[Lone Primate]

"Chuffed" You a Brit. Admit it.

Ethnically? Yeah. But my family's been here over 200 years on my dad's side. I imagine I picked that up immersing myself in the Brexit farce going on back in the Auld Country.

 

[Lone Primate]

Primates are nocturnal.

Not this one. I didn't say anything here much after 9 last night, and picked things up about 7 this morning. Somewhere along the way I became a definite morning person.

With regards comments suggesting racists hide in Conservative Party. You're giving cover to actual racists by grouping responsible people with them.

Uh huh, right. THEY pander to the worst instincts in people who want to control the lives of other people and want, to use the PC shorthand, "Canada the way it USED to be, dot dot dot", but I'm the one providing cover. Sure. Project much, Buildup?

A border physical or otherwise to control the numbers of people who enter their sovereign country from a particular source is legitimate - and not racist.

Oh, do PLEASE give us just a small break and at least a little credit. We have ALL heard the things that Donald Trump has had to say about Hispanics... vile, disgusting, utterly inclusive, and unapologetic... and we have all been witness to the cheers, the approval, and the complete lack of accountability he's held to by his constituency. It's a racist as all hell, and the real danger of legitimizing it here doesn't come from speaking out about it, it comes from NOT speaking out about it. I want a Conservative Party in this country that blushes to have people like that purporting to support and represent it, and makes them take their "business" to the palpable extremes, like Bernier's efforts. I do NOT want the same kind of people who took over the GOP becoming the mainstream of the Conservative Party of Canada. Do you?

 

[buildup]

You accidentally said Conservatives want to control the lives of other people. You mean to say Far Left Regressive want to monitor and control what people Think, Say, and Do. Trump is vain, obnoxious, possibly mentally ill. But what he actually DOES is mostly fine. I despised him early but have come around, after taking a good look at the Left. You're lying about the Conservative party and its voters. And those lies are now having the reverse effect. My wife is non, white, non Christian so I'm utterly immune to your empty virtue-signalling. The Left over-reached, which is why I've mostly shifted away. If we get a Trump phenomena here it will be directly as a result of your hysterical, irresponsible use of the word Racist to describe whatever your disagree with. I used to hold your views myself. The Left needs to stop thinking they are better than other people.

 

[Lone Primate]

No, you're building up a strawman that I'm anti-Trudeau

That's not a strawman. You're clearly here to tear him down, no matter what he has to say, because you're not listening to it and analyzing it. To you, he's simply wrong because he's not wearing YOUR club badge, and that's that. And because you keep saying rubbish like:

while ignoring the actual question asked

...which, as I've repeatedly demonstrated, he did NOT do; he simply gave an answer YOU didn't like.

Concerned members and US concerns about Chinese steel being dumped in Canada.

In what fashion does a government contract for a federal project constitute China "dumping" steel in Canada IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Has Canada received clearance

From whom? Last time I checked, we were an independent country and we made these decisions for ourselves.

We have been steadfast supporters of the Canadian steel and aluminum industries.

And we know this because:

...when the Americans brought in unfair 2-3-2 tariffs on steel and aluminum that we had to stand strong, and that's why we brought in dollar-for-dollar countermeasures that ended up being effective, and we got the Americans to lift their punitive tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel

...which was the kind of tough-guy attitude you were mewling about to begin with. Or do you only want a PM who'll do that with China, and not anyone who pulls things like this on us?

...we will always look to use Canadian steel wherever possible in big projects like these.

And rather than the loaded "dumping" question, this is where a professional journalist would ask, "And why was Canadian steel unavailable for this project?" Did that question get asked? Was it cut, because the answer was inconvenient to someone like "Canadabuster"?

It is a deflection of the question of why Asian steel has been chosen over Canadian products

No. It was an answer to a fair question that wasn't asked and didn't take the bait of the implication that a government contract is akin to "dumping" steel in the Canadian market. And again I ask, what were the follow-up questions, and what were the answers?

It's not about the Americans, no matter how much you read into it. He didn't answer the question, and instead diverted onto platitudes and already-resolved US tariffs.

It absolutely is. You came on here carping about weak-kneed politicians who wouldn't stand up for the country, and when you're clearly shown that this man is JUST WHAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR, it's YOU who tries to turn it around and make it about something else. You thought you were making a case for your point, and it blew up in your face because you're incapable of listening to and analyzing what your opponents say. You've been doing it all morning, in fact. "China" is your screech now because you've got American egg on your face in response to your actual "he's too weak" issue.

