January 31, 2007
Stephane Dion is getting plenty of press because of his comedy stylings
Stephane Dion's razor wit has earned him a story on the wire services. And it makes me think about humour, and Stephane Dion's history with spontaneity.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:53 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 699 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Of course Stephane is just getting a little of his own medicine. For years every time an Alliance or Conservative member opened his/her (but mostly his) mouth in the House of Commons there was a chorus of "racist" being screeched from the Lib. side of the house.
None of these people are made of glass . . . they'll survive.
Posted by: Ben in Ontario at February 01, 2007 01:00 AM (M2F2R)
2
What's the problem? Harper is a bit of a sow
Posted by: jim at February 01, 2007 01:48 AM (OFKvC)
3
There's a slight difference between a jab and the type of personality assassination the spots aim at - but I agree it's not the type of thing you say right after claiming the high road.
What I don't understand is why y'all make a big fuss about it. Fact is Harper has a bit of a spare tire. So what do y'all do but call attention to that.
Story would have been forgot already but I wager most who pick up that wire are going to run a picture of Harper's waist with it ( the c'boy one would be classic ). Not exactly the thing you want floating about during an image war.
And I know the campaign isn't going as expected ( 'cause the ads are still running ) but why pick the environment ? Choosing a battle over something that's not your strong point is just whack.
C'mon y'all you're down by 18 on home field with less than 5 minutes in the first half - time to Peyton up and get the job done ! ( speaking of whack- did I mention y'all are running a political ad during the freak'n Super Bowl ? )
Posted by: Nbob at February 01, 2007 03:34 AM (S5y60)
4
And a lot of people don't know what the fuss is about those ads Nbob. Most of the content was composed by Liberals and it was mainly delivered by Liberals. And the fact is that Dion is a power-obsessed wishy-washy man with little leadership qualities.
But personality assassination? One first has to have personality in order for it to be assassinated.
Posted by: Surecure at February 01, 2007 06:43 AM (Dn18P)
5
Dion's personal retorts are predictable, if your in a grade school playground, not too smart coming from someone hoping to lead the country.
And this guy has a PHD?
The Conservative ads are merely Liberal's giving their opinions on their own Party's and Dion's failings on the Environment file.
They are priceless, making clever use of the real actors and how they performed when they were in the seats of power.
Now they have to sell the idea they are just one united and happy Liberal family.
Posted by: Liz J at February 01, 2007 08:25 AM (VMvTv)
6
The truth is that this week has shown Dion to be at a much lower level than Prime Ministerial.
"That's not fair! That's not fair!"
"Do you think it's easy to set priorities?"
And now he shows that he is down at the level of making comments about people's weight?
Sorry, but Dion is simply being shown for what Dion is. And Nbob:
"Choosing a battle over something that's not your strong point is just whack."
Dion is making the environment his battle. Perhaps he should be taking your advice considering the environmental track record of both himself and those he served with as a member of both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin's cabinet. But for some reason I doubt you'll ever put the same piece of advice to him.
Posted by: Surecure at February 01, 2007 08:59 AM (cb3SR)
7
Bah... slow news day... this is such a non issue it defys logic that it got noticed at all
Posted by: Sierra at February 01, 2007 10:48 AM (Whi+K)
8
This issue is similar to the quip about Mckay's reference to Belinda being a dog. Both received too much publicity. It was an attempt by Dion to be funny.It was a terrible misfire. Note to Libs...Dion is no Groucho.He is more like an Al Gore only with less personality!
If his dog is named Kyoto his cat must surely be named Babbling Twit.
Posted by: David at February 01, 2007 11:09 AM (mmEsI)
9
I agree that this really is a non-story, but I certainly feel that PM Harper (I do love the sound of that) could take advantage of it in the same way that Belinda did. He could just make a response such as; "I have always had to deal with my weight and the comments it might bring both as a child and now as an adult. I like who I am and I'm not about to change that just because someone wants to use it for a quick laugh!" That would suitably disarm it, give it some more play time and show PM Harper (doesn't it sound good)to be an average person and maybe turn up the temperature on his personality (just a bit).
Posted by: DarrenL at February 01, 2007 11:35 AM (QXpZM)
10
I agree that Dion has problems with humour, at least in English. A few months ago, before he became leader, he did an interview with Craig Oliver on Question Period. He tried to start it off with a joke, but it came across as awkward and flat and Oliver went on with the rest of the interview.
What they're trying to do with Dion is similar to what they've done with Harper, which is to try and show a side of him that people don't see. Yet doing it as a public official in front of a camera is a whole different ball game. It's easier said than done.
For now, I think Dion is getting away with it becuase he comes across as trying to be folksy. Yet you can only get away with being quaint for so long. Sooner or later, if Dion continues to have problems with the decisisions he makes in public, it will catch up to him. If the substance doesn't match the image, it'll show. Paul Martin knows this probably better than anyone else.
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at February 01, 2007 11:36 AM (aSF/D)
11
Even the G&M had an editorial yesterday stating that the new ads are not 'attack' ads. Tells you how obvious it is to most people.
Of course, the column quickly degenerated into a snipe at PMSH and the CPC, but that was entirely predictable. It was pretty gentle overall.
Dion should stop acting like a jilted prom queen and start acting like a person who has the best interests of the country at heart.
In other words, if he wants to succeed, he should be more like PMSH.
Posted by: Selma at February 01, 2007 12:52 PM (ET7N4)
12
Well well in a mater of weeks after the coronation of the Librano's new clown prince we see the intellectual level of political debate plunge to ad hominem buffoonery.
Give French citizen "Borat" Dion a stuffed kermit ( it ain't easy being green) doll and his dog Kyoto gets a free deworming. 8-/
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at February 01, 2007 04:07 PM (e1kRH)
13
I thought that the Torys would be mad cause Dion suggested Harper would end up back at Stornaway instead of the jab at his fat. At least Stornaway now has an exercise room all ready for Harper. LOL
Posted by: hiti at February 02, 2007 12:27 AM (FpZ2f)
14
You think Dion's comments are out of line?
CHeck this out.
http://www.cjob.com/shows/adler.aspx?mc=63069
So is this the result of putting Bob Rae and Scott Brison in charge of creating the next liberal red book?
NEP II
Posted by: at February 02, 2007 07:36 AM (egH/E)
15
You think Dion's comments are out of line?
CHeck this out.
http://www.cjob.com/shows/adler.aspx?mc=63069
So is this the result of putting Bob Rae and Scott Brison in charge of creating the next liberal red book?
NEP II
Posted by: gimbol at February 02, 2007 07:36 AM (egH/E)
16
A pretty lame joke by Beaker, but not really worth the attention it seems to be getting. There are a lot more substantive criticisms we can make of Captain Kyoto and his nightmare team.
Posted by: felis corpulentis at February 02, 2007 02:01 PM (edu1y)
Video of Stephane Dion mocking Stephen Harper's waistline
Here is the video of the news report in which Stephane Dion mocks Stephen Harper for being overweight.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
05:35 PM
| Comments (56)
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What do you expect? Dion is a hypocrite, he can't help it.
Posted by: Ontario Lad at January 31, 2007 07:20 PM (17sjr)
2
This very much looks like a case of dishing it out but not being able to take it.
Granted Dion is no Oscar Wilde when it comes to bon mots but ....Sheesh - even Harper was joking about indulging in too many good meals at 24 Sussex last spring. So Dion makes a joke about being able to work the excess off when Harper moves back to the opposition digs and y'all freak?
Might I say y'all is looking a little desperate these days
Posted by: Nbob at January 31, 2007 07:27 PM (S5y60)
3
Really Nbob? And what does that make the Liberals if it's okay for Liberals to say what was said in those ads, but if the Conservatives show it, suddenly it's not?
You're right about desperation... but you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction my friend.
Posted by: Surecure at January 31, 2007 07:32 PM (Dn18P)
4
wow, thats not politically correct... in particular when over 1/2 the population of this country is overweight. Where are all the fat rights advocates on that one? maybe we should get rosi on this bahaha
Posted by: Jordan Alcock at January 31, 2007 07:42 PM (XlDma)
5
a) The Tory ads are not "personal attacks." They attack Dion for: his record, his party, and his leadership.
b) Ever notice how Liberals, including Dion, will not deal with the substance of those ads? Would be nice for a reporter to do their job and pursue that. Then again, they didn't want to do it in the first place, which is why Tories needed to spend money on ads. So I guess....
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at January 31, 2007 08:29 PM (aSF/D)
6
So the MSM (liberal party) in Canada has no problem with Dion's mangling English whatsoever?
Boy... a lot of people in this country are afflicted with self-hatred.
Posted by: Real Conservative at January 31, 2007 08:34 PM (EZLLA)
7
Surecure
There aren't many people who say it's not okay to run the ads but lots who will say it's stupid to run the ads.
Frankly, I don't think the Conservatives thought the ads would run. I think they were counting on some free coverage on the news followed by some controversy when the Liberals , or someone tied to the Liberals, gets the ads pulled ( witness all the foreshadowing last week) .
Now if that had happened then this little ploy would have worked because it's target is the " base" first and the public second. Ads pulled ? Why y'all be screaming about censorship and posting those ads on every blog till they echoed across the land. The base would be motivated and angry because the base has been loosing its religion for y'all given income trusts, equalization, Wheat Board, Climate flip-flop and going all puffy on SSM.
But the Liberals were smart enough to give y'all enough rope and not assert any copyright and the other rights holders have only said they're looking into it. So the ads continue to run and y'all be stuck with putting politics on during the Super Bowl.
Posted by: Nbob at January 31, 2007 08:38 PM (S5y60)
8
Next grop of ads I predict will be on how Mr Dion isn't being completely honest about what a carbon market is.
Posted by: gimbol at January 31, 2007 08:39 PM (egH/E)
9
Next group of ads I predict will be on how Mr Dion isn't being completely honest about what a carbon market is.
Posted by: gimbol at January 31, 2007 08:40 PM (egH/E)
10
And Nbob, what does that have to do with the price of tea in India? All I'm pointing out is your two sided approach to all this.
Posted by: Surecure at January 31, 2007 09:37 PM (Dn18P)
11
Dion shouldn't have said that, but it's not that big a deal -- hardly a "fat joke".
But they way they portray him as this Ultra Environmentalist because of recycling, composting, and using green cleaners? Come on! That would make most of Canada's urban population green, in that case -- meaning we must not really have a big environmental problem.
If that's the best Dion can show for his personal commitment, then I ain't impressed.
Posted by: jason bo green at January 31, 2007 10:29 PM (OSBbU)
12
Politicians who think they are comedians. I would bet the joke line sounded better in French before it came out of his mouth in English.
Posted by: john at January 31, 2007 10:56 PM (WHCOZ)
13
Can anyone please confirm whether Monsieur Dion was opening the trunk of his gas guzzlin SUV? A vehicle is seen in the last part of the video.
Posted by: definitely maybe at January 31, 2007 11:02 PM (XhFIC)
14
This is what all the hype's about? Really? I'll admit it's a cheap shot, but this is what shows that Dion should not be the Prime Minister? Was MacDonald not a pork barelling drunk? Was Laurier not two faced? Was Meighen not pretentious? Was King not a "little" weird? Was Clark not awkward? Was Trudeau not an elite intellectual? You people need better news to rant about!
Posted by: Right of Nowhere at January 31, 2007 11:16 PM (Q6PZC)
15
You guys call this a cheap shot? Come on, he mere made an allusion to a slight middle-section weight gain in the Prime Minister.
It's pretty desperate to cry for wolf over this. While you guys are in 24 Sussex, got nothing better to do?
Posted by: Carlos A. Godoy L. at January 31, 2007 11:23 PM (8n28U)
16
I think this should be used as proof that Dion's ability as a humourist is about as good as his ability as an environment minister. Give the guy credit for having at least half a brain. All of Dion's attacks on Harper to date targeted Harper's previous disinterest with Kyoto. The joke about Harper was supposed to be a reference to Harper's comment about Dion "enjoying Stornoway" for a good long time. He was trying a tit-for-tat and it flopped big time. Sort of like the Liberals commitment to Kyoto.
Posted by: jgriffin at January 31, 2007 11:44 PM (GrnSc)
17
It's really not that dirty of a shot. It's just that it comes about a second after Dion says that he won't be indulging in personal attacks because it's not his style - unlike those mean ol' Tories.
It's probably a one-day (or half-day) wonder of a story, but it shows that not even St. Stephan can resist the temptation to stick the blade in (even if it's not a very deep cut), despite the "I'm above all of that" image he's trying to cultivate in response to the Tory ads.
Posted by: Jason Hickman at January 31, 2007 11:52 PM (bR9pd)
18
People in glass houses should not throw stones - that's all I have to say.
Posted by: hosertohoosier at February 01, 2007 01:24 AM (YjBup)
19
Oh shut up. Honestly. 1. it wasn't a joke., 2. what he says is true.
Get a life.
Posted by: James Bowie at February 01, 2007 02:25 AM (NOcJ2)
20
If this is all the left has on our PM, it shows us Mr. Harper is doing something right!
Posted by: Proud Albertan at February 01, 2007 03:41 AM (Rww+E)
21
He just said that Harper waS overweight.
or more accurately, "overweights"
so it was an observation, rather than a jab or insult.
by the weigh(t) I wrote "overweights" did any of you get offended when I observed how Mr. Dion speaks hanglish?
Posted by: 2busy2 think of a name at February 01, 2007 06:36 AM (JFuo+)
22
Oh shut up. Honestly. 1. it wasn't a joke., 2. what he says is true.
Kind of like what Iggy & Dryden said to/about Dion during the Lib leadership debate, eh?
Posted by: Jason Hickman at February 01, 2007 08:57 AM (bR9pd)
23
Notice how the same people who say this is not big deal were the same ones who thought an alleged comment calling Belinda a dog was akin to someone being shot?
You see, only one side is allowed to be outraged at stupidity.
It was a cheap shot. It was a fat joke. His wife was laughing even before he finished it because they've been calling Harper a fatso for a while. It's stylish among Liberals, since they have nothing else on him.
And let's not even get into who the better looking couple is between the ones living at 24 Sussex and the ones living at Stornaway. I wouldn't be laughing too hard if I was Mrs. Dion.
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at February 01, 2007 09:58 AM (aSF/D)
Posted by: Joanne (TB) at February 01, 2007 10:13 AM (x8dgs)
25
You white-wingers make me laugh. To you, it's OK for your pary to make personal attacks about individuals, yet when you get it dished back at you, you cry like schoolgirls.
Posted by: Flanstein at February 01, 2007 10:25 AM (l+owr)
26
Flanstein, what personal attacks are you referring to? Instead of taunting people like a child, why not actually articulate what it is that you're trying to say?
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at February 01, 2007 10:31 AM (aSF/D)
27
Notice how CTV decided to frame the story? The headline wasn't "Dion mocks Harper's weight." The headline was "Tories miffed over Dion's poke..."
You see, Tories offended by the fat joke are the story. The fat joke itself is ok when made by Stéphane "man of integrity" Dion.
MacKay allegedly calling Belinda a dog? Why it's tantamount to murder, you see.
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at February 01, 2007 10:37 AM (aSF/D)
28
This Dion is a disaster, wait for the next faux pas. He has been around for 10 years or so and had not been noticed. He has had all this time to learn the language. If he doesn't have enough interest in Canada to learn English, how can he expect to be the Prime Minister. It would be a disgrace.
Posted by: Missy at February 01, 2007 10:54 AM (IMYBz)
29
The original post was a comment about Dion being a hypocrite with respect to personal attacks. Every Liberal commenter since has failed to notice what the orignal post was about, and instead wailed about conservatives complaining about the attack. Not surprising since hypocracy is as natural to Liberals as breathing and telling lies.
Posted by: Greg at February 01, 2007 10:56 AM (RD17r)
30
"If he doesn't have enough interest in Canada to learn English, how can he expect to be the Prime Minister. It would be a disgrace."
His English is better than Harper's French. Is that a disgrace to you? Of course not - you're a white-wing hypocrite...
Posted by: Flanstein at February 01, 2007 11:07 AM (l+owr)
31
Flanstein, why aren't you addressing what people actually write? Dion has been a federal politician for over a decade. Why isn't his English any better? Is he too good to work at it? What?
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at February 01, 2007 11:21 AM (aSF/D)
32
Thanx for the morning chuckles everyone !
The fact is that Dion is insignificant and petty.
A close observation of his demeanour and body language says volumes.
I'm not posting here to attack the poor chappie,just to point out the obvious which he as a public figure has no recourse to wail,"You're being unfair"
The shoe fits Dion ,so we guess you'll just have to wear it.
Posted by: Simon at February 01, 2007 12:10 PM (K7eBB)
33
"Why isn't his English any better?"
In fact, his vocabulary is excellent, it is occasional breakdowns in syntax and his accent that are hampering him.
"Flanstein, why aren't you addressing what people actually write?"
Why aren't you addressing what I write? Dion's English is better than Harper's French. Why isn't that a disgrace - given that he's the PM?
Posted by: Flanstein at February 01, 2007 12:29 PM (l+owr)
34
Pull your head out of the sand Flanstein;
Though French is Canada's second official language: it is only spoken by a minority of Canadians and mostly in one province.
Right or wrong ....like it or not, Canada speaks english first.
The issue is a non sequitur.
A fact that continues to be an issue though is the continual power grab by the Quebec Cabal whose scary secret adgenda is the francophonization an hence complete socialization of the rest of Canada.
Lopsided political representation in this country has gone on for far to long!
This policy would never pass the litmus test for equal opportunity hiring in the federal bureaucracy and you know it.
As for PM Harper's french...Its understandable without a lot of effort.
Posted by: Simon at February 01, 2007 12:53 PM (K7eBB)
35
"As for PM Harper's french...Its understandable without a lot of effort."
No, it's not. He has the vocabulary of an 11th grader. Why is it that you hypocrites rail about Dion's English accent but think that Harper's grade-school French is fine?
"it is only spoken by a minority of Canadians and mostly in one province."
A hypocrite AND ignorant. Care to go for the trifecta?
Posted by: Flanstein at February 01, 2007 01:11 PM (l+owr)
36
Gee Simon, you sure don't know your facts...
French is Canada's other official language, not its second. Also, French was spoken in Canada way before England invaded and shoved English down our throats.
However, you are right, it is spoken by a minority of Canadians and mostly in one province. That is simply thanks to historical circumstances (i.e. illegal banning of the French language in schools and government by WASPs accross Canada in an effort to get rid of the French language and a massive immigration effort in the early 1900s to get as many white Europeans into Canada to drown out the Francophone population).
For your edification, there are French-speaking Canadians ad mare usque ad mare (that's Latin for "from sea to sea" in case you only know English). Thx to Trudeau's Liberals (and what an enlightened era that was), there is official bilingualism accross this great land and we are slowly redressing the wrongs done to us.
As for your statement about there being a "Quebec Cabal whose scary secret adgenda is the francophonization an hence complete socialization of the rest of Canada", you are obviously off your meds if you think such a cabal even exists.
In closing Simon, here is a saying you should heed in the future... It is best to keep one's mouth shut and people will only think you a fool. Don't open it and confirm the fact.
Salut !!
Posted by: Richard at February 01, 2007 01:25 PM (ZrqA4)
37
Flanstein
You live in a world of your own.
Good luck with your reality 101 course!
Posted by: Simon at February 01, 2007 01:28 PM (K7eBB)
38
That's the best you can do Simon? Richard and I just gave you the spanking of your life and all you could come up with was this weak cliche?
Posted by: Flanstein at February 01, 2007 01:36 PM (l+owr)
39
Thanx for the full helping of cliches guys.
My last post went up before Richards downloaded to my screen.
Perhaps you boys need to start your own country seeing as you both appear to feel so wronged in this one.My best wishes to you both!
Posted by: Simon at February 01, 2007 01:59 PM (K7eBB)
40
"Perhaps you boys need to start your own country seeing as you both appear to feel so wronged in this one."
LOL !!!
My family has been in Canada since the early 18th century and I like it here. Canada just needs a little socialization to correct societal errors of past and present deluded WASPs who think this country belongs exclusively to them, to the detriment of all things non-white, non-male and non-anglo.
P.S. There are flights leaving for England every day. Don't miss yours Simon.
Posted by: Richard at February 01, 2007 02:21 PM (ZrqA4)
41
I really think it would be easier for Dion to slip back to his "Home country" (which I understand he carries a passport). I would be so much easier to send him back so the rest of us could continue to get things accomplished.
Posted by: Missy at February 01, 2007 03:51 PM (5JffQ)
42
Here we have people who plainly can't speak French claiming to criticize Harper's French. Fine, go ahead and believe it. Every pepsi in Quebec knows you're full of shit, so you're not going to achieve much.
Who remembers that when Chretien did his sobbing meltdown because they'd mocked the way he talked, the CBC followed it up immediately with a clip of Liberals mocking Preston Manning's voice? This is standard procedure from these goons. It's a good sign that they're hurting.
Posted by: ebt at February 01, 2007 05:03 PM (7y2db)
43
Dion is a loser and a pathetic candidate for PM.
Posted by: Juno at February 01, 2007 06:53 PM (epimu)
44
At the end of the video I noticed Dion opening the rear hatch of gas a guzzling, carbon spewing, planet killing mini-van. Oh it must be a hybrid then.
Posted by: billonlogan at February 01, 2007 08:40 PM (GHWQj)
45
Wow Richard, so much hate for a socialist. "Illegal banning of the French language"? What about the English language in parts of Quebec? Your term WASP is also extremely derogatory. So much hate with so much proclaimed wisdom. My family has been here longer than yours - does that mean your catching the flight after Simon? What do you think the Natives in Quebec would say about your arrogance and complaints of being downtrodden in the past?
Harpers French worse than Dion's English? Says who, Flanstein? The Toronto Star? Funny - with the shitkicking the Liberals took in the last election, i think Prime Minister Harper got his message accross very well, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Bryan at February 01, 2007 08:41 PM (5Rc/r)
46
What makes dion think Harper will be his successor at Storneway. Harper will be PM and maybe layton will be in Storneway. Or Duceppe, hasn't he been opposition leader once already.
I saw the interview, and if dion hadn't prefaced his stmt- that he would never stoop that low, he was above that sort of thing, and to immediately stoop that low.
I am sure that dion is very happy that Hammond killed any chance of electing the 6 MPs from AB that dion bragged about.
Do all liberals have foot in mouth disease.
Posted by: maryT at February 01, 2007 09:34 PM (zm8/C)
47
(Wow Richard, so much hate for a socialist. "Illegal banning of the French language)
Man, where does it say that a socialist can't hate? BTW, you REALLY don't know your history. In the early 1900s, WASPs (cause that's what the majority of white English-speaking people were at the time... I can't believe I'm actually having to spell this out for you) banned the teaching of French in most schools outside Quebec.
(What about the English language in parts of Quebec?)
To my knowledge, the teaching of English was never banned in Quebec.
(My family has been here longer than yours)
I actually never said that, I was just stating that since my family has been around for so long it shows how much we love Canada.
(What do you think the Natives in Quebec would say about your arrogance and complaints of being downtrodden in the past?)
That statement just doesn't make any sense. The French were known for treating their Native allies fairly. It isn't until the English took over the fur trade that they started screwing the Natives over for a percentage. Man, what were you doing in history class, picking your nose?
(with the shitkicking the Liberals took in the last election)
LOL, is that why the Harpertron and his right-wing collection of former REFORM party cronies only has a minority government?
And yes, Dion's English is worse than Harper's French, happy now???
Posted by: Richard at February 01, 2007 10:00 PM (B0+Ds)
48
Frankly, I don't think the Conservatives thought the ads would run. I think they were counting on some free coverage on the news followed by some controversy when the Liberals , or someone tied to the Liberals, gets the ads pulled ( witness all the foreshadowing last week) .-NBOb
Huh, you think they can buy Super Bowl time at the last minute? You think they spend all that money to produce ads only not to run them? Fool.
Posted by: Eric-Vancouver at February 02, 2007 11:37 AM (wAU9K)
49
What I have seen of the ads, they are GOOD. Iggy likes the limelight and he doesn't have any problem making Dion look foolish. One thing about the Liberal party, they tend to stick with their experienced people. Dion has had years of experience with Cretien and Martin as teachers. NEVER believe he is a poor naive guy that just let a little nasty fat joke slip out by accident just because he can barely speak English.
Posted by: Missy at February 02, 2007 02:16 PM (fGq3d)
50
I guess it is all even... Mackay calls Stonach a dog, Dion calls Harper fat.
Posted by: G. Mcrae at February 03, 2007 03:05 AM (MBJNY)
51
LMFAO...oh, this is "rich"...
...illegal banning of the French language in schools and government by WASPs accross Canada in an effort to get rid of the French language and a massive immigration effort in the early 1900s to get as many white Europeans into Canada to drown out the Francophone population
You mean in the early 1900's? Right smack dab in the middle of Wilfred Lauriers tenure as Prime Minister [July 11th, 1896 through October 6th, 1911]? You know who he was, right history boy? The first Prime Minister of French ancestry whom also represented the Liberal Party? Is he one of the WASP's you so deeply hate for the wrongs he imposed on French society, or one of the Frenchmen you love for his kind treatment of Natives?
