Jump to content



Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Seeker said:

When dissent is crushed...

When thoughtful, rational, polite and concerned dissent is crushed it's even worse. Here we have old news making a comeback tour.


There seems to be a two year time lag be it Russian collusion, covid or the NS shooting.

In this case Trump knew about the hospitalizations in the fall of 2019 and it became open source in Jan of 2020. The paper trail and real science is just catching up now, bans and de-platforming no longer apply to the subject matter.

The origin isn't even the point (for me), it no longer matters in the slightest. What does matter is manipulation and the deliberate suppression of expert opinion that was politely offered and then banned for all the wrong reasons.

The firings, wrecked careers, smear campaigns and name calling closely followed. And that's the point, (at least for me.) 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 5:01 PM, Jaydee said:

Is that the best ya got?


Here's what the new Mississauga Hospital will look like 

After receiving a multibillion-dollar investment from the provincial government earlier this month, the team behind the new Mississauga Hospital has finally unveiled its design.



If you live near Mississauga, it doesn't take much to see that the community is vastly underserved with hospital services.

Now add to that the condo explosion that is happening, with over 46 new towers being added in the next 10 years, as well as the upcoming development of the refinery lands in Port Credit, the development of the old Lakeview generation site, it doesn't take much to see that this isn't pre planning, it's playing catch-up.

It is only an election bauble dangled...

Here’s How Many New Condos Will be Coming to Part of Mississauga Over the Next 10 Years (insauga.com)


eSCRIBE Agenda Package (mississauga.ca)




Link to comment
Share on other sites


But there’s a lagoon of grey water between the fountain and the geyser. If you only have two choices, and both are that extreme, the lack of certainty and high cost of error necessitates the absence of narrative. 

Being a tinfoil hatter is thirsty work. It takes research, study, an open mind and time to gather information that’s often hidden from plain sight. Then it takes critical thinking to connect the dots followed by more research to see if the picture created even makes sense. After that, the official narrative needs to be compared and both are then examined from a “does this make sense” perspective.

After you have done all that there are the meme writers (and purveyors of same), who usually assert that you are crazy whilst simultaneously being unwilling (or perhaps unable) to discuss the issue at a basic level without resorting to ridicule. Personally, I find that the most offensive issue of all and it invariably brings out the worst in me.... I'm working on that BTW. 

In the mean time though, I would observe that some of the most valuable observations are made inadvertently, often in the form of an effort to ridicule others, and usually with the lesson itself being entirely lost on the teacher.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of lagoons of grey water, I argued for caution in conveying transgender rights and I did that because of the potential ill effects it would have on biological women across the board. It was out of concern for them, not myself… trust me, showering at the gym with athletic women who identify as gay men is not a problem for me. Anyway, we took a vote, I lost, and we collectively went ahead with it.

Since I believe in the democratic process and rule of law I accepted the outcome even though I thought it was a bad idea. Here’s a worse idea:


Now, the very people who freely conveyed the very rights I opposed seek to revoke them because the people to which they apply exercised the rights they were guaranteed.

If you stand in favour of stripping peoples rights simply because they exercise them, then we are on completely different pages and always will be. If rights can be so cheaply won and then so cheaply withdrawn, they’re not worth having and they are most definitely not worth defending.

If you are inclined to support this measure simply because you previously opposed it's implementation (as I did) then I submit that you have no business complaining about the current list of unjust and illegal covid restrictions. In fact, I'm inclined to ask what it was you thought was going to happen?

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

If only it was that simple…The problem within “Trans Rights”, is you trample on the rights of the other 99% of humans, male and female, to satisfy the so called “rights” of 1%.

It's exactly that simple IMO, it's what individual rights are all about.

We can agree that it was a bad idea and we can agree on the reasons it was a bad idea. We can likely also agree that the downside you refer to was easily anticipated and has now come to fruition exactly as expected.

Isn't it interesting how progressive madness has forced me to defend that which I previously opposed simply as a matter of integrity... and not because I actually agree with it.

In short, I will never seek to sell other peoples rights down the river and all I ask in return is the same consideration.

When I (and others) opposed this very measure on this very forum for those very reasons we roundly criticized for it. I will now go on record as predicting that none of those people (previously so vocal) will assist in defending my position as it currently stands. 

