Carney isn't just tied to the WEF. He's the ultimate insider's New Davos Man. He's tied to Tavistock, Chatham and connected to a web of global bankers. He's a conspiracy theorist wet dream - and nightmare.
It is encouraging for you to wear your bias as a badge, contrary to your previous claims. Of course, a list such as this could be made for any government that has been in office for a decade. I would suggest that one for the previous government (Harper) would not only be longer but if weighted based on impact would very likely score much higher (more destructive to Canada). That said, partisans need this sort of encouragement and feel-good fuel for their anger. And while some of this is really for the hard of thinking (WEF conspirators etc.) much of it is legitimate grievance (especially for the perpetually aggrieved). Keep up the good work.
Being that you're clearly an intelectual powerhouse, maybe you'd be willing to lay out your best case against Harper listing all his scandals as well as their impact score so we add it all up to see who's a bigger retard, Harper or Trudeau.
He wants us to prorogue Fearless so that we can tally up who the bigger abuser of power was. Because the only way to arrive at truth is if you engage in the counter-factual
And even then, he still wouldn't be satisfied because he'd just move the goal posts at the point.
No. I’m afraid I won’t be doing that. I don’t really care and it wasn’t my point at all. Governments have scandals. I’m sorry if that’s news to anyone. It’s not to excuse anyone - just to acknowledge that this is what tends to happen. Going on about the scandals of a particular government as though they are the first, or the worst, is a pointless exercise whose only real value seems to be a dopamine release and great way to avoid the cognitive dissonance that occurs in those unwilling, or unable, to observe all sides of a given issue and apply rational thought. Brain food for the hard of thinking. To go further and exaggerate the importance of these scandals (even to the moment when they occurred) and present only one side, just further reinforces the appearance of this being the likely intent.
Apologies. My engagement is sporadic. I dont fully recall our previous exchange. You may actually believe you're non-partisan (obviously i can't tell that). And, who knows, maybe it's less partisan, and just really biased without supporting any party.
Just looking at the loaded language in your piece here, it appears strongly partisan in favour of the Conservative Party of Canada.
I haven't read your other material so, for all I know, you write equally one sided pieces attacking each party. Personally, I dont see that as much different. Reciprocating bias or false balance still does not provide a reasonable unbiased analysis. Here's something posted Just now on Facebook. Another obviously biased piece. I was thinking of all these I've seen before when I saw your piece earlier. It's not a coherent list but the same sort of one-sided content, in this case, that will serve to make the lefties feel better and be ignored or written off by the right siders.
This is tedious. Why stop at Harper? Let's go back to Chretien and Adscam! Heck let's go back to Airbus and Mulroney. Dammit, let's go back to the Pacific Scandal under MacDonald!
And yet, we're still stuck with the many scandals of the Liberals.
It's the - checks notes - LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA IN POWER. Not the CPC and Harper is gone - except for living rent free in your brain. When and if the CPC get into power and engage in the kind of scandalous and unethical behaviour of the LPC, we'll call them out.
You're detracting with your passive-aggressive sarctard undertones.
Now, are you going to make an actual cogent point or will I have to ask you to go get your effing shinebox?
Ah, yeah. My point was lighting your hair on fire about the amazing unbelievable unconscionable (checks notes) Liberal government is rather pointless when it is in fact the same thing for governments generally. And claiming you are unbiased when you are producing very biased material is well… tedious.
LOL… “Lawyer Bill” in this case would be flat out lying and the judge would see that. Bill’s client is off to the hoosegow and Bill may have put his license to practice law at risk. Most people do not steal. Most (or all) governments in office for a decade have a list of scandals.
Carney isn't just tied to the WEF. He's the ultimate insider's New Davos Man. He's tied to Tavistock, Chatham and connected to a web of global bankers. He's a conspiracy theorist wet dream - and nightmare.