And YOU have the nerve to suggest i "REALLY" don't know [my] history"?!?!
Get your finger out of your nose and pick up a history book, Richard.
French is Canada's other official language, not its second. Also, French was spoken in Canada way before England invaded and shoved English down our throats...
...For your edification, there are French-speaking Canadians ad mare usque ad mare (that's Latin for "from sea to sea" in case you only know English). Thx to Trudeau's Liberals (and what an enlightened era that was), there is official bilingualism accross this great land and we are slowly redressing the wrongs done to us.
You mean cramming the French language down our throats is OK? Two wrongs make a right in your world? There are also Ukrainian speaking Canadians ad mare usque ad mare. When do we get to redress the wrongs done unto them? And those poor Hungarians across this land have been ruthlessly repressed by the Trudeau era i suppose, eh?
LOL, is that why the Harpertron and his right-wing collection of former REFORM party cronies only has a minority government?
I was particularly speaking about the demise of the Liberal stranglehold in Quebec. I suppose i should have clarified. But ya, OK, that is why the Harpertron and his right-wing collection of former REFORM party cronies only has a minority government.
And yes, Dion's English is worse than Harper's French, happy now???
Yes, thanks for admitting that. It's mighty WHITE of you.
In closing Richard, here is a saying you should heed in the future... It is best to keep one's mouth shut and people will only think you a fool. Don't open it and confirm the fact.
PS - i really am uncomfortable with the "nose-picking" comments, but when dealing with children one must stoop to their level i suppose.
Posted by: Bryan at February 03, 2007 03:08 PM (5Rc/r)
52
People, people, people .... can we get back to the REAL issue - the stupid "Kyoto" agreement which, if anyone has taken time to study, is simply a way to do nothing about the environment and transfer taxpayer dollars around the world. Get real and face it. That's all it does - kind of a Britney moment - OOPS, I didn't it again and here's the cheque for the third world country. Typical Liberal/NDP policy - don't actually DO anything, just figure out a way to rob the average Joe working his butt off to live of HIS hard-earned dollars and send them off to who knows where. And you actually think there will be any accountability or honest reporting on (a) what our "Kyoto" status is and (b) how much of your money we are sending to others? I think not - under a Liberal/NDP government it'll all be buried in some trust fund or such until 10 years from now, someone will get a whiff and will blow it open - can you remember sponsorship scandal? You thought that was alot of money ........
Posted by: winterincalgary at February 04, 2007 07:41 PM (3q621)
53
Hi Bryan...
Just thought you might like to read this article...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/04/bilingualism-poll.html
Time for my evil laugh... Ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!
Posted by: Richard at February 05, 2007 01:22 AM (X0tMG)
54
Ummm...your point is, Richard?
This is how you answer my questions? What does this poll have to do with the core of our discussion?
I took French in school, and my children will take Spanish or perhaps German.
I believe knowing more than one language is very much a good thing. I even picked up a little of the Russian language while working in Kyrghystan.
What i DON'T believe is finding the perfect sound card for my PC recording studio and being told it is illegal to sell in Canada (only nation in the world by the way) because the box it comes in only has English, Spanish, Chinese and German printed on it.
THAT is what i call "cramming it down my throat"!
Don't worry though, i found a dealer with an American affiliate who was more than willing to have it shipped up here simply to "damn the language police" (his words).
I am sorry, Richard, but your post is more of a "weak wimpering" of a rebuttal than deserving of an "evil laugh".
fin
Posted by: Bryan at February 06, 2007 01:58 PM (979Pp)
55
(I took French in school)
How Liberal of youÂ… do you actually still speak it?
(I believe knowing more than one language is very much a good thing.)
That is precisely why I speak French, English, Dutch, German and Spanish.
(What i DON'T believe is finding the perfect sound card for my PC recording studio and being told it is illegal to sell in Canada because the box it comes in only has English, Spanish, Chinese and German printed on it.)
DonÂ’t know what planet you were on at the time but I find products in Canada with no French on them all the timeÂ…
(THAT is what i call "cramming it down my throat"!)
Well, last time I checked, the USA only has the one official language and IÂ’m sure you will fit right in.
As far as cramming it down our throats, that is precisely what the WASPs were doing in the early 1900s in Manitoba when they illegally banned the use of the French language in all Franco-Manitoban schools in an attempt to assimilate us… so don’t get on your high horses and whine and wimper that packaging has to be bilingual or that government services have to be offered in both official languages when the population warrants it! I'm tired of knee-jerk conservative rednecks moaning about how the French-Canadians are running Canada and how the West isn't getting a fair shake¦ that's politics baby!!
And yes, my evil laugh was warranted because, like it or not, I know now that bilingualism is working and is supported by a majority of Canadians, and that YOU have to live with it!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, etc.
Posted by: Richard at February 06, 2007 06:44 PM (qXQyG)
56
Seriously Richard, How old are you?
Are you 12 years old?
Taking French = Liberal? WOW - i did not know that the desire to educate ones self with a foreign language was politically motivated.
Bragging about how many languages you speak? Quite indicative of an overblown sense of self worth.
Claiming i am on a different planet because of a sound card?
Why the F*** would i make it up?!? I do not lie Richard. It's a matter of morals and principle.
I didn't make the product Richard, or the rules or the story. The dealer informed me after 3 days of research that they had been informed not to import it due to the packaging and the lack of French. PERIOD. No aliens, no other planets, just a ridiculous situation because of language. Take the tin-foil hat off now. You'll stop drooling shortly and all will be well.
Are you suggesting you actively seek out packages with no French? How "Canadian Alliance" of you.
USA = 1 language. How many other countries around the world have 1 official language Richard? Would you ever so tolerantly round up all the unilingual "WASP's" in CANADA and ship them off to a foreign country because they are (in your world) less intelligent than you?
Manitoba history...Once again, a French Liberal Prime Minister allowed this attocity to happen in Manitoba? I suggest you lobby the Liberal Party of Canada for financial restitution and quit whining about the WASPs doing you so much personal harm. IT WAS THE FRENCH LIBERALS that allowed it to happen, fool.
"so don't get on your high horses and whine and wimper that packaging has to be bilingual or that government services have to be offered in both official languages when the population warrants it! I'm tired of knee-jerk conservative rednecks moaning about how the French-Canadians are running Canada and how the West isn't getting a fair shake"
Ummm, whom would you be referring to?
I shared a story about 1 package, never mentioned government services, am not a "conservative", am proud of being labelled "red-neck" as it is a term describing one who continually performs a hard days work, and said nothing about French-Candians running Canada or the West not getting a fair shake.
You certainly have exposed more of your hatred, intolerance and bigotry of "WASP's".
It is wonderful that so many of us choose to be bilingual, isn't it? At least we agree there. It's just a shame that you can't realise that individuals have all the power to make this decision themselves without government interference in our lives. Just like the interference you are continually complaining about historically.
Keep evilly laughing, Richard...you mentally regress more and more each time.
Posted by: Bryan at February 06, 2007 10:30 PM (5Rc/r)
Note to Stephane Dion: Leaders don't act like children and indulge in fat jokes
Stephane Dion seems to have a real problem when it comes to exhibiting leadership qualities. The Conservatives have released ads that highlight Dion's problems in setting priorities.
Though I think that was effective, I'd like to point out that calling the other guy fat is not the sort of behaviour you want from your leader either.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:03 PM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Absolutely right. Pointing out deficiencies in qualifications for the office of Prime Minister does NOT come under the heading of a personal attack. Making fun or light of a personal characteristic (their hairstyle, weight, or facial characteristics - I'm referring here to the 1993 PC ad that made fun of Chretien's face) is MOST DEFINITELY a personal attack. Although it is a fine line, it is a line that should not be crossed. Dion should be ashamed of himself and should apolotized. THAT would be some indication of leadership. Leaders are not afraid to say sorry.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 31, 2007 01:21 PM (ANILb)
2
Is this on the same lines as Belinda Stronach (supposedly) being refered to as 'man's best friend'?
Or perhaps Collin Mayes' reply of 'good joke'!
Just Askin'!
Posted by: Simon at January 31, 2007 01:31 PM (K7eBB)
3
How is quoting what someone said an attack add, Harper didn't say Dion did nothing on the environment iggy did and we should take him at his word because he's a big part of the team.
oops did I make another fat joke,
Posted by: DrWright at January 31, 2007 02:09 PM (73hDL)
4
Speaking of fat, Karlheinz Schreiber is one chubby fraudster. And thanks to Peter MacKay and Brian Mulroney, he's still free to eat all the damn schnitzel in Canada.
Posted by: Derek at January 31, 2007 02:22 PM (0fM5W)
5
So, Stephane, THIS is your style - calling Harper fat? Pretty juvenile at best. Are you going to recommend Harper go on the South Beach Diet as well Was deciding that insulting your opponent a hard priority for you to set?
I know you're new at the whole leadership thing, but please have some conviction and only criticize policy, not waistlines.
Posted by: Amanda Van der Steen at January 31, 2007 03:04 PM (jKnBu)
6
Have you heard Dion's favourite bedtime story entitled "Bam the dog"?
Posted by: Matt at January 31, 2007 03:15 PM (d1a7q)
7
Imagine a stick calling someone else fat.
Dion and Iggy together are like two toothpicks....eww...LOL
anon#83
Posted by: anonymous at January 31, 2007 03:17 PM (DO1b6)
8
Notice how in that Boudreau advertisment for the Liberal party, er I mean interview, that mr green Stephane left the door of his house wide open when he went outside to open the backdoor of his gas-guzzler van?
This was right after complaining about heat loss from the windows of that relic Stornoway and calling Harper fat...
Posted by: lang at January 31, 2007 03:36 PM (cnBim)
9
When Mackay said that about Stronach, I went on record (and against the prevailing sentiment in some quarters) to say that it was conduct unbecoming and for which an apology ought to have been offered. In any case, Mackay is not vying for the PM's office, nor did he make his comment moments after saying he did not indulge in that sort of thing.
Dion was both crude and hypocritical.
Posted by: Steve Janke at January 31, 2007 03:37 PM (27ap9)
10
As my aged grandmother used to say - "Consider the source". I guess that is the best Dion can do.
Posted by: Don't Want To at January 31, 2007 03:47 PM (DFwV1)
11
I watched that exchange on Global but couldn't make out what Dion was saying.I'm not being mean or sarcastic I really have a hard time understanding what he says.
Posted by: LG at January 31, 2007 04:53 PM (9d75h)
12
Paying attention to any of this stuff is such silly partisan trype. We should be above it all. Just ignore it. Dion and Harper are both excellent - and very similar - men. Focus on their policies and pick the one that is closest to your view of how the world should be. The rest is just childishness.
Posted by: (Cicero in Pants) Cory MacDonald at January 31, 2007 04:56 PM (E8s/a)
13
Well I for one am glad someone had the guts (no pun intended) to broach this weighty subject. Dion was merely speaking truth to power. The fact is Stephen Harper has gotten fat. It is anyone's guess how this happened. Perhaps it is a defense against being found attractive by other men (or anyone else). I only hope he takes the hint and gets on a treadmill at stornaway or anywhere else. Yo P.M. is so fat he should have to run for office.
Posted by: Lefty at January 31, 2007 05:11 PM (pdf5D)
14
Harper should push that skinny little ratfucker into a corner in the House and piss on his loafers. (he could snap him in half like a twig)
Posted by: bigfatguy at January 31, 2007 06:01 PM (m1QHi)
15
It appears to be a lame attempt at humour.
Posted by: ian at January 31, 2007 06:30 PM (KqGpk)
16
Give me a break. Harper makes fun of his own weight in public. This is nowhere near the line.
Posted by: Jason Cherniak at January 31, 2007 06:37 PM (iaLRu)
17
When I look at my gutline...and then I see Steve Harper's gutline, I think...now there's a guy, just like me. Uh...Sorry, Steve...no insult intended...
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at January 31, 2007 06:46 PM (GN3Xe)
18
Well there you go, Dion has stooped beneath his own pledge to refrain from personal attacks.
It tells us Harper may have a bit around the middle but Dion is a mental midget with nothing of substance to debate.
And he aspires to lead the Libranos to victory and lead the country? God save Canada.
Posted by: Liz J at January 31, 2007 07:00 PM (zRSUU)
19
I wish Harper would either leave his jacket done up or leave it open. Everytime he stands up he buttons it up in QP and it makes him look "fat".
It's the only thing the Opposition has to pick on.
Maybe the Tories should spring for a new suit he feels comfortable in? It's a small thing but it's important.
Posted by: Jack at January 31, 2007 07:13 PM (veI8z)
20
Jason Cherniak - Dion's comment is juvenile and shows how far removed he is from being a leader. The fact that Harper himself jokes about his weight does not mean that another person can comment about it - and, and, in a situation where the comment was meant to denigrate.
The CPC ads are critiques about Dion's self-alleged commitment to the environment. The ads make no personal comments. In retaliation, what did Dion do? Instead of dealing with the criticism, he chose to comment on the personal characteristic of Harper (his weight). Harper hasn't said a word about Dion's personal attributes (Dion's weight, his 'geekiness', his incomprehensible English).
So- Dion's comments about Harper were way, way out of line. They reveal a serious problem with Dion.
Posted by: ET at January 31, 2007 07:23 PM (CVs5S)
21
I do not find French citizen Dion attractive, however, my aversion has nothing to do with his poundage or lack of - oh! I guess that would be Turdo KMs to the Liberanos - it has to do with his thoughts. I do not like the way he thinks; it is nasty, weak and whimpy IMO.
Some men are big even though slim; some men are small, even though fat - Stalin was small; Sir Winston Churchill was BIG - Lenin was small; President Bush is BIG - Canadian citizen Prime Minister Stephen Harper is BIG; French citizen Dion is tiny.
French citizen Dion is teeny weeny in his own mind; who are we to argue?
Posted by: Jema54 at January 31, 2007 07:32 PM (/be2/)
22
What do you expect ? Dion is/was nothing more than a Chretien Martin bumboy. And the Lazy Liberals put us through 8 months of a ridiculous campaign to end up with Dithers the Second. It just goes to show you that Liberals are morally, ethically and politically spent. Other than attacking Alberta, they have nothing to offer to the country.
What the Conservatives should really be asking is,did Dion do his compulsory army service as was required by all citizens of France ?
Posted by: Ed at January 31, 2007 08:36 PM (EMyuh)
23
Jean-Dion mangling English is not a pretty sight. But watching the English media in this country fawning over this guy is even more nauseating.
Posted by: Real Conservative at January 31, 2007 08:48 PM (EZLLA)
24
Is this on the same lines as Belinda Stronach (supposedly) being refered to as 'man's best friend'?
Yes it is. The main difference? The dog comment stayed in the media for weeks. This one won't get any play. Why? A Conservative calling someone a dog is WAAAAAAYYYYY worse than a Liberal calling a Conservative fat. Yeah right.
Posted by: ferrethouse at January 31, 2007 09:02 PM (+iQ4m)
25
Give me a break. Harper makes fun of his own weight in public.
There is a BIG difference (no pun intended) between self-depracating humour and calling someone ELSE fat. I would expect anyone but a partisan hack like yourself to appreciate that distinction.
Posted by: ferrethouse at January 31, 2007 09:19 PM (+iQ4m)
26
What amazes me is how these completely non-issues make it to the long-standing media.
Politicians are increasingly out of touch with reality, BUT not as far out of touch as the media experts who claim to know all and see all.
NWO
Posted by: NWO at January 31, 2007 09:24 PM (bSHWs)
27
Harper can diet, Saline will still be a moron.
Posted by: Bernie at January 31, 2007 09:30 PM (tiacF)
28
Stephane Dion is a spoiled little brat.
Posted by: Mama at January 31, 2007 09:53 PM (miUhT)
29
Give ME a break, Jason Cherniak. "Harper makes fun of his own weight in public. This is nowhere near the line."
If I make fun of my own weight, that's my prerogative; self-deprecating humour shows some humility and a perspective on reality: "I know I'm not perfect. I know I should probably be watching what I eat, but I'm human. Hey, we're all human. We all have our our foibles."
For someone, however, OTHER THAN Stephen Harper to make fun of his weight is a completely different ball game. I'm surprised you can't discern the difference, Mr. Liberal Cheerleader.
Now put the shoe on the other foot: If Stephen Harper had made a similar comment about Stephane's long, sharp nose or beady little eyes, let's say, the MSM would immediately have called him to task, would have run the clip ad nauseum, and would have been delighted to make Stephen Harper look like a clumsy, insensitive oaf--which would be a good way to describe him IF he had ever made a comment about Mr. Dion's physical appearance, which he hasn't.
Now, do you understand the problem, JC?
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 31, 2007 10:03 PM (miUhT)
30
If you want to hear "fat" jokes, find an old (early 60's)giant cd, the 12 inch vinyl type, with the routines of the deadpan comedian Jackie Vernon. No one told 'em better. He had dozens of 'em.
Now that the discourse has been elevated to these lofty levels, can we expect someone to call Stephane "Four Eyes" soon?
Posted by: dmorris at January 31, 2007 10:17 PM (iNlUz)
31
Wasn't it Harper who said in the last campaign that he could "take a punch"?
Well the neophytes that he leads seem to be very touchy.. Is it not blatant and juvenile political opportunism to use this innocuous little joke as a lever to suggest that Dion is not a competent leader as some Tory\Reformers are suggesting?
As a fellow fat guy I can say we are all a little sensitive to weight jokes but surely Harper is a tough enough guy that his sensibilites weren't so offended - or if they are maybe his strength as a leader needs to be questioned......see what I mean?
Posted by: FatFK at January 31, 2007 10:37 PM (HC57I)
32
Wasn't it Harper who said in the last campaign that he could "take a punch"?
Well the usually silenced minions that he leads seem to be very touchy by contrast... Is it not blatant and juvenile political opportunism to use this innocuous little joke as a lever to suggest that Dion is not a competent leader as some Tory\Reformers are suggesting?
As a fellow fat guy I can say we are all a little sensitive to weight jokes but surely Harper is a tough enough guy that his sensibilities weren't so offended - or if they were, maybe his strength as a leader needs to be questioned......see what I mean?
Posted by: FatFK at January 31, 2007 10:40 PM (HC57I)
33
Really folks, you should grow up. What are these childish exchanges all about? So, Dion made a crack about Harper's bulging waistline in the context of having installed exercise equipment at
Stornaway. Big deal! You should get out in the real world and listen to real people talk once in a while.
Posted by: cardinal47 at January 31, 2007 11:53 PM (R3vfh)
34
FatFK says: "Harper is a tough enough guy that his sensibilites weren't so offended." -- This doesn't have to do with whether or not Harper can take it. It has to do with what such a mean spirited remark says about Dion. I agree -- this type of comment is right up there with making fun of someone's facial disfigurement -- and Dion should not be given a free ride on this by the media.
Posted by: Linda at February 01, 2007 12:18 AM (p+2TZ)
35
I can hear it now:
Harper -- "Stephane, buddy, you need to put on some weight."
Dion -- "That is unfair! You don't know what you speak about. Do you think it is easy to make priorities?!?"
Posted by: Proud Albertan at February 01, 2007 03:47 AM (Rww+E)
36
So this means Dion is ectomorphic and Harper is endomorphic. But Jason's home-made attack ad is funny as all get out. Watching Deon do his schtick is almost as good.
Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle at February 01, 2007 07:07 AM (uStux)
37
Hey folks: Let's not expect to much from Stephanie; after all a few short months ago, he was classifued as a "second tier" candidate. Remember McKenna, Tobin & Manley? I've seen nothing from this "debutante", to warrant a change in classification
Posted by: Fibber McGee at February 01, 2007 08:32 AM (fFAXD)
38
Seems that Liberal fat heads concern themselves a lot with weight.
Martin wasn't exactly the picture of fitness but his problems had nothing to do with how much he weighed.
Didn't he wave a copy of the South Beach diet around in QP on one occasion?
Posted by: Liz J at February 01, 2007 08:47 AM (VMvTv)
39
I move to the states, and this is what Canadian politics has come to?
I'm not gonna call anyone a crybaby here. Nope. Takin' the high road on this one.
What's Harper think of it?
Seems like he can take the jab. Yeah, Harper's fat - so what? Dion can't tell a joke as far as he can pronounce the English language - who cares?
In other news . . . I see this Green Machine thing looks kinda cool. I'll pay my attention to that, now.
Posted by: Aaron at February 01, 2007 09:52 AM (OQOgW)
40
Exercise is difficult for Harper because he has asthma. Still, he's no chubbier than a certain Liberal leadership candidate who used to be a professional athlete.
And you can't call Harper thin-skinned because we don't know his response (if any) to this yet. I doubt he will have one.
Posted by: Joan Tintor at February 01, 2007 10:08 AM (zlBlM)
41
You know Dion maybe made a joke, but who knows what the man says? I resent this person trying to become Prime Minister of Canada for these reasons: He has been in Parliment for 10 years, he is a University Professor in a Bilingual province, and he has not had the courtesy to learn the English language. How broad can his mind be? Do you think he thinks he is a Donald Trump with the "fat thing"? This Goof ball should not be taken seriously
Posted by: Missy at February 01, 2007 10:39 AM (IMYBz)
42
Remember when that chubby bitch Jason Kenny and the Tory war room called Paul Martin a pedophile in the 2004 election campaign? Then Stephen Harper refused to apologize for them.
Yeah, that was a real kneeslapper.
Posted by: Derek Raymaker at February 01, 2007 02:15 PM (0fM5W)
43
DION DION PLEASE BE GONE
Posted by: Hoppy at February 01, 2007 07:25 PM (BDCLY)
January 29, 2007
Perley Edmund Holmes: Proponent of drug testing
An interesting comment left on a union blog prompts a guffaw.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:33 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
1
...and this is a surprise?
How better to establish distribution efforts than to identify your potential clients? A little background check, a bit of leverage and...Presto!
Instant distribution network delivering directly to the end users.
Think about it.
Posted by: Jan in Alberta at January 29, 2007 09:58 PM (BqPuU)
2
Take the hint from your readers, Steve, your obsession with this Holmes-Dion thing is becoming embarrassing.
Posted by: bob at January 30, 2007 05:32 PM (uvT7t)
3
Re: Perley HOlmes
Pity his wife and 8 kids
Posted by: mstbeme at February 01, 2007 04:19 AM (lY+UV)
Will the Conservative attack ads ever run on TV?
Ezra Levant, working with the research of Stephen Taylor, has written a brilliant piece that makes me wonder if those devastating Conservative Party ads targeting Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion will ever make it to television.
If not, what can we do to help?
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
12:30 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
Post contains 728 words, total size 5 kb.
1
One ad has been running on CTV Newsnet this morning. That in itself sounds like good strategy to run an ad on a channel that is part of the free-ride for the Libs.
Posted by: Steve Jefferson at January 29, 2007 01:24 PM (2ftmr)
2
I just saw it on CTV newsnet
Posted by: huh at January 29, 2007 01:27 PM (pX18t)
3
If its running...so much for the all-prevasive Liberal influence.
These comments just shot down your assertion.
Or are you going to claim that CTV NewsNet is somehow outside this Telecaster's influence.
Wait a minute...if its outside Telecaster's influence...just how pervasive is this "Liberal influence"?
And if NewsNet is under Telecaster's perview...just how pervasive is this "Liberal influence"...seeing that at least one of the ads has been aired?
Hmmmm...Liberal Media? Not quite as powerful as the Conservatives want it to be. After all...what would Conservatives whine about then?
Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 29, 2007 01:46 PM (bIC9p)
4
Or are you going to claim that CTV NewsNet is somehow outside this Telecaster's influence.
Telecaster does ads. Not news broadcasts.
Posted by: up north at January 29, 2007 02:00 PM (7WPiV)
5
Murray, what assertion?
All I got from Steve was this:
"Ezra Levant, working with the research of Stephen Taylor, has written a brilliant piece that makes me wonder if those devastating Conservative Party ads targeting Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion will ever make it to television."
So they made it to television. Good for the ads. The "assertion" of which you speak was no assertion at all, just a wonderment.
Go read Levant's column and see what **has** been shot down. In our country. On TV. I'm not making this up.
Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2007 02:08 PM (bIC9p)
6
Wait a minute...if its outside Telecaster's influence...just how pervasive is this "Liberal influence"?
OK. In fairness, I'll deal with part deux of that. It's a fair question.
Murray, from where I (and probably a lot of the posters here) sit, the media seems horribly biased in favour of the liberal agenda. Maybe it's because most of them have gone through some form of post-secondary education which is -again- controlled by liberals. Think I'm a conspiracy nut ? Lets pull up stories about who's allowed to speak at universities -and who gets shouted off the stage- or what constitutes "credible news sources" and what doesn't (Toronto Sun articles, for one example).
The best argument about liberal-biased media, and the blogs they hate, can be summed up in two words:
Dan Rather.
Posted by: up north at January 29, 2007 02:15 PM (7WPiV)
7
Hmm...
Instead of advertisers having to get approval from every single TV station in the country, Telecaster is their one-stop shop. Canadian TV stations outsource their judgment to Telecaster, which is in charge of basic standards -- no profanity, for example.