It really is that simple.   

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has to give up rights at all.

What the Trans and other communities, including those of colour, are looking for is rights equal to everyone else.

Let's all live and treat each other with respect and it won't be an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a small amount of perspective at this moment, imagine you were born in 1900. When you are 14, World War I starts, and ends on your 18th birthday with 22 million people killed. Later in the year, a Spanish Flu epidemic hits the planet and runs until you are 20. Fifty million people die from it in those two years. Yes, 50 million.
When you're 29, the Great Depression begins. Unemployment hits 25%, global GDP drops 27%. That runs until you are 33. The country nearly collapses along with the world economy. When you turn 39, World War II starts. You aren’t even over the hill yet.
When you're 41, the United States is fully pulled into WWII. Between your 39th and 45th birthday, 75 million people perish in the war and the Holocaust kills six million. At 52, the Korean War starts and five million perish.
At 64 the Vietnam War begins, and it doesn’t end for many years. Four million people die in that conflict. Approaching your 62nd birthday you have the Cuban Missile Crisis, a tipping point in the Cold War. Life on our planet, as we know it, could well have ended. Great leaders prevented that from happening.
As you turn 75, the Vietnam War finally ends. Think of everyone on the planet born in 1900. How do you survive all of that? A kid in 1985 didn’t think their 85 year old grandparent understood how hard school was. Yet those grandparents (and now great grandparents) survived through everything listed above.
Perspective is an amazing art. Let’s try and keep things in perspective. Let’s be smart, help each other out, and we will get through this. In the history of the world, there has never been a storm that lasted. This too, shall pass.
May be an image of 6 people and text that says 'WEARA OR'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible that the folks who ridicule current “complaints” on the grounds “they” find them to be trivial have utterly missed the point? To my way of thinking they have.

The "complaints", so readily dismissed as trivial, are not simply the whining of a pampered generation IMO. They are a lament for the gifts purchased (at full cost) by previous generations (showcased in the video) and conveyed by right of birth to the very people who have twisted the givers motives to align with an agenda of their own making.

I have close family members (now deceased) who went through all of that. Their stories and attitudes were foundational for me, and knowing them, I’m pretty sure they would be more offended at the current state of affairs than I am.

Granted, it’s a personal observation, but stuff like that has the direct opposite effect on me than that intended. 

I know, army of one eh? More and more that feels like the case. As like minded people fade to a single digit percentage pf the population, I think you will discover that such efforts on the part of government, media and fellow citizens alike will prove counterproductive. Time to hire more experienced STRATCOM people IMO.

Here's a comment (from the comments section) of an article I read. Don't remember which one and the words aren't mine. They do resonate with me though and seem reminiscent of those things I remember hearing from the very people with starring roles in the video.

I cannot believe this is a subject that actually requires discussion in this day and age. It literally gives me chills. People are actively cheering for the persecution/segregation of their fellow citizens! And even more frightening, they feel justified in doing so!

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reallyyyy hope this is a fake.

Teacher alleges she was fired for not 'meowing' back at student who identifies as a cat

"We no longer need your services if you can't identify with all the children in the classroom," the substitute teacher alleges the school's office said.


Edited by Jaydee
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in other news, the NCAA Board of Governors has contracted a 10 year old to provide long overdue perspective on women sports:

Trans women athletes hold competitive edge, even after testosterone suppression, scientists say

NCAA board of governors to review transgender athlete policy this week, spokesperson says

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More cryptic metaphorical riddles from the WDYTWGTH file:


And since inflation is a regressive tax that disproportionally hurts the the poor, it's clear that Liberals and Democrats are racist. 

Now get on the  CB and meow into the mike... we can fire all the drivers who fail to respond. See I can do this too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2019 at 9:02 PM, Jaydee said:

Welcome to 2020!

It appears from the mandate that Justin Trudeau has given his new “Heritage Minister”, Canadian media will be regressing to the time of 1920’s Europe – before Hitler commandeered Germany’s news presses and ordered them to publish his propaganda.

The Liberals are going to be giving the CBC more of our hard earned money so they can open up new offices, hire more staff, swallow up local TV networks and news publications – or partner with them so the outlets will be forced to parrot Liberal narratives.


