against secret service members at the WH and complained about Trump holding a bible the next day, then they called CHAZ a Summer of love" (where the small-in-number but aggressive CHAZI Gestapo killed a black kid in the first 3 weeks).

3) You're defending the "Freedom Convoy is waving swastikas and racist symbols" narrative and you've still never provided proof. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. The whiny victim routine is pathetic. You dug your own hole and you can't lie your way out of it. 

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1) Just because YOU reject a well-known, truthful claim doesn't make it a logical fallacy. Literally everyone here knows that CNN supported the 12014-2016 riots and the 2020 riots and that they called the Jan 6th riot an insurrection. EVERYONE.

That's right, it's you that makes it a logical fallacy not me, and even more illogically you use that fallacy to substantiate your exemption from the burden of proof. Nothing takes the take for displaying your innate skill at blowing yourself out of a barrel better.

 

Quote

I provided you with proof that CNN was supporting the riots anyways

A truly pathetic lame attempt at backpedaling that's better late than never I guess - notice you can't actually come up with anyone saying anything that remotely sounds like "We at CNN support and encourage people to riot".

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 you can't actually come up with anyone saying anything that remotely sounds like "We at CNN support and encourage people to riot".

That is because the new populists (also sometimes known as chucklef*cks) use the double-standard as you and I would use a kleenex.

They will say CBC lies because they happen to mention that Convoy organizers are Western Separatists and/or white supremacists.

And they are the beacon of truth for lying about truck numbers, vaccine counts etc. etc. etc.

We need to call them out as nuts and cranks... in Toronto we are used to doing that because every street corner has a mentally ill person carrying a sign that says "Bill Gates is Coming For You" and yammering to themselves.  

[WestCanMan]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's right, it's you that makes it a logical fallacy not me, and even more illogically you use that fallacy to substantiate your exemption from the burden of proof. Nothing takes the take for displaying your innate skill at blowing yourself out of a barrel better.

 

A truly pathetic lame attempt at backpedaling that's better late than never I guess 

Stop crying eyeball. Stop making snotty accusations. I met the burden of proof, regardless of whether I needed to or not. You're just deflecting again in the most weaselly way imaginable.

Now prove to me that you, @Michael Hardner, CTV, CBC and Global have sufficient reason to claim that there are swastikas and other racist symbols flying around at the freedom convoy.

This should be really easy for you based on 1) the seriousness of the allegations and 2) the number of time that they've been made by MSM and regurgitated by their useful idiots. 

Are you nothing more than a useful idiot, or do you have proof of the claims that you're backing? 

[WestCanMan]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That is because the new populists (also sometimes known as chucklef*cks) use the double-standard as you and I would use a kleenex.

They will say CBC lies because they happen to mention that Convoy organizers are Western Separatists and/or white supremacists.

And they are the beacon of truth for lying about truck numbers, vaccine counts etc. etc. etc.

We need to call them out as nuts and cranks... in Toronto we are used to doing that because every street corner has a mentally ill person carrying a sign that says "Bill Gates is Coming For You" and yammering to themselves.  

Stop talking about other people when your credibility and reputation are at stake, and no one else's is.

You're at the heart of this issue: you're the one who was originally making the claim that racist flags are flying at the rally. You're the last person on earth who's in position to point their finger at anyone else on this forum.

Do you understand that serious claims need to clear a very high standard of proof? 

If you don't have real proof that racist symbols are/were flying at the rally then YOU ARE A SLANDERER, A USEFUL IDIOT, AND A LIAR. Full stop.

I'm not asking again. If you don't apologize or provide proof, then I'm just going to brand you as those things and reference this in every other thread that you post in. 

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

For something as sensitive as this they should be printing a retraction article clearly letting people know they made the mistake. Not burying it at the bottom of the previous article where no one that previously read the article will find 

How many tImes do you return to a site to read the SAME article? And if so. Do you read to the very bottom to look for corrections?

it’s done in bad faith…plain and simple

The leftists who post here hold themselves to the same ultra-low standards. 

@Michael Hardner and @eyeball will make serious defamatory statements about groups of people and then slither around avoiding accountability forever. 

Right now they're defending the slander that racist flags are/were present at the convoy "but no one at CTV, CBC or Global had any cameras or smart phones to capture it" apparently.

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

1) Just because YOU reject a well-known, truthful claim doesn't make it a logical fallacy. Literally everyone here knows that CNN supported the 12014-2016 riots and the 2020 riots and that they called the Jan 6th riot an insurrection. EVERYONE.

This is standard conspiracy clowning.  "It is well-known" or "Everyone knows," is code for made-up bullshit you can't substantiate.  Of course in your circus-show echo chambers, everyone there might "know" what you're talking about, but just because you surround yourself with other fools that believe the same delusions doesn't make them any more true.  

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

This is standard conspiracy clowning.  "It is well-known" or "Everyone knows," is code for made-up bullshit you can't substantiate.  

Wrong on both counts:

1) I did substantiate it

2) Everyone does know that CNN supported the riots. It's idiotic to claim that they didn't. 

