OnTheLeft:
Your post at #62 doesn't actually refute anything that I wrote.
Being in favour of progressive taxation does not mean you want to make the tax code MORE progressive and it certainly does not mean you want to raise taxes on high income earners.
A blog post about a meeting with Peggy Nash--without even a quote--does not provide any basis upon which to conclude that Peggy Nash is LITERALLY proposing to increase CBC funding by 3 to 6 times rather than making a rhetorical or blue sky reference to BBC funding levels. If Nash does make such a proposal, it would "massive" relative to the current funding levels of the CBC but not something that would set her campaign apart in the overall dynamics of the leadership race.
You seem to have a big problem with my using capital letters as you have mentioned it repeatedly. I respectfully disagree that there is anything wrong with using all caps to emphasize a point. You have frequently conflating phrases in a way that misses their meaning (e.g. "supports progressive taxation"="raise taxes on high income earners"), so emphasizing points of differentiation is important.
You have also repeatedly responded to things I've written sentence by sentence while ignoring that the blocks of text in question are only intend to make an important point when taken together. You also repeatedly offered responses such as "Whatever." or accusing me of "spinning" or of becoming emotional. If that's all you have to say in relation to a point I've made, please do not feel that you are under any obligation to respond to each and every thing that I've written.