Jump to content

85.7% of Covid Deaths in Canada Were Among the Multi-Vaxed from Aug to Sept of 2022. Jabbing 85% of the Population Didn't Reduce Deaths


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Do you have any tangible evidence of this? In a word, no.

BTW why did you feel the need to put quotation marks around the word yes as if to accentuate something? Are you trying to be funny or deceptive?

Did the CBC and CTV promote shutdowns, masks and vaxx mandates? In a word..."Yes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes. Differing points of view help one make a "good" judgment.

You're right, if you're actually seeking differing points of view.  That doesn't mean scouring the internet for literally anything you can find to affirm your differing point of view.   ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 Russell Brand was a top-tier stand-up comedian and I wouldn't put anything but another stand-up comedian against him in a 1v1 verbal battle.   As a profession, they're quick witted and know how to work an audience.  

He's a top-tier comedian because he's intelligent. He thinks for himself. 

Quote

I don't know if he believes the things he says or not. 

He's putting his main source of income at risk by saying things that draw the ire of the government and the cancel culture crowd. There are plenty of things that he could talk about if he just wanted to make money which wouldn't put his income-earning potential in jeopardy.

Quote

When he uses his webcasts to sell T-Shirts

If he wanted to be a sellout he'd be a shameless vax-whore like Colbert ffs. FFWD to 9:00, grab a vomit bag first...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moonbox said:

You're right, if you're actually seeking differing points of view.  That doesn't mean scouring the internet for literally anything you can find to affirm your differing point of view.   ?

My point of view is about set already. Let the 2 countries duke it out.

This is not our fight and I do not want to pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

You're saying the experts are lying and CTV/CBC are willing partners on the deception?  That is pretty funny. 

Is it safe for me to assume that you only trust Canadian media sources now receive taxpayer funding? Are you also in favor of Bill C-11 and C-18 which amount to government censorship of the internet?

I can't rely on CTV or CBC for honest, unbiased reporting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

1. Is it safe for me to assume that you only trust Canadian media sources now receive taxpayer funding?

2. Are you also in favor of Bill C-11 and C-18 which amount to government censorship of the internet?

1. No.  I just don't let my mistrust get away from me and use it to justify unsupportable conclusions, such as a massive conspiracy involving the government, MSM outlets, and giant corporations bent on deceiving/controlling/enslaving us to make their friends rich and extend their reach into every facet of our lives.

How many government/corporate officials do you think it would take to coordinate and pull this off btw - not just in Canada but all around the world?

You can safely assume my incredulity is based on how monumentally incompetent our government is at getting things done.  I see no reason to believe dozens and dozens of them trying to work together on this would be any less incompetent.  

2. Probably not.  But then I'm the guy who says we need to penetrate official secrecy to an extent that would make George Orwell blush.  One of the best arguments for knowing pretty much exactly what our public officials are doing is to prevent people like you from losing their grip when the void in your knowledge is filled with unsupportable notions.

Honestly though, I would have thought the sheer factor of incompetence alone would keep people better grounded in reality.

Quote

I can't rely on CTV or CBC for honest, unbiased reporting.

With the biases you have? I'm not surprised.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I didn't know it was this bad:

Quote

In the week of Sept. 6-12, just three CBC programs showed up in the top 30 shows watched by Canadians – the English language leaders’ debate, Coronation Street and The Great British Baking Show.

Quote

Given the $1.2 billion in base funding CBC gets and the extra $100 million per year that the Trudeau Liberals promised CBC in this last election, I would like to say that Canadians deserve better but in reality, the Liberals are getting what they are paying for.

$1.2B/year and absolutely nothing to show for it aside from a one-party news channel.

I didn't even know about the latest $100M rase that Trudeau gave them 'til I read this article.

He gave them a $675M/yr raise right after he was first elected, so they're up $775M/yr since he's been PM. Plus he gave the $600M to "select news outlets" for accurate election coverage in 2019, and $61M to top secret news outlets for more "accurate election coverage" in 2021. 

I never knew that 'accurate election coverage' was so expensive until Trudeau came along and started throwing massive wads of $1,000 bills around. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

the English language leaders’ debate, Coronation Street and The Great British Baking Show.

This is what CBC has reduced itself to. Political hackery and British TV. Ya know...had they not squandered Hockey Night in Canada, they'd still be viable. Now...they should be arrested for television vagrancy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I'm not defending CBC, I'm attacking the ridiculous notion that the PMO doubles as the editorial room for CBC/CTV. 

It's not that big of a stretch. If you will recall during the SNC Lavalin scandal, Wilson-Raybould was told by Katie Telford( Trudeau advisor) that she would promise to obtain positive media coverage to help the Liberals.

PMO promised Wilson-Raybould positive media attention if she were to intervene in SNC-Lavalin case | The Post Millennial | thepostmillennial.com

According to the transcript, Telford said that “if Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write op eds saying that what she’s doing is proper.”

