The proof Liberals can't be trusted is in their dishonest political ads on TV linking PP with Trump

[Aristides]

PP is not another Trump and certainly not the same kind of pathological liar, but using a similar rhetoric and campaign style turned out to be a big mistake. Trump's post election lunacy is the only reason he isn't cruising to a majority.

[PIK]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

PP is not another Trump and certainly not the same kind of pathological liar, but using a similar rhetoric and campaign style turned out to be a big mistake. Trump's post election lunacy is the only reason he isn't cruising to a majority.

PP been saying the same stuff for a while now, before Trump. Trump is just taking the ideas to the extreme, PP will not. And it seems carney going to do the same. Lol

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Looks like you are trying to start a debate to insult or mock Christianity;  I don't have time for that nonsense.

Careful….   Lying is a sin.  
 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You tell a lot about yourself.

What should be done to the people who insult the Christians at the coffee shop?  Criminal charges?  A ticket?  What?

Edited March 19 by TreeBeard

[eyeball]

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Even the leftists here admit that the media is completely biased to a farcical extent in Canada. PP was absolutely correct to call out our fake news. Only clueless sycophants are distressed by that comment.

There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political journalists choose to cover

Abstract...we show definitively that the media exhibits no bias against conservatives (or liberals for that matter) in what news that they choose to cover. This shows that journalists’ individual ideological leanings have unexpectedly little effect on the vitally important, but, up to this point, unexplored, early stage of political news generation.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay9344

While it's a fact most journalists are liberal in outlook this is only because most people that become journalists lean left naturally, even journalists that work for right-leaning media outlets.

There is little if anything to suggest journalists, media outlets and especially governments are conspiring to slant the news.

There's no doubt that public levels of trust in the media are in the toilet but IMO this mistrust in the nedia is misplaced because it's preceded and fertilized by a very well grounded mistrust in governments. Shooting the messengers that are trying to freely investigate and report on what governments and politicians are up to only puts us in danger of more mistrust, disinformation and danger.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

There is little if anything to suggest journalists, media outlets and especially governments are conspiring to slant the news.

There's no doubt that public levels of trust in the media are in the toilet but IMO this mistrust in the nedia is misplaced because it's preceded and fertilized by a very well grounded mistrust in governments. Shooting the messengers that are trying to freely investigate and report on what governments and politicians are up to only puts us in danger of more mistrust, disinformation and danger.

Absolutely false.

When these groups are doing research looking for some grand conspiracy they frame their definition of conspiracy in such a way that they find nothing that matches. However there is endless amounts of evidence proving without a doubt that there is extreme bias in several news sources.

And does George Carlin said you don't need an organized conspiracy when people ever are  of a like mind And want the same result.

But we've given dozens and dozens of examples. The CBC has published an absolutely horrific number of stories which turned out to be false or misleading that target conservative politicians. Again one of the great and undisputable examples is the charges they brought against daniel smith just before her election and all the way through their election and then after the election was over and she won admitted were completely false and made up and they had never seen the evidence themselves and apologize for their lack of journalistic integrity and that was it

And yet we never see the CBC make those kind of mistakes in favor of the conservatives or against the liberals. Ever. Not even against the NDP.  It happens all the time to the conservatives and never to the liberals. Once is a mistake, when you get up to dozens of times and it's completely one-sided then that's bias

And in time the world may swing and the bias may flow the other way. And I have no doubts that you and your ilk will be jumping up and down about how horrible and unfair it is and how the media is slanted. 

 

You can't gaslight people. Nobody's dumb enough to buy what you're selling except those who want to believe it inherently because the bias benefits them

[eyeball]

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Absolutely false.

Go find and post a scientific investigation that quantifies all the things you just listed.

Especially one that shows When these groups are doing research looking for some grand conspiracy they frame their definition of conspiracy in such a way that they find nothing that matches.

I'll even give you the benefit of doubt that your evidence of a grand media conspiracy didn't stoop to that.

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You can't gaslight people. Nobody's dumb enough to buy what you're selling except those who want to believe it inherently because the bias benefits them

I guess that explains why MTG's Jewish space lasers are real, Danielle Smith's concerns about UFO's are valid and Karoline Leavitt is correct to say we pay a tax when Trump siccs a tariff on us. 

LMAO!