Telecaster approves political ads, too. And so, what is a rubber stamp when it comes to toothpaste and shampoo ads becomes a powerful political censor when it comes election campaigns.
One stop shopping for Ads...gotcha...
The problem is that Telecaster is run by a Liberal partisan, James Patterson:
Interesting...The one-stop shopping Ads clearing house is run by a Liberal Hack...
Implying...
Patterson, the big Liberal donor, is getting ready to block Tory ads in the upcoming campaign.
So..to sum up. The ads, which to me look like the start of an election campaign...will not see the light of day because a Liberal hack at Telecaster will Kibosh them.
However...
One ad has been running on CTV Newsnet this morning
and
I just saw it on CTV newsnet.
Wow. Either Patterson forgot his walking orders...or the "Liberal bias" is not so pervasive.
now we have "up north" claiming: "Telecaster does ads. Not news broadcasts".
But it was an ad...on a television channel...supposedly under the all-pervasive influence of the Liberal party...as implied by Janke and the first commentor Steve Jefferson.
"Liberal Media" somehow airing anti-Liberal ads...this despite the "fact" the ad clearing house it run by a Liberal hack who according to Janke is:
...unable to separate his political views from his work with Telecaster, and that he's applying different rules to make advertising difficult for the Conservatives
Hmm...
-------------------
-------------------
OK. In fairness, I'll deal with part deux of that. It's a fair question.
Murray, from where I (and probably a lot of the posters here) sit, the media seems horribly biased in favour of the liberal agenda.
-----------------------
Strange...from where I sit the news has a Conservative bias. The feeding frenzy of the '90s was was enough to end any idea of an overt "Liberal bias".
-----------------------
Maybe it's because most of them have gone through some form of post-secondary education which is -again- controlled by liberals. Think I'm a conspiracy nut ?
-----------------------
Or perhaps, in the "Marketplace" of ideas Conservative ideas just don't have any valid staying power.
-----------------------
Lets pull up stories about who's allowed to speak at universities -and who gets shouted off the stage- or what constitutes "credible news sources" and what doesn't (Toronto Sun articles, for one example).
-----------------------
So...Conservatives don't
"shout people" off the stage? Interesting.
And using anything from the Sun papers doesn't help your case.
-----------------------
The best argument about liberal-biased media, and the blogs they hate, can be summed up in two words:
Dan Rather
-----------------------
I'll see your Dan Rather (pompous git) and raise you...
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Michelle Malkin
pretty much all of Fox News...
Disney/ABC
Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 29, 2007 03:12 PM (bIC9p)
8
Just a note, but most people will associate Telecaster with Fender's legendary guitar design of that name (Second only to the Stratocaster in their lineup).
Posted by: Adam Maas at January 29, 2007 03:19 PM (MXygy)
9
"Just a note, but most people will associate Telecaster with Fender's legendary guitar design of that name (Second only to the Stratocaster in their lineup"
Which ,believe it or not, had its antecedent in the 40's Fender 'broadcaster' guitar..
Posted by: kursk at January 29, 2007 03:32 PM (lqkmi)
10
It would be interesting to see a break down of Political ads that have been knocked back.
It sounds as if the score would a whitewash for the Libs [ have they had any ads booted?]
Posted by: ian at January 29, 2007 03:48 PM (KqGpk)
11
-------------------
OK. In fairness, I'll deal with part deux of that. It's a fair question.
Murray, from where I (and probably a lot of the posters here) sit, the media seems horribly biased in favour of the liberal agenda.
-----------------------
Strange...from where I sit the news has a Conservative bias. The feeding frenzy of the '90s was was enough to end any idea of an overt "Liberal bias"
Oh come on Murray, you and I both know that the majority of newscasters--not even close--have a personal liberal slant--they vote Democrat or LPC or Taliban Jack.
And if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that the newspeople aren't robots, and are therefore (consciously or unconsciously) adding their personal feelings into stories. See Lawand, Christina for a fairly recent example where they got caught.
Bob Fife. Don Newman. Giggles Taber. Bias abounds, leftist bias, and yet people still believe in this VRWC.
I'll personally take Rush and Sean and Michelle, raise you an Ann Coulter, a Mike Adams and a Glenn Beck. I'll take Fox News (actually fair or maybe a bit right-leaning) over CNN (blatantly left). And so will the viewership, BTW. (That choice thing really rubs leftists' knickers!)
ABC? Aside from John Stossel, please elaborate...
Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2007 03:49 PM (bIC9p)
12
The funny thing about this is that Ezra wasn't even talking about the current anti-Liberal attack ads. Read his column. He was talking about ads from the last election.
And ABC? Media Matters' misinformer of the year:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200612220014
Posted by: john at January 29, 2007 04:07 PM (FgPVS)
13
Oh come on Murray, you and I both know that the majority of newscasters--not even close--have a personal liberal slant--they vote Democrat or LPC or Taliban Jack.
So...how they vote is a factor to you?
Taliban Jack...nice. How is he a "Taliban"?
Last I saw, he was not advocate religious fundamentalism or closing schools to girls.
And if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that the newspeople aren't robots, and are therefore (consciously or unconsciously) adding their personal feelings into stories. See Lawand, Christina for a fairly recent example where they got caught.
And if you were honest with YOURSELF you'd know that the owners/boards of directors of these corporation can hire/fire as they will. Keeping the board happy doesn't figure into it, eh?
You can keep Rush et.al. And Fox is blatently Right Wing...not merely "Slightly". Or does Rupert Murdoch have no influence on his network?
As for ABC...the miniseries "The Path to 9/11". Right wing revisionist history.
By the way...CTV NewsNet IS under the Telecaster umbrella. I guess Patterson forgot to "censor" the ad.
Or the "Liberal Bias" is just not that pervasive.
Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 29, 2007 04:58 PM (bIC9p)
14
The first thing I thought of was my old '66 Tely, which I had in '68. I donated my '79 Strat to a charity auction, heavy mother.
Wonder if Fender has any problems with their using the Telecaster name? Might be a copyright violation....
Anybody who thinks there is a Conservative bias in the media has to be a Dipper.
Posted by: Selma at January 29, 2007 05:01 PM (BEnxZ)
15
Murray,
Rather, etal vs. Limbaugh & Hannity.
It's interesting, Limbaugh and Hannity actually compete in the marketplace. In order to stay on the air they have to attract an audience. Limbaugh to the tune of 20 million unique listeners each week, Hannity 16/17 million. And, God forbid...they make a profit. They sell advertising at high rates, and their advertisers profit. Of course, profit is a 4 letter word to some.
Why have Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox prospered? Because they fill a market vacumn. If you watch CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and CNN, and, IF you are of a more conservative stripe, you WILL RARELY hear anything from your point of view or addressing issues you find important.
I realize you probably don't believe that alternative points of view should have the right to be aired, you are welcome to that view...I humbly disagree.
Posted by: the Dragon at January 29, 2007 05:37 PM (7LZ2O)
16
Okay, one last time.
So...how they vote is a factor to you?
Taliban Jack...nice. How is he a "Taliban"?
Last I saw, he was not advocate religious fundamentalism or closing schools to girls.
No, how they vote is a factor in how they slant their news.
You haven't really heard, have you? This shows that, although he doesn't advocate religious fundamentalism or closing schools to girls, he's not against it, per se.
Hired and fired at will? Yes, if the person goes overboard (who's seen Christina lately, BTW) or, and here's my point, if they go against the editorial slant of the parent organiztion. Don't you get it? The eidtors, owners, people in charge--all lefties. Ergo, if you slant your story left, no problem.
Fox is actually only "blatantly" right wing compared to CNNBCBS. Talking relativity. In the real world of showing both sides, they're the most balanced. Go to the CBC or CNN for analysis, and you get left and lefter. The "balance" is a little skewed, non?
And about "The Path to 9/11", well, a) it was a miniseries, DRAMATIC, and not necessarily meant to be 100% accurate (top secrecy being what it is), and b) then when CBC shows "Fahrenheit 9/11" or some other Moore bullspit, will you admit that CBC has a left bias?
Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2007 05:47 PM (bIC9p)
17
The ads have run at least three times tonight on Ottawa's "A" Channel. During the 6:00 O'clock news and the Habs-Senators game!! To see Dion crying "It's unfair, it's unfair," while Iggy Scolds him with "We didn't get it done," is priceless!
As to the "Taliban Jack" nickname, Layton was advocating "negotiating with the Taliban" from the get-go. Negotiating infers a willingness to give something up to get something.
Posted by: flurd at January 29, 2007 09:48 PM (dSvKg)
18
it works)))))
libs are sh....less)))))
Posted by: george at January 30, 2007 01:19 AM (nHj8W)
19
We were joking around about Taliban Jack. Someone suggested he should give it a whirl, negotiating with the Taliban, but that he should go alone, in peace. Someone else suggested he take his whole caucus with him in a show of farce - after all, it's tiny.
Then a comic strip idea came up - Taliban Jack meets Johnny Jihad...things got kind of silly after that.
I agree with JackL that diplomacy is the best course - but you can't negotiate with people who don't play by the rules.
I've heard he's in deep trouble with the caucus - I'll almost miss the guy when he goes. Endless source of giggles.
Posted by: Selma at January 30, 2007 09:33 AM (ET7N4)
20
Why have Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox prospered? Because they fill a market vacumn. If you watch CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and CNN, and, IF you are of a more conservative stripe, you WILL RARELY hear anything from your point of view or addressing issues you find important.
I realize you probably don't believe that alternative points of view should have the right to be aired, you are welcome to that view...I humbly disagree.
Nice of you to "humbly disagree". I did not say "alternative points of view should have the right to be aired"...where did I say that?
36-37 Million people listen to Hannity/Limbaugh. Of course they have a right to "fill a niche". Of course they have a right to "make a profit".
36-37 Million people listening to those two...fightening.
Dave
Hired and fired at will? Yes, if the person goes overboard (who's seen Christina lately, BTW) or, and here's my point, if they go against the editorial slant of the parent organiztion. Don't you get it?
You just made my point for me. "Editorial Slant of the parent Organization". Those parent Organization tend to have Conservative slants.
And about "The Path to 9/11", well, a) it was a miniseries, DRAMATIC, and not necessarily meant to be 100% accurate (top secrecy being what it is)
"The Path to 9/11" was supposedly "based" of the 9/11 commision report. That's what it was touted as...being based on those findings. ABC hired a Conservative hack to write/produce it. It made up scenes to make it APPEAR that Clinton was responsible for 9/11. And it was screened ONLY to Conservative pundits like Limbaugh before being unleashed on the unsuspecting public.
Is profit mroe powerful than Truth, Mr. Dragon?
As for CBC...if it shows "The Path to 9/11"...will you drop the bogus "Liberal Bias" claim?
-------------------------
You haven't really heard, have you? This shows that, although he doesn't advocate religious fundamentalism or closing schools to girls, he's not against it, per se.
Wow...peace talks. That Radical. A "Comprehensive peace process " involving "All Combatants". I don't see where it says he's wants to negotiate with just the Taliban...as the Conservative nickname implies. Just think...in the Conservative mind peace talks equates going back to what Afganistan was like before the Americans invaded.
Of course, the American's got distracted by Iraq and left the job unfinished...but what are you going to do.
Afganistan's bolluxed up. The American's made a mess of it by not finishing the job before moving on.
Unless we get Pakistan to sto psupporting the Taliban, they will always be there. Peace talk are not a bad idea. But I guess to a Conservative, if it doesn't involve hot lead flying around it's not to be considered.
Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 30, 2007 12:37 PM (bIC9p)
21
I really should know better, BUT:
Strange...from where I sit the news has a Conservative bias. The feeding frenzy of the '90s was was enough to end any idea of an overt "Liberal bias".
The only "feeding frenzy" I can recall in the '90's was the military bashing that went on over the Airborne Regiment's Somalia murder and subsequent scandals. In fact, most of the media were having such a slobberingly good time giving everyone in the army a black eye, that they kinda forgot to report the largest battle Canadian troops had fought in since the Korean war (the 1993 battle in the Medak Pocket in Croatia).
But if you have something in particular in mind, I'm all ears.
Or perhaps, in the "Marketplace" of ideas Conservative ideas just don't have any valid staying power.
Or, perhaps, your "marketplace" is about as inclusive as a 1950's lunch counter in Alabama.
So...Conservatives don't
"shout people" off the stage? Interesting
So conservatives do ??? Fascinating. How about an example from the news ?
I can think of Coulter, the Minutemen spokesman and a Marine reservist who were all shouted off the stage (and/or physically attacked) -and can easily dig up links if you wish. Can you provide an example of a lib being shouted off a stage ? Please ??
Oh. I forgot. Conservatives control all the news agencies. It couldn't possibly be that liberals act like arseholes and conservatives don't.
And using anything from the Sun papers doesn't help your case.
OK, I'll bite. Why not ?
I'll see your Dan Rather (pompous git) and raise you...
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Michelle Malkin
pretty much all of Fox News...
Disney/ABC
Righty-o. And which one of the above persons/agencies/studios tried to present -as news- a blatantly, ridiculously, false document in attempt to discredit a sitting US president (who happens to be conservative) just before an election in a time of war ?
Posted by: up north at January 30, 2007 01:06 PM (XYzbN)
22
And about "The Path to 9/11", well, a) it was a miniseries, DRAMATIC, and not necessarily meant to be 100% accurate (top secrecy being what it is)
"The Path to 9/11" was supposedly "based" of the 9/11 commision report. That's what it was touted as...being based on those findings. ABC hired a Conservative hack to write/produce it. It made up scenes to make it APPEAR that Clinton was responsible for 9/11. And it was screened ONLY to Conservative pundits like Limbaugh before being unleashed on the unsuspecting public.
-Murray Rennie
So if it was so fictional, why did Clinton go ballistic over it? He forced ABC to edit a scene that showed Sandy Berger as the gutless slug that he is ... refusing to take Bin Laden when they had him ... as they did at least nine other times!
Don't believe me? Hannity and Combes had former Clinton advisor Dick Morris on WITH the 9/11 report and he showed exactly where Berger did this ... FICTION? the dialogue maybe ...the event was true.
Oh and Berger, the former security advisor was the one caught stealing sensitive document originals by stuffing them down his pants. Obviously no shenanigans going on here.
Now if they could only find that blood trail guy... maybe Hillary will give Bill up... of course she was probably involved...
Posted by: Sleepy Beagle at January 30, 2007 01:20 PM (FPAoM)
23
I don't know better 
"You just made my point for me. "Editorial Slant of the parent Organization". Those parent Organization tend to have Conservative slants."
Like to name one? Hope you aren't thinking of G&M, CTV (BellGlobemedia), TorStar, Standard Radio (any station), Global, AChannel, etc, Osprey), Canoe, CBC and so on.
Who did you have in mind, Murray? This big C Conservative parent company you mention that leads to a media bias in Canada? Never mind the States, apples to oranges. What about up here?
Oh, maybe the TO Sun, the paper you discount?
C'mon, I'm on the edge of my seat here..where can I turn for conservatively biased news which will feed my knee-jerk mindset?
"You just made my point for me. "Editorial Slant of the parent Organization". Those parent Organization tend to have Conservative slants."
Like to name one? Hope you aren't thinking of G&M, CTV (BellGlobemedia), TorStar, Standard Radio (any station), Global, AChannel, etc, Osprey), Canoe, CBC and so on.
Who did you have in mind, Murray? This big C Conservative parent company you mention that leads to a media bias in Canada? Never mind the States, apples to oranges. What about up here?
Oh, maybe the TO Sun, the paper you discount?
C'mon, I'm on the edge of my seat here..where can I turn for conservatively biased news which will feed my knee-jerk mindset?
Posted by: Selma at January 30, 2007 01:24 PM (ET7N4)
24
The only "feeding frenzy" I can recall in the '90's was the military bashing that went on over the Airborne Regiment's Somalia murder and subsequent scandals. In fact, most of the media were having such a slobberingly good time giving everyone in the army a black eye, that they kinda forgot to report the largest battle Canadian troops had fought in since the Korean war (the 1993 battle in the Medak Pocket in Croatia).
So...a bunch of Soldiers blackening Canada's image by torturing/murdering a Somali while on a peace-keeping trip is not newsworthy?
If Medak is so obsure...why can a simple google search turns up many hits...including on the CBC page?
Perhaps your offended by Canadian's coming to grips with savagry done on a Peacekeeping trip. If so, that's your problem, not mine.
Or perhaps, in the "Marketplace" of ideas Conservative ideas just don't have any valid staying power.
Or, perhaps, your "marketplace" is about as inclusive as a 1950's lunch counter in Alabama
Yeah...right.
Was it Liberal's or Conservatives who supported Separate lunch counters in Alabama?
So conservatives do ??? Fascinating. How about an example from the news ?
I can think of Coulter, the Minutemen spokesman and a Marine reservist who were all shouted off the stage (and/or physically attacked) -and can easily dig up links if you wish. Can you provide an example of a lib being shouted off a stage ? Please ??
Oh. I forgot. Conservatives control all the news agencies. It couldn't possibly be that liberals act like arseholes and conservatives don't.
So every a**hole who shouts someone off a stage is a Liberal? Interesting...
So it was Liberal's who took the Dixie Chick's off the radio after one of them spoke out against Bush? ABC shutting down a blogger because said blogger posted some racist rants recorded from the radio in order to let that stations advertiser know what they were supporting, claiming copyright infringement.
Strange how this same ABC is not claiming Copyright infringement when portion of "Path to 9/11" are up on YouTube in violation of it. Rather selective...
And was it Liberal's who stop the airing of the Ronald Reagan mini-series?
------------------
I always found the Sun to be too much like a tabloid. Personal preference.
------------------
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Michelle Malkin
pretty much all of Fox News...
Disney/ABC
Righty-o. And which one of the above persons/agencies/studios tried to present -as news- a blatantly, ridiculously, false document in attempt to discredit a sitting US president (who happens to be conservative) just before an election in a time of war ?
What...you forgot Limbaugh's et. al.'s little lies about Clinton when Clinton was in power already?
Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. That one was a hoot. Had Jerry Falwell up hawking a tape claiming just that...for 1.5 hours. I wonder if that was tax excempt.
Lets see...Troopergate, Trashing the Whitehouse in 2001, Whitewater (a land deal where the Clinton's lost money apparently).
Conservatives are reaping what Conservatives have sown.
---------------------
Beagle...
So if it was so fictional, why did Clinton go ballistic over it? He forced ABC to edit a scene that showed Sandy Berger as the gutless slug that he is ... refusing to take Bin Laden when they had him ... as they did at least nine other times!
So, If I say a lie in public about, won't you go "ballistic"?
Aside from the fact that apparently there was no "hit team" there to take out Bin Laden...any Afghani forces that could have were nowhere near by...That the entire berger team looks to be pulled from thin air.
Wikipedia
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan to have spotted bin Laden. (When asked about this apparent discrepancy, Nowrasteh stated, "I've interviewed CIA agents who have told me otherwise. But that is the one concession we made. [In the original,] we had a CIA agent on the ground near bin Laden's compound—inside the wall even—and we took that out for the final presentation.")
He interviewed...but provides no proof...heh
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Ahmed Shah Massoud, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and therefore could not have seen Osama bin Laden.
3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced, and there would be no way to independently confirm bin Laden's presence in the target area by the time an already launched cruise missile would have reached it.
And when he tried to take out Bin Laden, he was accused of "wagging the dog"...because of the timing...Lewinsky and all.
Don't believe me? Hannity and Combes had former Clinton advisor Dick Morris on WITH the 9/11 report and he showed exactly where Berger did this ... FICTION? the dialogue maybe ...the event was true.
See above...
Isn't this the scene that Nowrasteh himself acknowledge was "improvised." Wasn't the mission scrubbed by Tenet weeks before the "scene" supposedly happened?
Apparently it only happened in Nowrasteh's mind?
Oh and Berger, the former security advisor was the one caught stealing sensitive document originals by stuffing them down his pants. Obviously no shenanigans going on here.
He's stuffs some documents down his pants, and this make ABCs' lies about him...true?
Is this the same a lying about Iraq-Al Qaida links...Non-existant yellowcake...non-existant WMD's...then starting a war over them.
Just asking.
--------------------------
Selma
Who did you have in mind, Murray? This big C Conservative parent company you mention that leads to a media bias in Canada? Never mind the States, apples to oranges. What about up here?
Never mind the States eh? More people probably watch American news than Canadian. Unfortunatly, what happens down there affects us up here. Or do you deny that?
National Post for one. Or is/was Mr. Black an Uber-Liberal?
Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 30, 2007 04:39 PM (bIC9p)
25
Well, you see, I'm one of the few who gets the fact that 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean completely different things in each country.
And yeah, there's the Nat Post - good, you got that one. Any others? How about TV or radio?
I also get that loudmouths like Limbaugh aren't 'conservative', they're narrow minded, knee-jerk mouthpieces who occasionally make some sense. I know this from reading blogs, I don't watch US TV unless I'm visiting there.
People like B O'Reilly for example, just make things up and hurl insults at people. It's kind of like the Springer version of the news. We have nothing comparable in Canada.
Anyway, back to my original point. The CPC is much more like the Democrats in the US than the GOP. The Yanks don't have anything as left wing as the LPC or NDP and we don't have anything as right-wing as the GOP.
The whole right/left meme is a fabrication by the media in order to polarize people. What's wrong with using logic and reason? I don't really think of people in terms of left or right, I listen to what they have to say and decide whether I think they're full of it or not.
In Canada, I find the big C Conservatives make a lot of sense. The Liberals have demonstrated a lack of ethics and a lack of interest in what's actually best for the country, so they don't get my vote. I can't imagine ever voting for the NDP, not that they don't occasionally have good ideas too.
So, I vote Conservative. I'm not religious, I'm not a bigot, I'm not anti-immigration. Gays don't concern me. I'm in favour of universal free education and universal free healthcare. I'm in favour of building up our armed forces, working on useful and effective environmental solutions. I'm anti multi-culti because I think it creates ghettoization and is unfair to immigrants, keeps them out of the mainstream. I believe in the lowest taxes possible and total government transparency. I'm against handing out a cheque to every social engineering group, welfare applicant (corporate or private). I'm against spending public money on frills. What's wrong with having some money in the bank? I think the marketplace should determine the value of an idea.
I believe in helping the tiny minority who can't help themselves for whatever reason as in helping them to lead a life of dignity. I'd rather see three times the amount given to the welfare recipient who really can't fend for themselves and nothing to the ones who can, than have an entire underclass created by socialism, one with no mobility and no hope for the future.
In the States, that makes me a Democrat. In Canada, it makes me a Conservative.
Apples and Oranges.
Posted by: Selma at January 30, 2007 07:00 PM (ET7N4)
26
Oh man...sigh
So...a bunch of Soldiers blackening Canada's image by torturing/murdering a Somali while on a peace-keeping trip is not newsworthy?
Of course it's newsworthy. We were discussing "feeding frenzys".
If Medak is so obsure...why can a simple google search turns up many hits...including on the CBC page?
Perhaps because a book was written -long after the fact- by a CBC journalist named Carol Off. It's called The Ghosts of the Medak Pocket. I never thought I'd say this about anything done by anyone from the CBC, but that book should be required reading for all Canadians.
The main reason that Canadian Soldiers were not massacred at Medak is because the ground commander had the good sense to call a press conference (our guys were squared off with a Croation armoured unit -they were hopelessly outgunned) knowing that the Croats were very sensitive to their international image. Lew MacKenzie also used the media to good effect for the same reason.
There were reporters there at the time of the battle. Yet it was kept quiet for a couple of years. Why ? Don't you think that would be newsworthy. Ms. Off herself notes in her book that when the soldiers returned to Canada they could not make anyone believe them. Those guys got screwed over big time (there is much more to the story).
Murray, all partisan left/right liberal/conservative bullshit aside -read the damn book. It's an eye-opener.
Perhaps your offended by Canadian's coming to grips with savagry done on a Peacekeeping trip. If so, that's your problem, not mine.
What I am offended by is Canadians happily remaining completely pig-ignorant of what our military does, how they're treated by the government, where they're sent, why they're sent and what they go through when they're there. And after they get back.
By the way -Somalia was not a "peacekeeping trip". At the last minute, the UN changed the mandate to peace-enforcement. The same resolution used in the Korean war.
That doesn't excuse what those guys from the CAR did. It's indefensible.
What's also indefensible is the fact that while other units in Somalia like the Royal Canadian Dragoons, 427 squadron, various other support units and even many of the CAR (Canadian Airborne Regiment) troopers did a lot of good work over there under very trying conditions -none of that was reported. The inquiry itself was shut down only after it started to peel away the layers of government sleaze and neglect that led to the problems in the CAR.
Canadians didn't come to grips with a Goddamn thing. They were simply entertained while the media had a high old time bashing the military and deliberately withholding facts. The glory days of the sixties all over again.
But don't you worry Murray. Those days will soon be back. Our guys will come home from Afghanistan eventually. The Americans will stop killing them accidentally -which means that liberals like you can stop pretending to give a damn about them. The government will go back to treating them like crap. The media will ignore that. It will be fashionable to laugh at them again.
And yeah, I am offended by that. But it's not my problem or your problem. It's the men and women serving this country that will be stuck with the problems.
