With all the plywood Harper and his party are putting on Capital HIll Windows I think I should invest in some stocks owned by Plywood companies. Anyone know of a good plywood company to invest in.
Harper Shutting Out the Media
- Thread starter FiveParadox
- Start date
Re: RE: Harper Shutting Out t
The point is, just because one party messed up doesn't give the other parties a pass. You can't just see a problem and say, "Yeah but the Liberals... "
What is so hard about people thinking critically about all parties? All politicians are crap. But at least we, as a people, can try and hold them accountable. To do anything less is just irresponsible.
Mogz said:
The point is, just because one party messed up doesn't give the other parties a pass. You can't just see a problem and say, "Yeah but the Liberals... "
What is so hard about people thinking critically about all parties? All politicians are crap. But at least we, as a people, can try and hold them accountable. To do anything less is just irresponsible.
RE: Harper Shutting Out t
Ok want my major beef about the Liberals? No? Well here it is anyway:
1. The Liberals approve Operation Apollo, the Canadian military deployment to Kandahar Afghanistan in 2001. The issue has been debated in Parliment and approved.
2. The Liberals shit-can Apollo and Start up Operation Athena, the Canadian Military operation to Kabul Afghanistan.
3. The Liberals shit-can Athena and start up Operation Archer, the Canadian Military Operation to Kandahar Afghanistan to start July 2005.
Now, for over 5 years now, the Liberals had planned, approved, and deployed on 3 combat missions to Afghanistan. Then, within weeks of losing a Federal election, the party declares it a moral sin to be in Afghanistan, wants a debate (on an issue they put in motion), and some extremes of the Party want the operation turfed after lives have been lost and money spent.
My issues with this:
1. You approved the very mission you're speaking out against. Are you admitting you planned a failure of a mission and as such don't deserve to be put back in to office?
2. You're speaking about against the mission in an attempt that the hamburger helper eating masses in Canada will assume it was some evil Conservative/Steven Harper operation and as a result get them turfed from office. Anyone who thinks this is folly should speak to my Aunt who told me the other night on the phone that she was against the "conservative's mission to Afghanistan".
3. Lastly you're simply such an ass-backwards party that many of your members feel that this is INDEED a Conservative Mission and that the Liberals had no part in it. From what i've heard/read, i'm inclined to believe that a few Liberal MPs think this way.
In summary, this is typical of the Liberal Party of Canada. Blatant lies and misdirection at an attempt to dislodge their politcal rivals. I myself, as a voting Canadian, have no time for a party that operates like this. If the worst Harper is doing is not telling Canada about a phone call to Bush, I don't care. I'd rather have the Conservatives in power than the Liberals who blatantly lie to Canadians, who in continue to vote them in.
Ok want my major beef about the Liberals? No? Well here it is anyway:
1. The Liberals approve Operation Apollo, the Canadian military deployment to Kandahar Afghanistan in 2001. The issue has been debated in Parliment and approved.
2. The Liberals shit-can Apollo and Start up Operation Athena, the Canadian Military operation to Kabul Afghanistan.
3. The Liberals shit-can Athena and start up Operation Archer, the Canadian Military Operation to Kandahar Afghanistan to start July 2005.
Now, for over 5 years now, the Liberals had planned, approved, and deployed on 3 combat missions to Afghanistan. Then, within weeks of losing a Federal election, the party declares it a moral sin to be in Afghanistan, wants a debate (on an issue they put in motion), and some extremes of the Party want the operation turfed after lives have been lost and money spent.
My issues with this:
1. You approved the very mission you're speaking out against. Are you admitting you planned a failure of a mission and as such don't deserve to be put back in to office?
2. You're speaking about against the mission in an attempt that the hamburger helper eating masses in Canada will assume it was some evil Conservative/Steven Harper operation and as a result get them turfed from office. Anyone who thinks this is folly should speak to my Aunt who told me the other night on the phone that she was against the "conservative's mission to Afghanistan".
3. Lastly you're simply such an ass-backwards party that many of your members feel that this is INDEED a Conservative Mission and that the Liberals had no part in it. From what i've heard/read, i'm inclined to believe that a few Liberal MPs think this way.
In summary, this is typical of the Liberal Party of Canada. Blatant lies and misdirection at an attempt to dislodge their politcal rivals. I myself, as a voting Canadian, have no time for a party that operates like this. If the worst Harper is doing is not telling Canada about a phone call to Bush, I don't care. I'd rather have the Conservatives in power than the Liberals who blatantly lie to Canadians, who in continue to vote them in.
I have mentioned this elsewhere, and I am going to mention it again; the Liberal Party of Canada has no desire to have the Canadian Forces withdrawn from Afghanistan; rather, as is my opinion, they wanted a discussion and debate on the mission to take place in the House of Commons.
