|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 31, 2011 23:55:14 GMT -5
From thestar.com .... not sure if that's a Lib or a Con media source ... The Star use to be known as the Socialist Truthers, then they changed their name to Comrade Central. Then The Star. Two years ago in the sky fallers conference in Copenhagen, they were inventing anti-Harper headlines and quoting their own reporters as "sources". They went ballistic in the Ford election. Last week, one of the Star columnist spun tales about Harper as Stalinist and Khmer Rouge. Which is a step down to comparing Ford to Hitler. So yeah, anything the Star prints amounts to extra biased garbage. Basically.... The CBC, Star, are left of center. CTV, Globe and Mail, center with slightly left on some issues. The National Post slightly right or right of center. The Toronto Sun right of center. I get the bottom three papers. I had to curse the The Star supervisor to stop them from harassing us every day to subscribe to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 31, 2011 23:56:55 GMT -5
Toronto Star positions itself with AK Glove and Mail fashions itself like Eller National Post is definitely a Plek The first one made sense...the other two left me senseless. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 1, 2011 6:02:59 GMT -5
Toronto Star positions itself with AK Glove and Mail fashions itself like Eller National Post is definitely a Plek The first one made sense...the other two left me senseless. oh come on, if you got the first the others fell into place. AK is a left winger Eller tries to be a center but bounces all over and Pleks is right wing |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 1, 2011 6:40:49 GMT -5
The first one made sense...the other two left me senseless. oh come on, if you got the first the others fell into place. AK is a left winger Eller tries to be a center but bounces all over and Pleks is right wing Pleks is a center. And AK is a right winger. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 1, 2011 8:38:17 GMT -5
well I understand the confusion then, at least with Pleks -- he is identified as RW by some -- my apologies to all especially him. AK is identified as an LW.
so . . . strike that analogy and just follow HA: the Star is a left wing rag. the Globe is centre-left with an occasional foray to the right. the Post is steadily on the right. and the Sun is bottom of the bird cage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2011 10:21:04 GMT -5
I hope nobody complains when the CBC budget is slashed. After all, if you going to be a party hack, expect some hacking. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CBC: Bias and secrecy The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not behaving like an independent media company in this election campaign. They're not even acting like a left-wing state broadcaster anymore. No: They are looking like a partisan advocacy group, determined to shape the outcome of the election campaign, not just report it. That is unacceptable. The CBC has sponsored a website they claim will tell you what party you best fit into. On Wednesday night, the CBC's Peter Mansbridge went further, telling viewers the website is how to "find out where you stand" in the election. So now the CBC is in the business of telling Canadians what party they stand for. Thanks, but that's called campaigning, not reporting. The CBC scheme uses a website, www.votecompass.ca that asks questions about your views, and then a magic formula pigeonholes you into a party. And -- surprise, surprise -- the Liberal Party is the default setting if you are at all wishy-washy about anything. So, Vote Compass helps you out. By telling you to vote Liberal. Not exactly shocking, coming from the CBC that gorges on a billion tax dollars a year. Try it out yourself. If you answer neutrally or "no opinion" to every question, it tells you you're for Michael Ignatieff. Not surprisingly, the CBC has stonewalled requests to release their formula. Why the secrecy? CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said there is no bias, "as far as we know." What does that mean? Has Keay even seen the formula? Whose word is he taking that it's fair? Perhaps he's taking the word of Peter Loewen, the "director of analytics" for the Vote Compass. Loewen just happens to have been a policy adviser for Michael Ignatieff's 2006 Liberal leadership campaign. No bias? Or maybe Keay is taking the word of Richard Johnston, on Vote Compass's advisory board. Last month Johnston savaged Stephen Harper in the press, claiming he was destroying the "integrity" of government. No bias? It's possible that cadre of diehard Liberals can be neutral. But there's only one way to be sure: The formula that Vote Compass uses must be disclosed publicly. But that's not all the CBC must disclose. The website also asks Canadians for detailed demographic information, such as the riding they live in, their postal code, their age, their voting intentions and other personal details. All of which is very valuable to political parties. Who gets that voter data? Loewen does. Has he shared it with his former boss, Ignatieff? Does the CBC even know? Or care? Vote Compass is no different than a push poll. It pretends to be neutral, but it is designed to convince you of "where you stand". It's grotesque that our tax dollars are going to such a campaign trick. If Vote Compass is really a pro-Liberal website, run by a former Liberal insider like Loewen, it must be registered with Elections Canada as a third party advocacy group. Their revenues and expenditures must be disclosed. And their spending is limited -- in this case, to $150,000. The CBC can't blow its nose without spending $150,000, let alone sponsor a website and advertise it night after night. The CBC is acting like the Liberal Party. Fine. Let it survive on partisan donations, not tax dollars. -- Levant will host The Source on Sun News Network www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/ezra_levant/2011/04/01/17832526.html |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 1, 2011 10:43:56 GMT -5