And now welcome to 2022.

Liberals move to 'modernize' CBC, making public broadcaster less reliant on advertising

Anja Karadeglija  7 hrs ago

A year after CBC president Catherine Tait defended the public broadcaster’s foray into sponsored content in front of the country’s broadcast regulator, the Liberal government has set its sights on moving the CBC away from the advertising business.

© Provided by National Post 

The Liberals have promised $400 million over four years to make the CBC less reliant on advertising, and are aiming to ensure the public broadcaster’s programming is more distinct from its private sector competition.

“CBC really suffers from a sort of dualistic life as a half public broadcaster, and half of the time it thinks of itself as a commercial broadcaster. And I think that has to end if we’re going to get value from our investment in CBC in the years to come,” said former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies.

Private broadcasters have long maintained that CBC shouldn’t be competing with them.

“The CBC likes advertising but doesn’t need it,” said Kevin Desjardins, the president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. “They have an ability to skew the advertising market in a way, because it is not as essential as it is for private broadcasters, where that is the lifeblood of their business model.”

As for news in the digital sphere, the competition isn’t just with fellow broadcasters but with all other outlets with an online presence – news publishers and critics have been opposing the CBC’s competition for digital ads for years.

Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez’ mandate letter, released just before the House of Commons rose for the holidays, directs him to “modernize” CBC/Radio-Canada. That includes updating the CBC’s “mandate to ensure that it meets the needs and expectations of Canadian audiences, with unique programming that distinguishes it from private broadcasters.”

It also directs Rodriguez to provide additional funding to make CBC “less reliant on private advertising, with a goal of eliminating advertising during news and other public affairs shows.” The letter doesn’t include a figure, but during last year’s federal election the Liberals pledged $400 million over four years for that purpose.

During that election, the Conservatives also promised to review the mandate for CBC English TV, CBC News Network and CBC English online news, to ensure “it no longer competes with private Canadian broadcasters and digital providers.” In contrast to the Liberals’ pledge of more funding, the Conservative platform suggested assessing “the viability of refocusing the service on a public interest model like that of PBS in the United States.”

That was a departure from when Erin O’Toole ran for party leadership promising to defund the CBC, including cutting all funding for online news and with a goal of fully privatizing its English-language TV.

Asked about where the party stands on the Liberal plans, a spokesperson for the Conservatives said the party opposes new funding and believes “funding should be reduced, and the mandate modernized.” The Liberal “approach of throwing more and more taxpayer money at the CBC is not working,” the spokesperson said.

Menzies said he doesn’t think the Conservatives’ PBS model proposal “is helpful at all.”

“Maybe it has some political purposes in appealing to (their) base,” he said. “If you’re going to have a public broadcaster, have a public broadcaster.”

Menzies said the government’s plans for the CBC are “an avenue really worth pursuing.” He said it’s something the government could accomplish within a year if it wanted to – but could also drag it out for 10 years. He noted the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission still hasn’t issued its decision on the CBC’s licence renewal, a year after its public hearing.

%7B© Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press/File Federal Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez’s mandate letter directs him to update the CBC’s “mandate to ensure that it meets the needs and expectations of Canadian audiences, with unique programming that distinguishes it from private broadcasters.”

The Heritage minister’s office didn’t respond by deadline when asked about how it plans to move forward with modernizing the CBC.

Supporters of the CBC are also in favour of eliminating the ad money. “We’re very much looking forward to seeing what kind of mention it gets in the upcoming budget,” Sarah Andrews, a spokesperson for advocacy group Friends said.

In trying to find sources of revenue, CBC has “made choices that are maybe not the best,” such as the move into sponsored advertising. “That’s why we think it’s so important to bring the CBC back to its public service roots, because at the end of the day, that’s its role as a public broadcaster, to serve the Canadian public,” Andrews said. “They can’t have to rely on private advertising dollars.”

CBC’s sponsored content division, called Tandem, was put on hold briefly due to controversy over the initiative, but then resumed. Last year, the CBC got $1.4 billion in government funding, according to the CBC’s annual report, a figure that includes a $36.7 million advance from this year’s budget. A spokesperson for the CBC said its current advertising revenue is “just under $254 million.”