It's not a ridiculous notion at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ironstone said:

It's not that big of a stretch. If you will recall during the SNC Lavalin scandal, Wilson-Raybould was told by Katie Telford( Trudeau advisor) that she would promise to obtain positive media coverage to help the Liberals.

PMO promised Wilson-Raybould positive media attention if she were to intervene in SNC-Lavalin case | The Post Millennial | thepostmillennial.com

According to the transcript, Telford said that “if Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write op eds saying that what she’s doing is proper.”

It's not a ridiculous notion at all.

 

An op-ed isn't exactly news and a promise from a Liberal PMO is not something I'd take to the bank.

This is mice-nuts compared to the notions that the CBC/CTV/PMO are effectively one and the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I'm not defending CBC, I'm attacking the ridiculous notion that the PMO doubles as the editorial room for CBC/CTV. 

The PMO gave hundreds of millions of dollars to CBC and other "select media outlets" over the last 3 elections.

You do the math. You look for some kind of pattern there.

Do you need to sit in the editorial room of a media outlet after you establish a pattern of giving them massive gobs of money for "accurate" election coverage? Do you need to personally handle their HR decisions for them at that point, or do they know what to do? 

If I pay someone a few million every 6 months to post here, do you think they'll agree with what I say? Do you think I'd need to editorialize their posts after that? 

Most people can see the writing on the wall here. The fact that you're pretending not to notice isn't an indication that there's "nothing to see here", it's a reflection on your level of intelligence and/or integrity. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

An op-ed isn't exactly news and a promise from a Liberal PMO is not something I'd take to the bank.

This is mice-nuts compared to the notions that the CBC/CTV/PMO are effectively one and the same thing.

You honestly don't see any conflict of interest when the Liberal government hands over hundreds of millions of dollars to support news outlets? No quid pro quo?

The CBC is the media arm of the Liberal Party of Canada | True North (tnc.news)

Trudeau regularly promises more and more funding for the CBC so they treat him differently than his Conservative rivals. They won't bite the hand that feeds them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

The CBC would tend to usually do whatever would help the Liberals more.

This is something that I've been saying since joining this forum back in 2008.  The CBC's pro-Liberal bias is notorious and well-documented, and as a MSM news outlet it's commonly been polled as one of the most biased in Canada. 

That bias perhaps damages the integrity of the organization and makes it difficult to trust if you're looking for balanced journalism, BUT (and this is a big BUT), it is still a reliable source of fact-based news.  They don't just make crap up, and you can generally report on things that are true.  Where they fail is in their editorializations, which do not provide balanced perspectives or viewpoints whatsoever and are highly subjective anyways (IMO). 

This is the problem with the "MSM fake news" narrative.  The news is generally not fake.  The editorials and opinions are just not balanced, with some far worse than others.  Because the editorials and opinion pieces annoy certain people, they go and find alternatives like Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Russel Brand or Tucker Carlson etc, who are 100% editorialists and peddling their own brand of highly biased bullshit, but from a different angle.

TLDR:  Fox News journalists can be reliably expected to report on factual news (filtered and catered though it may be), but Tucker Carlson is a pure editorialist and peddles little more than BS.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The PMO gave hundreds of millions of dollars to CBC and other "select media outlets" over the last 3 elections.

You do the math. You look for some kind of pattern there.

The PMO just gave out $700 billion.  It gave money to everybody.  Didn't you get any or something?  The CBC has been getting hundreds of millions from governments for decades because it's a freaking public broadcaster.

Quote

Do you need to sit in the editorial room of a media outlet after you establish a pattern of giving them massive gobs of money for "accurate" election coverage? Do you need to personally handle their HR decisions for them at that point, or do they know what to do? 

Yes, you would need lots of meetings to deliberately plan, coordinate and implement the brainwashing and deceiving of millions of people through multiple new outlets to the degree you imagine.

Quote

 

Most people can see the writing on the wall here. The fact that you're pretending not to notice isn't an indication that there's "nothing to see here", it's a reflection on your level of intelligence and/or integrity. 

 

No one can really see much of what our government does behind a wall of secrecy at all actually.  So they make stuff up to fill the void and choose to believe that instead.  Some is valid on occasion but in your case its almost always ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ironstone said:

You honestly don't see any conflict of interest when the Liberal government hands over hundreds of millions of dollars to support news outlets? No quid pro quo?

I can't see what goes on behind the government's closed doors and neither can you. I don't have any evidence of a quid pro quo do you?  I can ceratinly see the potential for corruption but without evidence we got squat. 

Quote

Trudeau regularly promises more and more funding for the CBC so they treat him differently than his Conservative rivals. They won't bite the hand that feeds them.

Cite? For what you just said - like a recording of officials from the PMO requesting the exchange of services for money.

You can't do that can you?  I know, it's why I keep reiterating the need for process guardians to guard our interests and try to prevent people from going crazy for conspiracies in the absence of transparency.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...