|
Post by franko on Oct 16, 2014 16:45:58 GMT -5
Same with the Liberals, Dis . . . Franko, no one is saying it's only the Conservatives that use attack ads. It's all parties, but that doesn't make it right. And the media is saying, they won't air ALL parties ads . are they? good. the implication was "how dare the Conservatives . . . " they most certainly do what they can to protect the golden boy. I don't know what the Conservatives are so up in arms about. it's a silly issue and makes them look (even more) little. all they have to do is the typing thing that the Liberals did. the only difference is that they can put it into quotes rather than interpret. oui. the only problem, "the media" has already been defeated on this. I must say, I love the implication that "of course the Sun network didn't sign on, what do you expect from them?". would have been much better if they'd asked and been refused rather than not asking and saying that their signature isn't on the list. (even though "of course the Sun network wouldn't sign on" )
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 16, 2014 17:16:46 GMT -5
Timing is everything. ...back when the media were massively destroying Chretien's Liberals every chance they got, all was good and fair as it was paving the way to the Conservative Party... West will vote Reform, Alliance, Conservative no matter what, Quebec will vote anything but Liberal... aaaahhh the Good old days... thank you media… Trudeau comes in... oooops... huge shift in polls... ...ok... let's do a massive Anti-Trudeau campaign: for months we've been seeing publicity paid by the Conservative Party, that demonize Trudeau... (…didn’t you know Trudeau wants 6yrs old kid to be able to freely buy Marijuana at your local convenience store…?...yes he does... : Didn't work... Polls didn’t shift back… Bad…bad…bad media people… …So now a year away from election, Torries trailing in polls, and apparently we absolute need to legislate quickly on media copyrights and allow “free” use of material in campaign… Yep for the good of all Canadians… ...if you can't use political power to get the media to say what you want them to (...now that would look really bad wouldn't it...), well instead let's make sure we can take their message and have the ability to use it, twist it, and turn it the way we want so it actually says what we want... Because…well…you know we speak the truth… Sorry for seeing right through this as a clear and evident election manoeuver and nothing more… …Carry on…
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 16, 2014 18:21:30 GMT -5
Timing is everything. a clear and evident election manoeuver and nothing more… do you mean by the Conservatives . . . or by the MSM? both, wouldn't you say? pathetic grasping of power, by both.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 1:01:44 GMT -5
Franko, no one is saying it's only the Conservatives that use attack ads. It's all parties, but that doesn't make it right. And the media is saying, they won't air ALL parties ads . It has to stop somewhere, n'est ce pas? Unless of course, people actually agree with twisting people's words to garner votes .... No, actually, it will not "stop". By LAW, the media has to allocate time to registered political parties. The entire purpose of creating these laws is to keep any person, groups, company or cartel from restricting/censoring a recognized registered party from representing their view/opinion to the public. It is not up to you, me, Franko, the Conservatives or Liberals, or any media cartel from censoring any political ads. Period. End of story. To "stop it somewhere" what you are really advocating is granting some entity the power to censor political discussion that to you appears "twisting", although to me it appears true. Or something that appears true to you, appears twisting to me. Who between us holds the greater truth and can judge "twisting"? Or does the CBC hold that God like power of who should air what? Who? There is no such thing as "twisting" and "right" in freedom of speech and by extension, the right of political expression of views and opinions. So what will it be? Freedom of speech.......or we have to "stop it somewhere" when we deem it "not right"??