Posted by: up north at January 31, 2007 12:15 PM (e6xA4)
27
Oh man...sigh
...
Of course it's newsworthy. We were discussing "feeding frenzys".
As for "feeding frenzies"...just what do people like to read about...good or bad stuff. One of the reasons I don't like the Sun chain is because of their "feeding Frenzy" tendencies with respect to news stories.
Good stuff...most often buried inside. Bad stuff, front page. With lurid headlines.
Feeding Frenzies occur all over the Political Spectrum. However, since the ninties it has been Conservative Feeding Frenzies that have appeared more often.
As for Mendak...you implied it was hidden. I showed it was not.
But don't you worry Murray. Those days will soon be back. Our guys will come home from Afghanistan eventually. The Americans will stop killing them accidentally -which means that liberals like you can stop pretending to give a damn about them. The government will go back to treating them like crap. The media will ignore that. It will be fashionable to laugh at them again.
Yes, the conservative government, despite its promise, is treating them like crap. This time its the navy thats on the recieving end of the crap.
Yoru little quip about the Liberal "not giving a damn" is a fallacy. Bot the Liberal and Conservatives don't give a damn.
And as I stated in another thread...I am not a member of the Liberal Party. But it seems such distinctions tend to be lost on Conservatives.
And yeah, I am offended by that. But it's not my problem or your problem. It's the men and women serving this country that will be stuck with the problems.
One of the few things we agree on.
However, since the origional topic was "Would the Conservative attack ads run on TV". ..it appears the "Liberal Bias" at Telecaster is not as pervasive OR powerful. The ads appear to have run on CTV NewsNet (under the Telecaster Umbrella), and ther Conservative commenters have said they're running during the Super Bowl (Canada has a tendency to substitute Canadian Commercials for American ones).
So the answer to his query is...Yes. But, "Liberal Bias"...not so powerful.
Posted by: Murray Rennie at February 01, 2007 10:28 AM (bIC9p)
28
Good stuff...most often buried inside. Bad stuff, front page. With lurid headlines
See, Murray ? More common ground. Headlines like "Karla's Kinky Killer Boyfriend" (the Winnipeg Sun actually printed that one a few years back) and their slavish coverage of celebrities, drives me right up the wall. The main thing I like about the Sun is their columnists -because they print both liberals and conservatives. I just don't see that elsewhere.
It is also germaine to note that during the height of the Somalia "feeding frenzy" I do recall the Toronto Sun putting a Canadian fighter pilot who had just won the "Top Gun" trophy on their front cover. At a time when all the media outlets (including Sun Media) were really raking the military over the coals, it was a nice gesture.
As for Mendak...you implied it was hidden. I showed it was not.
That battle was not reported for a couple of years. Bear in mind, Murray, that this fight involved an entire battalion of Canadian infantry (approx 850 men). There was an all-night firefight between Canadians and Croatians. People died (none of ours thankfully) in that battle. It ended with a huge Mexican stand-off the next day -the Canadians in armoured personnel carriers lined up on a road, with a minefield to either side. Croation tanks facing them (a very bad situation to be in). The Canucks had orders to go through Croat lines. They decided they were going, come hell or high water. Everybody on both sides were cocking their weapons (this was when the press conference was called by the quick-thinking Canadian commander -thus diffusing the situation). This wasn't just news, it was high-drama, real edge-of-the-seat stuff in real life (not to mention the "ethnically cleansed" village the Canucks found when they finally did go through the Croat lines).
Again -the press was there at the time. So why wasn't it reported at the time ?(!)
Then, it was news. Years later when it finally started coming out -it was history.
This all happened, by the way, on Jean Cretien's watch. The first I heard of it was a 1999 article in the "Alberta Report" magazine. The article pointed out that the Liberal Government was in the process of cutting the military budget yet again -at the time of the fight.
Call me crazy, but this brings up a few questions about our supposedly non-partisan press, in my mind.
This time its the navy thats on the recieving end of the crap.
The Navy is lacking funds to send a ship out on what is effectively a fisheries patrol. The lion's share of spending right now (not counting the transport planes) is on equipping the Army -which, as you know, is in the midst of a shooting war.
There should be money for both. There just isn't. This has been because of decades of neglect of our military.
Bear in mind that it was liberals who stripped the Navy of their "Royal" designation, their white ensign, their blue uniforms, their traditions and their pride. The Liberals allowed the entire fleet to rust out. Cretien cancelled the new helicopters, then refused to fly on a Sea King during a visit to HMCS Vancouver (he had himself flown out in an American Sikorsky -after sending the Canadian Sea King -sent to pick him up- back empty). The Vancouver, by the way, was one of 24 new and desperately needed ships ordered by Mulroney's Conservative government. Mulroney also gave them back their blue uniforms. That sort of thing matters.
I won't argue that overall, Brian Mulroney let the military down when he was in office (I personally think he is ultimately to blame for what happened in Somalia) , but compared to any Liberal before or after him, he was a virtual patron saint of things military.
It was also Liberals, in case you forgot, who sent our advance party to Afghanistan without weapons -because they couldn't be bothered to do the paperwork in time. Our troops had to be protected by Germans. It wasn't all that long ago that German soldiers used to be afraid of Canadians. Now we need them to protect us ?
If we're going to get into a who-did-what to the military, the Liberals are going to come out looking the worse. In a very big way.
One of the few things we agree on.
I'm glad to hear that. It occurs to me I'm getting tiresome here -as is this whole argument. I suspect we're both driving nails into the floor with our foreheads. I've had my time on the soap-box about the military, thank you -a subject near and dear to my heart for a number of reasons (and yes, I am an ex-serviceman -which doesn't grant me ultimate moral authority here, but at least give me credit for maybe knowing a little bit of what I'm talking about).
The last word on this is all yours, Murray. Kindly refrain from bashing the military in your reply.
Posted by: up north at February 01, 2007 01:04 PM (gzi0T)
29
I don't really recall bashing the military. If that impression was given because of the Somalia example, it wasn't my intention. On the othert hand, I didn't bring the military up.
However, to exclusivly blame the Liberal's for the current state of the Military is a bit disengenous. That's the impression I'm getting here.
Ah well...
Posted by: Murray Rennie at February 02, 2007 03:53 PM (bIC9p)
30
heres's a good PC video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceBr4nBwXtM
Posted by: j at February 10, 2007 02:55 AM (lWnsP)
New Conservative ads targeting Stephane Dion
Get 'em right here. Fresh to your browser. Three devastating ads unveiled by the Conservative Party targeting Stephane Dion, the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:05 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The second one of three is not all that good but the other two are better. These ad are not that lowball gutter stuff that I was lead to believe by the way the Libs are responding.You know....The far leftist Dion would tax away a poor families food money to give cash in brown paper bags to their rich friends in Toronto restaurants.. we are not making this up.
Posted by: David at January 29, 2007 10:43 AM (mmEsI)
2
I'll check them out - thanks for posting them Steve.
My only problem is that they are running them now, when there's no campaign underway (other than the continuous campaign the LPC seems to run, even when in office). Seems inappropriate for some reason. Everybody knows the LPC is a failure, so why the concern?
I have been pretty confident that an election won't be called because Harper would sail to a majority in view of his accomplishments in only one short year. He's popular.
As an aside, I wish the Bloc hadn't been given space in the Commons. They are a provincial party, not federal and by sitting there, they almost guarantee minority governments. In view of their stated goals, I have no idea why they have input at the federal level. Was that a Liberal idea, I honestly can't remember?
Posted by: Selma at January 29, 2007 10:55 AM (BEnxZ)
3
Sorry for the double comment but I am impressed. There's nothing nasty about those ads at all. Just actual Liberals speaking.
Liberals. In our cities. In Canada.
Brilliant!
Posted by: Selma at January 29, 2007 10:59 AM (BEnxZ)
4
I think the one with the "whining" Dion is the one that could do the most damage. It does portray Dion as being, for lack of a better term, a complete wimp. Seriously, the Conservatives could run that ad alone and destroy any credibility Dion has.
Not that Dion had much credibility to begin with.
Posted by: Surecure at January 29, 2007 11:16 AM (cb3SR)
5
Using Iggy was very clever, nothing like opening up that little power struggle
Posted by: ian at January 29, 2007 11:49 AM (KqGpk)
6
The perception of the Dion response is the one that will resonate in a way the liberals will have a very hard time with.
"Thats not fair" he says to Iggy. Okay, so why is it unfair? Does it mean that no one is to question the liberal record?
As in:
"Thats not fair, you have no right to question me."
Posted by: gimbol at January 29, 2007 11:53 AM (zElnE)
7
Nice ads!
Iggy - "We didn't get it done!"
Dion - "You don't know what you speak about!"
Iggy - "Blubber-sputter, uhhh, we din't get it done!"
Dion - "You don't know what you speak about!"
====================
Can anyone here wait until Harper debates Dion in an election debate? I sure can't.
Posted by: Ontario Lad at January 29, 2007 11:57 AM (17sjr)
8
The ads are very good - similar to their election ads, which had the same format of focusing on facts and actual statements.
I think the CPC (and note - CTV is saying that it's the Conservative GOVERNMENT that is mounting these ads; that's malicious; it's the Conservative PARTY)...had to do this because the Liberals have been mounting an intense Define Dion campaign since his leadership win. They've had to do this as Dion's actual presence and words are unpalatable. So, the Liberals have for the past two months, used the MSM to set up a Fictional Dion, trying to hide the Actual Dion.
This fictional Dion has been written by MSM 'pundits' who've redefined Dion as 'his English is better than Harper's French (hah); he's so kind, so warm, so....blah blah)..
The actual Dion has had to be kept restrained, since his first childish words, on becoming leader, were to call Harper a 'far-right', a 'control-freak'..etc...and it turns out that Dion is the control-freak, that Harper is not far-right...and that name-calling belongs in grade school. And Dion's 'gaffes' - allowing tainted Liberals back into the Liberal party, attacking the West as living on 'easy-money'...etc..
But the Liberals have a free ride with the MSM, which has been assisting them in setting up a Fictional Dion and promoting the Liberal party.
So- since the MSM works for the Liberals/NDP, paid by the taxpayer, the CPC has no choice but to set up their own media - paid for not by the taxpayer but by private citizens.
By the way, Selma, I completely and totally agree with you about the Bloc. It's a travesty, a violation of democracy, to have a party confined to one province's electorate allowed into a federal legislature - and allowed to make decisions about issues and yet, it is not accountable to the full electorate for those decisions. It is completely undemocratic. And, as you say, it means that Canadian governments are reduced, almost always, to a minority and can't take decisive steps.
The Bloc has moved out of its one-issue origins and has become the 'natural' party, the default party of Quebec. You vote for it because it represents Quebec. Period. That essentially sets up our Canadian governance as a minority - and a minority is a centrist government, unable to take risk decisions or make long term future oriented plans. That's a weak governing mode. The Bloc should not be allowed.
Posted by: ET at January 29, 2007 12:25 PM (fXNBm)
9
These ads go to the heart in proving exactly why the Tories believe that these ads are necessary. Dion has been getting a free ride in the Liberal loving media. His gaffes are relatively ignored by contrast. When Peter MacKay allegedly makes a comment about Belinda Stronach, its news for a week. When Dion muses about Cote coming back to the LPC, its done in a day. The media are painting Dion as the "green man" when emissions have gone way up under his watch as Environmental Minister, proving that he is anything BUT green. And do we ever hear anything about that in the MSM? Of course not.
Remember when then Liberal "soldiers in our streets" ad came out? That was an outright lie and distortion that never came to pass. Do we ever hear about the fact it never happened? No, of course not.
The fact is the current Tory ads are pointing out what Dion said and thus proving what he is - an ineffectual, old Party LPC Liberal.
Posted by: Ontario Lad at January 29, 2007 01:09 PM (17sjr)
10
There is a clear difference between negative attack ads and critical ads. Let's not let our Liberal friends (most of whom are decent, honourable people) blur the distinction.
I agree with David: the second one isn't all that good - it's not bad, but merely adequate.
The first one is a lot better, the third is best of all.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 29, 2007 01:14 PM (ANILb)
11
When the Liberals do this kind of ad its called "negative"..
When the Connies do it, it's called "critical"
Is it me or has the stench of hypocrisy gotten pretty bad here?
Posted by: cherniak_wtf at January 29, 2007 01:27 PM (TrLdG)
12
There's a big difference between presenting actual statements on issues made by politicians and implying martial law, a sellout to the US, etc as we saw during the last campaign.
These aren't attack ads at all - unless the LPC attacking itself counts.
Posted by: Selma at January 29, 2007 01:49 PM (BEnxZ)
13
It's impossible to "negative" in warning the public about this dangerous cryto-commie rat turd.
The unspoken fact is thet if Dion ever gets a chance to ram his Quebec-centric anti- Alberta agenda down the nation's throat he will in all likelihood polarize the nation as it has never been before.
If LPC power borkers belive that a snotty little empty heady doofus like Dion and his far left policy camp followers can produce enough BS to convince Albertans/Westerners to cut their own throats and fund his electoral hobby horse (Kyoto) by tanking their economy while Quebec and Ont. get LPC exemptions from Kyoto taxing, he deserves to move into that fluffy pink castle in the sky that all utopian schizophrenics fantacisize about.
He's a dangerous, deranged ideologue with a overt hostility to the West and Anglo ROC
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 29, 2007 01:56 PM (e1kRH)
14
"Is it me or has the stench of hypocrisy gotten pretty bad here?"
It's you. Try a shower.
Posted by: multirec at January 29, 2007 05:25 PM (h+CsO)
15
ET's comment about the "fictional Dion" is apt. After Dion won the leadership he was instantly branded by the CBC as a default-setting Good Canadian, while the Liberals' actual record -- what record? -- was, as always, essentially expunged from the coverage. Essentially, the Liberal party is presented as having nothing whatsoever to do with their own record and their own behaviour -- good gig if you can get it. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are presented in an ongoing way as a real problem for Canada.
This sort of bald-faced journalistic fraud is an enormous obstacle to fair elections. I think that a lot of informed Conservatives who read blogs and newspapers shrug off such coverage as irrelevent, when in fact it's not just relevent, it's critical. A lot of people come home from work and end up watching TV. With no other background information or context, in many cases, they end up absorbing over time a Liberal take on federal politics.
A few Conservative ads can't counter the effect of CBC/CTV's coast-to-coast campaign against the Conservatives, but hopefully they will help make it a bit harder for the Liberals to slide under the radar.
Posted by: EBD at January 29, 2007 07:28 PM (ZFd37)
16
The Stephane Dion one is the one I would run with, it paints the most damning portrait of Dion, The Environment one would be next, the other one I would get rid of.
Posted by: Kitchener Conservative at January 29, 2007 07:29 PM (Grsd5)
17
The Stephane Dion is not a leader is the one I would run with, it paints the most damning portrait of Dion, The Environment one would be next, the other one I would get rid of.
Posted by: Kitchener Conservative at January 29, 2007 07:30 PM (Grsd5)
18
I think these ads are necessary for the conservative party to get public attention back to the facts. For over a decade the Liberal government wasted billions upon billions of dollars and the pubic is no safer and the environment no cleaner. The way the CBC and CTV networks have become the mouth pieces of the Liberal Party makes me very angry. It is about time the free ride ends for the Liberals and the truth about their corruption and waste of public funds be brought out into the public.
Posted by: Ryan at January 29, 2007 08:04 PM (ahXJE)
19
Do you think Iggy will lose any sleep over this?
There is a wealth of Iggyisms out there just waiting for an election to be re-discovered.
I'll wager that the ABI wing of the liberal party is now questioning Dion's choice for deputy leader.
Wonder if that "stopiggy" site is still up and running?
Posted by: gimbol at January 30, 2007 07:00 AM (egH/E)
20
The first one should not show Ken Dryden. I'd harken back and pull some old Chretien clips about the Sponsorship Scandal(ie. so what if I lost hundreds of millions...)...
The second one had potential but they needed to use more clips of Dion speaking...
The third one works great...
All and all, I'd say the ads were about a 7.5 out of 10, not spectacular but decent.
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 11:06 PM (QhrOZ)
January 27, 2007
Russian interest in Perley Edmund Holmes
I just spotted a curious reference in my search links. So time for some wild speculation about the Russian mob and drug trafficking in Canada.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:57 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 694 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Mounties, footprints in the snow, drugs, organized crime, a fugitive, guns, will they be registered/not. Check later and we now have Russians!!
All before 10 am... WOW
I'm lovin it. Thx AGWN
jw
Posted by: John Weller at January 27, 2007 10:13 PM (tLVmV)
2
Organized crime/Liberals--I didn't know there was a difference
Posted by: George at January 29, 2007 09:19 AM (nBfLN)
Perley Edmund Holmes: First drugs and now guns
An arsenal of weapons have been found in connection to the arrest of Perley Edmund Holmes, the BC union leader picked up in Washington state with over $4 million in cocaine in his possession. Now is the time for a cheap political shot.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
08:34 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Its not a cheap shot. So a criminal endorses a party that is soft on crime. Gee, I wonder why.
Posted by: Ontario Lad at January 27, 2007 10:26 AM (17sjr)
2
At least you labeled this a cheap shot. I still think that the link between Dion and Holmes is very tenuous at best. That said, I hope the Liberals are doing a _very_ close review of their major contributors and staff. They can not afford another scandal right now.
Posted by: jgriffin at January 27, 2007 05:18 PM (GrnSc)
3
igriffin
what do you mean they cannot afford?
they're finished as a party.
they get the stupid leader and 50% they do not want this idiot in party. maybe french want.
Posted by: george at January 27, 2007 08:42 PM (nHj8W)
4
but sadly, george, dispite all that they have done, and all that they have shown themselves to be, they still have followers who fervently believe "liberals good, conservatives evil!" and vote for them.
Posted by: pete at January 27, 2007 11:38 PM (I+jOT)
5
Funny thing is, a less panicked response would have generated less interest.
Funny thing is, you are the only one showing any interest in this "story". Has it been picked up by any other "media" outlet?
Posted by: bob at January 28, 2007 02:40 PM (uvT7t)
6
'Picked up by another media outlet?' You mean the Liberal controlled media? Are you surprised? Of course it hasn't been picked up--they are too busy showing Dion walking on water!
Posted by: Another George at January 29, 2007 06:55 AM (nBfLN)
7
"Liberal Controlled Media"...thats a good one .
Perhaps, Another George, its a non-story; here being artifically hyped by Conservatives. It's not like they haven't done that before.
Another blogger pointed out that any move by Dion would have been jumped on by Conservatives. He yanked the ad, and its seen as...what exactly? If the ads were left, it would be see nas supporting crime. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Dion pulled the ads off his page when he found out about the crime. This is what I believe anyone would do. And your raking him over the coals for it?
As for criminals supporting the Liberals...are you implying that no criminals support the CPOC or Conservatives? Are we allowed to treat Harper like you treat Dion?
Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 29, 2007 10:04 AM (bIC9p)
8
As for criminals supporting the Liberals...are you implying that no criminals support the CPOC or Conservatives?
If you want to nitpick, I'm sure you can find some drunk drivers, maybe some white-collar criminals, no doubt lots of technical criminals -thanks to the gun registry- who support the CPC.
When it comes to real criminals (ie: those who deliberately and with malice, present a danger to society) -no. You're not going to find any supporters of the CPC in that bunch. You honestly believe that drug dealers, gang members, violent criminals and the like are going to vote for a party that wants to make life miserable for them ? Don't be bloody silly.
Are we allowed to treat Harper like you treat Dion?
By all means. We all know how kindly Mr. Harper has been treated by the Liberals and their pet media these past few years.
The difference is that you can poke away at Mr. Harper all day and he won't even blink.
You so much as question Monsieur Dion on something and he presents a vocal range that makes his cousin Celine jealous. Non ?
Posted by: up north at January 29, 2007 12:15 PM (7WPiV)
9
When it comes to real criminals (ie: those who deliberately and with malice, present a danger to society) -no. You're not going to find any supporters of the CPC in that bunch. You honestly believe that drug dealers, gang members, violent criminals and the like are going to vote for a party that wants to make life miserable for them ? Don't be bloody silly.
Interesting assertion. So your saying criminality has an ideological bias? A murderer will never vote Conservative AT ANY TIME? A CEO who defrauds his company votes LIBERAL after giving thousands to CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES?
By all means. We all know how kindly Mr. Harper has been treated by the Liberals and their pet media these past few years.
The difference is that you can poke away at Mr. Harper all day and he won't even blink.
Yeah, right. is that why he threw the hissy fit and declared the Ottawa Press core "biased"?
Oh that's right...in your eyes their the Liberal's "Pet Media". Strange how this pet media was stumbling over itself feeding us Liberal Scandals a few years ago.
You know, the ones Harper rode to a MINORITY government.
You so much as question Monsieur Dion on something and he presents a vocal range that makes his cousin Celine jealous. Non ?
Something Harper does only too well. He made his name complaining. The difference now is that he's been in power for a year...and his tune has not changed.
Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 29, 2007 12:39 PM (bIC9p)
10
Interesting assertion. So your saying criminality has an ideological bias?
No. I'm saying that criminals are out for number one.
Who brought in such abortions as the Faint Hope Clause (which Clifford Olson uses to torment the families of his victims) ?
Who brought in the YOA and the YCJA ?
Who supports the right of convicted criminals to vote ?
Who is against capital punishment ?
Whose Justice Minister said that "longer sentences are not a deterrent" ?
(if you need help with this, the answer to all of the above would be -the Liberals)
Now -who's sick of all this bullshit ?
Conservatives. Please -connect the dots. How do you think criminals are going to vote ?
Yeah, right. is that why he threw the hissy fit and declared the Ottawa Press core "biased"?
The Parliamentary Press Gallery calls it a 'hissy fit'. Liberal supporters call it a 'hissy fit'. Both groups (actually, they're one and the same) hate his ass and always will. The rest of the country pretty much got a laugh out of it.
For the record: He did not blink. He did not raise his voice. He simply called it like it is. They are biased.
Strange how this pet media was stumbling over itself feeding us Liberal Scandals a few years ago.
What else was there ?
You know, the ones Harper rode to a MINORITY government.
If memory serves, the Adscam story broke before the 2004 election -and Harper lost that one. That's not a bad reflection on him -though it speaks volumes about the voters.
Something Harper does only too well. He made his name complaining. The difference now is that he's been in power for a year...and his tune has not changed.
Forgive me -this does not make sense. Are you saying that Mr. Harper routinely gets in a tizzy and raises his voice like Mr. Dion ? Puh-leeze. I thought one of the big complaints about Mr. Harper was that he was a "cold fish".
Of course he made his name complaining -he was the Leader of the Opposition. Duh !
And actually his tune has started to change a bit -which personally pisses me off, but I suppose he has to bow to political realities like every other head of state.
Posted by: up north at January 29, 2007 01:13 PM (7WPiV)
11
No. I'm saying that criminals are out for number one.
if their out for number one...If voting Conservative helps, they will. I notice you avoided the CEO example. Why was that?
Who brought in such abortions as the Faint Hope Clause (which Clifford Olson uses to torment the families of his victims) ?
Who brought in the YOA and the YCJA ?
Who supports the right of convicted criminals to vote ?
I will give you the above. I don't like the YOA myself.
Who is against capital punishment ?
Whose Justice Minister said that "longer sentences are not a deterrent" ?
Ah, but does Capital punishment and longer sentences actually REDUCE crime? The example of the U.S. points to...NO.
And the instances of innocents being executed shows just how vacuous Capital Punishment is
(if you need help with this, the answer to all of the above would be -the Liberals)
Now -who's sick of all this bullshit ?
Conservatives. Please -connect the dots. How do you think criminals are going to vote ?
So, aside from looking for ways to throw people in jail AFTER THE CRIME HAS BEEN PERFORMED, what steps have Conservatives taken to reduce instances of crime...before the crime is performed? After all, if steps are taken to give opportunities to kids and people, the crime rate would drop.
But then, it would not be newsworthy. After all, bodies behind bars/or on a morgue slab after execution is more concrete and visible than a crime avoided by increased opportunity.
Yeah, right. is that why he threw the hissy fit and declared the Ottawa Press core "biased"?
The Parliamentary Press Gallery calls it a 'hissy fit'. Liberal supporters call it a 'hissy fit'. Both groups (actually, they're one and the same) hate his ass and always will. The rest of the country pretty much got a laugh out of it.
Umm...who decided first not to talk to the press core? Answer---Harper.
For the record: He did not blink. He did not raise his voice. He simply called it like it is. They are biased
He couldn't raise his voice because he decided to avoid talking to them.
Strange how this pet media was stumbling over itself feeding us Liberal Scandals a few years ago.
What else was there ?
If the media was the Liberal's "Pet media"...how was it even possible we saw anything about this.
You know, the ones Harper rode to a MINORITY government.
If memory serves, the Adscam story broke before the 2004 election -and Harper lost that one. That's not a bad reflection on him -though it speaks volumes about the voters.
It speaks volumes that Canadian voters do not trust Harper and the CPOC. Perhaps there a valid reason for that...one that has nothing to do with the "Liberal Media". Perhaps it Harper himself?
By your admission the Harper lost one election and squeaked out a minority riding the coattails of this Liberal Scandal.
