My hypothesis on why O'leary is on CBC all the time.

Despite originally the CBC being brought into existence by a conservative government, "in 1932 the government of R.B. Bennett established the CBC’s predecessor, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (CRBC)." -wiki

I think that they've tended to be a generally more social democratic oriented media station, but as of late, Prime Minister Harper, won a majority (because Canada, like the USA, has a shit electoral system, and Canadians can be just as big of greedy shits as American Republicans) and the Conservative Government now has the power to do whatever it wants really (a.k.a. whatever Harper wants), which means the neo-liberal privatization of public goods are on the horizon, like the CBC.

My guess is that the CBC realizes they might be de-funded and so they put the free marketeer "nutbar" O'leary on to win some favor with the neo-conservatives.

I really wonder why Kevin O'Leary is even on the CBC to begin with. Sure he's the Dragon Den's resident ass hole but that doesn't qualify him for journalism. What's the deal? Is he some sort of Stephen Harper crony?

Imagine my surprise when I stumbled across this, after reading this blog:

From Sept 2011 issue of Harper's Magazine. Excerpt from an article entitled Getting Schooled. Emphasis mine.

"My point here is that even under ideal circumstances, public school teaching is one of the hardest jobs a person can do. Most sensible people know that. Anyone who claims not to know that is either a scoundrel or a nincompoop; or, to put it another way, a typical expert on everything that's wrong with American public education and the often damaged children that it serves."

There's still things left to privatize in the states? You better hurry up with that before Stephen Harper privatizes everything in Canada and shouts, "FIRST!"

@spoco2

Let me get this straight... A young kid gets vaccinated, suffers an adverse reaction to it which leads to "autism like" symptoms. And the vaccine did NOT cause autism? The kid was going to get autism anyway? Bullshit. You have no evidence to back up that position.

BTW, they can make mercury-free vaccines. So why do you statist idiots want to mandate everyone get blasted with neurotoxins?

And typical deflecting argument... you can't argue a position without blurring the debate with ad hominem static. What happened to your false analogy? Did you fart again? You must have if you thought HPV vaccines lower cervical cancer rates. And you're ignoring the unintended consequences of trying to vaccinate a relatively common STD that's usually harmless and goes away without treatment. How's that happen you say? Our body has it's own defense system that eliminates the virus. Maybe we should start vaccinating people for colds, you think? Then no one will have colds anymore!

Neil Miller: "Research has shown that when vaccines only target a small number of strains capable of causing disease, less prevalent strains can replace the targeted vaccine strains. These less prevalent strains graduate from minor factors to major influences and may even become more dangerous. Scientists are now concerned that Gardasil -- which only targets two of at least 15 different cancer-causing HPV strains -- might be allowing HPV strains previously considered minor to flourish and become major influences."

More from the article:
By February 2011, more than 20,500 adverse reaction reports pertaining to Gardasil were filed with the U.S. government -- an average of 12 reports per day [VAERS]. Nearly half of all reports required a doctor or emergency room visit, with hundreds of teenage girls and young women needing extended hospitalization.

In the case reports submitted to the FDA, 89 deaths were described due to blood clots, heart disease and other causes. In addition, many of the vaccine recipients -- young women -- were stricken with serious and life-threatening disabilities, including Guillain-Barre syndrome (paralysis), seizures, convulsions, swollen limbs, chest pain, heart irregularities, kidney failure, visual disturbances, arthritis, difficulty breathing, severe rashes, persistent vomiting, miscarriages, menstrual irregularities, reproductive complications, genital warts, vaginal lesions and HPV infection -- the main reason to vaccinate.

According to Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, 'The rate of serious adverse events [from Gardasil] is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.' [ABC News (August 19, 2009).]

Gardasil is being promoted as 100 percent effective. However, this is a deceptive assessment of its true ability to protect against cervical cancer. Gardasil is effective against just two strains of cancer-causing HPV -- the ones included in the vaccine -- but researchers have identified at least 15 cancer-causing HPV strains!

Gardasil will not prevent infection with HPV types not contained in the vaccine. In fact, during clinical trials of the vaccine, hundreds of women who received Gardasil contracted HPV disease. Furthermore, the drug maker warns women (in its product insert) that 'vaccination does not substitute for routine cervical cancer screening.'
/source
In other words, your propaganda quote from the NCI is horseshit.

Being the biggest backers doesn't mean it's being done for religious purposes.

I'm not debating some see it that way. You also have a bunch of people who didn't, too.