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 1:17:37 GMT -5
I don't know what the Conservatives are so up in arms about. it's a silly issue and makes them look (even more) little. all they have to do is the typing thing that the Liberals did. the only difference is that they can put it into quotes rather than interpret. oui. the only problem, "the media" has already been defeated on this. The Conservatives are up in arms NOW because if the media is allowed to make their cartel acceptable to the public, it will affect the ads at the voting time and make the political conversation about the media and thd evil Conservatives and not about the brain dead golden boy. Sure, it will be crushed by the courts, but by then, it will have affected the voting. Do we really want the media cartel to side enter politic discussion and affect the voting outcome? To me, this is an unprecidented conspiretorial power play by the media cartel. They are selling the "poor us and our sweatshop poverty reporters against those evil Conservatives".....when in reality, it is about fair dealing, giving themselves censoring power over political discussion and going after the increasingly court liberalization for fair use. And the cherry on top for the media? They get to stick it the evil Conservatives who is hurting their pocketbook with their cellular and tv laws.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 1:34:23 GMT -5
Timing is everything. ...back when the media were massively destroying Chretien's Liberals every chance they got, all was good and fair as it was paving the way to the Conservative Party... West will vote Reform, Alliance, Conservative no matter what, Quebec will vote anything but Liberal... aaaahhh the Good old days... thank you media… Trudeau comes in... oooops... huge shift in polls... ...ok... let's do a massive Anti-Trudeau campaign: for months we've been seeing publicity paid by the Conservative Party, that demonize Trudeau... (…didn’t you know Trudeau wants 6yrs old kid to be able to freely buy Marijuana at your local convenience store…?...yes he does... : Didn't work... Polls didn’t shift back… Bad…bad…bad media people… …So now a year away from election, Torries trailing in polls, and apparently we absolute need to legislate quickly on media copyrights and allow “free” use of material in campaign…Yep for the good of all Canadians… ...if you can't use political power to get the media to say what you want them to (...now that would look really bad wouldn't it...), well instead let's make sure we can take their message and have the ability to use it, twist it, and turn it the way we want so it actually says what we want... Because…well…you know we speak the truth… Sorry for seeing right through this as a clear and evident election manoeuver and nothing more… …Carry on… It wasn't up to the media (CTV then) or the media cartel now to tell Liberals or Conservatives what to say in their ads. "Free" use of copyrighted material? Are you aware of fair dealing laws? It's the same "fair dealing" law that allows politicians to use excerpts of copyright material as it is for us to quote articles/pictures/videos on HabsRus. Without that law, HabsRus would be sued out of existence the first time we quoted any source. And take a wild guess whose "management" names would be on those lawsuits? Free use for excerpts of copyrightable material has been around for a long, long time in Western countries.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 17, 2014 7:35:30 GMT -5
If it's been around for years….then why this issue at all? Everyone could just point to the laws already in place.
Why the need for more legislation?
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 14:09:32 GMT -5
If it's been around for years….then why this issue at all? Everyone could just point to the laws already in place. Why the need for more legislation? A. It's the first time the media outright formed an illegal cartel, simply stomping all over C-45 of the Canadian Competition Act. B. They think that the Conservatives are vulnerable to the message that they are bullies and thieves in order to claw back a series of legislations and Court ruling that favor more fair dealing. C. While they are at selling the public about poor them versus the evil Harper, they are helping their new golden boy. Political interference writ large. If you think the media propaganda is not working, re-read some of the posts in here. As for the legislation, it's simply not going far enough to give more protection to fair usage. From the Conservatives point of view, they are seeing through the medias attempt to claw back AND make the next election about poor little media versus EVIL CONSERVATIVES and trying to head it off. So the issue is... 1. Do you want a media cartel agreeing on what THEY think should or should not be political discourse and what they can censor? 2. Do you want the next federal election to be about the poor media versus evil Conservatives? 3. Do you want the media to claw back fair dealings? 4. Do you want the media to be so powerful that they can get together, form an illegal cartel and dismiss existing legislation? Last but not least.....if you think the media propaganda is not working.....look around you.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 14:20:08 GMT -5
BTW...as a side discussion and part and parcel of the what is going on with the mainstream media.....
The internet has killed them. Pure and simple. Big part of that is the fair dealing or fair use laws make it legal for anyone on the internet to quote their work with impunity. Thus, instead of drawing readers to their site (selling ad space and content), site like HabsRus and a million like us can go off to the cyber corner, quote the issues of the day and enjoy our conversations. It would be the mainstream media wet dream to make any content quoting illegal and force more readers to spend time on their site and PAY for their content.
Do you still think it's about the evil Conservatives versus poor little media?