If we are going to condemn a party for wishing to revisit an issue that had been decided in a previous Parliament, then what of the current Government of Canada wishing to resume its holy cruisade against sin, in dragging the Civil Marriage Act back into the House of Commons?
As for this media issue, it's not just a matter of not telling Canadians about that 20-minute phone call — that was of no consequence. It's about telling us, as Canadians, that we don't have the right to ask the Government questions; it's about the Government picking and choosing reporters and questions, in particular, during media availabilities. It's about the Prime Minister stacking six security personnel outside his office to keep reporters out.
If we are going to condemn a party for wishing to revisit an issue that had been decided in a previous Parliament, then what of the current Government of Canada wishing to resume its holy cruisade against sin, in dragging the Civil Marriage Act back into the House of Commons?
As for this media issue, it's not just a matter of not telling Canadians about that 20-minute phone call — that was of no consequence. It's about telling us, as Canadians, that we don't have the right to ask the Government questions; it's about the Government picking and choosing reporters and questions, in particular, during media availabilities. It's about the Prime Minister stacking six security personnel outside his office to keep reporters out.
No, the worst he's doing is picking and choosing what questions can be asked. That the Liberals are a bunch of fuck-ups doesn't change the fact that how Harper is treating the Canadian media and, as an extension of that, the Canadian people, is wrong and bad for democracy.
By the way, I love the avatar. Beautiful. I don't think that the flag every looked so good.
Re: RE: Harper Shutting Out the Media
Perhaps we could be issued a list of things the Liberals would like to debate about what they did when they were in power so we can at least have sort of idea where this is going.
OR
It's Liberal BS and everyone knows it.
FiveParadox said:
Perhaps we could be issued a list of things the Liberals would like to debate about what they did when they were in power so we can at least have sort of idea where this is going.
OR
It's Liberal BS and everyone knows it.
RE: Harper Shutting Out t
I don't condem them wishing to revisit it. I condem the timing of their wishing....directly after losing the election. If the Liberals were still in power, and they said one day, you know, we should look at Afghanistan again and see what we should change. I'd support that, I may not agree with it, but i'd support it because they were thinkinf of revisiting their own decision. To lose the election then decide Afghanistan needs to be examined, yeah that's politcal positioning on a grand scale.
I don't condem them wishing to revisit it. I condem the timing of their wishing....directly after losing the election. If the Liberals were still in power, and they said one day, you know, we should look at Afghanistan again and see what we should change. I'd support that, I may not agree with it, but i'd support it because they were thinkinf of revisiting their own decision. To lose the election then decide Afghanistan needs to be examined, yeah that's politcal positioning on a grand scale.
Mogz, you know as well as I do that this request for a debate did not originate from the Liberals; this request originated from the New Democratic Party of Canada and to a lesser extent, the Bloc Québécois. The Liberals just happened to agree afterward, but they're taking the entire blame for it nonetheless.
Jay, it's hardly nonsense; the entire opposition wants a debate on this issue — not just Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Whether or not you care to agree, the fact remains that Canadians support the Liberals in sufficient numbers to have brought them back to the House as the Official Opposition, with 102 seats — obviously Canadians don't think they're nonsense.
Re: RE: Harper Shutting Out t
Given that Canada has recently been put in a command position — now with violence and problems related heating up, and with Iraq going into civil war, if the Liberals were still in power, I'm sure 'they' would be pressured to debate the mission. If they were reluctant, we would all still be having this conversation.
Who here thinks Layton wouldn't be asking for a debate?
On the topic of this tread, I have to go back to the issue and say that this is a dangerous direction for Canada. All one has to do is think of the types of countries that practice putting limitations on journalism. What countries do we plan to become associated with? The only governments that make the arguement for such restrictions on the press are the ones that try to maintain some sort of dictatorship.
If the Liberals win the next election and were to continue with such restrictions, I would still be here protesting, but against them instead.
One step backwards makes it easier to make a second step backwards.
Mogz said:
Given that Canada has recently been put in a command position — now with violence and problems related heating up, and with Iraq going into civil war, if the Liberals were still in power, I'm sure 'they' would be pressured to debate the mission. If they were reluctant, we would all still be having this conversation.
Who here thinks Layton wouldn't be asking for a debate?
On the topic of this tread, I have to go back to the issue and say that this is a dangerous direction for Canada. All one has to do is think of the types of countries that practice putting limitations on journalism. What countries do we plan to become associated with? The only governments that make the arguement for such restrictions on the press are the ones that try to maintain some sort of dictatorship.
If the Liberals win the next election and were to continue with such restrictions, I would still be here protesting, but against them instead.