Why foreign steel was needed? And why Chinese steel? Because it's cheap and corporate and governmental interests are willing to forgo workers' oversight, wages and environmental protections in exchange for a cheaper product elsewhere.

Yeah, right, and you know what we'd be hearing for you RIGHT NOW if the government had bought the steel out of Stelco instead? "Oh, there he goes again, pandering to the bloated unions, lazy protected workers with their giant salaries inflating the price of steel and making it harder for Canadians to buy cars, homes, this, that, and the other, and oh boy, if just ONCE he lowered the protective tariffs and let in some steel from China, boy would those fat cats get blown away and then Canadian foundries would have the money to modernize and blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda..." There's no winning with you. He loses because he's NOT YOUR GUY. There is no winning move for him as far as you're concerned other than out of 24 Sussex Drive, and don't waste our time protesting otherwise.

just look at how Quebec has been able to build up its advanced steel manufacturing industry.

Perrrrfection. Thank you so much. Credit for protecting the industry and letting that happen? NIL. But stray from it at all, let the shitstorm begin. Exactly, exactly, exactly according to the script. I couldn't have hoped for more damning evidence from you yourself. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

 

[Lone Primate]

Look at Afghanistan.

Afghanistan wasn't peacekeeping in any way, shape, or form. It was a moral failure on the part of both Canadians and Americans, and dozens of our allies, to insist on due process in the wake of 9/11. Afghanistan said A) he's not here and B) you'd need to provide evidence that the guy you're looking for is the guy who did it in order for us to extradite him anyway, under international law, and the Americans just went BADGES AW WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKING BADGES and in they went, and in we went too, and turned a tottering state into a real, honest-to-God failed one. And then, hey, whoops, Jesus, what do you know, the guy turned out to be in PAKISTAN, actually; a purported "ally" of the West. Oh, so sorry, Afghanistan. Next time we'll listen, promise. No, that was NOT the kind of thing I was talking about, and definitely NOT the kind of thing that won Pearson a Nobel Prize and Canada a sterling reputation that we've squandered.

 

[Lone Primate]

You accidentally said Conservatives want to control the lives of other people.

That wasn't an accident. But I'll grant you it's not germane to the point. But no, I meant that.

You mean to say Far Left Regressive want to monitor and control what people Think, Say, and Do.

Uh huh, yeah, right. It's the left that wants to deny the rights of people to marry the people they want to spend their lives with, or the right to bodily autonomy of women. Uh, wait, not, it's not. It's the right, and it's the kind of thing that Scheer is falling all over himself backing away from because he's raised these issues laid to rest YEARS ago to pander to people can't mind their own "f***ing" business in the literal sense. Now come back and tell us how someone standing up for someone else deciding pronoun issues is ohhhhh soooo much worse than THAT.

You're lying about the Conservative party and its voters.

You're lying about what I said about them. Go back, please, to where I said "Are all Conservatives racist? Hardly." Oh, don't bother, I just did it for you. Now apologize to me, please.

 

[jje1000]

That's not a strawman. You're clearly here to tear him down, no matter what he has to say, because you're not listening to it and analyzing it. To you, he's simply wrong because he's not wearing YOUR club badge, and that's that. And because you keep saying rubbish like:
...which, as I've repeatedly demonstrated, he did NOT do; he simply gave an answer YOU didn't like.
In what fashion does a government contract for a federal project constitute China "dumping" steel in Canada IN THE FIRST PLACE?
From whom? Last time I checked, we were an independent country and we made these decisions for ourselves.

Oh good, another ramble filled with more strawmen. You assume that I'm a Conservative, a tuff guy, etc. etc. You didn't demonstrate anything at all, no proof, nothing. You don't like the answer, which is why you're aggressively trying to counter that point with non-arguments and personal attacks.

First of all, it's not a governmental contract- it's the go-ahead that allows a private company to be able to import Chinese steel into Canada. If you can't even get that point right, your argument is moot.

The Terrace and District Chamber of Commerce (TDCC) is celebrating the federal government’s announcement Aug. 9 that it will relieve duties on fabricated steel contained in modules for LNG projects.