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 17, 2014 14:43:59 GMT -5
If it's been around for years….then why this issue at all? Everyone could just point to the laws already in place. Why the need for more legislation? A. It's the first time the media outright formed an illegal cartel, simply stomping all over C-45 of the Canadian Competition Act. B. They think that the Conservatives are vulnerable to the message that they are bullies and thieves in order to claw back a series of legislations and Court ruling that favor more fair dealing. C. While they are at selling the public about poor them versus the evil Harper, they are helping their new golden boy. Political interference writ large. If you think the media propaganda is not working, re-read some of the posts in here. As for the legislation, it's simply not going far enough to give more protection to fair usage. From the Conservatives point of view, they are seeing through the medias attempt to claw back AND make the next election about poor little media versus EVIL CONSERVATIVES and trying to head it off. So the issue is... 1. Do you want a media cartel agreeing on what THEY think should or should not be political discourse and what they can censor? 2. Do you want the next federal election to be about the poor media versus evil Conservatives? 3. Do you want the media to claw back fair dealings? 4. Do you want the media to be so powerful that they can get together, form an illegal cartel and dismiss existing legislation? Last but not least.....if you think the media propaganda is not working.....look around you. As long as Harper's amendment to the copyright law is open and fair to all...then I don't see a problem with it. Freedom of information should include freedom to use/reference what the media spews on a daily basis. Besides, an intelligent population should be able to see through attack ads for what they are. Cheap and dirty. (I know they work for and against a lot of campaigns….but it doesn't mean they're above-board. Many people are easily swayed.) No doubt we'll see the attack ads ramp up like never before. Should be good for a laugh, if nothing else….even though it reflects a dumbing down of society in general. EDIT: My only concern is that the amendment will certainly pass in the House due to the PC majority…..but before it becomes the new law, it has to go through the Senate, which is also Harper-heavy…with 51 of the 55 PC senators appointed by Harper (there are 92 in total, with 13 vacancies). I wonder if Trudeau gets much credit for trying to reform his part of the Senate back in January, by ruling that Liberal senators will now sit as Independents, taking them out of the inner-circle of his politics. He may have done so at his own party's peril. "The Senate was once referred to as a place of sober, second thought. A place that allows for reflective deliberation on legislation, in-depth studies into issues of import to the country, and, to a certain extent, provide a check and balance on the politically driven House of Commons.
"It has become obvious that the party structure within the Senate interferes with these responsibilities."
Trudeau proposed the Senate should be made non-partisan, to better serve Canadians. He suggested an "open, transparent, non-partisan process" that would see all senators named to the Red Chamber sit as Independents.
"Instead of being separate from political, or electoral concerns, senators now must consider not just what’s best for their country, or their regions, but what’s best for their party," Trudeau said.
"At best, this renders the Senate redundant. At worst — and under Mr. Harper, we have seen it at its worst — it amplifies the prime minister’s power."
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 15:01:23 GMT -5
As long as Harper's amendment to the copyright law is open and fair to all...then I don't see a problem with it. Freedom of information should include freedom to use/reference what the media spews on a daily basis. Besides, an intelligent population should be able to see through attack ads for what they are. Cheap and dirty. (I know they work for and against a lot of campaigns….but it doesn't mean they're above-board. Many people are easily swayed.) No doubt we'll see the attack ads ramp up like never before. Should be good for a laugh, if nothing else….even though it reflects a dumbing down of society in general. There is nothing there that I disagree with........particularly the highlighted area. What my issues is.... Society has and always will be susceptible to propaganda. I was ALWAYS concerned about government and media spewing it. The last few weeks, that concern has gone nuclear. For the first time, we have an openly organized media cartel agreeing on what is in their best interest and spinning the propaganda to suit. That should frighten EVERYONE.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 15:43:29 GMT -5
[kirk]Dammit Scotty, we need more topic separation power! [/kirk] I wonder if Trudeau gets much credit for trying to reform his part of the Senate back in January, by ruling that Liberal senators will now sit as Independents, taking them out of the inner-circle of his politics. He may have done so at his own party's peril. "The Senate was once referred to as a place of sober, second thought. A place that allows for reflective deliberation on legislation, in-depth studies into issues of import to the country, and, to a certain extent, provide a check and balance on the politically driven House of Commons.
"It has become obvious that the party structure within the Senate interferes with these responsibilities."
Trudeau proposed the Senate should be made non-partisan, to better serve Canadians. He suggested an "open, transparent, non-partisan process" that would see all senators named to the Red Chamber sit as Independents.
"Instead of being separate from political, or electoral concerns, senators now must consider not just what’s best for their country, or their regions, but what’s best for their party," Trudeau said.