One step backwards makes it easier to make a second step backwards.
Have you ever heard Ujjal Dosanjh speak about the Operation? He's ranting up a storm about this evil mission overseas. I don't care who was the first to broach the issue. My concern is on the Liberal party jockeying for political postion at the expansion of national security and national unity. You and I both know that the NDP or the Bloc will never form the ruling party of Canada any time soon, so i'm focused on the Liberals. If a party wants to spread rhetoric for the sake of getting back in to power, I won't sit by and just take it like other Canadians will. Yes I vote Conservative, but not because I agree 100% with the party or their platform. I vote Conservative simply because they're the lesser of the evils in my opinion. They support the military which is more than I can say for the Liberals, and they're "more honest" than the Liberals. I have no illusions about politcal partys, they're all crooks, but I myself vote for the party that'll do the most for Canada on a global scale. I don't want a party that lies blatantly, steals millions from the nation, then puts the finanace minister at the time in charge, and plays politcal games witn national security, running my Canada.
Did you know that a large number of Canadians who vote Liberal do so simply because their family has always voted Liberal? It's true. During the last election, Rick Mercer interviewed dozens of Liberal supporters across Canada and the vast majority of those he interviewed said they voted Liberal because their parents and grandparents had always voted Liberal. This political-blindness was most apparent in Ontario. I'm not saying all Liberal voters are like this, but when you've got an electorate that is largely retarded, things tend to go your way.
We were in command of ISAF before we were in command of the PRT in Kandahar and 3 of our 4 combat deaths in Afghanistan were taken in Kabul during that period. Why was there no debate then? You make it sound like it's a new thing for Canadians to be in command in Afghanistan, and you make it sound like we're only now taking casualties. That isn't the case. When we ran ISAF for a year (2003-2004) that was our bloodiest period in Afghanistan. Explain that?
I as a Canadian resent you implying that our Government would become a facist regime. It's one thing to disagree with a Government, it's another thing to be utterly crass in doing so. As Jay said, grow up.
RE: Harper Shutting Out t
I spent a fair bit of time out east near Ottawa, including when the 2004 election campaign was going on. I was shocked how the majority of people I met intended to vote. It had nothing to do with platforms or the candidates. It had to do with how they'd always voted. Ontarians see the Liberal Party as "their" party and really, it is. The Liberals should really be called "The Ontario Party".
Out West there is a much larger awareness of politics, probably because the people out West have experienced bad government and want to change it.
Stephen Harper is playing it smart by not allowing the media in. The media loves to cause debate and as much of the media is based out of Toronto, I'd say Harper knows it isn't his friend. This is verses the Liberals who have always had the media on its side.
I spent a fair bit of time out east near Ottawa, including when the 2004 election campaign was going on. I was shocked how the majority of people I met intended to vote. It had nothing to do with platforms or the candidates. It had to do with how they'd always voted. Ontarians see the Liberal Party as "their" party and really, it is. The Liberals should really be called "The Ontario Party".
Out West there is a much larger awareness of politics, probably because the people out West have experienced bad government and want to change it.
Stephen Harper is playing it smart by not allowing the media in. The media loves to cause debate and as much of the media is based out of Toronto, I'd say Harper knows it isn't his friend. This is verses the Liberals who have always had the media on its side.
RE: Harper Shutting Out t
I used to argue with Americans even prior to the Iraq War that the policies Bush was putting in place would erode their Civil Liberties.
They would always respond that the president knows what he is doing and that the loss of Civil Liberties couldn’t happen in the United States.
They would always tell me, “It could never happen. Not here.”
Now they wonder how they got to the point where the president illegally wiretaps Americans as contrary to their laws.
Up until now US news just gave pro White House perspectives and all of a sudden they wonder how they could have been so wrong with Iraq. Bush, would hand pick the reporters that would question him. They even planted reporters as in the case of Jeff Gannon. They even had their military write news that they would pay Iraq media to publish just to paint a rosy picture.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...0nov30,0,5638790.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1418539,00.html
And people wonder why they get it so wrong when it comes to the reality of their War in Iraq and their security at home. And they wonder why the media still fronts the falsehoods of the government rather than take a critical role that was suppose to be their job.
Then they wonder how in the face of a natural disaster, they were so poorly equipped at dealing with a state of emergency when the whole time their president would tell them he is the ‘security president’. He is the guy who is on top of keeping them safe.
“Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”
Now we are all suppose to sit here and say to ourselves, “Harper knows what he is doing and I’m sure it’s all for our best. Our Civil Liberties won’t get eroded. No, it can’t happen here. Not in Canada.”