Menzies noted that relying on advertising affects the kind of programming CBC does, forcing the broadcaster to pay more attention to major markets, especially the GTA. “It gets over-covered and other areas get under-covered,” he said. Not relying on advertising would enable more coverage of areas like the North, Menzies said.

He suggested the government could also make CBC material free to other news organizations to use, which would be a boost to local news operators.

Broadcasting consultant Kelly Lynne Ashton noted that debate about the CBC’s mandate comes up regularly, including at multiple parliamentary committee studies in the past decade or so. “The reason that keeps coming up is that there’s a basic fundamental disconnect because the government keeps asking the CBC to do more but not giving them more money to do it,” she said.

“If you want them to move away from advertising, and stop competing with the private broadcasters for advertising and do the kind of content that the private broadcasters won’t do, then give them the money to do it.”


  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give them more money so that they are not reliant on advertising, why not instead start trimming the fat from the CBC? Get rid of TV and radio in southern Canada. Concentrate on providing services to Northern and remote areas instead.  Lots of outlets for us to view / listen to instead. 

Re cutting out the FAT, following is a link to CBC programing that would be a good starting point for making cuts.

CBC.ca - Program Guide - Programs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just about firing truck drivers and having ships lined up a container terminals. We have worked very hard at creating the perfect storm on multiple fronts. Each incremental step along the way has been the result of the worst possible decision made at the worst possible time. I can't even imagine it being an accident.

When the principals of success require unity of command, selection and maintenance of the aim and all round defence, only fools ignore them. Bigger fools double down and keep digging.

Collectively we have become a society of silly people and that's one step below foolish in the WDYTWGTH file folder.


Here's a quote from today's news. It may be plucked at random and out of context but consider it as a stand alone concept and apply grade 3 logic to the assertion being made:

"As fears grow that Canadians can expect a jump in food prices as well as empty shelves at the grocery stores, the Liberals are claiming that a contentious mandate requiring truck drivers to be fully-vaccinated is the best way to protect supply chains."

Look, I can do full throttle stupid too. Zinc supplementation is an important factor in maintaining a strong immune system. A strong immune system is necessary to fight off the symptoms of covid. Exterior paint, (particularly primers) contain zinc in sufficient quantity to provide adequate supplementation.

I'll always fondly remember meeting Paint Bros and his wife at Home Depot.  During trying times, his wise words provide comfort and remain worthy of quoting..."paint is paint bros." Its that concept of operations and estimate of the situation that is largely responsible for our current situation IMO.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here it is, and the only ones who haven’t been watching for this development are the MBA crew and their cheerleaders. If ever there was a topic I could readily forgive the government and media for glossing over in an effort to avoid predictable outcomes, this would be it.

Instead of resolving to be reasonable, moderate and restrained in their consumption habits, the voters who supported the actions that drove us to the brink of self inflicted madness will now proceed to make it worse. And they will do it by harnessing the same fears that created the situation in the first place. 




Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s all in the eye of the beholder. Do you automatically default to the worst case scenario like most “Progressives” do…or as I see them as…..” Regressives””… or do you look for the truth?

“Our six-year-old handed us a note. His teacher had called my wife and I in for an emergency meeting. We asked our son if he had any idea why
and he said, "She didn't like a drawing I did." 
We went in the next day.
His teacher pulled the drawing below out and said, "I asked him to draw his familv and he drew this. Would vou mind explaining?"
"Not at all." my wife said. "Family vacation. Snorkelling off the Bahamas.”



Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fresh from the WDYTWGTH file. 

Your personal stance on the subject matter isn't the point here IMO. Thinking that individual rights should be dictated by the majority is the point... and having the reticle scoped and doped on YOUR rights is the inevitable outcome of forcing majority views on the individual rights of others. Even if you can. 

Especially if you can...

It doesn't matter how the MBA crew spins it (and they surely will), soldier 101 suggests you should be very careful about supporting invasive policies simply because you agree with them. 

71% of Americans support abortion restrictions: poll

The pool found most Americans want the states to decide the abortion issue, in contrast to Roe v. Wade



Edited by Wolfhunter
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.

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.


  • Create New...