[Freakinoldguy]

herbie herbie:

But what about?
But what about?
But what about?
But what about?
But what about?
But what about?
But what about?

Insert anything it isn't about....

Here, allow me to insert the one you people use all the time when the PM is getting beaten up worse than a 12 year old hooker in a New Orleans brothel..

Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump
Trump.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No one gives a fuck about his book, no one is trying to censor it. What they are doing is upholding the laws that govern our elections.

The book was #1 best seller for a while. You should read, but you won't because of an irrational bias.

So, not believing a guy who has run 2 media organizations into the ground and been investigated for his standards and practices 3 times is a 'journalist'; and me not believing a word uttered by a guy who has lost 8 libel suits and was going to be disbarred by the Alberta Lawyers association for lying - is irrational?

If you are unfamiliar with cogitative dissonance, you might want to look it up. Believing such a person just because he tells you what you want to hear is irrational.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Ask yourself, how many things in the last while have you posted, and myself or someone else, usually Tricks, managed to thoroughly discredit with 5 minutes and Google?

Levant is doing what Levant does. Crying he's being repressed, but completely ignoring his own culpability for making advertising signs that looked like Election signs and putting them on lawns and around cities during an Election.

No one gives a fuck about his book, no one is trying to censor it. What they are doing is upholding the laws that govern our elections.

So, prove that those instances didn't happen then or are "fake" news?

Proving a negative is logically impossible.

What we did prove is that the events you posted did not happen in the way your source said, or for the reason your source claimed.

Just like this case. As Beave pointed out, Ezra is not being censored, as he can do and say and sell his books all he wants. What he can't do is make a fake campaign sign promoting his book, because Elections Canada does not laugh about such things.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Ezra Levant isn’t just a known liar and propagandist he’s been proven to be such in court.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was also proven to be a liar, propagandist, and mentally ill in a court.

So fucking what?

[DrCaleb]

You can't compare Levant with Solzhenitsyn until Levant spends 8 years in a Soviet labour camp.

[PluggyRug]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No one gives a fuck about his book, no one is trying to censor it. What they are doing is upholding the laws that govern our elections.

The book was #1 best seller for a while. You should read, but you won't because of an irrational bias.

So, not believing a guy who has run 2 media organizations into the ground and been investigated for his standards and practices 3 times is a 'journalist'; and me not believing a word uttered by a guy who has lost 8 libel suits and was going to be disbarred by the Alberta Lawyers association for lying - is irrational?

If you are unfamiliar with cogitative dissonance, you might want to look it up. Believing such a person just because he tells you what you want to hear is irrational.

It's irrational you won't watch the video, maybe it's cognitive dissonance.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

The book was #1 best seller for a while. You should read, but you won't because of an irrational bias.

So, not believing a guy who has run 2 media organizations into the ground and been investigated for his standards and practices 3 times is a 'journalist'; and me not believing a word uttered by a guy who has lost 8 libel suits and was going to be disbarred by the Alberta Lawyers association for lying - is irrational?

If you are unfamiliar with cogitative dissonance, you might want to look it up. Believing such a person just because he tells you what you want to hear is irrational.

It's irrational you won't watch the video, maybe it's cognitive dissonance.

No, it's Youtube and it's propensity to funnel people toward extremism based on their viewing history. I will learn nothing watching any further Rebel videos than I have all the other ones, and instead I will end up a Trump supporter.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211

I'd rather not lose all my self respect because I watched a Rebel video.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You can't compare Levant with Solzhenitsyn until Levant spends 8 years in a Soviet labour camp.

Your government wants to put him in prison for publishing a book and for advertising said book.

I fail to see the difference.

Also, it would be a major embarrassment for Canada were Levant to correctly apply for political asylum in the USA and to have his application correctly accepted.

[PluggyRug]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, it's Youtube and it's propensity to funnel people toward extremism based on their viewing history. I will learn nothing watching any further Rebel videos than I have all the other ones, and instead I will end up a Trump supporter.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211

I'd rather not lose all my self respect because I watched a Rebel video.

Hidebound.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You can't compare Levant with Solzhenitsyn until Levant spends 8 years in a Soviet labour camp.

Your government wants to put him in prison for publishing a book and for advertising said book.

I fail to see the difference.

Because you don't want to see the difference. Even in the US, you must register a political organization before purchasing and displaying political advertising. Not doing so is an offense. His book is irrelevant, the signs he used to advertise them are. But you only want to see the book, because you oppose censorship and that what Ezra is squawking about. But don't look over there, at the actual actions Ezra is under the microscope for . . .

The truth is a stranger to Ezra.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Also, it would be a major embarrassment for Canada were Levant to correctly apply for political asylum in the USA and to have his application correctly accepted.

Hell no! Take him! You are welcome to him. Alex Jones can have his norther playmate for realsies.

[Tricks]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Nope I'm not claiming anything, I've stated the reasons for my thought process, you responded and one of us is wrong. But since you gave us Mr. Perrault's qualifications which BTW aren't in question. I have one question for you about transparency.