"At best, this renders the Senate redundant. At worst — and under Mr. Harper, we have seen it at its worst — it amplifies the prime minister’s power." It's all complete bullcrap by Justine. It's only the other guy that wants power and if he doesn't have that power it's in evil hands. On the other hand, if it was a liberal senate majority it's all good. As soon as he made those claims, they interviewed one of the Liberal senators and he claimed nothing changed other then the leaders "ideals" he should follow. Remember when the Three Amigos were making a power play a short 4 years ago? A lot of their time was spent putting on paper on how to divide the spoils of placing senators...while spewing claims how they were against placing senators. Garbage.....but then spitting partisan garbage is routine for ALL politicians.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 17, 2014 15:46:42 GMT -5
EDIT: My only concern is that the amendment will certainly pass in the House due to the PC majority…..but before it becomes the new law, it has to go through the Senate, which is also Harper-heavy…with 51 of the 55 PC senators appointed by Harper (there are 92 in total, with 13 vacancies). just as Liberal bills were pushed through when there was a Liberal-heavy Senate. interesting thing, this thought that Mr T is concerned about the Senate as opposed to big bad Mr Harper wanting to mold it in his image. it was the reformers-now-Conservatives that wanted to reform it (Triple-E, anyone?) but was mocked for it. each successive government -- Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, now Harper -- has loaded it with appointees of the "appropriate" political stripe . . . the Liberals have now lost the chamber and this is their next best ploy. the now-independents in the chamber are still Liberals -- in fact, Liberal Senate Leader James Cowan says that even though he will sit as an independent, he is still Liberal (Harper's response to the HoC: "I gather the change announced by the leader today is that unelected Liberal senators will become unelected senators who happen to be Liberal"). while Harper has been accused of doing nothing about the way the Senate operates, he did go to the Supreme Court for their advice and has been told that his plans are unconstitutional, so he has backed off from that, because changes involve opening discussions on the thing -- which would be a mess. Mr. Mulcair is the most consistent of the bunch: the NDP wants to abolish the Senate and always has (I wonder, though, if a member of the NDP were appointed . . . what then? I think that Harper should do some appointing, and make sure that members of all party are appointed, just to mess everything up).
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 16:09:07 GMT -5
the now-independents in the chamber are still Liberals -- in fact, Liberal Senate Leader James Cowan says that even though he will sit as an independent, he is still Liberal (Harper's response to the HoC: "I gather the change announced by the leader today is that unelected Liberal senators will become unelected senators who happen to be Liberal"). BINGO...that's who I was thinking about. Proof positive that I'm only partially senile! Golden Boy is full of it and selling it to whoever buys it.......
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 17, 2014 16:15:09 GMT -5
[kirk]Dammit Scotty, we need more topic separation power! [/kirk] I wonder if Trudeau gets much credit for trying to reform his part of the Senate back in January, by ruling that Liberal senators will now sit as Independents, taking them out of the inner-circle of his politics. He may have done so at his own party's peril. "The Senate was once referred to as a place of sober, second thought. A place that allows for reflective deliberation on legislation, in-depth studies into issues of import to the country, and, to a certain extent, provide a check and balance on the politically driven House of Commons.
"It has become obvious that the party structure within the Senate interferes with these responsibilities."
Trudeau proposed the Senate should be made non-partisan, to better serve Canadians. He suggested an "open, transparent, non-partisan process" that would see all senators named to the Red Chamber sit as Independents.
"Instead of being separate from political, or electoral concerns, senators now must consider not just what’s best for their country, or their regions, but what’s best for their party," Trudeau said.
"At best, this renders the Senate redundant. At worst — and under Mr. Harper, we have seen it at its worst — it amplifies the prime minister’s power." It's all complete bullcrap by Justine. It's only the other guy that wants power and if he doesn't have that power it's in evil hands. On the other hand, if it was a liberal senate majority it's all good. As soon as he made those claims, they interviewed one of the Liberal senators and he claimed nothing changed other then the leaders "ideals" he should follow. Remember when the Three Amigos were making a power play a short 4 years ago? A lot of their time was spent putting on paper on how to divide the spoils of placing senators...while spewing claims how they were against placing senators. Garbage.....but then spitting partisan garbage is routine for ALL politicians. Of course, in the current Senate system whoever has the majority in the House will also appoint a majority in the Senate. As franko has pointed out, I doubt very much that party ties would be completely "cut". In "name" only, more likely. Like I said, I'm still sifting through everything….open to debate and rational discussion.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 16:27:03 GMT -5
Of course, in the current Senate system whoever has the majority in the House will also appoint a majority in the Senate. It would be very interesting to see--if the Liberals are ever to enjoy even a minority government under Trudeau--if he goes back to the party ties to senators. But if he holds true to it….i.e. the ideal of having the most unbiased senate possible for checks-and-balances….that would speak volumes….at least on paper. Ha! I'm willing to place a big wager, I'll go all the way to a large can of pop (BIG SPENDER here), that my darling Justine will forget/ignore all about independant senate the minute he has power. The senate is one of those can of worms that any politician outside the appointing power can claim anything......but do the opposite and claim that their hands are tied. Mr. Mulcair is the most consistent of the bunch: the NDP wants to abolish the Senate and always has (I wonder, though, if a member of the NDP were appointed . . . what then? I think that Harper should do some appointing, and make sure that members of all party are appointed, just to mess everything up). And what did his predecessor Layton say? Until it was time for the Three Amigos to grab the golden ring....and it was all negotiations on who could appoint how many. If there was no such word as "liars", we could substitute "politician truths".