Something Harper does only too well. He made his name complaining. The difference now is that he's been in power for a year...and his tune has not changed.
Forgive me -this does not make sense. Are you saying that Mr. Harper routinely gets in a tizzy and raises his voice like Mr. Dion ? Puh-leeze. I thought one of the big complaints about Mr. Harper was that he was a "cold fish".
Did I say he raised his voice? Just where did I say that?
One can complain, as Harper does, with a smile on ones face and a quiet voice.
Of course he made his name complaining -he was the Leader of the Opposition. Duh !
Too bad he hasn't really changed since he got into power.
Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 29, 2007 02:36 PM (bIC9p)
12
I notice you avoided the CEO example. Why was that?
I would have thought that my original post about "some white-collar criminals" -I believe CEO's fall into that category- included ...well...CEO's.
I will give you the above. I don't like the YOA myself.
Noted and appreciated.
Ah, but does Capital punishment and longer sentences actually REDUCE crime? The example of the U.S. points to...NO.
I'll bet it cuts down on repeat offences though (or at least delays them).
And the instances of innocents being executed shows just how vacuous Capital Punishment is
I'll refrain from asking you for examples if you can explain to me why we shouldn't do away with Clifford Olson. Or Paul Bernardo.
So, aside from looking for ways to throw people in jail AFTER THE CRIME HAS BEEN PERFORMED, what steps have Conservatives taken to reduce instances of crime...before the crime is performed? After all, if steps are taken to give opportunities to kids and people, the crime rate would drop.
Well, first off, throwing them in jail BEFORE the crime has been performed isn't allowed. It may sound great on paper, but it's such a ...Saddam thing to do...(mind you, he doesn't do that anymore...).
Now, if you want to take even more money from the taxpayers, to build basketball courts and community centres -or to just outright give it away to your various race-pimps, professional victims, or anyone else who feels like threatening their way to prosperity -fine.
Me, I'm a big advocate of consequences. If no one is going to be punished for anything, there will always be people who will take advantage of that. The sad fact is that there are a lot of seriously not-nice people out there. Suggesting that they are evil solely because of a disadvantaged youth or poverty is a slap in the face to everyone who had a horrible childhood or lives in poverty or is the victim of real racism and yet chooses to NOT do harm to others. And there are lots of people like that.
Posted by: up north at January 30, 2007 01:41 PM (XYzbN)
13
Just a few interesting facts on perley e. holmes prior to his arrest. Mr. Holmes ran local 97 of the ironworkers with no control of its membership or duly elected officers and excecutive. Mr. Holmes would not allow control over our Market Recouver Fund an influx of moneys clawed back of our contractors to fend of the none union sector. Mr. Holmes also changed our money manergers involving our Pension Fund. In conclusion take a look at Local 720 Irionworkers Edmonton his best friends and most wealthy of all the ironwoker locals. Maybe the R.C.M.P. MIGHT get of there donkeys and start to audit these people.
Posted by: I=ron Head at February 01, 2007 09:44 PM (nAu17)
14
Regarding Perley Edmund Holmes/ Have the R.C.M.P. found his underground bunker on one of his propertes yet, maybe they should have a look/
Posted by: FRANK at February 04, 2007 08:31 PM (nAu17)
15
Regarding Perley Edmund Holmes/ Have the R.C.M.P. found his underground bunker on one of his propertes yet, maybe they should have a look/ take a look at his Point Roberts property and the person living with him.
Posted by: FRANK at February 04, 2007 08:35 PM (nAu17)
16
"So, aside from looking for ways to throw people in jail AFTER THE CRIME HAS BEEN PERFORMED, what steps have Conservatives taken to reduce instances of crime...before the crime is performed? After all, if steps are taken to give opportunities to kids and people, the crime rate would drop. "
The conservatives have only been in power for a little over a year, and have not had the support from the liberal party in the house or senate to pass any kind of meaningful laws to fight crime. The Liberals (and NDP) voted down the extension of the anti-terrorism law, whch was a preventative measure that was put in place by the Liberals, and up until a few months ago was supported b the Liberals.It was there to try and prevent the worst kind of crimes against our citizens... before they were committed...
In the anti-terrorism bill, like all other issues, the Liberals only know how to latch onto an opposing side of an issue ( even if it opposes their own Liberal principles) and then just keep this constant drum-beat of slander and lies going in the media to discredit the CPC. Libs were angry at Harper for running the so called "attack ads' about Dion on prime time television.
If anyone has ever watched the CBC during prime-time (Air Farce, This Hour, The Mercer Report...) these shows play out like a slickly produced and scripted attack ad against the conservatives. Its just relentless the way they constantly spew personal insults and attacks towards the Conservatives on there. Then the CBC news just picks up right where they left off with biased news stories such as the supposed "cover-up' of the Pearson Nobel prize.... It took another network that still had some shred of fair news-reporting (CTV) to actually show the hypocrisy of the liberals accusation, when they reported that the liberals had covered up that display in many press conferences... at least the conservatives have the integrity to use their own money to buy advertising time on networks, instead of using taxpayers money to run their propaganda network...
Posted by: Troy at February 28, 2007 10:23 AM (cq02H)
17
After all, if steps are taken to give opportunities to kids and people, the crime rate would drop. "
and stop blaming all the worlds problems on the lack of government handouts. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and for making their own life better Its a liberal/ socialist cop-out to think otherwise. There are plenty of opportunities and programs for people who really want to change their life... it takes strong action by an individual to enact positive change in ones life, community, and country, not government handouts...
Posted by: Troy at February 28, 2007 10:49 AM (cq02H)
January 26, 2007
Jack Layton wants to give a buck a month to Canadians and calls himself a hero
NDP leader Jack Layton is demanding legislation to stop banks from charging fees for using bank machines. He claims he is helping working families. The problem is that the math suggests that his "help" amounts to just about nothing. This is the same party that says giving families $100 per child each month is "bogus".
It seems to me that working families would do well to choose the bogus allowance over the kind of help Jack Layton is offering.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
03:15 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 675 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Great Post Steve. Your summation was bang on. The investigation into whether or not there is collusion is fine by me. Will be interested to see the result.
Posted by: northbaytrapper at January 26, 2007 03:24 PM (8jv8g)
2
That's pretty much the same post I made, point for point, a few hours ago.
Posted by: Matt at January 26, 2007 03:53 PM (d1a7q)
3
Doesn't PC banking offer no service fees? Maybe Jackk should check out a Loblaws and sign up for a new bank account if he doesn't like service fees.
Posted by: Jonny_eh at January 26, 2007 04:02 PM (ZQ7AG)
4
Quite right Matt. Linked you in. When I saw that "savings" of $420 million, I knew it couldn't amount to a hill of beans for Canadians, especially the way Layton wants to get the job done -- via regulation. On the other hand, if you do it via competition, then the effect can be quite significant.
Posted by: Steve Janke at January 26, 2007 04:06 PM (27ap9)
5
Steve
I got this link yesterday at SDA. The first post tries mightily to explain the problem with the numerically challenged left:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001692
Posted by: Rob R at January 26, 2007 04:21 PM (y9Fs6)
6
Thank you Steve. Great minds think alike
Posted by: Matt at January 26, 2007 04:48 PM (d1a7q)
7
Grandstanding Jack and his petty drivel kept getting him elected in Toronto for some reason - even though he never actually did anything in Toronto in all his years as a politician. Nothing.
Posted by: Philanthropist at January 26, 2007 05:23 PM (7pBiD)
8
PC no fees banking. Free withdrawals at an Lowblaws or CIBC location. Canadian Tire is looking at starting up the same thing.
BTW, the one dollar withdrawal fee that you get when withdrawing from something other than your own branch is split 50/50 between the bank and Interact.
Oh, and _never_ use those white auto-tellers that you find in malls, etc. They charge way more than banks.
Posted by: jgriffin at January 26, 2007 07:17 PM (GrnSc)
9
Good post.
I do agree - gasp! - with Layton on this one though. The banks saved a bundle when they brought in ATMs (I worked with the group that did the first, Instant Teller, at CIBC in the early 80s) by laying off lots of tellers.
The machines pay for themselves lickety split so it's all cream.
$420 million is diddley when you average it out among Canadians but if you divide by 5, you get $84 million per bank, averaged.
That ain't hay for doing nothing and I feel it is a gouge.
Then you have those funny little machines that charge $2 or more such as Wells Fargo, etc at the airport.
I'm a free enterprise fanatic but I wouldn't shed a tear for the banks if they lost this revenue - they are making record profits.
Posted by: Selma at January 26, 2007 08:58 PM (BEnxZ)
10
Banking is one of the most highly regulated sectors in Canada, which is why you so often find sky-high fees and crappy service. Adding more regulation only makes it harder for new, better, leaner competitors to enter the business, and therefore makes it easier for the "bigs" to stick it to the customers who are forced to deal with their cozy little cartel.
The same applies to your healthcare, education and transportation systems. They're all "too important" to allow you stupid, non-governmental slobs to figure out whose services you should patronize.
Posted by: at January 26, 2007 09:35 PM (a0Sy/)
11
Good point as usual, Steve. But I'm with Jack Layton and Selma on this. is it fair that Americans, British and Europeans never have to pay ATM fees when they withdraw cash from the ATM machines while Canadians pay ATM fees? Hell no.
I uses ATMs a lot, if I need to get cash. I don't bring a lot of cash in my wallet anymore, because I don't want to be a target for wallet thiefs or muggers. If your debit card and credit card get stolen, just call and get the cards cancelled and replaced. On the other hand, if you lost the cash, you still lost the cash.
Still, I'm curious to hear how the banks would justify their ATM fees.
Posted by: at January 26, 2007 10:02 PM (J8Blo)
12
You couldn't just argue the merits and drawbacks of this ATM fee thing on its own, huh? Had to go and conflate it with the daycare issue. Fine. Leaving aside the pros and cons of subsidized daycare, which we can debate about ad nauseum, let's revisit your math.
A colleague of mine recently moved to Toronto from Montreal. In Montreal, daycare was $7/day, about $160/month (about 23 work days/month). In Toronto, daycare is about $600/month.
Under the Tories' plan, my friend now pays $500/month, saving $100. Not bad.
Under the NDP's proposed plan (subsidized daycare, similar to Quebec's plan, let's say $10/day), my friend would be paying $230/month, saving $270 relative to what she's paying now. Including this bank fee thing, the NDP's programs would have saved my friend $271.25 per. Better.
For the record, I agree - gasp! - that linking the elimination of ATM fees with helping out working families is, in itself, a rather thin claim, designed more as a quick PR soundbite than a social policy statement. But then politicians do what politicians do. The fee elimination proposal would have been better conceived as a symbolic gesture.
Posted by: A at January 26, 2007 10:33 PM (0pX37)
13
You conveniently forgot the tax your friend will pay associated with "free" or "subsidized" day care, as well as the general tax increases for all the other social expiraments the ndp would spew forth...
Where would the subsidized day care places be put? Oh, righto, the rural areas. Not likely.
Posted by: big d at January 27, 2007 04:29 PM (+L1Qd)
14
Wow, daycare is only $600 a month in Toronto? I paid $525 in 1981. I used to say it was twice as expensive as university tuition.
They said I could get subsidized but since I was working and made decent dough I turned that down.
You'd laugh if you knew what 'decent dough' was in those days!
Posted by: Selma at January 27, 2007 07:02 PM (BEnxZ)
15
You conveniently forgot the tax your friend will pay associated with "free" or "subsidized" day care...
No, I hadn't forgotten, though it's true I didn't include it. Given my friend's income level, I'm pretty sure any tax increases would be less than $171.25/month.
Where would the subsidized day care places be put? Oh, righto, the rural areas. Not likely.
Question: how/where are kids being cared for in rural areas these days?
Wow, daycare is only $600 a month in Toronto?
Only because hers is a not-for-profit outfit run out of a church basement by mostly volunteers. The average price in Toronto is closer to $1000-$1500/month, depending on the child's age.
Posted by: A at January 27, 2007 09:49 PM (0pX37)
16
This is definitely a case of good politics, bad policy.
Reminds me of the cut to the GST.
Posted by: at January 27, 2007 10:24 PM (KLE6p)
17
This is definitely a case of good politics, bad policy.
Reminds me of the cut to the GST.
Posted by: Rob Edger at January 27, 2007 10:25 PM (KLE6p)
18
$230 a month for daycare? That works out to roughly $11.50 a day for each child.
Some people spend that much on their fancy lattes in a day. Add lunch in and we're talking $20-30 spent on themselves.
Why should Canadians subsidize the daycare of people who can afford lattes, lunches, and (expensive) lingerie, who figure the care of their children is worth less than their own lifestyles--and who figure that other people should bring their kids up? ($1000 to $1500 a month sounds more reasonable, working out to a daily payment of between $50 and $75 a child. Aren't our kids worth that amount?)
I always laugh when I hear Hillary Clinton say "It takes a village to raise a child." What village would she be talking about? You need moms in the kitchens and doorways, who know the kids in the village, who watch out for the kids in the village, who feed them, clothe them, teach them, and protect them. But, that's not Hillary's job. She'll be somewhere else making the big bucks, expecting someone else to take care of Chelsea.
The entitlement and arrogance of this mindset makes my blood boil. Not to mention the graveyard of neglected kids.
I stayed home to care for my own children, on a very limited income, as my husband, with three university degrees (I have two) is in a helping profession. No one paid our way, I can tell you. The government punished us through an inequitable taxation system that gouged our one income, while giving tax breaks to two-income parents. We do, however, have a very solid relationship with our two kids, now in their 20s, something you can't put a price tag on.
The Jack Laytons and Olivia Chows of this world really irritate me. Their philosophy is to spend taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to cover the costs of parents who feel it's somehow beneath them to "do childcare" for their own kids.
Parents need their own money in their own bank accounts, so that they can make decisions about daycare that suit their particular family. There's no way the government should be over-taxing families and then making the always costly decisions about how the money's to be spent, because they are enlightened and know best (yup, that's our Jack and Olivia--the Olivia, as far as I know, who has no children, yet pretends to be a know-it-all on child care and nutrition).
I don't know about Jack and ATMs. I just know that nearly anything Jack thinks is a good idea is anathema to me...
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 27, 2007 10:52 PM (nIvAg)
19
There are lots of alternatives to using ATMs. I've never used one in my life. The fact that folks keep using ATMs instead of the alternatives suggests to me that the fees aren't that big a deal.
If Jack bin Layton doesn't like ATM fees, he shouldn't use them.
Posted by: felis corpulentis at January 27, 2007 11:05 PM (eU8TD)
20
Banking fees of this type can be avoided by the wise consumer. Other posters have mentioned "no frills" banking accounts that offer free ATM services provided you use their own machines.
Having said that, in some of these accounts (not all) you must maintain a balance of over $1,000.
Of course that $1000+ earns maybe 1/4 % interest so they shaft you there compared to slightly higher returns on regular chequing accounts.
But why should Jacko stop there? Why not get rid of those pesky user fees on credit cards.I don't have them on mine but I think they are common.Also, those rediculous 28% loan rates are probably crippling people to a much greater degree than the ATM fees.
Again if you are paying attantion you don't need to pay these fees.
There seems to be a cultural stereotype made here by Jacko. In his mind the poor are more likely to shop at conveniece stores for eg. and therefore pay more for items like milk and bread. This same group doesn't have $1000 to maintain in an account and it is the poor that are using those private ATMs that are the big gougers.
Jackos daycare plan is perplexing. If he wants to model the Quebec system then it is for the provinces to run the daycare. Why is he getting involved at all? Shouldn't those in Ontario who want universal daycare be rallying Dalton for this to happen?
Lets not forget that Redbook 1 made a promise to bring about a daycare plan and after 13 yrs no progress was made. Let Jack and others tell the poor that they are going to take away their $100/month and get them a real "daycare plan" in about 15 to 20 years, maybe.
Posted by: David at January 28, 2007 10:27 AM (mmEsI)
21
It's ridiculous that anyone would complain so vehemently about ATM fees. It is a fee that can be controlled almost 100% by the consumer.
I use ATM's all the time. When I need cash, I go to the closest ATM. If it's one from my own bank, there is no charge to use it. If it's one belonging to another major bank, it 's going to cost me $1.50. If it's a third party machine, it will cost $2.00 or $2.50. IT IS MY CHOICE. I can pay the $2 and go about my business or spend $2 on gas to get to a machine that doesn't charge.
Also, if I decide to pay the $2 fee for the sake of convenience, it's still a flat rate. I can withdraw $20 every time I need it and pay 10% in user fees or I can withdraw $100 and only pay 2% for fees.
If I'm in a position where I have to worry about every penny I spend, I can use a bank, as mentioned above, that has no fees and use a little forethought to make sure I have money when I need it that hasn't cost me any user fees.
Posted by: Rob R at January 28, 2007 02:00 PM (V5ieF)
22
As John Turley-Ewart pointed out in the National Post, the $420 million figure that is accepted at face value by reporters is trumped up.
From http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=e9c9d2ad-5e17-45e9-bc1f-e662c5c88c17
Take, for example, the "estimated $420-million" the NDP says Canadians pay to use banks' ATMs. The source for this figure is a 2006 Associated Press story about the U.S. ATM market -- one that relied on a Florida Web site that "surveys approximately 4,800 financial institutions in all 50 states." The site, Bankrate.com, does not provide research on Canadian financial services or ATMs; indeed, its only claim to expertise is tracking U.S. financial services. By its estimate, Americans pay approximately US$4.2-billion in ATM fees annually. The NDP arrived at their figure of $420-million for Canada by dividing the Bankrate-reported U.S. figure by 10.
According to an NDP press secretary, this statistical manipulation was justified because "Canadian and U.S. ATM fee schedules are similar." But this is untrue. Price Waterhouse Coopers demonstrated in a 2003 study that the average bank-owned-ATM fee in Canada was $0.58, whereas in the United States it was $1.35, more than twice the Canadian amount.
Posted by: pete at January 28, 2007 06:21 PM (F4Z8v)
23
Why should Canadians subsidize the daycare of people who can afford lattes, lunches, and (expensive) lingerie, who figure the care of their children is worth less than their own lifestyles--and who figure that other people should bring their kids up? ($1000 to $1500 a month sounds more reasonable, working out to a daily payment of between $50 and $75 a child. Aren't our kids worth that amount?)
It's not so much a question of whether one's kids are worth spending X amount of dollars, but rather whether one has X amount of dollars in the bank to spend. The idea of subsidized day care isn't to benefit the parents "who can afford lattes, lunches, and (expensive) lingerie, who figure the care of their children is worth less than their own lifestyles." As in Quebec, it's geared towards low- to middle-income parents, whether raising children on their own (and hence need outside day care so he/she can work) or with a spouse/partner (who would also be better off economically if both adults were working).
Subsidized day care helps these folks very much, even if it helps more affluent parents very little or not at all. A $100 monthly cheque in the mail helps (a smaller subset of) families who are doing OK but could use an extra $100 for child care costs. As the Government of Canada's official response to the issue of child care in the country, it's too little an amount to really help those at the lower end of the spectrum (especially since those increased day care slots promised in the last election have yet to materialize), and it's a pleasant but insignificant drop in the bucket for those on the upper end of the spectrum.
It also function as a de facto general tax cut (rather than a child care policy per se) for families with a stay-at-home caregiver, who clearly have already reached some arrangement whereby they can deliver care on their own. Which isn't to say that they don't deserve a break too, but if you're going to specifically design a "child care" policy, shouldn't it be such that it'll end up helping those parents who need the most help?
In any case, I really didn't want to wade back into this day care issue, which I'm sure will change nobody's mind here. I just wanted to note that Steve's logic behind mixing this ATM nonsense with the Child Care Benefit thing was rather bung.
Posted by: A at January 28, 2007 06:26 PM (0pX37)
24
I don't pay ATM fees either, since I deal with PC Financial and usually use a PC Financial or CIBC ATM at no charge. However, another good dodge, should you find yourself not able to find an ATM and need some cash is to buy some groceries or gas with your debit (ATM)card and ask the clerk to get some cash back. They are usually good for $40, enough to get you through until you can hit a real ATM. It used to crack me up, seeing people use the white label ATM's to withdraw cash, so they could pay for their drinks in a bar, when they could have just paid with the debit card function of the same card and gotten a $20 as well, saving themselves $3 in fees (which they would often throw my way as a tip when I filled them in on the "better way"!!!!)
Posted by: reido at January 28, 2007 09:51 PM (7Zw4P)
25
A: "As in Quebec, it's [child care subsidy] geared towards low- to middle-income parents": You don't mention those of us who were/are low- to middle-income who decide/d to stay home to care for our own children. (Many of us didn't/don't have X amount of dollars to spend, but we made/have made the choice anyway.) There are more of us than you think, for whom the $100 EACH child under six, EACH month, not just $100 a month, is far better than the Liberals' $0.00 for each child each month.
Then A says: "It [the CPC $100 a month for each child under six] also function as a de facto general tax cut (rather than a child care policy per se) for families with a stay-at-home caregiver, who clearly have already reached some arrangement whereby they can deliver care on their own."
I'm interested in your statement "who clearly have already reached some arrangement...", etc. A, the "special arrangement" meant scrimping, sacrificing, doing without, and being treated as second-class citizens by the Liberals. I can tell you, many of us one-income families were those "who need[ed] the most help"--but we didn't get it, nor any breaks whatsover from the Liberals, nor from the great white hope of females, the SOW, nor from the political party that "really cares about 'the workers'," the NDP.
I think what Steve has been trying to do here is to suggest why should we even listen to what Jack and Olivia have to say on ATMs (big hairy deal that Jacko and his NDP are going to save each Canadian a buck a month) when they diss the CPC for giving each family $100 a month for each child under six. You do the math, A. Which party is giving more to "working class families"?--because there are a lot of these families who would rather have a parent stay home to care for their child(ren) than put him/her/them in daycare...
This post is about the hypocrisy of the NDP and their followers: save Canadians $1.00 a month and you're some kind of savior, whereas the CPC Party, which is giving families with children under six $100 each every month, in Jack and Olivia's convoluted thinking, is not doing enough.
Some kind of sidewinding thinking going on here, A.
A: What was the Liberals' "daycare policy" or the the NDP's? And please don't forget stay-at-home parents in the equation who, you yourself admit, "deserve a break too." The Liberals were in power for THIRTEEN YEARS, for G*d's sake, and as far as I can see, they didn't implement a coherent daycare policy to help any kind of family: either one-income or two-income--though two-income families got more tax breaks--and now they and the NDP are dissing the CPC.
What utter hypocrites.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 28, 2007 10:56 PM (a6lHo)
26
You don't mention those of us who were/are low- to middle-income who decide/d to stay home to care for our own children. (Many of us didn't/don't have X amount of dollars to spend, but we made/have made the choice anyway.) There are more of us than you think...
I agree there are many families like yours (low- to mid-income, stay-at-home parent), but there's not nearly as many of you as there are low-income single parents. As a rough estimate, go here and play with the drop down menu. You'll see that, if we define "low income" as $20,000, there are about 200,000 married and common-law families (with kids 18 and under) that qualify, compared to about 330,000 single parent households (at $30K, it's still 360K two-parent families vs. 485K single-parent families). So, the biggest single chunk of "low-income" families is still single parents, for whom a "national child care plan" that involves subsidized day care would be a huge help and for whom a "national child care plan" that involves $100/month back is of very little help.
Which party is giving more to "working class families"?--because there are a lot of these families who would rather have a parent stay home to care for their child(ren) than put him/her/them in daycare...
And how many of these working class families who, prior to the CCTB, required two incomes to survive can now afford to have a parent stay at home to care for the kids now that they get $100 per head per month? I'm willing to bet none.
As for these working class families who, prior to the CCTB, already had a parent stay at home to care for the kids, well, they're clearly already scraping by somehow (in terms of child care supervision, at least). Kudos to them; their sacrifices are heroic. As I said earlier, I absolutely support a break for these families (maybe in the form of a higher personal income cut-off for a zero-tax rate).
What was the Liberals' "daycare policy" or the the NDP's? And please don't forget stay-at-home parents in the equation who, you yourself admit, "deserve a break too." The Liberals were in power for THIRTEEN YEARS, for G*d's sake, and as far as I can see, they didn't implement a coherent daycare policy to help any kind of family: either one-income or two-income--though two-income families got more tax breaks--and now they and the NDP are dissing the CPC.
I agree the Liberals' plan (or lack thereof) did little to improve child care in Canada. I'm not defending them; I'm taking issue with the Tory plan, which also is going to do little to improve child care in Canada. Ironically, the NDP plan would have ensured subsidized care for those low income folks who needed it, AND given low-income stay-at-home parents their tax break too (since they're for lowering taxes on all low-income persons).
Posted by: A at January 29, 2007 10:48 AM (0pX37)
27
I agree that the ATM fee thing is mostly grandstanding by Layton, who is scraping the bottom of the barrel, public support-wise. But this comment caught my eye and reminded me of the bigger picture:
"with the lack of competition in the banking industry in Canada, no bank feels the need to eliminate the fees to attract customers, and so cause all the banks to follow suit..."