Where in that link did Tony Blair was quoted saying this was part of a Christian struggle?! It's loosely about believing it's a good versus evil thing. It's not about killing Muslims because Muslims are evil, or demoralizing Muslim culture to make room for Christian culture.. If you believe it was about killing Muslims, or advancing the interests of Christianity at the expense of Islam, you need your head examined. At no point was Blair ever on a Christian Crusade.

A VERY small group of evangelical Christian soldiers doesn't make the case.

Now, about Obama and Christianity. You do realize Obama at this point pretty much goes to church because it's a political liability if he doesn't. He quite possibly is the least religious president to ever be in office.

He is not intentionally trying to kill Civilians. #1. The statistics you sited are skewed concerning civilian casualties, although I'm not dismissing civilian casualties. Significant civilian casualties have been a mainstay in military action since WWII on all sides, after a brief reprieve in WWI and other wars leading up to it. You do the best you can to limit them while achieving your objectives. The reality is you won't achieve anything if you try to avoid any civilian casualties.

With that said, the article is discussing Predator drone casualties only, which is a small fraction of total casualties. And even then, you have a dispute on statistics, and I agree the US military is not going to give an unbiased number either. However, it's very difficult to tell what the accurate number is at this point.

See the above about civilian casualties as collateral damage. It would be difficult to achieve anything if the primary focus was to avoid them instead of achieving objectives.

Does all this add up to terrorism? No, for several reasons:

1. It isn't intentional, not any part of the objective in conducting them. Terrorist acts are specific explicit targeting of civilians. Often, the more civilians you kill, the better when you're a terrorist.
2. You sited bombings in Tripoli. Part of the objectives in that raid is to topple the oppressive regime in Libya, is it not? And yes, I completely accept that we're not just there for that. Libya has oil resources, etc. we're interested in, but it doesn't change the fact that part of the reason we're there is to free the Libyan people from an oppressive regime. It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large.

Extreme progressives are critical of Obama for many of the things you're siting. Obama isn't an extreme progressive, socialist, communist, etc. as much as QM and WP would love for you to believe. He's a moderate politician who leans to the left. If that's the indictment, I don't think anyone would disagree he's not the most liberal progressive politician since FDR. He's not. To say however he isn't progressive at all is not true either. Honestly, as much oil as there is in Libya, it's not worth military action. There's a bit of idealist progressivism to conduct air strikes against Libya.

And again, I fail to see how that's relevant to the debate of the religion of this guy. He is a Christian, there's no doubt about it. Granted, he's got a warped Christian ideology, but it is Christian. You can't say someone isn't Christian just because you don't agree with their interpretation.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?


And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:
-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)
-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)
-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)
-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)
These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.

As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)
Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)
Is this not terrorism?
Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?
There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)
Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)
Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

>> ^heropsycho:

The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?




And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:

-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)

-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)

-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)

-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)

These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.




As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)

Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)

Is this not terrorism?

Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?

There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)

Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)

Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'utah, police, bruce harper, taser' to 'utah, police, bruce harper, taser, turn around, put your hands on your head' - edited by SlipperyPete

Also to Harper: Could you please earmark $1 billion for security when Vancouver's in the Stanley Cup finals? Thanks.

The stop sign with Harper's name on it became a meme during elections in Canada. I have seen multiple stop signs like that myself and on the net.

http://www.ronerwin.com/big/100804D9110.jpg
http://winnipegpunk.com/images/news/election/2011/stop-harper.gif
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kayleyluftig/5761297596/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fanningphotography/5682641647/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cleversimon/3192122981/
http://www.gigcity.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Fish-Third-Harper-stop.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roland/2943401474/

It might not be an Internet scale meme, but for Canada its a meme alright.

>> ^burdturgler:

... Don't see the meme either.
nochannel canada politics news

haha!! well, it IS bizarre, and I have no idea what that dude is doing -- ceremoniously carrying the Throne Speech or something?? But that's not Prime Minister Harper -- he's the guy in the red tie seated on the far rhs at :08.

This is amazing. History being made.

Having said that, what the holy heck is Harper doing walking back and forth with a folder and bowing?

As a non-Canadian, that looks totally bizarre to me.

Canada is controlled by the fertility mushroom cult of Amanita Muscaria

>> ^shuac:

What's with all the Santa suits?

Right. I always forget about that one. >> ^siftbot:

Post cannot be self promoted by original submitter notarobot because notarobot does not have enough Power Points. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

So far I read that fuck stick beady eyed no good piece of fly shit Harper got a majority.

Fail canada. MORE PEOPLE IN PRISON ! BIGGER JAILS ! MORE GUARD'S !