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 17, 2014 16:47:16 GMT -5
Just curious, HA….you've mentioned before that you were a card-carrying Liberal.
Under whose leadership/platform? And what caused the switch? An event….a platform….a leader? Whatever it was, the Libs certainly haven't returned to what you once admired.
Apologies if you've already spelled it out past threads.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 17, 2014 17:05:34 GMT -5
Of course, in the current Senate system whoever has the majority in the House will also appoint a majority in the Senate. As franko has pointed out, I doubt very much that party ties would be completely "cut". In "name" only, more likely. Like I said, I'm still sifting through everything….open to debate and rational discussion. rational . . . political discussion? OK, here on HabsRus it is possible. the current system sucks -- that is, pure political appointees, with a certain guaranteed number from each province. given that no province will allow themselves to be "shortchanged", the number stays. how best to appoint is the question. the reform party came up with some sort of solution (looks around for lightning bolt). rather than say "it doesn't work", come up with a viable solution. 1. EEE. well, EE, because not matter what I can't see it being efficient. Well, E, because equal is not an option. 2. a select panel to choose, vet, and appoint has been suggested. problem: who will be on the panel? don't give me that it will be a "non-partisan" panel -- even near-perfect moi holds partisan views. 3. abolition, a la Australia -- it ain't necessary because all they do is rubber-stamp anyway. 4. term limits. uh-uh, says the Supreme Court. 5. ?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 17, 2014 17:07:50 GMT -5
Mr. Mulcair is the most consistent of the bunch: the NDP wants to abolish the Senate and always has (I wonder, though, if a member of the NDP were appointed . . . what then? I think that Harper should do some appointing, and make sure that members of all party are appointed, just to mess everything up). And what did his predecessor Layton say? Until it was time for the Three Amigos to grab the golden ring....and it was all negotiations on who could appoint how many. and you'll notice how quickly that one fell apart too. Mulcair has been fairly consistent . . . with the NDP charter on this one. will not happen in his lifetime -- can't do anything without 7 provinces with 50% of the population agreeing.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 17:46:22 GMT -5
Just curious, HA….you've mentioned before that you were a card-carrying Liberal. Under whose leadership/platform? And what caused the switch? An event….a platform….a leader? Whatever it was, the Libs certainly haven't returned to what you once admired. Apologies if you've already spelled it out past threads. We were Federal and Provincial card carriers in Montreal and I even went door to door for their candidates. One on one, in private, they were running down the the same social liberal (classic libertarian) and economic conservative path that my wife and I believed they were on, but as time wore on, it was clear that there was no ideals to be had other then whatever suited the particular agenda of the day. Politicians lied....and we got that message loud and clear first hand, up close and personal. Another major factor was that I started managing people from the very start of my career. Despite how I sometimes appear on the internet, I implement strict fairness and equality in the work place. I left a black supervisor to take over one of the jobs I quit, I implemented fair wages based on job difficulty and pushed woman to take what was considered "man" jobs, etc. Then when I created my own company, I was going to run what I thought would be a company based on principle and fairness. Reality sucked. When I wanted to create a day care facility to help the woman, the man demanded that I pay them an equivalent cost. If someone was sick and too poor to lose their wages and I bent the rules, the next person who was sick never failed to remind me that I bent the rules and demanded the same treatment. When we did well and I gave massive bonuses, they wondered why I could not give them more instead of buying a Benz. When we did not do so well and I couldn't afford the bonuses, they grumbled how they were cheated. When China struck us hard and I could not afford an annual wage increases for the first time in 17 years, people grumbled that a union will "fix me". And it goes on...... Bottom line to the above. I learned that people are out for number one. Period. Greed and self-interest is built right into the core of everyone's DNA....and no use denying it by pasting "social values" over it. Then add to the ever increasing phoney "victimhood" and "human rights" the left is pushing. Then add the hierarchy of victimhood the left has adopted. Then add the ever increasing Gaia worshipping.....and the hypocrisy of actually hurting the ones that they are purportedly helping. (See electricity rates and provincial liberal greenwashing) Then