I’ve heard this all before. We have seen a window to what happens when government gets to restrict the media, control the media, etc. A window so close to us.
I don’t know when suddenly we started trusting politicians.
I wouldn’t trust any politician from any party to have those types of powers or controls in place. We can only become weaker as a society to allow it.
I used to argue with Americans even prior to the Iraq War that the policies Bush was putting in place would erode their Civil Liberties.
They would always respond that the president knows what he is doing and that the loss of Civil Liberties couldn’t happen in the United States.
They would always tell me, “It could never happen. Not here.”
Now they wonder how they got to the point where the president illegally wiretaps Americans as contrary to their laws.
Up until now US news just gave pro White House perspectives and all of a sudden they wonder how they could have been so wrong with Iraq. Bush, would hand pick the reporters that would question him. They even planted reporters as in the case of Jeff Gannon. They even had their military write news that they would pay Iraq media to publish just to paint a rosy picture.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...0nov30,0,5638790.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1418539,00.html
And people wonder why they get it so wrong when it comes to the reality of their War in Iraq and their security at home. And they wonder why the media still fronts the falsehoods of the government rather than take a critical role that was suppose to be their job.
Then they wonder how in the face of a natural disaster, they were so poorly equipped at dealing with a state of emergency when the whole time their president would tell them he is the ‘security president’. He is the guy who is on top of keeping them safe.
“Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”
Now we are all suppose to sit here and say to ourselves, “Harper knows what he is doing and I’m sure it’s all for our best. Our Civil Liberties won’t get eroded. No, it can’t happen here. Not in Canada.”
I’ve heard this all before. We have seen a window to what happens when government gets to restrict the media, control the media, etc. A window so close to us.
I don’t know when suddenly we started trusting politicians.
I wouldn’t trust any politician from any party to have those types of powers or controls in place. We can only become weaker as a society to allow it.
RE: Harper Shutting Out t
I have to agree with you but it isn't that Harper is handpicking reporters and the like. He is simply just not letting the media in. As a leader of a minority government, publicity will be what makes or breaks him. He can't have the media meddling in negotiations right now.
I have to agree with you but it isn't that Harper is handpicking reporters and the like. He is simply just not letting the media in. As a leader of a minority government, publicity will be what makes or breaks him. He can't have the media meddling in negotiations right now.
Re: RE: Harper Shutting Out t
I could say the exact same thing but replace Liberal with Conservative, and Ontario with Alberta. It's like setting up straw men to make a generalization of the whole population and then knocking those faceless straw men down.
I don't think being at one side of the country makes someone more informed. I will agree that it can make one more bias to one's provincial interests.
I wish Canadians could simply vote on the basis of a platform being good for the whole country. Alberta is getting very wealthy from the oil.
It's gets harder and harder for me to hear Albertans complain about the past when they are doing so well going into the future.
I hope Albertans do well with the oil boom but soon it will become like listening to a wealthy kid rant about not having enough in life.
Prairie_Ally said:
I could say the exact same thing but replace Liberal with Conservative, and Ontario with Alberta. It's like setting up straw men to make a generalization of the whole population and then knocking those faceless straw men down.
I don't think being at one side of the country makes someone more informed. I will agree that it can make one more bias to one's provincial interests.
I wish Canadians could simply vote on the basis of a platform being good for the whole country. Alberta is getting very wealthy from the oil.
It's gets harder and harder for me to hear Albertans complain about the past when they are doing so well going into the future.
I hope Albertans do well with the oil boom but soon it will become like listening to a wealthy kid rant about not having enough in life.
Re: RE: Harper Shutting Out t
Then you should see this and look to the bottom point made...
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Editorials/2006/03/29/1510185.html
To control the message, the PMO says it may keep cabinet meetings secret, so the press gallery can't stake them out -- and question ministers. Alternatively, it may force reporters to wait a floor below the cabinet room, enabling ministers to evade reporters and answer questions only if they choose.
Among other planned access changes are:
* Withholding announcements of visits by heads of state and premiers.
* Banning news photographers from meetings with the above officials and issuing in-house photos instead.
* Making lists of reporters wishing to ask questions, then choosing which to accommodate.
Prairie_Ally said:
Then you should see this and look to the bottom point made...
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Editorials/2006/03/29/1510185.html
To control the message, the PMO says it may keep cabinet meetings secret, so the press gallery can't stake them out -- and question ministers. Alternatively, it may force reporters to wait a floor below the cabinet room, enabling ministers to evade reporters and answer questions only if they choose.
Among other planned access changes are:
* Withholding announcements of visits by heads of state and premiers.
* Banning news photographers from meetings with the above officials and issuing in-house photos instead.
* Making lists of reporters wishing to ask questions, then choosing which to accommodate.