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Go find and post a scientific investigation that quantifies all the things you just listed.

Says the guy who still can't post a scientific article about climate change  

ROFLMAO! 

Quote

Especially one that shows When these groups are doing research looking for some grand conspiracy they frame their definition of conspiracy in such a way that they find nothing that matches.

Sure everything you need is here:

Wikipedia

 

Just kidding  Here you go

A systematic review on media bias detection: What is media bias, how it is expressed, and how to detect it - ScienceDirect

C:\Emacs\mediabiastitle.DVI

On the nature of real and perceived bias in the mainstream media - PMC

College Rpt.fall 05.1Study of headlines shows media bias is growing

 

There, that answers everything you asked and demonstrates my point.  Enjoy. 

 

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

I guess that explains why MTG's Jewish space lasers are real, Danielle Smith's concerns about UFO's are valid and Karoline Leavitt is correct to say we pay a tax when Trump siccs a tariff on us. 

That literally had zero to do with the sentence you quoted. 

Did you get confused again? I know that posts that are more than four or five sentences tend to get you flustered  

You have to be 12 different kinds of stupid to try and suggest that media bias doesn't exist. So once again when you look stupid you always either try and blow it off as a joke or try and change the subject.

Sorry kiddo. You're still stupid

 

[ExFlyer]

On 3/18/2025 at 5:06 PM, blackbird said:

The oil and gas and pipeline industry has been greatly cut down in Canada by Liberals with the support of the NDP.  They killed pipelines and put heavy regulations on the energy industry.  This costs Canada billions of dollars in lost revenue and taxes.

Fact is the provinces, BC and Quebec have stopped pipelines. The indigenous as well.

The feds stepped in and bought the western pipeline from companies hampered by BC politics and got it built.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Fact is the provinces, BC and Quebec have stopped pipelines. The indigenous as well.

The feds stepped in and bought the western pipeline from companies hampered by BC politics and got it built.

The fact is they killed far more park lines than they build And made it impossible to build more. Remember Trudeau saying that there is no business case for natural gas? Trans mountain was started under the conservatives and have the conservative state in power it would have been finished much sooner bye industry without the government needing to buy it and it wouldn't have cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars which they threw away.

If you're saying that as an example of their commitment to the energy sector I'm afraid you're probably going to lose that argument badly  

[BlahTheCanuck]

Why are the Liberals linking PP to Trump when Trump himself endorsed Maple MAGA Carney?

[Barquentine]

On 3/18/2025 at 3:49 PM, blackbird said:

The constant TV political ads trying to tie PP to Trump is the biggest proof of all how low Liberals will stoop.

And the PC ad with the dark red lighting and ominous music? if only Carney had had Bell's Palsy they could try to smear him because of his facial expression. But they would never stoop so low, would they?

Speaking of Poilevre-Trump, remember when PeePee wanted to ask Musk how we could make our economy better? Like he's doing to the US, and Tesla? 

[Michael Hardner]

On 3/18/2025 at 2:49 PM, blackbird said:

 

There is no similarity at all between PP and Trump.   

They use the same inflammatory rhetoric style.  This method was actually copied from the left.

You can't really go around calling people Marxists and then complain when they say you resemble Trump. 

I'll be glad when we get back to civility and rational discussion, instead of emotional hyperbole.

Edited March 23 by Michael Hardner

[eyeball]

On 3/19/2025 at 10:59 PM, CdnFox said:

Says the guy who still can't post a scientific article about climate change

It would take you years to go thru the science on AGW you'll find in the IPCC website I posted a link to.

[Barquentine]

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'll be glad when we get back to civility and rational discussion, instead of emotional hyperbole.

In our lifetime?

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

In our lifetime?

Look at politics from the 1930s, then check in on the '50s, then the '70s, than the '90s. 

 

20 years is sometimes called a generation, but in some ways it's a lifetime, a cycle

[TreeBeard]

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'll be glad when we get back to civility and rational discussion, instead of emotional hyperbole.

What do you think will get us there?

[eyeball]

On 3/19/2025 at 10:59 PM, CdnFox said:

There, that answers everything you asked and demonstrates my point.  Enjoy. 

As noted in the abstract and conclusions in the first source you provided the ability to detect bias in the media is in its infancy and worse... 