add the ever present limousine liberal mentality of "do as I say and not as I do". Then add the ever increasing acceptance of terrorists and Western society haters as "victims". (see Justine's stupid "we have to examine why they hate us" on terrorism....and the turning point for the media cartel.) Soooo..... When Harper came along and he was willing to outright suppress the old social conservative agenda in favor of an conservative economic agenda and foreign policies, we adopted him. I'm a fan of Harper for his actual economic and foreign policies. Nothing more. He is as flawed as any politician, but on balance, his flaws are more acceptable to me (us) then everyone else's flaws. And it got a lot worse now....by the Liberals electing to go with a complete air head.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 17:52:36 GMT -5
I'm stealing that gif and posting it on the Booins/Laffs forums everytime they lose to us. As for the Senate. I'm not sure what to do with it. I do NOT want another level of elected politicians and I do NOT want unfettered Federal majority power. So make me king ...and I will rule wisely! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 17:58:19 GMT -5
And what did his predecessor Layton say? Until it was time for the Three Amigos to grab the golden ring....and it was all negotiations on who could appoint how many. and you'll notice how quickly that one fell apart too. Mulcair has been fairly consistent . . . with the NDP charter on this one. will not happen in his lifetime -- can't do anything without 7 provinces with 50% of the population agreeing. It's a fury kittens "look at me" policy. He can claim he's taking a stand on his policy when he never actually had any power to appoint and he can claim he will abolish it when he has no power to do so. I like fury kittens too.....
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 17, 2014 18:18:32 GMT -5
Thanks for making the effort to explain, HA!
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Oct 17, 2014 18:27:59 GMT -5
As long as you are not asking political views for marriage proposal......
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 20, 2014 19:51:47 GMT -5
Aaaaand.....we're off! Since this discussion began, here's the first in an inevitable deluge of attack ads that twist, misrepresent, and take quotes out of context...by ALL parties. PCs will agree with their ads, Liberals theirs, etc...so I'm not into partisan defense of this kind of campaigning. Even though it works on many people who are undecided due to disinterest, time constraints, apathy, ignorance, whatever....it is what it is: cheap, tabloid politics. Fast food for those who either can't or won't take the time to plan healthy meals. Article
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 20, 2014 20:30:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2014 20:52:00 GMT -5
well, first of all Press TV (stylised PRESSTV) is a 24-hour English language news organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). The IRIB is state-owned but independent of the Iranian government in its management, and its head is appointed directly by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.second, the article is a year and a half old. and third, the fuller story says that Fraud was definitely a factor in the rash of misleading robocalls that bedevilled voters in six federal ridings in the 2011 election, but not enough of one to justify overturning the results, a Federal Court judge has decided.
The ruling, released late Thursday, left both sides in the dispute — the Conservative party in one corner, the voters who fielded the calls in the other — claiming victory of a sort.
Though fraud was at play as a result of the robocalls, the scale didn't justify wiping out the results of voting, Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley concluded. huffpost . . . CBC says the same
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 20, 2014 20:59:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 20, 2014 21:45:15 GMT -5
You see…that took only a few web searches to put the fear-mongering magnitude of that story to rest. Soneone had posted that story on Facebook…and if I'm on Trudeau's or Mulcair's spin team…I just might make an attack ad bolding Federal Court of Canada, 2011 election fraud, Harper.Ending with some ironic tag line: Rules are for everybody. Vote for honesty. Or some such drivel. How many viewers will take the time to research it?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2014 21:54:17 GMT -5
You see…that took only a few web searches to put the fear-mongering magnitude of that story to rest. Soneone had posted that story on Facebook…and if I'm on Trudeau's or Mulcair's spin team…I just might make an attack ad bolding Federal Court of Canada, 2011 election fraud, Harper.Ending with some ironic tag line: Rules are for everybody. Vote for honesty. Or some such drivel. How many viewers will take the time to research it? 2 I figure that we'll see a lot more of this ("bringing up the past") in the days ahead. what's good for the goose . . .
|
|