Last year the TDCC Advocacy Committee drafted a policy resolution aimed at creating a globally competitive Canadian LNG industry, which received unanimous support from all 400 Canadian Chamber of Commerce members at their AGM in Thunder Bay, Ontario. The resolution was included in the 2018 Policy Book for the federal government to review, and now the Ministry of Finance’s announcement of the duties relief falls in step with recommendations put forth by TDCC.

https://www.terracestandard.com/business/terrace-district-chamber-of-commerce-celebrates-big-win-for-lng/

...which was the kind of tough-guy attitude you were mewling about to begin with. Or do you only want a PM who'll do that with China, and not anyone who pulls things like this on us?
And rather than the loaded "dumping" question, this is where a professional journalist would ask, "And why was Canadian steel unavailable for this project?" Did that question get asked? Was it cut, because the answer was inconvenient to someone like "Canadabuster"?
No. It was answer to a fair question that wasn't asked and didn't take the bait of the implication that a government contract is akin to "dumping" steel in the Canadian market. And again I ask, what were the follow-up questions, and what were the answers?

Sorry, but you're dishonestly building up a strawman, call it by any other name it, but you are. I don't know if you lack some sort of critical understanding skill, but combined with some aggressive level of huffery and puffery- it shows how uninformed you are.

No, the question was not asked by Canadabuster so you can put that to rest. I posted a second link to the CPAC channel that has the same question asked. Trudeau left quickly after that so he didn't bother answering anything else. And the question already questions why Canadian steel wasn't used. Obviously you haven't bothered to actually watch the video, and it shows.

Here is the question again:

Question: "[...] Concerned members and US concerns about Chinese steel being dumped in Canada. Has Canada received clearance to use imported Asian steel for these LNG projects and, why not use domestic products instead of importing foreign products without duties?"

Trudeau: "We have been steadfast supporters of the Canadian steel and aluminum industries. We knew when the Americans brought in unfair 2-3-2 tariffs on steel and aluminum that we had to stand strong, and that's why we brought in dollar-for-dollar countermeasures that ended up being effective, and we got the Americans to lift their punitive tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel. We continue to support to support our industry, and we will always to continue to support our industry. We're working with the Americans to prevent transshipping, transshipment as well and we will always look to use Canadian steel wherever possible in big projects like these."

The question is one about why Chinese steel is going to be used, not Canadian steel.

That's the question. Domestic = Canada.

Not- "How have you supported the Canadian Steel and Aluminum Industry in these recent years?"

He deflected onto US tariffs and failed to answer to answer why Canadian steel wasn't used for this specific LNG project.

Your excuse for Trudeau's answer:

The answer he gave was a barely soft-peddled poke at the Yankees for screwing us over; looking them straight in the eye and, politely but pointedly, reminding them that we have other options and that we can and will use them. Isn't that exactly what you were just advocating in practically the same breath, just sentences earlier? Someone who's going to stand up for us and not knuckle under?

You have proved absolutely nothing with your rambling. If anything, this shows a specific lack of backbone to stand up for Canada. If Trudeau can defend Canada steel against the Americans, why not the Chinese? Why have the government selectively lifted their own tariffs on foreign CNG modules?

Amusingly enough, you ask essentially the same question that the reporter does in your second 'adulting' question:

Again: the question to ask here is WHY foreign steel was needed in the first place. Once that's answered, WHY Chinese steel was preferred to, say, American steel (although I believe he addressed that). WHY the need was judged sufficient to buy Chinese steel when there are tariffs on it. What were the demonstrable or at least potential benefits to Canada in doing this? THOSE are the questions an adult asks.

It absolutely is. You came on here carping about weak-kneed politicians who wouldn't stand up for the country, and when you're clearly shown that this man is JUST WHAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR, it's YOU who tries to turn it around and make it about something else. You thought you were making a case for your point, and it blew up in your face because you're incapable of listening to and analyzing what your opponents say. You've been doing it all morning, in fact. "China" is your screech now because you've got American egg on your face in response to your actual "he's too weak" issue.

Yeah, right, and you know what we'd be hearing for you RIGHT NOW if the government had bought the steel out of Stelco instead? "Oh, there he goes again, pandering to the bloated unions, lazy protected workers with their giant salaries inflating the price of steel and making it harder for Canadians to buy cars, homes, this, that, and the other, and oh boy, if just ONCE he lowered the protective tariffs and let in some steel from China, boy would those fat cats get blown away and then Canadian foundries would have the money to modernize and blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda..." There's no winning with you. He loses because he's NOT YOUR GUY. There is no winning move for him as far as you're concerned other than out of 24 Sussex Drive, and don't waste our time protesting otherwise.