Harper has promised Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project .... well Mr. Harper, we have been down this road before during an election. And last time we even had it in writing and you reneged ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2011 10:55:37 GMT -5
The world is knee deep in money and Canada is seen as a haven so why federal guarantees? It's either viable and can raise money from the market,, or it's not.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 1, 2011 11:36:04 GMT -5
A few of my dyed-in-the-wool Conservative friends are telling me that they simply don't trust Harper. They have no doubt that it's as the new letterhead says, "The Harper Government". It's not the PC party they grew up with. Too far to the right for their liking. Let's not forget Harper was one of the founders of the Reform Party.....which morphed into the Canadian Alliance Party....which merged with the PCs.....and then became the Conservative Party of Canada. For PCs of my generation, the Reform and Alliance were too far right...Manning and Day were "kooks"...and Harper was a part of that bunch. Would it be naive to believe that Harper has changed any of those stripes simply because he's assumed the Conservative brand? Ignatieff strikes me the same way...an opportunistic ladder climber. Then again, don't most polticians/people of power have that in their DNA?  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 1, 2011 11:57:17 GMT -5
Remember this?  the reason why Harper won't win a majority: some time during the campaign he'll open his mouth and say something "just enough" to give people second thoughts . . . and then away we go again. it didn't take long . . . he's actually handing the opposition ammunition [but at least he's honest -- at least once]: Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is still committed to scrapping party subsidies but says it would be impossible unless he formed a majority government.
The Conservative leader was asked during a news conference in Dieppe, N.B., on Friday whether he still endorses a move to eliminate the per-vote subsidy given to Canadian political parities.
Harper, who has long opposed the $2-per-vote subsidy, said political parties enjoy "enormous tax advantages" even without the additional subsidy and taxpayers should not financially support political parties that they don't support with their votes.
"I've wanted to change this. But we were very clear: unless we have a majority government we will never attempt to change it because we know in a minority government you can never move this forward," Harper said.
Harper tried to scrap the funds in 2008, a move that led to a revolt by all three opposition parties.the rest |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2011 12:05:08 GMT -5
Harper doesn't know when to shut up. I think he's tired a bit because normally, he wouldn't fall for this kind of things.
He has plenty of time to "save" money with a majority....(hello CBC).
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 1, 2011 12:06:41 GMT -5
A few of my dyed-in-the-wool Conservative friends are telling me that they simply don't trust Harper. This is my quandary as well. I simply don't want to give him the power of a majority but I'm leaning towards looking the other way when I cast my Tory vote. "The Harper Government" is similar to what I was saying earlier in the thread. You can put just about any name you want on a ballets you want but it basically comes down to a vote for: a. The Harper-led Government, b. The Liberal/BLOC/NDP Coalition, or c. The protest vote. I find that most politicians are pretty much the same, more so when you become a leader of a party: a. Jean Chretien calls an early election so as to become a PM who served three consecutive terms; no other reason, b. Paul Martin was our best finance minister, by far me thinks, but his back door agenda was to become PM. He didn't compromise his duties while working towards that, but the power struggle he and Chretien engaged in basically destroyed the Liberals and we're still seeing the effects of that today. The Liberals haven't had any leadership to speak of since these two left office and there's no clear-cut star in the system to mold. Enter the Tories. c. During his first term, Steven Harper basically tried running the show using the format the American president uses whenever he's addressing the media. He'd take centre stage while his minister(s) stood in the background neatly situated behind his shoulder. That went over like a sack of wet cement and Harper gave up on it. Harper may have come from the extreme right, but I'm still going to give him my vote. I'm very biased with this because he's giving me, as a former serving regular force soldier, some of the things I want to see in our military today. I said it before and I'll say it again; not too many people outside of the province of Ontario are taking the Liberals seriously. It may take something like a Tory majority to fall flat on its face (reinstatement of Capital Punishment or changing our current parliamentary format to the American Electoral College format; stuff like that) in order for the Liberals to rise to respectability again. So, until that happens or if the Liberals can actually bring in a bonafide leader to their ranks, I'll be giving my vote to the Harper-led government. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2011 12:10:48 GMT -5