It is encouraging for you to wear your bias as a badge, contrary to your previous claims. Of course, a list such as this could be made for any government that has been in office for a decade. I would suggest that one for the previous government (Harper) would not only be longer but if weighted based on impact would very likely score much higher (more destructive to Canada). That said, partisans need this sort of encouragement and feel-good fuel for their anger. And while some of this is really for the hard of thinking (WEF conspirators etc.) much of it is legitimate grievance (especially for the perpetually aggrieved). Keep up the good work.
"Of course, a list such as this could be made for any government"
Not on this level and scale. And not with the lack of accountability and transparency.
Where's the anger here? Are these not facts about the LPC's corruption?
Trudeau had four ethical violations against him. What PM ever had that?
And your hand waving strawmannirg gives your own partisanship away.
Being that you're clearly an intelectual powerhouse, maybe you'd be willing to lay out your best case against Harper listing all his scandals as well as their impact score so we add it all up to see who's a bigger retard, Harper or Trudeau.
He wants us to prorogue Fearless so that we can tally up who the bigger abuser of power was. Because the only way to arrive at truth is if you engage in the counter-factual
And even then, he still wouldn't be satisfied because he'd just move the goal posts at the point.
No. I’m afraid I won’t be doing that. I don’t really care and it wasn’t my point at all. Governments have scandals. I’m sorry if that’s news to anyone. It’s not to excuse anyone - just to acknowledge that this is what tends to happen. Going on about the scandals of a particular government as though they are the first, or the worst, is a pointless exercise whose only real value seems to be a dopamine release and great way to avoid the cognitive dissonance that occurs in those unwilling, or unable, to observe all sides of a given issue and apply rational thought. Brain food for the hard of thinking. To go further and exaggerate the importance of these scandals (even to the moment when they occurred) and present only one side, just further reinforces the appearance of this being the likely intent.
Hello again, Bill. You still haven't answered the question from the last time, Bill. Who are we partisan for?
Apologies. My engagement is sporadic. I dont fully recall our previous exchange. You may actually believe you're non-partisan (obviously i can't tell that). And, who knows, maybe it's less partisan, and just really biased without supporting any party.
Just looking at the loaded language in your piece here, it appears strongly partisan in favour of the Conservative Party of Canada.
I haven't read your other material so, for all I know, you write equally one sided pieces attacking each party. Personally, I dont see that as much different. Reciprocating bias or false balance still does not provide a reasonable unbiased analysis. Here's something posted Just now on Facebook. Another obviously biased piece. I was thinking of all these I've seen before when I saw your piece earlier. It's not a coherent list but the same sort of one-sided content, in this case, that will serve to make the lefties feel better and be ignored or written off by the right siders.
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10161402944333019&set=pcb.647725551213223
This is tedious. Why stop at Harper? Let's go back to Chretien and Adscam! Heck let's go back to Airbus and Mulroney. Dammit, let's go back to the Pacific Scandal under MacDonald!
And yet, we're still stuck with the many scandals of the Liberals.
It's the - checks notes - LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA IN POWER. Not the CPC and Harper is gone - except for living rent free in your brain. When and if the CPC get into power and engage in the kind of scandalous and unethical behaviour of the LPC, we'll call them out.
You're detracting with your passive-aggressive sarctard undertones.
Now, are you going to make an actual cogent point or will I have to ask you to go get your effing shinebox?
It seems Bill only checks in - checks notes - sporadically. Meaning when he feels like it.
Ah, yeah. My point was lighting your hair on fire about the amazing unbelievable unconscionable (checks notes) Liberal government is rather pointless when it is in fact the same thing for governments generally. And claiming you are unbiased when you are producing very biased material is well… tedious.
Judge: You are accused of stealing.
Lawyer Bill: Everyone steals, generally. What's the problem? Why are you showing bias?
LOL… “Lawyer Bill” in this case would be flat out lying and the judge would see that. Bill’s client is off to the hoosegow and Bill may have put his license to practice law at risk. Most people do not steal. Most (or all) governments in office for a decade have a list of scandals.
#FLPC, MC, WEF!!! Carbon tax election Pierre Poilievre CPC to unwind all underhanded over reach & criminal behavior.