Perrrrfection. Thank you so much. Credit for protecting the industry and letting that happen? NIL. But stray from it at all, let the shitstorm begin. Exactly, exactly, exactly according to the script. I couldn't have hoped for more damning evidence from you yourself. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

What load of bull- more geriatric rambling without any actual content, more strawmen, and a perfect indictment of your character. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there couldn't be a better example of this anywhere else on this forum.

 

[lenaitch]

I personally think that the scatter-shot approach to aid ends up having less of an impact and is often insufficient in addressing the core issues that countries face- ending up being more like a temporary band-aid.


Of course, but I'm particularly concerned about Jody Wilson-Raybould's moves towards the end of her tenure. Likewise, similar comments from JWR regarding jury selection after the Gerald Stanley verdict risk undermining impartial justice. There was also the ridiculous MMIWG inquiry which Trudeau ended up endorsing, opening up Canada to genocide allegations despite huge flaws in the inquiry.

Boswell: Jody Wilson-Raybould's last act as justice minister a big step in Indigenous litigation reform

A dry-sounding document on civil law and Indigenous Peoples may well be remembered as a key part of her legacy, and one especially close to her heart.

ottawacitizen.com

Jody Wilson-Raybould's last act as justice minister described as ‘inconsistent with democratic values’

The Post has obtained an internal critique of a directive intended to reform the way the government conducts itself in court cases involving Indigenous peoples

nationalpost.com

Another thing I'm rather uncomfortable with is the Trudeau government's actions on China.The CPC is ultimately all about power perception, and Trudeau's weak voice after their unilateral trade actions/detainments show that the Liberals are wavering- demonstrating that in their eyes, we are a nation fearful of rocking the economic boat (which the CPC will use to their maximum advantage). Furthermore there's the recent appointment of Dominic Barton, plus Trudeau's historical comments on the CPC and the whole John Mccallum kerfuffle (which only showed that he was compromised and ended up undermining Canada's position).

Article linked below:

Countdown to 2047: The Death of Hong Kong?

Hmm, the Brookings Institute (which Barton is part of) usually pushes for engagement with China- which indicates that Trudeau and co. are still pushing for further economic appeasement- concerning, but not surprising. Dominic Barton named Canada's next ambassador to China Katie Simpson...

urbantoronto.ca

He also recently dodged a question regarding the approval of Chinese steel for the BC LNG projects:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1167187673934651405

I will certainly agree with the analysis put forward regarding JWR and the directives issued regarding FN negotiations, with the caveat that I'm taking it at face value since I have not followed the issue. An ingoing position that one side's evidence is to be considered irrefutable and infallible is hardly a balanced approach to equitable negotiations under our system. The perspective on the "weight" of the evidence sounds simply like a formula for dollar assignment.
This is an inherent problem with what is essentially a class of cultures; one of which has no written history, or even a written language, and the other which does and is founded on documentation and records.
Another problem exists within some of the First Nations regarding governance. In some areas, there is rift between between those who support elected councils and those who support more traditional, often heredity, governance models related to overlapping 'nations' and territories. Either side claims the other is illegitimate and demands either equal or separate voice and outcome. How is the government expected to deal with that?

 

[lenaitch]

If we stop sending our military overseas to stop third world despots then we'll have the funds.

It can be argued that it is these incursions that highlighted the need to spend money on equipment (no doubt Keithz will come along and set up all straight). Canada sold our heavy lift helicopters to save money, only to be ferried around in them with Dutch markings. If it wasn't for the shortfall highlighted in Afghanistan, we might never have them. This is a problem when expenditure and procurement are lead by political rather than strategic considerations. We only got an interim (and civilian) AOR when our two were deemed unseaworthy. Succesive Canadian governments have demonstrated a pattern of only throwing money at the military when there is a crisis or when they are embarrassed beyond political manipulation.
I don't enough about military doctrine to know whether we need main battle tanks, but so long as the government is willing to put troops in harm's way, they'd better be willing to pony up to give them a fighting chance at survival. The military position that they go where they are told and with what they've got is admirable and correct, but I'm guessing cold comfort to the families of the fallen. Beyond closed door briefings, at the end of the day, when the government commits, the military doesn't get to say no - they've taken the Queen's shilling. Remember that we first went into Afghanistan with G-Wagons, and into the former Yugoslavia with Iltis jeeps. We also have commitments and expectations being part of NATO.
Perhaps we shouldn't go into failed or failing places, but it's part of being a player in the world. We can hardly stand up in the UN, in front of the media or in front of our allies and say some situation or dictator is horrible and needs to be stopped without a willingness to be part of the solution. Aghanistan is probably not a poster for my argument, since it followed the US doctrine of going in an blowing up what is there and replacing it with either a vacuum or an unstable puppet, then losing interest. They don't call it the graveyard of empires for nothing.