[Moonbox]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1) I did substantiate it

No you didn't.  You dumped a bunch of links and then ranted about how you didn't like what they were saying.  That's not substantiating anything.  The only thing you proved was that they were saying things you disagree with.  I'm not sure you even understand what substantiating means based on this.  

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

2) Everyone does know that CNN supported the riots. It's idiotic to claim that they didn't. 

Nope.  You repeating it doesn't make it more true either. "Everyone knows" is proof positive that can't back up what you're saying with facts or reason.  

[TreeBeard]

On 2/11/2022 at 8:05 AM, WestCanMan said:

They just believe what Goebbels told them. 

 

@Michael Hardner and @eyeball do what a dead Nazi tells them to do?  

Did you misspeak, or did you actually mean to write such a nonsensical statement?

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

@Michael Hardner and @eyeball do what a dead Nazi tells them to do?  

Did you misspeak, or did you actually mean to write such a nonsensical statement?

Follow the string...you'll see.

[WestCanMan]

32 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No you didn't.  You dumped a bunch of links and then ranted about how you didn't like what they were saying.  That's not substantiating anything.  The only thing you proved was that they were saying things you disagree with.  I'm not sure you even understand what substantiating means based on this.  

Nope.  You repeating it doesn't make it more true either. "Everyone knows" is proof positive that can't back up what you're saying with facts or reason.  

That's a lie. You obviously don't know what you're talking about because I used 1 link to show that CNN was supporting the riots. 

 

FYI, this was rioting. 

CNN downplayed rioting for 3 years and called it 'mostly peaceful protests', don't play stupid. I'm not going to search up any more video than I need to to back my claim.

 

Are you asking eyeball and MH to back up their serious claims of racist symbols? Of course not. You're just here as a propagandist and a useful idiot, you're not here as someone worried about forum etiquette. 

[WestCanMan]

35 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

@Michael Hardner and @eyeball do what a dead Nazi tells them to do?  

Did you misspeak, or did you actually mean to write such a nonsensical statement?

Another *whoosh* moment for you. Don't care. 

[Moonbox]

DUDE!  This isn't proof of what you're saying at all!  HAHAHA! ?

I just watched the damn thing and they said the protests were mostly peaceful until later on in the evening, when things got worse.  You've decided that because he doesn't characterize the protests as you would (as violent rioting or terrorism), they're supporting violent protests.  This is pathetic reasoning, but explaining why is a wasted effort on you.  

I'm honestly laughing my ass off right now.  I need to walk away for awhile.  My god.  Thanks for the laughs.  

Edited February 14, 2022 by Moonbox

[WestCanMan]

15 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

DUDE!  This isn't proof of what you're saying at all!  HAHAHA! ?

I just watched the damn thing and they said the protests were mostly peaceful until later on in the evening, when things got worse. 

You've decided that because he doesn't characterize the protests as you would (as violent rioting or terrorism), they're supporting violent protests.  This is pathetic reasoning, but explaining why is a wasted effort on you.  

I'm honestly laughing my ass off right now.  I need to walk away for awhile.  My god.  Thanks for the laughs.

DUDE! Your post was just as stupid as CNN's narrative! HAHAHA!! ?

An honest report would say that there was extremely destructive rioting going on in Kenosha. 

Listen to yourself: "the protests were mostly peaceful until later on in the evening, when things got worse." ?

That's some stupid bullshit right there.

wo people would say it like you just did:

1) a propagandist defending the rioting by using cuter words to describe them

2) a complete idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a "riot" and a "protest

Quote

because he doesn't characterize the protests as you would (as violent rioting or terrorism), they're supporting violent protests.

Anyone would characterize it as violent protests unless they're downplaying it. 

You're just like Nancy Pelosi, who thought that riots were cute when they were destroying other people's communities. Nobody needed the National Guard to protect them even after weeks of "mostly peaceful protests". Then when they were at her place of business for 2 hours she called in 20,000 NG and had them there for months. 

If those "mostly peaceful protests" happened in your neighbourhood you'd be this guy:

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Follow the string...you'll see.

OMG, it's a string that's at least, 1/4 of an inch long. How can anybody follow that? It's like solving a Rubik's cube!!!

eyeball, you're still a liar and a slanderer until you find some proof that there were racist flags at the freedom convoy. 

Just because CTV, CBC and Global have 4 useful idiots here doesn't mean that they're off the hook. 

[Moonbox]

19 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're just like Nancy Pelosi, who thought that riots were cute when they were destroying other people's communities. Nobody needed the National Guard to protect them even after weeks of "mostly peaceful protests". Then when they were at her place of business for 2 hours she called in 20,000 NG and had them there for months. 

 

Yerp I'm just like Nancy.  I'm a Nancy Pelosi communist fascist CNN-loving freedom hater right here. 

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yerp I'm just like Nancy.  I'm a Nancy Pelosi communist fascist CNN-loving freedom hater right here. 

QFT.

That was quite a mature, accurate and decent post by your standards.