Finally, it should be noted that there is still no agreement on what is meant by media bias, and that the current approaches are mainly focused on the statement bias, which is just one of the several types of media bias that exist.

In other words simply saying it exists doesn't make it so.

AFAIC it's all in your head and beliefs sometimes hold people rather than the other way around. You are in control of what you allow in but you have to actually excersize that control otherwise you might as well just be a sponge.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

What do you think will get us there?

There is a good book called The paranoid style in American politics... It outlines that these emotional spikes have happened in the past. They go away either through a big cataclysm, and a quick change, or.. they are just forgotten like the Silver standards issue... See William Jennings Bryan speech.

Edited March 23 by Michael Hardner

[herbie]

7 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

What do you think will get us there?

An EMP or severing of major fibre cables.
It's only on the Internet this shit reaches the extreme emotional levels.

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

It would take you years to go thru the science on AGW you'll find in the IPCC website I posted a link to.

There was no science on that website. You mean I would have to travel to other websites and look and dig and try and find something maybe that might exist possibly. That's your definition of a 'cite'  

So if you are saying that somewhere in there there happens to be a research paper or three that shows why this is a crisis What we could do that would actually make a difference Then point them out

 

But you can't because there isn't. Even admitted you provided something would take two years to go through, so obviously your goal wasn't to provide any information but rather was to say that you don't have any and that you wish I would go away and stop pointing that out.

Well there you go. I guess that's your way of admitting that there is no science. That certainly would explain why nobody's able to produce any despite supposedly caring about climate change.

[CouchPotato]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They use the same inflammatory rhetoric style.

No they don't. Poilievre sounds nothing like Trump. He is not very inflammatory and he usually uses facts and stats to back up things he says. I am sure sometimes he is a bit inflammatory, but then so was Trudeau. He just gets a pass on it.

Quote

I'll be glad when we get back to civility and rational discussion, instead of emotional hyperbole.

I can't help but notice that you often 'like' posts and posters who are anything but civil. Now that is your prerogative, of course, but it doesn't lend much credibility to what you say here.

Edited March 24 by CouchPotato

[Goddess]

I watch this channel a lot - Northern Perspective.  They admit a Conservative slant, but I find their videos very informative, they explain parliamentary procedure a lot.  They interview a lot of parliamentarians.

Anyways, this Liberal guy did an interview with them, which was a fascinating look into the brain of a die-hard Liberal supporter.  I don't think they listen to what they themselves are saying.

At one point, he is talking about how they knew the tariffs were coming, even gives months of examples, including Trump openly saying they were coming.

Then, like 5 minutes later, when asked about proroguing parliament he says, "Well, we wouldn't have done it had we known the tariffs were coming."

It's the circular nonsense coming from Libs right now that is totally turning me off.  It's like they say whatever they have to at any given moment, to get out of whatever situation, totally forgetting what they had said previously.

As an aside, the couple who run the channel - Ryan & Tanya - used to use avatars and keep their identities on the down-low, as Ryan was employed by the gov't.  In the last year, he was required to report any extra earnings directly to his boss and honestly reported the channel.

He was given the ultimatum - give up the channel or lose your job.

He chose to give up his job with the gov't and continue with honest reporting, so they don't use the avatars anymore.

[CouchPotato]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

As an aside, the couple who run the channel - Ryan & Tanya - used to use avatars and keep their identities on the down-low, as Ryan was employed by the gov't.  In the last year, he was required to report any extra earnings directly to his boss and honestly reported the channel.

Yeah, I kind of miss when they were Cypher and Fox, actually. So mysterious. I watch them all the time.

I noticed you posted Viva somewhere, too. 

 

Edited March 24 by CouchPotato

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, CouchPotato said:

Yeah, I kind of miss when they were Cypher and Fox, actually. So mysterious. I watch them all the time.

 

Coolio.

They seem like a really nice couple, very moral and ethical when it comes to politics.

They've often said that when asked if the channel will continue if the conservatives get in, that Yes - they believe in holding gov't to account, no matter who it is.  It just happens to be the Liberals right now.

 

[West]

It is pretty vile how CTV and the rest of the Liberal propagandists are trying to make this a campaign against another country's president. I mean what are you going to do for Canadians beside harassing their church buildings and violating your own health orders to attend a protest?