 

[buildup]

Uh huh, yeah, right. It's the left that wants to deny the rights of people to marry the people they want to spend their lives with, or the right to bodily autonomy of women. Uh, wait, not, it's not. It's the right, and it's the kind of thing that Scheer is falling all over himself backing away from because he's raised these issues laid to rest YEARS ago to pander to people can't mind their own "f***ing" business in the literal sense. Now come back and tell us how someone standing up for someone else deciding pronoun issues is ohhhhh soooo much worse than THAT.

Conservatives don't care who you marry anymore. Both Liberals & Conservatives (and you too), had mixed feeling about gay marriage in the latter part of the last millennium. We're talking about now.

• So lets talk about control then. While I am pro-choice, some Conservatives would say abortion is mildly controlling from the fetus perspective. Call it a draw.
• Left wants to take away assault weapons (I'm fine with that, but its control)
• The Left wants to raise taxes - that is extremely controlling, since its my money they are taking.
• The Left want to control the proportion of females, LGBTQ2ED in certain fields, despite preferences are a big part of the disparity.
• The Left wants to control what I say publicly if it hurts their feelings or conflicts with their opinion. Usually by calling others Racist.
• The Left wants to control thought on campuses.
• The Left wants to control sexual activity, by implying rape is a common event, when in fact its rare according to young women.
• The left wants to control and limit economic activity without pairing it with sacrifices it will entail.
• The Left wants to control the media.

That's why I abandoned the Left, its no longer a force for good. I know all your responses in advance, because I used to be a snowflake too.

 

[salsa]

Conservatives don't care who you marry anymore. Both Liberals & Conservatives (and you too), had mixed feeling about gay marriage in the latter part of the last millennium. We're talking about now.

• So lets talk about control then. While I am pro-choice, some Conservatives would say abortion is mildly controlling from the fetus perspective. Call it a draw.
• Left wants to take away assault weapons (I'm fine with that, but its control)
• The Left wants to raise taxes - that is extremely controlling, since its my money they are taking.
• The Left want to control the proportion of females, LGBTQ2ED in certain fields, despite preferences are a big part of the disparity.
• The Left wants to control what I say publicly if it hurts their feelings or conflicts with their opinion. Usually by calling others Racist.
• The Left wants to control thought on campuses.
• The Left wants to control sexual activity, by implying rape is a common event, when in fact its rare according to young women.
• The left wants to control and limit economic activity without pairing it with sacrifices it will entail.
• The Left wants to control the media.

That's why I abandoned the Left, its no longer a force for good. I know all your responses in advance, because I used to be a snowflake too.

So on one hand you criticize others when they generalize about conservatives, but then you went ahead and did the same thing against the left. Give me a break. What you describe may be true for the extreme left, but it does not represent the values of the typical individual, and certainly does not represent my values either.

 

[buildup]

One one hand you criticize others when they generalize about conservatives, but then you went ahead and did the same thing again the left. Give me a break. What you describe is true for the extreme left, but it does not represent the value of the typical lefty, and certainly does not represent my values either.

Fair enough. (northern light will be impressed with my response)

 

[Northern Light]

Conservatives don't care who you marry anymore. Both Liberals & Conservatives (and you too), had mixed feeling about gay marriage in the latter part of the last millennium. We're talking about now.