A few of my dyed-in-the-wool Conservative friends are telling me that they simply don't trust Harper. They have no doubt that it's as the new letterhead says, "The Harper Government". It's not the PC party they grew up with. Too far to the right for their liking. Let's not forget Harper was one of the founders of the Reform Party.....which morphed into the Canadian Alliance Party....which merged with the PCs.....and then became the Conservative Party of Canada. For PCs of my generation, the Reform and Alliance were too far right...Manning and Day were "kooks"...and Harper was a part of that bunch. Would it be naive to believe that Harper has changed any of those stripes simply because he's assumed the Conservative brand? Ignatieff strikes me the same way...an opportunistic ladder climber. Then again, don't most polticians/people of power have that in their DNA? You should get better Conservative friends.  ;D My problem with Harper is that he is going to far to the center. He's making the government BIGGER, not smaller and spending money like a drunk sailor. The constant argument is that Harper has a hidden agenda. Those are Liberal talking points that five years later, don't resonate with anybody. Well, almost everybody. BTW, I can assure everybody that in the 5 minutes that I met him, he LOOKED human........although my watch stopped. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 1, 2011 12:42:35 GMT -5
Is your partisan name-calling and "baby-eating, watch-stopping" sarcasm meant to be taken seriously, HA?
Is that how you're canvassing? ;D
==========================
RE: hidden agenda......they usually come to light once a majority is reached. IF the press decides to report on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2011 13:06:06 GMT -5
Is your partisan name-calling and "baby-eating, watch-stopping" sarcasm meant to be taken seriously, HA? Is that how you're canvassing? ;D ========================== RE: hidden agenda......they usually come to light once a majority is reached. IF the press decides to report on it. That's why I'm NOT canvassing. Besides, I resent that they want to take advantage of my pretty looks and nice legs. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Apr 1, 2011 13:33:08 GMT -5
From thestar.com .... not sure if that's a Lib or a Con media source ... The Star use to be known as the Socialist Truthers, then they changed their name to Comrade Central. Then The Star. Two years ago in the sky fallers conference in Copenhagen, they were inventing anti-Harper headlines and quoting their own reporters as "sources". They went ballistic in the Ford election. Last week, one of the Star columnist spun tales about Harper as Stalinist and Khmer Rouge. Which is a step down to comparing Ford to Hitler. So yeah, anything the Star prints amounts to extra biased garbage. Basically.... The CBC, Star, are left of center. CTV, Globe and Mail, center with slightly left on some issues. Since 1979 there have been 10 federal elections. The Globe and Mail has endorsed the Conservative Party 8/10 times, including the last two elections. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2011 13:44:01 GMT -5
For Franko, CH, Skilly and others.....this is from the Liberal website. Liberals will make an historic investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, quadrupling Canada’s production of renewable energy, and creating a cap and trade system with hard caps leading to absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Let's have a show of hands who wants to see another several hundred dollars grabbed from you and sent to bankers and third world hands? Make no mistake about it, what McGuinty did for electricity prices in Ontario, Iggy will do it for the entire country. Maybe worse. www.liberal.ca/issues/environment-energy/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2011 13:48:57 GMT -5
Since 1979 there have been 10 federal elections. The Globe and Mail has endorsed the Conservative Party 8/10 times, including the last two elections. That's why I said "center". To me, the center is now occupied by the Conservatives. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 1, 2011 22:34:13 GMT -5
The world is knee deep in money and Canada is seen as a haven so why federal guarantees? It's either viable and can raise money from the market,, or it's not. . The governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador want a loan guarantee for one reason - so they can get a lower interest rate and save money on the interest. That's it. We are basically asking the government to co-sign on a loan. It won't cost them anything .... it will increase the deficit due to unfunded liability. But will be erased when the provinces pay off their loans. It isn't like the provinces will default on the loans they are getting. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Apr 2, 2011 8:58:49 GMT -5
