Reasonable people are allow to disagree. Civil people can disagree without resorting to insults. Unlike some folks on the Board, you present your views without being offensive or insulting.
Daniel Dale on what happened near the mayor’s home
- Thread starter Jennifer_
- Start date
Again, there's a need for facts here: Who is a Lefty? Quote him or her denying bias in the Star. Otherwise all you succeeded in doing is name-calling according to your personal, undefined opinion. Hardly worth your effort.
Relative bias has potential to be more interesting to discuss, as long as we agree no one uses the Fox News Shaddapp!! reply technique. But in what units does one measure bias? Might I suggest that the entire subject should be avoided, if you're trying to do more than just feel good slagging, labelling and disparaging those who disagree with you. It smacks of the same prejudiced 'thinking' [sic] that says all men of colour will rape your daughter.
You will evaluate the known provable facts your way, as I will in mine, biased though each of us is. Facts we can discuss; evaluations we can compare and we can debate, and we can even point out the biases we detect when we do. Applying labels beforehand, and attributing points of view to others to excuse one's own refusal to debate will just get us deeper in shit.
Do please add any facts available from other sources that I may have overlooked. The above are from the Star, The Mayor and his brother. I'm not aware that they have been disproven or disputed by other media. Where it was clearly the Mayor's crazy self speaking: 'He was trespassing' etc. I've ignored what he said. If you think any such utterances improve the account please add them.various sources said:
To me they show a paper and its reporter doing their work, and a petulant Mayor, resenting them for pointing out he occasionally wears clay shoes, as do we all. Unfortunately he imagines his personal animus should take precedence over his duty to all citizens, the duty to keep us informed of what he and the city government he leads are up to. Coupled with his previous record, of speaking and acting from temper, even to the point of lying, this latest belligerent display makes one ashamed—you may differ—to have him as Mayor.
Or you could just say Lefties and Star subscribers would never like anything he did. And if many think like that, history will repeat itself when the next brain-dead minority left or right elects the next petty dictator wannabee.
What Rob fails to grasp, is that unlike football, there's no final gun in democracy, so winning never happens. It's all about playing the game forever. And you can't keep sitting on the ball because they don't wanna play your way.
I may be missing something in this discussion, but I'm not sure why any left-of-centre TERBite would be bothered by the fact the Star is a left-leaning newspaper.
The National Post is a right-leaning newspaper. I don't dispute it. Actually, that's one of the reasons I like it.
These days, you can get news anywhere (even TERB, in some cases). I mostly read the newspapers for the opinion pieces, which analyze the news from certain perspectives and help inform our thinking about events.
The National Post is a right-leaning newspaper. I don't dispute it. Actually, that's one of the reasons I like it.
These days, you can get news anywhere (even TERB, in some cases). I mostly read the newspapers for the opinion pieces, which analyze the news from certain perspectives and help inform our thinking about events.
The editorial bias of a newspaper should not matter when it comes to the facts it presents in its stories. The bias will show up in WHICH stories they cover, rather than what they say about them. The Star, the Post, and the Globe all succeed in this. I am less sure about the Sun--it's been caught numerous times printing things that were simply untrue.
The Post isn't nearly the paper it used to be. It was a much better source of information back when Black ran it. More biased back then as well, but also a better paper in terms of the quality of its journalism. There are a few people on this thread who appear not to get that this is possible, that a paper can engage in good investigative journalism and run good stories, and still have a strong editorial bias. It's all about whether they maintain a good firewall between the newsroom and the commentary side of the business.
We've been through this before, cocking your fist is not enough for an assault charge
What you fail to grasp is all the details about this case which have been brought forth by the media still wasnt enough to file charges against Ford.
But keep grasping at straws, its what you are good at
Are you stupid? The police are not going to take details from the newspaper and use them to lay charges. To charge Ford they would have to have evidence that will stand up in court that Ford made threats. If Dale isn't willing to attend in court and provide that evidence then they don't have a case.
If it's true, as Dale has said, that Ford approached him with a raised fist and demanded his cellphone, then Ford committed a crime.
Note the words "if" and "then" there, try and parse English, see if you can do it. It's not that hard!
Its you who's stupid, fuji. Dale has already made claims on TV and in other media. Cops would just use that video as evidence, and then subpoena Dale himself.
That would be enough for a conviction if Ford was guilty.
But since there wasnt enough evidence Ford committed any wrongdoing he didnt get charged
Nope, that's not how it works. You're an idiot. You are obviously ignorant of this topic, don't have a clue what you're talking about, but you don't let it stop you from posting.
Make some more stuff up, you seem to enjoy it.
Sure dude, I'm gonna spend hours searching for those posts. I'm not the one with 10 posts a day who apparently has nothing else to do