• So lets talk about control then. While I am pro-choice, some Conservatives would say abortion is mildly controlling from the fetus perspective. Call it a draw.
• Left wants to take away assault weapons (I'm fine with that, but its control)
• The Left wants to raise taxes - that is extremely controlling, since its my money they are taking.
• The Left want to control the proportion of females, LGBTQ2ED in certain fields, despite preferences are a big part of the disparity.
• The Left wants to control what I say publicly if it hurts their feelings or conflicts with their opinion. Usually by calling others Racist.
• The Left wants to control thought on campuses.
• The Left wants to control sexual activity, by implying rape is a common event, when in fact its rare according to young women.
• The left wants to control and limit economic activity without pairing it with sacrifices it will entail.
• The Left wants to control the media.

That's why I abandoned the Left, its no longer a force for good. I know all your responses in advance, because I used to be a snowflake too.

Let's dissect this load of BS shall we?

• Left wants to take away assault weapons (I'm fine with that, but its control)

And the owner of an assault weapons uses it to give away control? Is it just a purchase to compesate for sexual inadequacy..............the most expensive tchotchke going? Or might be to impose their will on others by threat or intimidation? Hmmm?

• The Left wants to raise taxes - that is extremely controlling, since its my money they are taking.

Who exactly issued the money? You? Who has the absolute authority to issue more, at will, causing devaluation and inflation, you? Hmmm, ....nope, that would be the Bank of Canada, not you. That said, I'll grant that the way society is structured you do have the illusion that its yours. But I digress. Your statement is still wrong. First off, if one were in favour of raising tax, you would have to determine which tax was being raised, to ascertain whether it applied to you. Assuming said tax increase did apply to you; and you were unable to avoid paying more in tax......... that still isn't a form of specific control any more than outlawing murder. If that's controlling so be it........but the key here is that law is general in its nature and applies to everyone equally and requires little in the way of micro-management. The state does not determine how much you make (unless your a direct employee), nor how you make it, nor what you spend on. Calling any form of tax control writ large is more than a reach.

• The Left want to control the proportion of females, LGBTQ2ED in certain fields, despite preferences are a big part of the disparity?

WTF are you even trying to say? You didn't say it very well, that much is certain. If you're trying to suggest the left is imposing or wishes to impose broad professional quotas...........I'm not aware of many, nor a large-scale advocacy for same.

There is a desire to see more women in positions of senior management in professions where they dominate the middle and entry level ranks. That hardly seems unreasonable, nonetheless, I don't believe any quotas have been imposed, only a requirement to explain extreme imbalance on corporate boards; and even then, only a requirement to explain, not comply.

• The Left wants to control what I say publicly if it hurts their feelings or conflicts with their opinion. Usually by calling others Racist.

Is there a government regulation limiting what you can say, outside of hate speech? I don't think so. Is there any political party, including of the left, running on changing that? Nah.

This is your imagination and paranoia. Yes, there are a few twits who feel different, but asserting that this a broadly held 'leftist' view is nonsense. Don't confuse that fact you're a troll and a provocateur, who regularly
gets shamed and embarrassed for being rude and a time-waster with leftism causing you trouble. A mirror would be more helpful in illustrating the cause.

• The Left wants to control thought on campuses.

A small minority have a desire to suppress competing views, this is not mainstream left/progressivism.

• The Left wants to control sexual activity, by implying rape is a common event, when in fact its rare according to young women.

Kindly provide evidence to substantiate this claim. I have seen evidence presented that sexual assault is comparatively and all-to common, using the definition of any un-wanted, un-invited sexual touching. I don't find it all difficult to believe that that is common place. Sexual assault does not equal rape; though rape is a sexual assault. A distinction with a difference.

• The left wants to control and limit economic activity without pairing it with sacrifices it will entail.

Says who? Provide evidence. What sacrifice? Which economic activity? No proof from you, ever. That's what makes you a troll, you make it all up on the fly.

• The Left wants to control the media.

Well now.....since the media is largely controlled in this country by 3 large corporations, who have over 80% market-share vs small independents or public broadcasting........

*****

Now, could you please stop posting and wasting the time of this group and this forum with your nonsense? Alternatively please offer opinions that nuanced, thoughtful and supported by evidence, and for the latter, please feel free to include citations.

 

[Northern Light]

Fair enough. (northern light will be impressed with my response)

Best one you've given yet.

 

[Northern Light]

Primates are nocturnal.

This is the most absurd statement you've ever made, and that is saying something!

From a well-reputed source:

Almost all primates are diurnal, which is to say, they are active during the day and sleep at night.

The Primates: Overview