I think we should scrap the bank act tomorrow, period. Is there any ordinary consumer (who doesn't work for or heavily invest in stocks of banks) who is well-served by the total lack of competition in Canadian banking? The Canadian banking system's most effective role these days is transferring wealth from consumers and small businesses to bank executives and stockholders. In Canada, bank stockholders trump bank customers every time.
I'd open the whole system up tomorrow to any serious foreign bank that wanted to come in. I think most bank customers couldn't care less whose name is on the sign outside as long as they think they're being treated as a customer and not a sheep to be shorn.
Posted by: Larry at January 29, 2007 02:44 PM (XshwI)
28
"U.S. and British banks do not charge for these services."
thats a bullshit statement... I've lived and banked in all three countries, the fee structures are different and you get dinged in different places and in different ways.... but you get dinged all the same...
from my experinece the British banks tend to lump all the fees into a monthly sum and the US Banks just hide them better.
Posted by: Sierra at January 29, 2007 03:34 PM (CHE53)
29
"A" quote
"And how many of these working class families who, prior to the CCTB, required two incomes to survive can now afford to have a parent stay at home to care for the kids now that they get $100 per head per month? I'm willing to bet none. "
Your missing the point "A" and the problem doesn't just affect lower income single income families... Us and say 20 or 30 of our 28~35 friend families in Calgary fell into the category of single income with kids... most have 2 professional degrees, or trades... most of them live in low income or subsidized housing situations, like we did, (ever wonder why thereÂ’s a low income housing shortage in Calgary? is cause all the mid income professional degree/trade families are taking them all up driving up the price)... most are have $10,000 + in credit card debts, not used for luxury items but for diapers, clothing, etc... most hoping that eventually promotions and shifting jobs will allow them to pay that off and maybe in 10 yrs or so collect a down payment for a house together. All of us seeing other similarly aged associates in the double income no kids category, getting far ahead financially with new homes, etc and most planning on never having kids.
most of us can't afford daycare, public or private... private is too expensive and we're not eligible for public assisted daycare. Besides most of us think we can do a better job at teaching OUR kids who are OUR responsibility than a minimum wage worker who primary motivation is financial not social.
the crux is that you can't survive in Canada without 2 incomes. we've tried twice now.. both times we've eventually had to accept positions outside Canada to "recover" from the experiment... we're in Alaska now for a 3 year contract... I make over $80,000/yr with 3 kids as an engineer for the oil industry... moving out of the country allowed us to afford to buy a home... and allows an extra $500/month over our budget that will go to paying off the $30,000 in credit debt we accumulated trying to "make it work" in Calgary for the last 4 years... we're hoping that in 3~5 years we'll be debt free, and a promotion that will allow us to afford a house in Canada and move back... if not, we'll likely officially emigrate to the US and take a position in Houston...
We keep in contact with our friends in Calgary and see them getting ever more and more desperate and hopeless that they will ever be able to "get ahead". Some have looked at the vast improvement we experienced and are now actively looking for professional positions in the US.
the conservative child care plan didn't solve the problem, but is sure helps!!! that extra $100~200/month our friends are getting is just enough for them to balance the budget every month... Income splitting for tax purposes would likely provide a permanent solution... but that falls in the "hell freezes over" catagory
At the end of the day however with the current situation many younger couples who want kids are finding ourselves in a position where we simply can't afford to be "Canadian"
Posted by: Sierra at January 29, 2007 04:26 PM (CHE53)
30
Well said, Sierra. Sorry it's been so tough. But this particular freight train's been speeding down the track for a long time--at least since my family was scraping together a living on one income as we took on the responsibility of our own children's daycare in the early '80s.
Sad situation in Canada--actually, more than sad: assinine, appalling, and lacking in vision. Under years of Liberal governments (and Brian Mulroney's Conservatives were no better: maybe their ties with Power Corp had something to do with their dismal showing) families were both discouraged from having children and, if they did have kids, from caring for them themselves.
Read Mark Steyn's America Alone, the only developed country that has a replacement birthrate to balance its death rate. It is very discouraging to see governments actively working against couples having children, while me-first media images of "the good life" encourage greedy and narcissistic lifestyles. The Libs always were happy to grab the taxes of "working" people, and put absolutely no value on parenting.
What you're describing, Sierra, is the result of years of neglect of families and the needs of families on the part of the Canadian government under the Liberals, with NDP cheerleaders--Olivia and Jack are not exactly family-friendly.
It will take a long time for the CPC to turn our family-hating society around, if it's even possible after too much neglect and too much encouragement of "the good life." 'Too many people wanting EVERYTHING, NOW, AND WHY NOT?
Good luck with your familial enterprise. I've often thought that if the Liberals get back in power, it may be time for my husband and me to leave Canada. It's become a dystopian wasteland, not at all a welcoming or friendly place to be if you've got kids.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 29, 2007 06:56 PM (a5e8R)
31
I don't think I need to mention it, but the reason, of course, why the only way Canadian families can make it financially is to have two incomes, is because of the greed of past governments. The Librano$ come to mind. They didn't want parents to stay home with their kids, because there was no money in it for them.
Parents caring for their own kids actually result in better adjusted and disciplined and more productive children (my apologies to the political correctness police, but it's true), but "so what?" was the Liberal shrug. "No money in it for us to spend on the social engineering needed for our new, Godless Utopia in Canada, so, sorry, folks, we'll actually punish you because your work doesn't pay us in tax revenues. You'll be one of the highest taxed units in Canadian society, in fact. So, moms/dads, get out of the house and do some real work!"
The MSM and the feminist NAC/SOW took up the same refrain, so is it any wonder that families and stay-at-home moms and dads became persona non grata in Canada? And is it any wonder that families with kids are still having trouble making ends meet? Canadian governments have been anti-families and anti-kids for a long time, resulting in a dystopian wasteland, as I mentioned above.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 29, 2007 07:13 PM (a5e8R)
32
I'm interested to know how if the $420mil is calculated.
If I use my account bank's branded ATM machines, I get charged nothing.
If I use another bank's machine, or an unbranded ATM, I get charged $1.25 to $1.50 for the withdrawal. On top of that, my bank charges me an additional $1.50 per transaction as reflected on my statement. That is $3.00 total, whether I withdraw $20 or $200.
I could easily spend $15 per month.
'course, when I use the local LCBO, there are no charges either.
Posted by: john at January 29, 2007 07:37 PM (0Yr25)
33
It's all about choice and convenience.
For instance, I may purchase a product at a grocery store for $X. The same item purchased at a convenience store will cost $X+. Why? Because it is a convenience! Same with ATM fees. I can withdraw from any of my Bank's ATM's across the country with no fee. If I use the stand-alone ones in Malls and other locations, I'm gonna pay. Why? Convenience.
Layton and his dribble-cases should get a life. What next, price controls on bread?
Posted by: Rattfuc at January 30, 2007 10:12 AM (nb5Oj)
34
I think there needs to be some clarification here on the banking fee stuff. I work in a bank as a systems programmer and have learned a few things about the banking sector.
First off, I think the banking sector does need more competition. The bank act does need to remain because it's a key economic policy. It just needs to be tweeked. Other financial institutions should be allowed into product areas that have been traditionaly owned by the chartered banks.
Second, people see bank fees as a way for a bank to make a profit. They are not. They are designed to persuade people against doing costly things for the bank. Having less than $1000 in your account is costly to the bank because we have to have it sitting in the vault in case you want to withraw. If you put more than $1000 in the bank they can now give some of it to your neighbor as a mortgage. This is key to the economy. The less money available for loans means less economic development, less jobs. If business or home owners can't get loans the economy will stagnate. That's why we have a bank act. To facilitate the loaning of money between depositors and borrowers.
Currently wise consumers, even those with less than $1000, can work it so they don't pay fees. PC Banking is an excellent idea.
I get the feeling those in the NDP have never talked to an economist. They have never taken the time to understand how banks, goverment, and currency works.
Posted by: Fritz at February 01, 2007 11:11 AM (gtzil)
35
Fritz I'm not too knowledgable about banks but ur idea that banks have to keep every cent of every persons account under 1000 dallor is not true. I think (and I think its in the Banking Act) that banks have to keep a percentage of money on hand that is related to the total amount of money that they have deposited into the bank.
If you allow more competition into the banking arena, eg. foreign banks, you also allow the laws of that country's bank to influeance our country eg. Patroit Act
Banks are a business. Busineses make a profit. More of a profit the better.
I agree with u 100% that people can work it so they do not have to pay high service charges, but lower charges.
Posted by: Jeff at February 01, 2007 02:37 PM (RhlVj)
36
Jeff, I don't think you understand what I was saying.
The law does state that banks do have to maintain a certian "cash reserve" level. It is not tied to individual accounts. It's tied to assets as a whole. This was setup because of the problems of the depression of the 1930's. I forget the current level set by the feds. It's something like 2 or 3 percent of total assets. So if that bank has a total of 500 million in deposits, at the reserve rate is 2%, we need to have 10 million sitting in a vault just in case.
We (I speak as a bank employee) do the math and figure out what the threshold works out to on an individual account basis. I know becuase I helped write some of the programs that do some of this math (me and few hundred other programmers). This same data analysis allows the bank to figure out what types of accounts are profitable. People who keep a balance under $1000 and do lots of transactions are definately not profitible. We have entire departments with lots of people devoted to this kind of analysis. You can make a career out of it, honestly.
Bank fees are a handy way to encourage more profitible behavour on customers. The other way is by paying you next to nothing on interest.
Posted by: Frtiz at February 02, 2007 03:49 PM (9e/YQ)
37
Funny the similarlities between both the banks and the oil companies sometimes...
Yea Frtiz I agree your right... the personal banking protion of the buisness is probably marginal... the fees banks charge probably reflects accuratly the cost of services. plus a small profit. What most people don't get is that the massive profit banks post comes primarily from thier OTHER services... to corporations and in the investment markets. PC likely offers their services at a net loss in order to get people to buy more groceries from them.. The question begs however... should other banks operate their consumer service divisions at a loss counting it as a "cost of doing buisness" to have access to the more lucrative services.
Oil companies have a similar situation... the business of refining and retail sales of gasoline is extremely marginal... most gasoline retailers make more profit selling coffee than they do selling gasoline... supermarkets like PC and Safeway actually sell gasoline at a LOSS solely to gain a market share advantage in their groceries. The big profits oil companies post, (dwarfed by the bank profits I should note) almnost entirely from the Explorations sectors. which find and produce oil and sell it to the refiners and retailers at market prices... SOME companies, (Imperial, Shell, Petro-canada, Husky) which own production, refineries, and retail stations in theory COULD post a loss in the retail divisions and sell gasoline for less counting on thier production sectors to make up for the loss... but again that likely isn't a fair buisness practice as it would put any indepentants and franchise owener immediatly out of business.
Posted by: Sierra at February 05, 2007 02:17 PM (CHE53)
Ward Churchill story races to a conclusion
The story of Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor facing dismissal for academic fraud, is quickly coming to a conclusion. In 30 days, a decision will be taken.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:04 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 684 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Look out. If he FINALLY gets thrown out of Colorado, he might head north.
Posted by: iowavette at January 26, 2007 03:37 PM (0p4xh)
2
Might?????? ...
DOCUMENTARY: Ward Churchill and Roland Chrisjohn will be in Halifax tomorrow to launch a new Audio-Documentary on First Nations and Colonialism in Canada called “Hoping Against Hope”. Starts at 6:30 p.m. in the Ondaatje Auditorium, Marion McCain Bldg., 6135 University Avenue.
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=6948&sc=97
Posted by: c_B at January 26, 2007 05:31 PM (SpWuw)
3
Uh what is this post about?
It is a rambling diatribe of hatred equal to the alleged criminal mentioned.
But I'm confused here... what did he do wrong? I mean you can get any academic on plagarism and you know that? You can screw any student on plagerism easily.
It is like trying to take down a cop for taking out their gun too many times.
Easy kids stuff.
This is retribution because those people that ran 911 operation want a lid kept on it and they don't like people prying into it.
Your post doesn't even mention what his crime was.. why not?
Better to not talk about it?
Posted by: real conservative at January 26, 2007 07:41 PM (EZLLA)
4
realconservative: How about renaming yourself realdumba**?
Plagiarism is very serious and please don't allege that "you can get any academic on plagarism and you know that..." That's a preposterous statement.
You ARE confused: "What did he [Ward Churchill] do wrong?" He lied, real, he lied.
Maybe in your universe that's all in a day's work, but not in mine, not in most people's, and certainly not in the lives of the professors I know.
As for your comment, "Your [SJ's] post doesn't even mention what his crime was.. why not?"
Here it is, AGAIN. What're you on, real? Lost your glasses?
[begin quote]
The University of Colorado's investigative committee determined that Churchill had plagiarized the work of Professor Fay G. Cohen of Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, and republished it in a book edited by his wife Annette Jaimes....After the Jaimes book was published, Cohen asked lawyers at her university to assess her rights in the matter. An internal Dalhousie University report concluded that "he article Â… is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism"... Churchill says that he has not committed plagiarism because he never said he wrote the essay. The CU investigative committee found Churchill's defense "implausible," observing that Churchill did claim authorship of the essay in his official Faculty Report of Professional Activity for the year 1991, followed by the parenthetical notation "for the Institute for Natural Progress." The committee concluded that Churchill's involvement in plagiarizing Cohen's essay constitutes an act of research misconduct.
[end quote]
There you have it, real; Ward Churchill's plagairism is "an act of research misconduct." You need be confused no more: What he did wrong was lie by plagiarizing another professor's work, then denying it. This constitutes "research misconduct." He's been caught red-handed. Too bad he had to call attention to himself back in 2001...
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 27, 2007 11:09 PM (nIvAg)
January 25, 2007
Perley Holmes, Stephane Dion supporter and alleged drug dealer, triggers union audit
The CBC is reporting more detail about the arrest of Perley Edmund Holmes, the BC union official arrested in the US on charges of possession of cocaine. In particular, there will be an audit to see if money was used illegally. That could be very interesting for this supporter of Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
04:59 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I do find Dion's yanking of Holmes from the Web site to be curious.
However, maybe they just didn't want to deal with the embarrassment of seeing an alleged drug dealer giving Dion such a big thumbs-up. Someone panicked instead of wanting to endure the necessary "not guilty by association" defence once a link to the Web page spread across the blogosphere.
Maybe it was the embarrassment they were trying to avoid and, in the process, they caught the attention of an "angry" investigative conservative. lol
I mean, I'm one guy who has put Dion under the microscope a lot on my blog over the last few weeks. So I guess I feel it necessary to play a bit of devil's advocate on this one.
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at January 25, 2007 09:12 PM (+B+fR)
2
There seems to be a number of seedy connections to Citoyen Dion. Of course there is Mr. Smith and now we have Mr. Holmes. And wasn't there a connection to the anti-semite pamphlets at the leadership convention? Could it be that Dion isn't quite as dissconnected to the Cretien/Martin scandals as he would like everyone to believe. Even if his dog's name is Kyoto.
I know, lets ask Cherniak, he seems to know almost everything. And he is a lawyer, after all.
Posted by: Horny toad at January 25, 2007 10:48 PM (UZmPH)
3
Trying to tie Dion's reputation to Liberal corruption is easier said than done. He's got a good reputation and people already cringe at efforts to tie Dion to past scandals, even though he was there through it all.
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at January 25, 2007 11:22 PM (+B+fR)
4
Boy, this blog has really gone downhill.
It used to focus on discussing important conservative issues.
Lately it has been one partisan smear after another.
There isn't a politician out there -- conservative or liberial -- who would not have removed Holmes endorsement from their website. To pretend otherwise in order to cast aspersions is dishonest and smarmy.
This seems to be a perfect case study of what happens to blogs when they become "professional" and focus more on drawing traffic than writing quality posts.
There are too many good conservative blogs out there. This one is delisted.
Posted by: altacan at January 26, 2007 04:16 AM (uvT7t)
5
In the world of partisan politics you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Take the link down and he must be hiding something. Leave the link up and he would have been accused of being proud of an endorsement from an accused drug dealer.
As others have pointed out -- attempting to tarnish Dion's reputation, which even conservatives such as Andrew Coyne admire, reflects more on the mud slingers than the target.
Why not focus on Dion's legion actual problems than imaginary ones?
When will conservatives learn that voters do not respond to campaigns of "We are not the Liberals" and focus on substantive policy issues instead. Returning to Coyne, "After a year of Conservative rule, it is now clear, conservatism isn't just dying--it's dead. And it's the Conservatives who killed it."
Posted by: bob at January 26, 2007 04:46 AM (uvT7t)
6
Sorry Steve, but you can't have it both ways.
You claim that "even I admit [the Holmes drug scandal]has nothing to do with them."
But you follow this up by speculating that "Holmes' support for Dion went farther than just an [sic] endorsement and a $100 donation."
If you think Dion did nothing wrong then why bring him into it at all? If you believe that by pulling the endorsement from the website is an indication of Dion's guilt, then have the guts to say so.
But you can't sit on the fence pretending that you aren't insinuating Dion is guilty of something when you very clearly suggesting just that.
Posted by: teddy at January 26, 2007 05:09 AM (uvT7t)
7
Put the shoe on the other foot--remember the smear campaign the Liberals fomented over a Reform supporter who turned out to be a white supremacist? Just change the incident and the Liberals are afraid of others acting like them.
Dion is afraid--afraid he will be treated like they have treated others.
Posted by: George at January 26, 2007 06:38 AM (eCHQ/)
8
Criminals know what the Liberal Party is like so of course they're attracted to it - prisoners are solid Liberal voters, so it only makes sense that anyone who might get caught would support Liberals too.
Posted by: Philanthropist at January 26, 2007 05:28 PM (7pBiD)
9
Where I "live", 75% of the working population work for DIRECTLY for GOVERNMENT. We have TWO Lieberal MPs', because they are the "vote-for-me hospital-workers-and-schoolteachers-and-we'll keep-your-jobs-SACRED" kind of guys. The Police admit that Millions upon millions of illegal narcotics are consumed here monthly. So...do the math. Who doin' all the CRACK up here? Lieberal-voting civil servants. Why is it that the Politicians, Judges, Cops, Lawyers, Doctors, Teachers, and Civil Servants NEVER have to piss into a drug test bottle, like the lowly proles and plebes who drive the trucks, swing the hammers for the railroad, or drive tree planters around, etc etc.
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at January 29, 2007 10:01 AM (GN3Xe)
10
Hello!Â
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but here is the story of my dog called Shandy.
He was my favourite pet and he was very lively, lots of fun and very obedient. His main
passion in life was to be taken for a long walk, culminating with a big run out in his favourite
park. I would try to take him on this walk everyday, weather permitting. The park itself
was about three miles away from our house. What do you think?
Wow, I've found the same to be true too! Where did you get that at? Â
Bye, bye - Wendy!Â
how I make money with paid surveys
Posted by: wendywonder at February 06, 2007 10:20 PM (3G6db)
I am not authorized to look at what Stephane Dion's drug dealing friend Perley Edmund Holmes has said about him
A union leader, Perley Edmund Holmes, has been arrested in connection to the trafficking of over $4 million in cocaine. Perley Edmund Holmes came out strongly for Stephane Dion during the Liberal Party leadership campaign. Of course, Stephane Dion can't control what his supporters do. But the Dion people were quick off the mark to expunge the website of Holmes' endorsement. What's wrong with these people? Have they never heard of the Google cache? By doing that, all they've done is pique my interest.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:08 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 669 words, total size 5 kb.
1
"Of course, Stephane Dion can't control what his supporters do."
True, but he can to some extent control who is supporters ARE. With the Liberals so shamefully soft on crime, it's no wonder that a fair portion of their supporters would be drug dealers and other criminals.
Posted by: Attila at January 25, 2007 02:13 PM (1k2og)
2
Nothing like a bit of insurance,Support the Liberals just in case you get caught.
Posted by: ian at January 25, 2007 02:19 PM (KqGpk)
3
If I was a drug dealer and criminal, I'd support the Liberals without question.
Posted by: Jonny_eh at January 25, 2007 02:26 PM (ZQ7AG)
4
While I share your enthusiasm for the Conservative/conservative cause, I do not share the same enthusiasm for this tactic. It is beneath you to hint at Dion's guilt by association. Just because the Liberals/liberals use dirty tricks, name calling & smear campaigns does not mean we have to sink to their same level. Don't you have enough grist with Dion's demonstrable ineptitude? And by that, I don't mean that his English is not clear enough ...
Posted by: Gabby in QC at January 25, 2007 02:52 PM (kFO9x)
5
Oh, man. If you are going to make an allegation, make one; but this kind of post is nothing but bush-league tabloid journalism.
Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada supported Ted Morton in the Alberta election. I suppose we should now be looking for links between Ted and Islamic Terrorists, right?
Afterall, you will recall Mr. Soharwardy as the one who wrote in 2000 that the what the Israelies have done to Palestine is "worse than the Holocaust".
This is the guy who called Israleli bombings in Lebanon an act of genocide -- as with the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The guy who accused Christian missionaries of kidnapping muslim children in Indonesia after the Tsuanmi. And more and more.
I keep saying "Steve, you are better than this"; but I've said it so many times that I'm starting to think that you really aren't. Maybe you really are just a partisan hack who tries to present himself as a balanced observer.
Posted by: bob at January 25, 2007 03:00 PM (uvT7t)
6
This is the lead story now at National Newswatch.
Posted by: Joanne (TB) at January 25, 2007 03:09 PM (7V4a8)
7
Hmmm.
Anyone ever find the owner of the coke on Paulie Martin's ship?
I seem to recall another prominant Liberal supporter from BC also charged for drug trafficing.
Drugs, theft, money laundering, death threats and fraud.
What a party.
How could anyone not want to be a Librano supporter.
These guys make the Mofia look honest.
Posted by: Durward at January 25, 2007 03:56 PM (VXjbm)
8
Everything about Janke is either you are good (Conservative) or bad ( any other party).
Being a good human being has nothing to do with party affiliation. Janke doesn`t get it. As my father as told me, don`t expect much of an "/$hole.
Posted by: Socialist at January 25, 2007 08:13 PM (AnZ7a)
9
What is it about liberals and coke anyways? I mean Paul Martin's ship had what a few hundred pounds stashed in it when found in Cape Breton.
Then there is group action and Bedard's accusation that they were coke dealers too...
am I onto something here or is this just too many co-incidences and nothing to see here?
Posted by: Real Conservative at January 25, 2007 08:18 PM (EZLLA)
10
For me, this story does have some relevance to what liberalism and the Liberal Party has become, not just because of the possibility of questionable funds finding their way into Liberal Party hands, although there is a history of that. (Welcome back Cote! Welcome back Basi...)
Who is the Liberal Party attracting as members? How many young Liberal resolutions have been tabled and passed calling for the legalization of drugs? Prostitution? More than just the party of moral relativism, many people are now being attracted to join the Liberals because they believe it is the party which best represents their (currently illegal) interests. With a proven, nationally advertized track record of criminal wrongdoing through Adscam and their members promoting policies of "if it feels good, do it (legalize it)"; why should anyone be surprised that drug dealers would be pushing the Liberal Party?
Posted by: Steve at January 25, 2007 08:20 PM (V1lmy)
11
Perley Holmes is also a big supporter of the Campbell liberals here in B.C., he sent a newsletter out to his members saying they should all support Campbell to get rid of the NDP. I do know a lot of Iron Workers left local 97 disgusted with him.
Posted by: at January 26, 2007 11:36 PM (jiYLm)
12
Of course you'll remember, Karlheinz Schreiber is still a free man. And Brian Mulroney is still an unconvicted perjurer.
Posted by: Derek at January 31, 2007 11:39 AM (0fM5W)
13
boat loans boat loans
Posted by: boat loans at February 27, 2007 01:29 AM (PcGJc)
14
hello
Posted by: artur@gmail.com at May 06, 2007 06:16 AM (wgiE3)
15
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: how can men last longer during sex at May 30, 2007 09:45 PM (rHHMC)
16
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: how to last longer at sex at May 30, 2007 11:34 PM (s1YHo)
17
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: how to last longer in bed at May 31, 2007 01:29 AM (P5oCb)
18
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: how to last longer in sex at May 31, 2007 03:12 AM (a8qhc)
19
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: how to make sex last longer at May 31, 2007 04:57 AM (mfcLC)
20
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: last longer at sex at May 31, 2007 06:31 AM (VEP4j)
21
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: last longer at May 31, 2007 10:03 AM (oLT18)
22
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: ways to last longer in bed at May 31, 2007 11:36 AM (K23BO)
23
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: free penis enlargement exercises at May 31, 2007 01:14 PM (jxMbA)
24
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: free penis enlargement at May 31, 2007 03:03 PM (smfPB)
25
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: penis enlargement pills at May 31, 2007 05:26 PM (SwZra)
26
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: penis enlargement pump at May 31, 2007 08:25 PM (WLaMb)
27
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: penis enlargement at May 31, 2007 09:56 PM (2WLIA)
28
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: real penis enlargement at May 31, 2007 11:34 PM (xELQj)
29
herbals@durgs.com
Posted by: alternative cialis at June 01, 2007 12:08 PM (QEKtZ)
Stephen Harper, Canadian
A dad taking his boy to an exciting Leafs game.