Why was there a gentleman already nominated for the post with announcements sent out, a fact which meant everyone assumed it was almost a guarantee for his acceptance to the position. But, suddenly Mr. Trudeau pulled his name and put Mr. Perrault in as his nominee with no explanation, no by your leave, nothing. Just did it?

I think if you go back and look, he was never nominated. His name was sent to the other parties, but that doesn't mean he was their nomination. He might have been at the top of the list, but that doesn't mean something didn't happen. It's not like they replaced him with some asshat, they replaced him with the person who'd been doing the job for the 18 months prior. I'm curious, do you have any reason to believe Perrault is some sort of stooge for Trudeau?

$1:

BTW did you notice anything in the wording in the article? One says the Liberal Party nominee and the other says Trudeau's nominee so for clarifications sake, who nominated Mr. Perrault?

And don't get me wrong, I'd never come out and publicly accuse our PM of being unethical. Especially since, through his personal actions he's shown to be nothing but the most ethical, honest and transparent Prime Minister we've ever had and i'm sure the ethics commissionaire was just being biased.

You're not only accusing Trudeau, but Perrault as well.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You can't compare Levant with Solzhenitsyn until Levant spends 8 years in a Soviet labour camp.

Your government wants to put him in prison for publishing a book and for advertising said book.

I fail to see the difference.

Also, it would be a major embarrassment for Canada were Levant to correctly apply for political asylum in the USA and to have his application correctly accepted.

Why do you think the laws only apply when it's convenient to you?

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Also, it would be a major embarrassment for Canada were Levant to correctly apply for political asylum in the USA and to have his application correctly accepted.

Are you saying you can arrange that...thank you Bart.

[raydan]

fifeboy fifeboy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Also, it would be a major embarrassment for Canada were Levant to correctly apply for political asylum in the USA and to have his application correctly accepted.

Are you saying you can arrange that...thank you Bart.

I'd prefer sending him to that Soviet labour camp.

[Freakinoldguy]

Tricks Tricks:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Nope I'm not claiming anything, I've stated the reasons for my thought process, you responded and one of us is wrong. But since you gave us Mr. Perrault's qualifications which BTW aren't in question. I have one question for you about transparency.

Why was there a gentleman already nominated for the post with announcements sent out, a fact which meant everyone assumed it was almost a guarantee for his acceptance to the position. But, suddenly Mr. Trudeau pulled his name and put Mr. Perrault in as his nominee with no explanation, no by your leave, nothing. Just did it?

I think if you go back and look, he was never nominated. His name was sent to the other parties, but that doesn't mean he was their nomination. He might have been at the top of the list, but that doesn't mean something didn't happen. It's not like they replaced him with some asshat, they replaced him with the person who'd been doing the job for the 18 months prior. I'm curious, do you have any reason to believe Perrault is some sort of stooge for Trudeau?

$1:

BTW did you notice anything in the wording in the article? One says the Liberal Party nominee and the other says Trudeau's nominee so for clarifications sake, who nominated Mr. Perrault?

And don't get me wrong, I'd never come out and publicly accuse our PM of being unethical. Especially since, through his personal actions he's shown to be nothing but the most ethical, honest and transparent Prime Minister we've ever had and i'm sure the ethics commissionaire was just being biased.

You're not only accusing Trudeau, but Perrault as well.

Since I have no hard evidence I won't make any accusations but the optics certainly point towards "someone" in power doing things that would make a normal person wonder.

But, if you reread the article you'd notice that the Liberals gave the "impression" that Boda was going to be the nominee even going so far as to leak that information to the media. The article also says that he was the gov'ts choice and that was stated in letters to the other Party Leaders.

So, I'm wondering why the PM would just decide to pull the rug out from under his feet after the party going to all the trouble of disseminating the information to everyone including the other parties?

And, as for the interrogation of Ezra Levant, it didn't have to be Perrault or Trudeau who made the call. Much like the Meng Wanzhou incident where Trudeau wasn't the one who made the decision to have her arrested, someone in Elections Canada could have decided to drag him in for investigation. Hell, it could even be the Commissionaire Louise Pannaten who initiated the investigation after receiving the "complaint", if there really was one.



The whole situation seems odd and the optics don't look good especially since the interrogators refused to allow Levant to see or even know what the complaint against him was, a fact which would appear to be contradictory to Canadian law.

$1:

Right to Be Informed of Evidence

The accused has the right to defend himself against an accusation that he committed a crime. To prepare a proper defence, he has a right to know all the evidence the prosecutor has against him.

https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/ ... used-crime

And it gets even better. Apparently the complaint wasn't generated by the office of the commission. So who generated the complaint? The two police officers go on to explain that the Commission, who I'm assuming is Louise Pennaten is responsible for investigating the complaint................. not initiating it.

So, if we find out who filed the complaint and what it actually is, we'll have our answer as to who put this whole investigation into motion. But if it ever gets to that point I have the feeling that it'll be dropped and quietly disappear.

But, no matter who initiated this "investigation" or what you think of Ezra Levant it still smacks more of a Solzhenitsyn novel than something you'd see happening in a democratic country.