Since 1979 there have been 10 federal elections. The Globe and Mail has endorsed the Conservative Party 8/10 times, including the last two elections. That's why I said "center". To me, the center is now occupied by the Conservatives. ok, but ego-centric definitions do make conversations difficult. And the conservative party only has about 1/3 of the popular vote. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Apr 2, 2011 9:09:40 GMT -5
The world is knee deep in money and Canada is seen as a haven so why federal guarantees? It's either viable and can raise money from the market,, or it's not. . The governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador want a loan guarantee for one reason - so they can get a lower interest rate and save money on the interest. That's it. We are basically asking the government to co-sign on a loan. It won't cost them anything .... it will increase the deficit due to unfunded liability. But will be erased when the provinces pay off their loans. It isn't like the provinces will default on the loans they are getting. Really? Countries (Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Latvia) are perilously close to default (and now require bailouts of some kind) - the first three because they provided financial guarantees. No doubt they too thought it wouldn't cost them anything when they signed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2011 9:14:07 GMT -5
That's why I said "center". To me, the center is now occupied by the Conservatives. ok, but ego-centric definitions do make conversations difficult. And the conservative party only has about 1/3 of the popular vote. Here are the latest polls as of this morning: Tories 37% Grits 26% NDP 17% Bloc 7% Green 7% www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html (link) |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Apr 2, 2011 9:20:51 GMT -5
So, I did support the Conservative Party the last few election. But probably will not this time around.
Nonetheless, I was trying recently to determine the greatest accomplishment over the past 5 years of Harper government and am at a bit of a loss. So I would like to pose the question to greater minds than mine. What would you say is their greatest accomplishment?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2011 9:24:24 GMT -5
The world is knee deep in money and Canada is seen as a haven so why federal guarantees? It's either viable and can raise money from the market,, or it's not. . The governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador want a loan guarantee for one reason - so they can get a lower interest rate and save money on the interest. That's it. We are basically asking the government to co-sign on a loan. It won't cost them anything .... it will increase the deficit due to unfunded liability. But will be erased when the provinces pay off their loans. It isn't like the provinces will default on the loans they are getting. First of all, I think hydro is the BEST way to go. Unless it's anywhere near communities, hydro projects are by far the most environmental friendly. Cries of "damage" is complete nonsense. It's nothing more then a lake and just because it's man made doesn't make it evil. The greenies yell that "It changes the environment". And? 12,000 years ago we were under a mile of ice. The problem with federal loans is that if you do it in one province, you have to do it in ALL the provinces. I bet Ontario is going to ask for loans on their nuclear plants, Quebec for hydro lines, etc. It becomes ANOTHER federal government program. I get it as far as cheaper rates, but now the door is open for a couple of billion for Quebec, ten or twenty billion for Ontario and the beat goes on..... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 2, 2011 9:43:14 GMT -5
ok, but ego-centric definitions do make conversations difficult. And the conservative party only has about 1/3 of the popular vote. Here are the latest polls as of this morning: Tories 37% Grits 26% NDP 17% Bloc 7% Green 7% www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html (link) and it all depends on who takes the poll. I mean, last week one poll had the Tories ahead by 19%, another by 9 or 10%. that's a pretty big swing. imo, Iggy did a better job out of the gate than Harper, but he hasn't been asked yet where the money is going to come from [other than rolling back taxes on "big business" -- a nice handy evil conglomeration. I'm waiting for the bite-back: "If you tax the corporations more, then you can forget about your raises or lower prices". that should give pause for thought]. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 2, 2011 9:47:46 GMT -5
That's why I said "center". To me, the center is now occupied by the Conservatives. ok, but ego-centric definitions do make conversations difficult. And the conservative party only has about 1/3 of the popular vote. that whole argument slays me. I've been listening to it for the last couple of years: the Conservatives only have a third of the vote: 67% of the people of Canada don't like them, so vote Liberal [or NDP]. the fact that the Liberals polled at 26% in the last election and the NDP at 17 1/2% [conversely, 3/4 of Canadians didn't vote Liberal and over 80% didn't vote NDP] doesn't seem to matter -- it only matters that a certain percentage didn't vote/don't like the Conservatives. ya gotta look at the whole thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2011 10:06:28 GMT -5