It doesn't get more Canadian than that.
Bet Stephen Harper doesn't feel short-changed in not having French citizenship.
Postscript: For those who are wondering, it's not my video. Some people think it is. Someone sent it to me and I put it up. And Simon captures it well -- how a man spends his time speak volumes about his character. Stephen Harper is well educated, but has not had the love of the Game learned out of him, so to speak. And he's trying to do things with his son that will do more to build his son's character than all the political debates that Pierre Trudeau apparently had with his kids (according to Justin). Things like loyalty to the team, the importance of shared experience, how people from many walks of life still have so much that can bind them together. Things all sons can learn from their fathers, not just fathers who are prime ministers.
I'm somewhat disappointed that I had to write all this -- I would have thought it was obvious what I was getting at. But some people think this has to do with being a Leafs fan. Oh well. Too subtle, I suppose.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:44 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.
1
re: the music for the video. Google Gary Glitter and Rock and Roll part 0ne.
Posted by: Fergy at January 25, 2007 11:21 AM (95Bg9)
2
File this one as a big "So What". So he went to a Leafs game. So?
I went to a Canadiens' game in December. Does this confer on me some political advantage?
Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 25, 2007 11:55 AM (bIC9p)
3
Did you notice how cold and unemotional PM Harper was when a goal was scored? He didn't raise his hands up in the air at all, like those around him. He's one of the best Prime Ministers this country has, and if people were honest, they would admit it, rather than stubbornly not be able to admit that they were wrong.
Posted by: anonymous at January 25, 2007 12:03 PM (DO1b6)
4
I envy Harper. He had the ultimate boys night out when he and a few no-name backbenchers flew on the fancy government jet from Ottawa to Edmonton for an Oiler playoff game and then got back on the jet and flew back to Ottawa. A good time was had by all. He's really really canadian.
Posted by: Gritpatriot at January 25, 2007 01:59 PM (BX3iS)
5
MAn, that is the lamest video of all. I think Harper eats doughnuts. I can hardly wait for "ONE MAN" to be for Tim Hortons. I hope they do a Tim Hortons for Harper video. That would be really impressive and would undoubtedly sway the electorate.
Posted by: anon at January 25, 2007 02:02 PM (BX3iS)
6
Hey Steve,
That music is by Gary Glitter. You know, the guy who has been convicted on child pornography charges in the UK and is now listed as a sex offender. He was later evicted from both Cambodia and Vietnam after being charged with child sex abuse charges in those countries. The judge said that Glitter's "appetite for child porn was, to be blunt, voracoius."
Given you association of Dion with cocaine addicts, shouldn't we be questioning why Harper's supporters link him with a child porn freak?
Posted by: bob at January 25, 2007 03:05 PM (uvT7t)
7
The Leafs suck, and clearly, so does Harper.
Posted by: anon at January 25, 2007 03:13 PM (PO0oP)
8
Regardless of Gary Glitters criminal activities, that music is probably played in every professional franchise arena in North America. There are very few songs that will get a crowd worked up like that one.
The fact that the Prime Minister is a Leafs fan is hard to take though.
Posted by: Pat at January 25, 2007 05:24 PM (j4tnX)
9
I think we may have found the Liberal Party commercial to be aired everywhere in Canada outside the GTA next election. ;-)
Posted by: CalgaryGrit at January 25, 2007 05:38 PM (5yvvP)
10
Harper's time off is well his time off.
What teams he watches or enjoys and how he spends his quality time with his son is nobody's business but his.
The fact that you see him out in public sans some big power entourage following him around and drawing unnecesary attention shows much about the man to his credit.
The fact that he can ably handle the publicity and at the same time ease his son's discomfort at being panned on camera speaks volumes as a father.
The problem with too many folks is that they're out to capture at all costs the negative and thrust it down the throats of others in the guise of being in the know.
The truth is that they are nothing more than small minds playing small games of 'look at me'
Canadians should take a good look at their country and where it has been headed for a long time now.
Then they might realise that Harper has a genuine caring for this country and is the best man for the job at this time.
And when he is no longer the best choice,I'm sure he will be the first to realize it and graciously step down.
If not I'm sure his wife will tell him.
Posted by: Simon at January 25, 2007 06:27 PM (gPxF3)
11
I think we may have found the Liberal Party commercial to be aired everywhere in Canada outside the GTA next election. ;-)
Which also helps to explain why we probably won't see Dion at a Habs game. 
The problem with too many folks is that they're out to capture at all costs the negative and thrust it down the throats of others in the guise of being in the know.
The truth is that they are nothing more than small minds playing small games of 'look at me'
Simon - I particularly agee with this part of your comment.
The problem with too many folks is that they're out to capture at all costs the negative and thrust it down the throats of others in the guise of being in the know.
The truth is that they are nothing more than small minds playing small games of 'look at me'
Simon - I particularly agee with this part of your comment.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 26, 2007 01:13 PM (ocKcD)
12
PM Harper is so far ahead of most Liberals in smarts,class and intelligence ,that they can only heap scorn on him.I can only feel sorry for them as they are missing out on one of the truly great men of our time.It is a sad commentary on how low some Canadians have sunk,that they will vote for corruption and thieves,over honesty & caring.
Posted by: bert at January 26, 2007 10:37 PM (jIXdB)
13
It is trying to have a PM who isn't a stuck up rich kid from Quebec isn't it?
Normal Canadians are just awful.
----
sorry - sarcasm is one of my main flaws
Posted by: Zonomar at January 26, 2007 11:38 PM (iiaaU)
Stephane Dion rebuilds the Liberal Party...the old Liberal Party
Stephane Dion is quoted as saying he thought key figures in the Sponsorship Scandal were unfairly punished when they were banned forever from the Liberal Party. It is not the only example of Stephen Dion rebuilding the Liberal Party to look like the old Liberal Party. What has not been reported is that a scandal-tainted figure from the Paul Martin government and an early supporter of Dion's leadership bid, David Smith of Pontiac, has a position in Dion's office.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
01:44 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 840 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Steve, He is now retracting .... backpeddling .... errr flip flopping.
Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at January 25, 2007 05:29 AM (Xiqvi)
2
The party of pigs...
Posted by: David at January 25, 2007 08:41 AM (mmEsI)
3
Seems like the Lieberals have got themselves Cretin's corruption and Martin's Mr Dithers all in one package. THey should be happy.
Posted by: Pissedoff at January 25, 2007 10:47 AM (9l/9b)
4
If you were to listen to Don Newman and James Travers yesterday on Politics, you'd think it was all a bunch of huff and puff manufactured by the Conservatives and the Bloc. As I mentioned on my blog today, Travers thinks Liberal corruption happened in a galaxy far, far away and should never be discussed ever again.
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at January 25, 2007 11:13 AM (+B+fR)
5
FYI, Smith is back in the Public Service and Brazeau is about to sue the Crown and you!!
Posted by: at January 25, 2007 11:18 AM (jYZIJ)
6
FYI, Smith is back in the Public Service and Brazeau is about to sue the Crown and you!!
??
Anyone can file a lawsuit. On what basis do you think Brazeau could succeed? I sure don't see any defamation on Steve's post. On second thought, don't bother responding. Anyone can comment anonymously. That takes no courage. So, if you don't have the courage to identify yourself, it seems unlikely in the extreme that you would have anything worth responding to.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 25, 2007 12:56 PM (ANILb)
7
Simon,s Musings
It would be very interesting to see the gov't cached Abotech Affair resurface with an in depth inquiry that I am sure would bring to light a lot of skeletons from the closet.
Posted by: Simon at January 25, 2007 06:02 PM (gPxF3)
8
Simon
You are absolutely right. Eventhough the "Abotech Affair" happened under the Liberal reign and a Liberal MP at the time, the Conservative Government will be negotiating with Brazeau to make sure sure the skeletons do stay in the closet.
Trust me.
Posted by: Socialist at January 25, 2007 07:29 PM (AnZ7a)
9
Speaking of skeletons in the closet: Anyone else for "Danse Macabre"?
I can hear Dion's bones making music as Chretien, channelling Trudeau, pulls the puppet strings. Out of the graves come all the ghouls...and it's not even Hallowe'en.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 25, 2007 10:51 PM (ncneW)
10
Shallow graves...which is all the Canadian "justice system" can muster...
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 25, 2007 10:53 PM (ncneW)
11
I don't see a problem with David Smith doing work in Stephan Dion's office. Smith has shown an intuitive abilty to grasp Liberal procedures; if the Liberals form the next government, he could help them develop new funding initiatives, and so on.
The Liberals just need to convince Canadian voters to feel the funding, instead of trying to trace it or put a dollar figure on it. Reasonable people know that you can't put a monetary value on what the Liberals mean to the country. Because what's the dollar value of say, national unity? Or women, or the environment? Aboriginals?
Go through the various links to the Abotech story that Janke broke -- it takes a while -- and then ask yourself this: What, exactly, is the problem with David Smith having a job in Stephan Dion's office? Seems to me it's a good fit.
And at least Smith wasn't sticking his nose where it didn't belong the way SJ did when he was trying to stir up trouble.
Posted by: Libby Raoul at January 26, 2007 04:20 AM (FENyK)
12
Libby Raoul,
Surely, you jest: "good fit"? "feel the funding"? "SJ...stirring up trouble"?
The Liberals have stirred up enough trouble for themselves that it's taking numerous bloggers and heavy hitters in the sleuthing department to sniff it out.
The trouble the LPC have stirred up involves the rest of us Canadians and OUR money. They live high off the hog, bending rules and laws to suit their nefarious schemes, and expect us peasants--for that's how the Libs see anyone who isn't THEM--to lie down as they pass and bleat "Walk all over me. I don't mind!"
Well, those days are past. Thanks, Steve, for "the trouble" you're stirring up. Keep it up. The LPC has a lot of 'splaining to do.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 26, 2007 07:47 AM (VA3mZ)
13
To Brian
I write anonymously because I am a Public Servant who used to work with Brazeau. I am pissed off at what Marshall did to Brazeau and at Janke for defamation . Brazeau did the same thing as everyone else at CAC and he paid dearly.
Brazeau is extremely smart, and let me assure all of you, it will be his turn very soon.
As for you Janke, when you have it in for someone, you won't let go of the bone. Examples are Frisch, Abotech, Sheehan etc.
You are pathetic.
Posted by: at January 26, 2007 08:43 AM (jYZIJ)
14
NonnyMoose said:
As for you Janke, when you have it in for someone, you won't let go of the bone. Examples are Frisch, Abotech, Sheehan etc.
And this is bad because . . . ?
Posted by: Scott McClare at January 26, 2007 11:30 AM (ld8Wm)
15
I write anonymously because I am a Public Servant who used to work with Brazeau. I am pissed off at what Marshall did to Brazeau and at Janke for defamation . Brazeau did the same thing as everyone else at CAC and he paid dearly.
Brazeau is extremely smart, and let me assure all of you, it will be his turn very soon.
As for you Janke, when you have it in for someone, you won't let go of the bone. Examples are Frisch, Abotech, Sheehan etc.
You are pathetic.
I was hoping to be wrong, but I wasn't. You didn't have anything worth responding to.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 26, 2007 01:06 PM (ocKcD)
16
As a follow up to my two posts, I didn't mean to have my criticism of anonymous commenters to include those like David, Socialist, or batb, who are anonymous to us, but apparently not to Steve. My criticism was only meant to cover those who, like our unknown commenter, can't even be bothered to sign a nom-de-plume.
And, my criticism was too broad. Our unknown commenter (UC for short) may well have valid reasons for wanting total anonymity - perhaps fear of jeopardizing professional or personal relationships. If so, I apologize. However, UC does comment like (s)he is a Brazeau sycophant who is nevertheless ashamed of the association. If that is the reason, I also understand. I'd be ashamed of the association too. But in my mind that wouldn't justify the seeming discourtesy of total anonymity.
By the way, I am not taking back my opinion that UC didn't have anything worth responding to, merely modifying it. UC didn't have anything to say that would further a reasonable discussion. Every other poster here has. However, UC's comments have entertainment value. For that I thank him/her.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 26, 2007 03:24 PM (ANILb)
January 24, 2007
A worthy cause
Help Shane get his birthday wish.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
07:23 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thanks for posting this. I'll definitely send a card. :-)
Posted by: anonymous at January 24, 2007 10:05 PM (DO1b6)
2
Thanks for spreading the word, Steve
Posted by: Andrew at January 24, 2007 10:15 PM (hBnhp)
3
I'll definitely send Shane a birthday card for his 8th birthday, and I will pray for him, too. There is nothing more powerful than intercessory prayer.
A boy from my area died last year at the age of 13 from a long battle with cancer and asked people from all over to send him cards. He wanted the number of cards to match the number of days he'd battled the big "C." He got hundreds, from all over the world.
I hope Shane gets a pile, too! God bless him.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 25, 2007 09:56 AM (OF7ki)
January 23, 2007
Catholic Carnival #103
A carnival of thoughtful Catholic bloggers.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:41 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Cheap Jerseys - Reebok & Nike NFL Jerseys Sale
Posted by: Cheap Panthers jerseys at November 29, 2012 11:44 AM (wmdzq)
NDP calls for advice on effective blogging
The NDP has started to solicit opinions on how Canada's left-of-centre party should use blogging more effectively as a means of delivering its message.
Funny they should ask, since there is a clear example right now of just how the NDP message is being sabotaged by the current crop of NDP bloggers. It's too bad, because I really want blogging to succeed, regardless of the political views espoused by any particular blogger. I think bloggers for the Conservatives and the Liberals are by and large a decent bunch of bloggers. But the NDP has some serious problems. This is just one of them.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
04:16 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 853 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Tick, tick, tick....
I'm just waiting for McClelland to prove your point by dropping one of his typical posts off here on this blog.
Nobody has done more in the last year to convince me not to vote NDP, than McClelland. The year before it was another NDP blogger/campaign worker. The NDP used to be a real option for me and my family. My sister still votes NDP. Then again she doesn't read blogs. Yet.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at January 23, 2007 05:23 PM (F47cQ)
2
I have to agree with you, Steve, but there is an inherent problem with your suggestions.
We are all sometimes judged by the company we keep and so it would make sense for the NDP to distance themselves from people such as BobbyMac.
Still, they want to align with someone. They need input from bloggers who put forth intelligent, thoughtful ideas backed by evidence and science. Who is that? Why, it's the conservatives!
Now you see the problem? It's their own ideology that attracts folks who have little grasp on reality. I think it's great that you're trying to help them out but I really think you'd make better use of your time emptying the ocean with a cup.
Posted by: Rob R at January 23, 2007 06:46 PM (y9Fs6)
3
Steve, I can understand and totally agree with your desire to maintain standards for blogging. It might be better to concentrate on our own (conservative) house though. There are plenty of right-wing bloggers who are no different from, and no better than McClelland.
McClelland himself sounds exactly like some wild-eyed union type -a huge part of the NDP's core support -spouting off in the lunchroom at work. He just happens to have computer skills as well. Let the NDP solve their own problems. They preach about tolerating the intolerable -good. They can have McClelland and his ilk -which should keep them safely away from ever holding real power in this country (and bear in mind that if McC had any say in it -you wouldn't be allowed have a blog -did you read the comments on that thread ?).
It's not like the NDP is the only place we can turn to, to hear an alternative point of view to conservatism.
Posted by: up north at January 23, 2007 07:00 PM (PWM8e)
4
Rob R: I don't believe that intelligent discourse comes only from the right. It might be true, but I hope not.
Up North: True there are bad apples in every bushel. But with the NDP, the worst offenders are also their most visible and powerful members. Among the other groups, the most extreme or immature examples are generally marginalized.
Posted by: Steve Janke at January 23, 2007 07:36 PM (qxal0)
5
C'mon, "up northy". Sure, there are bad conservative blogs, but there aren't any that bad.
Posted by: Matt at January 23, 2007 07:36 PM (lLdex)
6
It is fact that McClelland is hard core NDP and he and his regular comment crowd represent the NDP grassroots.
I liked this comment from the McClelland thread you sampled: "the likes of Dinesh DÂ’souza, Ann Coulter, the KSFO radio crowd and Mark Steyn (to pick a few random turds out of the pit), may well find, to their astonishment, a lamppost or guillotine in their futures".
Let the NDP light shine out of McClelland's blog.
Posted by: anon at January 23, 2007 07:40 PM (526aW)
7
Admirable sentiments on your part, Steve. "Love your neighbour as yourself" is what I'm hearing in your heartfelt desire that all the political parties have blogrolls which both advance their party's policies and also promote the intelligent use of the blogosphere.
I've got to agree with your other posters, however, and say that your thread here is, in Biblical language, "throwing pearls before swine." Now, that's the saying, and I'm NOT suggesting that NDP bloggers are pigs; what I'm suggesting is that some people just refuse to listen to reason or seek help where they need it.
You've made some good suggestions. Now the pearl/ball is in their barnyard/ballpark.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 23, 2007 07:49 PM (IbdTq)
8
Matt, to be honest, I can't point to any one conservative blog -I just don't spend that much time on blogs. I'm confident that Bob, or A, or Thickslab, or some other left-winger that posts here, will be happy to list them for you.
Consider though: If our charming friends at the CBC, the Globe&Mail or the CP were doing an article on bloggers and were pointing out the worst of the lot -who do you think they'd highlight: McClelland in all his glory, or would they cherry-pick comments off of a conservative site like this one ?
We need to be whiter than white -and even then we're going to be criticized for being...white.
P.S. "up northy" ??? Condescending, what ?
Tell you what: I'll forgive you if you show me how to do italics on this site. I hate not being able to do italics. Trust me, they'd improve my posts to the point where you'd think I was...well...down south!
C'mon, be a pal. How do you do 'em ?
Posted by: up north at January 23, 2007 08:47 PM (Vic5x)
9
I'd like to know how to do italics, too.
Matt, be a nice guy...or Steve...or...anyone?
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 23, 2007 11:05 PM (wA+JJ)
10
I'm confident that Bob, or A, or Thickslab, or some other left-winger that posts here, will be happy to list them for you.
They'd point to SDA, DMB and me of course...
Posted by: Richard Evans at January 24, 2007 12:08 AM (Slrc1)
11
Cohen's book is one that is well worth reading. Tough medicine for someone on the left, and Cohen hasnt given up his leftist credintials just that he is firmly rooted in liberal democracy and refuses to make common cause with theocrats and dictators. Who would have thought that position would get your left wing card torn up.
But Steve I have to ask, why the obsession with he who shall not be named. Why bother shining a light on him. I think living with his own fetid ideas is best. But hey your call, I guess I can continue to keep tabs on that part of the world without ever having to give them my traffic.
Posted by: Stephen at January 24, 2007 04:45 AM (PizTn)
12
"I want to see Canadian blogging succeed for all bloggers whether they are blogging about the left or the right or about their cats."
I am not sure what "success" looks like for "blogging," Steve - it seems sort of like hoping that 'puttering around the garden' or 'reading for enjoyment' will succeed; activities that one undertakes for personal gratification and social interaction. However defined, it does not seem a necessary condition for any one blog to succeed that any other particular blog succeeed - no doubt you, Bob Tarantino, and Scott Tribe (to select a spectrum of opinion) will continue as long as there is personal satisfaction in it for each of you, whether the NDP ever finds a way of using blogs to promote their ideas or not, and whether they dissassociate from McClelland or not. I have to agree with a prior post - why the fixation on that particular individual?
Posted by: Deaner at January 24, 2007 12:28 PM (AkxV9)
13
I am not sure I entirely agree with you Deaner. I think as some blogs mature, and move from the hobby to mainstream, they will begin to supplant the MSM and in effect become the clearing house for news and political discourse as opposed to enjoyable reading or gardening, etc. Why simply 'read the news' when you can discuss in real time the ‘issues of our time’. So I guess ‘success’ would be the triumph of the blog as the dominate news source. This will become even more a reality as more and more people make use of mobile technology.
Who is McClelland?
Posted by: missing link at January 24, 2007 01:00 PM (ZyldS)
14
I agree with Missing Link and think the process of blogs supplanting the msm is well underway. I think of the msm outlets as being stringers for the bloggers. They have little to no credibility with me or anyone I know because they've sold out.
I personally think D'Souza is a twit, as I do Coulter and others. That's because being a supporter of the CPC makes me lean more towards the Dems in the US than the GOP. Whatever, everyone is entitled to their views.
I doubt that the NDP is able to organize a blogging team that would have credibility, partly because of their platform and partly because they seem to be unable to even organize their thoughts and message as a political party. They have had some good ideas over the years but everyone has good ideas.
I agree with you, Steve, that if the NDP had any smarts at all, they would police the use of their (likely copyrighted) logo on blogs and elsewhere. The foul language, redneck attitudes and obvious lack of interest in differing views will likely cause certain blogs across the political spectrum to become obscure. In the case of the one mentioned above, I visited it once or twice and had no desire to return.
Debate and argument are great. Knee jerk ideology, childish swearing, personal attacks and bigotry are just counterproductive, imho.
Posted by: Selma at January 24, 2007 01:24 PM (BEnxZ)
15
I can't see the NDP ever policing McC and his ilk for the simple reason that the NDP is generally against policing. Who here has not heard the term "jackboot tactics" uttered by some dipper in relation to something our police or military has done ? The only policing the NDP is willing to do, is to anyone who disagrees with their platform. I highly doubt you'll ever hear McC demanding more bucks for the military, speaking out against abortion, calling for harsher sentences for violent criminals (unless he can invent evidence that they vote conservative) or suggesting anything else that crosses the party line. He can be as odious and ignorant as he likes, but as long as he toes that line, they'll never step on him.
Steve Janke wrote:
"But with the NDP, the worst offenders are also their most visible and powerful members. Among the other groups, the most extreme or immature examples are generally marginalized."
Thereby making my point for me. I don't doubt that there are some dippers who are motivated by compassion and a desire to do well -but the party as a whole, would warm Joseph Stalin's heart.
By all means Steve, drag McClelland into the light every chance you get. Show the people exactly what the core support for the NDP looks like. Let us all see if the NDP is willing to risk losing support by distancing themselves from extremists.
Somehow I doubt it.
Selma: I do hope you're right about blogs taking over for the MSM. I agree that the media is no longer to be trusted. I think it is because they have never been so much as questioned, much less been held accountable for what they say or write -at least, until bloggers came on the scene. I just hope blogs don't go down that same road.
Posted by: up north at January 24, 2007 02:17 PM (aVv3C)
16
Steve, I'm honestly not sure if what you advocate is going to work.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the NDP have a stronger, more formal relationship with the Blogging Dippers than what exists between the CPC and the Blogging Tories. And that the relationship is necessary in order to enforce a sort of rhetorical discipline among those bloggers who self-identify with the NDP.
The problem with this approach is that there's a risk that the party will be damaged even further by blogger antics, if it formalizes such a relationship.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at January 24, 2007 02:28 PM (aPkwd)
17
Robert is far to cowardly to comment on this post. You will never see him approach from the front.
Posted by: Eric at January 24, 2007 07:12 PM (mbbdk)
18
Socialists have utter contempt for people who earn money, who are judged to be criminals who need to have their unjust gains ripped out of their hands for the good of "society". The alleged beneficiaries of the NDP policies, the non-earners, are also held in contempt because it assumed that they are so stupid and helpless that without "help" from Big Brother they could never possibly lead fulfilling lives. Needless to say, the people who write and implement the policies to "help" earners get rid of their money and who "help" non-earners to spend the earners' money, make out like bandits (literally). In their minds, they deserve it, because of their superior intellects and superior morals.
So why are you surprised that they have a communication problem? McClelland is more honest than most of them, because he doesn't bother to try to hide his sense of superiority and his contempt for everyone else. Even the ones who have enough sense to bite their tongues ultimately cannot disguise their pessimism and their snobbery.
Conservatives (that is, the ones who don't push crypto-commie, feel-good, "me too" wealth distribution policies and privacy-busting nanny state fascist policies) have a platform which is based on respect for individuals and for the collective associations they form on a free and voluntary basis, such as families, churches, corporations, charities and clubs. Which is why the idea of Stephen Harper trying to get the support of the NDP in Parliament is so contemptuous. Nothing that's good for your wallet, your privacy or your freedom is going to come of that.
Posted by: at January 24, 2007 09:50 PM (a0Sy/)
19
Missing Link:
Who is McClelland?
An NDP blogger that seems to represent the worst of NDP activists.
Up North & BATB:
I'd like to post instructions on how to do italics, but when I tried in a post, the complete instructions didn't come through. So, if either of you would still like to know, please give me an e-mail.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 25, 2007 03:09 PM (ANILb)
January 21, 2007
A Catholic monarch for England?
The incoming primate of the Church of Ireland, Bishop Alan Harper, had delivered some very controversial comments. Unlike his fellow Anglicans in America, though, he is not suggesting that Jesus is an optional concept or agitating for openly homosexual clergy.
Instead, he said it is well past time for England to move past the ban on Catholics ascending to the British throne. Note that the law, the Act of Settlement from 1701, bans Catholics specifically. It does not require that the monarch be Anglican. He or she could be a Buddhist, a Muslim, an agnostic, or a Scientologist -- just not Catholic. Bishop Harper correctly suggests that the circumstances that gave birth to this law have long since faded into history. The implications of such a change are quite interesting, and I think Bishop Harper knew exactly what those implications were before he made his statements.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
10:15 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 841 words, total size 5 kb.