So, I did support the Conservative Party the last few election. But probably will not this time around. Nonetheless, I was trying recently to determine the greatest accomplishment over the past 5 years of Harper government and am at a bit of a loss. So I would like to pose the question to greater minds than mine. What would you say is their greatest accomplishment? What is the greatest accomplishment is what you didn't suffer. It's a hard sell to people who say "nothing changed in my life". Well, tens of millions of Americans would take that instead of begging to keep their homes and jobs. Let's leave the Canadian hubris of "we're Canadian" on the side of the road. Canadians are as deep in debt as Americans and could of suffered as much, BUT, by not having a reactive government, we kept chugging along while most Western countries suffered. I think the only two Western countries that came out of this with a "shrug" is Germany and Canada. Part of that was the oil sands. They inject tens of billions into the Canadian economy. It's also the same sands that the NDP and Liberals call "dirty". Let's not even talk about provincial Liberals who go out of their way to spit venom about the oil sands.....while grabbing with both hands the equalization payments that "dirty oil" provides. Talking about uber hypocrisy. The Conservatives encourage it's development and it's paying off handsomely. Then there is the carbon taxes were not paying. Again, it's one of those things that we don't see so it doesn't exist and the Conservatives get no credit for it. Well, ask the British families. It's costing them more then a couple of thousand dollar a household as their carbon tax has permeated through their infrastructure. It get's worse for those who earn a decent living. They have to pay for those who don't since those who can't are getting grants from the government. We are getting a taste of what that green agenda cost in Ontario electricity rates. They are sky rocketing and it's only the very beginning of it. Plus the government is subsidizing those who can't pay from those who can. Plus the hidden costs of EVERYTHING going up. It's an affront to anyones intelligence to be told that they are part of an evil conspiracy of carbon emmiters......while trying to put food on the table.....keep warm....or breath. Then there is the military. We are now a respectable player on the world community versus a bit of a delusional one playing referee. Decades of "peacekeeping" in Cyprus was sold to Canadians by Liberal governments as "serious" duty....while the locals laughed. We're not heading the Libyan mission by accident. Bottom line, what we don't want and didn't suffer is what was accomplished by the Conservatives. That may not be fancy or boastful but it's as real as food on the table and a roof over our heads. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2011 10:15:57 GMT -5
ok, but ego-centric definitions do make conversations difficult. And the conservative party only has about 1/3 of the popular vote. that whole argument slays me. I've been listening to it for the last couple of years: the Conservatives only have a third of the vote: 67% of the people of Canada don't like them, so vote Liberal [or NDP]. the fact that the Liberals polled at 26% in the last election and the NDP at 17 1/2% [conversely, 3/4 of Canadians didn't vote Liberal and over 80% didn't vote NDP] doesn't seem to matter -- it only matters that a certain percentage didn't vote/don't like the Conservatives. ya gotta look at the whole thing. To say that I agree is an understatement. There is something odd (I'm trying to use gentle "canvassing" terms) to claim that 60% don't like them or 60% are for left parties. If it was a two party system, I seriously doubt that a lot of "liberals" would be so liberal with Bloc policies or NDP tax-everything-spend-more. I suppose then it would be the equally odd "35% didn't vote for them" mantra. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2011 10:28:13 GMT -5
and it all depends on who takes the poll. I mean, last week one poll had the Tories ahead by 19%, another by 9 or 10%. that's a pretty big swing. Very good point, Franko ... yes, absolutely. That question will come out eventually. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2011 10:30:28 GMT -5
ok, but ego-centric definitions do make conversations difficult. And the conservative party only has about 1/3 of the popular vote. that whole argument slays me. I've been listening to it for the last couple of years: the Conservatives only have a third of the vote: 67% of the people of Canada don't like them, so vote Liberal [or NDP]. the fact that the Liberals polled at 26% in the last election and the NDP at 17 1/2% [conversely, 3/4 of Canadians didn't vote Liberal and over 80% didn't vote NDP] doesn't seem to matter -- it only matters that a certain percentage didn't vote/don't like the Conservatives. ya gotta look at the whole thing. You know something, Franko? Of all the subjects I took in high school I hated statistics the most  Cheers. |
|
;D