1
No. The British want an Islamic Monarch in order to prove their multiculti credentials. The sun is setting.
Posted by: Philanthropist at January 22, 2007 02:07 AM (7pBiD)
2
I think he is correct that it is probably time for the Church of England to be disestablished and the ban on Catholic Monarchs to be repealed.
But, I find the rest of your post to contain some pretty big leaps.
First, I'm not sure how many religious leaders would agree that "the fundamental function of religion is to be divisive." The message of most religions tends towards the opposite: to unite.
Second, your claim that the Anglican Church avoids "divisive" beliefs and practices runs directly counter to the current trends towards an impending schism within the Anglican community Indeed, the discussions over ordination of women, acceptance of homosexuality, etc. are the very definition of "divisive" practices, given that they are, in fact, dividing the church. It seems that you are really just using the term "divisive" here as a code word for "conservative" beliefs and practices.
Third, I think that attributing the diversity in Worldwide Anglican beliefs to the fact that some of the leaders of the Church Of England are nominally appointed by the Queen/Prime Minister to be somewhat of a reach.
The fact is, the Anglican Community has, from its very beginning, adopted a far less centralized governance than, say, the Catholic Church. There is no single juridical authority in the Anglican Community, and all 39 provinces are free to govern themselves through their own Primate.
This, of course, has lead to considerable diversity in belief and practice within the Anglican Community: some consider themselves to be non-papal catholics, others draw on Luther, Wesley, Calvinism, etc. It seems to me that this is of far greater importance than the claim that Church of England leaders are appointed by politicians and so must be politicians themselves.
It is, afterall, not the Church of England that has primarily pushed the gay-rights agenda into the worldwide Anglican community. It was largely factions within the US Episcopal Church, which has been separate from the Church of England since the US war of Independence.
Posted by: bob at January 22, 2007 06:06 AM (uvT7t)
3
Jesus' exact words about your comment, Steve, "Well, the fundamental function of religion is to be divisive" are:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace,
but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household.
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.
Matthew 10: 34-39
Substitute ambition or worldly power for father or mother as in "whoever loves ambition or worldy power more than me is not worthy of me."
This substitution in the Anglican Church of ties to the Monarchy and the governing establishment of the realm in place of ties to, and trust alone in, Jesus Christ, is the crux of the problem in the Anglican Church. I actually had a retired Anglican clergyman, very high up in the hierarchy after rectorships in some very "plummy" establishment churches, say to me, in great humility and some sorrow, "I wish I had served my Lord as well as I have served my church." I was surprised and felt an admiration for him for his candid, yet sad, admission.
I have very close ties with the Anglican Church of Canada, and am not speaking as an outsider. I welcome Bishop Harper's suggestion that it's time to scupper the prohibition of Catholics from the British Monarchy. The "establishment" nature of the Anglican Church in England, Canada, and the U.S. has put a noose around the neck of "true religion," a concept, in fact, that is somewhat ridiculed by the vestment- and mitre-clad crowd in the Anglican Church.
Political correctness and the "progressive" and "evolving" ideas of what the Bible calls "the world" have been seeping into the Anglican Church very rapidly in the past 50 years--not that they were ever absent or don't present themselves in other churches. The thing about the Roman Catholic Church is, it holds to its Magisterium and its core beliefs, which are difficult for individual priests, Bishops, and congregations to trifle with. Local Anglican Bishops, congregations, and Synods, on the other hand, have been toying with the Anglican Church's core beliefs for a very long time--e.g., Bishop Michael Ingham and the New Westminster Diocese--and chaos has ensued, not to mention bitterness and schism--not the kind of divisions Jesus was talking about.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 10:42 AM (weZMD)
4
Got to agree with Bob that the assertion that the links between the Church of E and the monarchy have led to the current positions. They dont explain the United Church's move in a similar if not more radical direction.
That being said the monarch should be head of state and cut from being head of the church of e....and this last point is a a question, Isnt the ban on Roman Catholics....I believe Anglican is still Catholic just not Roman Catholic...but I could be wrong...and the ban shouldnt be there anymore.
Yes wouldnt that be odd if a Muslim King or Queen became the head of the Anglican church.
Unfortuantley I think there will be lots of teeth gnashing and hair pulling long before that is even a possibility. Clearly there is a backlash brewing. In Europe, in Canada etc. Less tolerance for imposed or "demanded" tolerance, if you know what I mean.
Bit of a segue but I found the story in the Globe on the weekend interesting. The father of one of the older suspects in the Toronto Bomb Plot. The fathers justification for why his son was innocent was that he had a new BMW....now there are two explanations.
1) He was "making it" therefore no reason for him to get in trouble.
2) There is a twisted view of western society is, so pointing to his material accumulation is a way of saying he was just like you therefore he was inncoent...
the trial will be interesting to say the least.
Posted by: Stephen at January 22, 2007 10:45 AM (wtbPM)
5
Stephen, you say, "I believe Anglican is still Catholic just not Roman Catholic..."
You're right. But many Anglicans don't seem to know this, despite the fact that every week they say the Nicene Creed in which they proclaim,
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins... etc."
Anglicans rather like to skip over credal statements they either don't understand or like.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 11:21 AM (weZMD)
6
batb
It's not just the Anglican Church that says the Nicene Creed in the form you outline. So does (or at least did) the Lutheran Church I attended as a boy. Didn't have a problem with it then, though my sister did until I pointed out that the word "catholic" means universal.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 22, 2007 12:31 PM (ANILb)
7
"Anglicans rather like to skip over credal statements they either don't understand or like".
Wow. Such ignorance, arrogance, and contempt for your fellow Christians. But this is nothing new. Many Catholics still consider Protestants to be heretics. That's fine. Catholics never cease to amaze me. At a time when Christians are being persecuted through-out the world you still delight in attacking your fellow Christians. As predictable as it is sad and pathetic. Could someone please tell me why we English people are constantly being expected to give up our culture and traditions? Bilingualism in Canada, pro-activism in the States, multiculturalism in Britain, immigration in Australia, every day it's something new.
The Nicene Creed is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. The word Catholic itself is Greek for 'universal'. Anglicans believe in a universal Christian church and we still believe in tradition, therefore we celebrate our faith by reciting the Nicene Creed. Would it surprise you to know that we also celebrate Christ's sacrifice each week during communion? And no, we are not alone in our practices. You like to give the impression that we Anglicans are Catholics, we just don't know it yet. Gee, who does that sound like? Muslim fanatics love to talk about how the entire world is Muslim (they just don't know it yet). At least Muslims haven't been speaking such nonsense for the past 500 years.
You betray yourselves with your naked Catholic arrogance. Those of us who are fortunately not Catholic are not surprised by this. Your Church has for centuries institutionalized its own contempt for any group of Christians who have refused to follow your self-serving and at times deeply disturbing twist on the Christian faith (praying to the Virgin Mary for the forgiveness of sins for instance is contrary to the very words of Christ not to mention the will of God).
The ban on Catholics was well earned I'm afraid. Let us not forget for a moment that the Catholic Church itself sanctioned the assassination of the English sovereign and called for holy war against the English nation (not because they were concerned for the well-being of their fellow Christians mind you, but because they were more concerned about a loss of money and power naturally). For years the Catholic church worked against the emerging democratic will of the English nation. No, I'm quite afraid that the ban is well earned. At a time when our own faith and culture is under attack it would be foolish to give into the demands of any group that seeks to weaken our cultural resolve. And yes, let's face it, our cultural resolve isn't what it used to be. The ban stays, if only for the fact that the English sovereign is the defender of the national church. I would not expect (let alone trust) a Catholic to restore our faith.
But we have been in this situation before. Our history with the Catholic Church is not at all that dissimilar from what is going on right now in England with radical Muslims. Again, here we have foreigners attempting to subvert our culture and annihilate our faith. Clerics in Saudi Arabia sanction holy war against the English state and radical Islamic groups, like the Spanish armada before them, attempt to carry out the wishes of their masters. So don't worry, the Catholic Church in this instance is in good company.
Posted by: TheDiggler at January 22, 2007 01:57 PM (2Tb8y)
8
TheDiggler: I said, "Anglicans rather like to skip over credal statements they either don't understand or like."
To which you respond, "Wow. Such ignorance, arrogance, and contempt for your fellow Christians."
I've been a cradle Anglican for well over 50 years, so who's being ignorant and/or arrogant?
You further comment "Could someone please tell me why we English people are constantly being expected to give up our culture and traditions?" Are you not aware, TheDiggler, that there are millions of English Catholics? In fact, there are more English Catholics filling churches in England than there are Anglicans? These English Catholics share many traditions and one British culture with Anglican Christians; they are not that different from one another.
When you say "praying to the Virgin Mary for the forgiveness of sins...is contrary to the very words of Christ not to mention the will of God" I have to agree with you. Roman Catholics don't, contrary to your assertion, "pray to" the Virgin Mary.
From "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" on "Devotion to the Blessed Virgin" (#971):
[begin quote]
"All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." The Church rightly honours "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honoured with the title of 'Mother of God', to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs [recall Christ's words about Mary at the Cross, "Behold, thy mother."]...This very special devotion...differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." The liturgical feasts decicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, and "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.
[end quote]
The first part of the rosary prayer is a direct quote from Scripture, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus" and the second part says, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death."
You'll notice that the faithful have ASKED for Mary's prayers; they are not praying TO her. They are talking to her, their "mother," as Jesus proclaimed her before He died.
BTW, TheDiggler, there are many thousands of Anglicans and Lutherans who also pray the rosary. It is not just a Roman Catholic practice, though it clearly is widespread in the RC Church.
With this comment, "But we have been in this situation before. Our history with the Catholic Church is not at all that dissimilar from what is going on right now in England with radical Muslims. Again, here we have foreigners attempting to subvert our culture and annihilate our faith."
EXCUSE ME??????
British Roman Catholics are "not that dissimilar from...radical Muslims"? You're way off base here. There are British Roman Catholic families that go back as far as or much further than Anglican families, so they can hardly be called "foreigners." Both Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a common Christian faith and often work together, ecumenically, on any number of social justice and peace projects and issues.
To equate British Roman Catholics with radical Muslims is to step way over the line of reasonable debate. It is an outrageous allegation in which you are, quite simply, wrong.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 06:12 PM (Oda9S)
9
Brian in Calgary: Yes, I do know that "Catholic" means "universal," which is why I never quite know why Anglicans and other Protestants get their knickers in a knot when it is clear that the Anglican Church, for instance, pledges its belief in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Thanks for pointing that out.
All Christians believe what is proclaimed in the Nicene Creed: Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. And there is really nothing controversial here.
What of course separates this proclamation of "Catholic" from the so-called "Catholic Church," is that the "Catholic Church" is the "Roman Catholic Church," which is under the earthly authority, bequeathed by God to Peter, of the Bishop of Rome. The other Christian deonominations are not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
And, therein, of course lies many misunderstandings, misapprehensions, stereotypes, superstitions, and sometimes downright bigotry, which go all different ways.
No wonder the Lord Jesus hates schism and keeps proclaiming "that they may all be one, like my Father and I are one."
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 06:26 PM (Oda9S)
10
Let's set some things straight:
Anglicans are only Roman Catholics who can divorce and, BTW, Roman Catholics ARE NOT Christians!
(I used to be an Anglican, until I was saved by trusting in Christ's sacrifice in payment for my sins ALONE -- not Mary's, or some so-called "saint" -- almost 8 years ago. Praise God!)
The Nicene Creed was written in the 4th century when the then emperor Constantine (who killed Bible-believing Christians, BTW) who conveniently "converted" to Christ because he was losing the war against them (research it for yourself). Ever heard of the phrase "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"? Constantine took the then Roman Empire and all their Caesars and turned them into "priests".
Since then, the RCC killed REAL Christians for as little as re-baptizing people once they got saved (Anabaptists).
If you REALLY want a good read, try Revelation 17. Notice the appearance of the woman mentioned as well as where she sits (v9 "seven mountains" aka "the city of seven hills" or ROME).
Rome has not changed. They still hate the Bible, they still hate the Lord's church and they still want to control the world. Remember, Satan is a DECEIVER and comes as an "angel of light". Satan deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden and he is out to deceive you today. Satan wants you to THINK you have the real thing and takes you just close enough to miss it -- with "religion" and not true Christianity. No wonder the Apostle Paul tells us in Galations 1:6-9 not to receive any other Gospel even if an angel came down from Heaven and brought it to us himself.
(Now quit fighting and go read your Bible! You could also take a look at Foxe's Book of Martyrs or Caroll's Trail of Blood, if you still need more evidence.)
PS -- Diggler: isn't the BIBLE supposed to be "the cornerstone of the Christian faith"?!?
Posted by: What saith the Scriptures? at January 24, 2007 02:38 AM (Rww+E)
11
WSTS: Statements like your "Roman Catholics ARE NOT Christians!" show how little you know about Roman Catholics.
You don't say what denomination you are, but whatever it is, the kind of heightened rhetoric you're using, against brothers and sisters in the faith--you should do your homework, rather than rely on anti-Catholic screeds to prop up your anti-RC bigotry--is hardly "Christian."
You sound like a marauding bully to me.
BTW, I know my Bible, and your arguments are not convincing. Get on your knees, WSTB, pray for some humility and compassion, and then perhaps someone would be happy to converse with you.
Right now, your lofty position, which is so obviously superior to, and contemptuous of, Roman Catholics (after you saw the light 8 years ago, you say?) you're in a place that most of us cannot hear you from.
What did you say, again...?
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 24, 2007 07:37 AM (Q1NSZ)
12
Nowhere in Bible does it say that the Bible is supposed to be the sole source of Christian faith.
If you believe in Jesus' teaching, then the teachings are the source. The teachings include living a right life of faith and works and obedience to God, Jesus, and the Apostles. Either you believe Jesus' teachings or you don't. Included in the teachings is the establishment of the Church, the vesting of authority in the Apostles, and the promise to safeguard the Church for all time. So, either you believe Jesus, or you believe Jesus failed (to safeguard the Church). If you believe Jesus failed, then why be Christian at all?
Jesus founded the Church between 50 and 200 years before the Bible was even written and compiled. Jesus didn't teach from the Bible. He taught from the Old Testament and added the New. How someone can see the Bible as something independent and superior to the Church is beyond me. Well, I know how: Ignorance of history.
Neither is Vatican Hill one of the seven hills of Rome. The Holy See is on a hill across the Tiber from the seven hills of Rome. So, there's either eight hills, or the seven hills are picked arbitrarily to make attacks on the True Church for whatever reason. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Posted by: Patrick at January 25, 2007 04:31 PM (5jnES)
13
Also missing from the Bible: a verse or verses listing which books should be in the Bible. Though the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, the table of contents was written by the Catholic Church. AFTER Constantine.
Any belief in the correctness of that table of contents bodes faith in said institution. So much for that conspiracy theory.
Speaking of institution, I love how non-Catholics can have faith in the existence of God but be agnostic about the existence of His Church on Earth.
Let us get this straight. You claim to be part of this "universal" church. There are several points to make:
1) "church" is singular. This presumes not only universality but also oneness.
2) "church" also implies "not-church" just as the concept of "apple" implies objects which are "not-apple."
Follow these logical extensions to their unavoidable conclusions. If you have just one church, then you must also decide what is "not-church". But who decides and how? Some would exclude Catholics from that definition, some would exclude non-Catholics. Others still would INclude Scientologists or Buddhists.
So who is right here? Clearly, you cannot rely on consensus among Christians because in order to find that consensus you would need yet another consensus on what a Christian is (and, if you include Catholics in that census, Catholicism would end up with the definitive definitions on both counts anyway).
You have only two choices:
1) YOU are right (whatever that means, oh mighty prophet)
2) The Catholic Church is right
One is absolutely relativistic -- which denies the unitive nature of truth. Not to mention the fact you will go to the grave with your mighty secret and at most only a handful of temporarily deluded followers to show for it.
The other is the Scriptural solution that preserves both the unity as well as the cathlocity of the True Church.
People like to go around saying "We're catholic too" because its warm and fuzzy connotations of togetherness. But like most heresies, the Church not only agrees with you, she makes sure to protect out the other dimension as well.
Funny how you do not hear too many people saying "we're the one church too". Yet "one" is the first of the four marks of the True Church in the very creed being referenced here (it even precedes "holy"). Not only is it the first, but, as stated earlier, it is the only element echoed in the singular form of the noun "church."
Anything else is sentiment as smokescreen. No accounting of a single church can be made and non-Christians see it for what it is: unworkable hogwash. But I am willing to entertain how you define this church you mention. It has been over 500 years after all and this matter is important enough to be settled.
Posted by: StubbleSpark at January 26, 2007 01:58 AM (QZRSo)
14
Please allow me to share some of “what sayeth the scriptures” in response to your arguments:
On extra-Biblical writings – “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)
On Roman Catholic traditions – “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:
On Roman Catholic doctrine and ordinances – “ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
On “Mary” the Roman Catholic “Queen of Heaven” – “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” (Jeremiah 4:17, see also Jeremiah 44)
On the Rosary– “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)
On the Pope – “But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.” (Mark 1:30) Peter was married.
On the Roman Catholic “church” – “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. [...] And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” (Revelations 17:4-6, 9)
To TRUE believers – “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:17)
On Roman Catholic doctrine and ordinances – “ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
On “Mary” the Roman Catholic “Queen of Heaven” – “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” (Jeremiah 4:17, see also Jeremiah 44)
On the Rosary– “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)
On the Pope – “But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.” (Mark 1:30) Peter was married.
On the Roman Catholic “church” – “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. [...] And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” (Revelations 17:4-6, 9)
To TRUE believers – “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:17)Posted by: What saith the Scriptures? at January 26, 2007 12:06 PM (Rww+E)
15
It's The Book of Revelation, WSTS, not Revelations. That mistake, alone, says something about your authenticity.
Your quotes, from both the Old Testament and New Testament, lack all credibility. What book are you quoting from?
Not the Bible.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 26, 2007 08:30 PM (0NNXQ)
16
Because the more internationally recognized title of the book is the Book of the Apocalypse, I think the misquote "Book of Revelations" is understandable. In fact, I am starting to think it is not a misquote at all. Having grown up Baptist, I have a vague memory of it just being called "Revelations". Mind you, this is minus "The Book of" but that might come from another Christian tradition.
But really, WST, do you truly want to play scripture shuriken instead of answering the question I proposed? You realize, I hope, that by pretending to ignore the question (how is "the church" both one and universal without an established governing body) you are openly proclaiming that you have no suitable answer.
Okay, by your rules then:
On extra-Biblical writings and sacred tradition -- "The Scriptures are our sole source of wisdom and understanding of Christ and His gospel." (aka Sola Scriptura) or other words to that effect are not found in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is unscriptural. See: I Tim 3:15, Luke 10:16, I Corinthians 11:2, II Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6
It is clear from these verses and the passages which provide them context that the Church authoritatively maintained unity through Christ's mandate to teach ONE gospel through the centuries "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me." (Luke 10:16). Because what Christ wanted, more than a gaggle of "free-thinkers" was a unified church: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, SO THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the WORLD MAY BELIEVE YOU SENT ME." (John 17:20-21).
The traditions of man being condemned in the scriptures in your above message (Colossians 2:8 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3) are the traditions that divide the mystical body of Christ. The teachings of Luther, Calvin and countless other heresiarchs whose words were like the lash upon our Lord's back -- each blow cutting deeper, separating more flesh from divine flesh, and adding to His suffering.
The division between Christians now is a tragedy of cosmic proportions and with every new "non-denominational" church that crops up, the divisions grow MORE numerous and the confusion more prevalent.
In light of the verses quoted above, you now have three choices:
1) Deny Christ meant for His Church to be unified.
2) Admit Christ meant for His Church to be one and that He gave it the authority to maintain that unity.
3) Try not to think about the fact that the Catholic understanding can incorporate a full understanding of BOTH the pro-tradition verses I quoted as well as the anti-tradition verses you quoted and change the topic.
Posted by: at January 27, 2007 12:40 AM (Eu/Xf)
17
Because the more internationally recognized title of the book is the Book of the Apocalypse, I think the misquote "Book of Revelations" is understandable. In fact, I am starting to think it is not a misquote at all. Having grown up Baptist, I have a vague memory of it just being called "Revelations". Mind you, this is minus "The Book of" but that might come from another Christian tradition.
But really, WST, do you truly want to play scripture shuriken instead of answering the question I proposed? You realize, I hope, that by pretending to ignore the question (how is "the church" both one and universal without an established governing body) you are openly proclaiming that you have no suitable answer.
Okay, by your rules then:
On extra-Biblical writings and sacred tradition -- "The Scriptures are our sole source of wisdom and understanding of Christ and His gospel." (aka Sola Scriptura) or other words to that effect are not found in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is unscriptural. See: I Tim 3:15, Luke 10:16, I Corinthians 11:2, II Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6
It is clear from these verses and the passages which provide them context that the Church authoritatively maintained unity through Christ's mandate to teach ONE gospel through the centuries "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me." (Luke 10:16). Because what Christ wanted, more than a gaggle of "free-thinkers" was a unified church: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, SO THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the WORLD MAY BELIEVE YOU SENT ME." (John 17:20-21).
The traditions of man being condemned in the scriptures in your above message (Colossians 2:8 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3) are the traditions that divide the mystical body of Christ. The teachings of Luther, Calvin and countless other heresiarchs whose words were like the lash upon our Lord's back -- each blow cutting deeper, separating more flesh from divine flesh, and adding to His suffering.
The division between Christians now is a tragedy of cosmic proportions and with every new "non-denominational" church that crops up, the divisions grow MORE numerous and the confusion more prevalent.
In light of the verses quoted above, you now have three choices:
1) Deny Christ meant for His Church to be unified.
2) Admit Christ meant for His Church to be one and that He gave it the authority to maintain that unity.
3) Try not to think about the fact that the Catholic understanding can incorporate a full understanding of BOTH the pro-tradition verses I quoted as well as the anti-tradition verses you quoted and change the topic.
Posted by: StubbleSpark at January 27, 2007 12:41 AM (Eu/Xf)
18
Sorry about the above double post.
WST, I had to also point out that petitioning Mary via the rosary, while repetitive, is not vain. As our Lord Himself has prayed in repetitions "He left them and withdrew again and prayed a third, time saying the same thing again" (Matt 26:44) I think it would be wise to distinguish between vain repetition and efficacious repetition.
Also, in Revelation 4:8, the angels in Heaven repeat day and night "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord."
Not to mention the passage in Daniel where the phrase "bless the Lord" is repeated countless times "Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Angels of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. You heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. All you waters above the heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. All you hosts of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Sun and moon, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Stars of heaven, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Every shower and dew ..." it goes on like that (Daniel 3:57 and on and on).
A couple more things:
We know Peter was married.
Priests are not forbidden to marry. There are married priests. Although Christ Himself exhorted those among His followers who had the gift to not marry in Matthew 19:12. Not to mention the fact that Christ was an unmarried celibate.
You are using Scriptures to obfuscate the teachings of Christ, which is what the Bible predicts the false prophets would do. You either:
A) Think it is wrong to imitate Christ by by choosing to live a chaste, unmarried life.
or
B) Are more interested in twisting Scripture to fit your personal, narrow understanding of universal Christianity. "Know this first of all, that there is not prophecy of Scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" (II Peter 1:20).
Posted by: StubbleSpark at January 27, 2007 01:08 AM (Eu/Xf)
19
Thanks, Stubble Spark, for your illumination on some serious problems with what WSTS has to say about Christ, the Bible, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and Roman Catholics.
I appreciate your contribution to this thread.
So, WSTS, come back! You have some 'splaining to do! No one's going to bite your head off, but you do need to justify some pretty heavy stuff you've alleged about fellow-Christians...
Love your neighbour as yourself, WSTS.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 27, 2007 11:12 AM (/5HRs)
20
Can you message me with some pointers on how you made your blog site look this good, Id appreciate it.
Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 07:56 AM (eh7R4)
January 18, 2007
Deb Frisch is at it again -- and lawyer Jeralyn Merritt is demanding that Frisch stop
Deb Frisch is at it again. This time she is making comments about the lawyer, Jeralyn Merritt, who is blogging about Frisch's scrap with Jeff Goldstein.
Among Frisch's comments:
- Jeralyn Merritt is a shyster, which means someone, in particular a lawyer, who acts in unethical or unscrupulous manner
- Jeralyn Merritt is a hypocrite because she defended Oklahoma city bomber, Timothy McVeigh
- Jeralyn Merritt is inciting violence against Deb Frisch through Merritt's blog
- Jeralyn Merritt is over 60
Posted by: Steve Janke at
03:19 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 815 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Steve, I think you did a fine job defending the defence attorney. No judge or jury in the land would disagree with you.
You are a gentlemen and a scholar as one of my high school teachers used to say.
Frisch must have been affected by the cold that hit California and gotten stuck with a bunch of sour undried raisins. After reading Merritt's credentials, she sounds like she has had quite a successful life and career. Deb should be so lucky.
p.s. I had to use undried raisins because your "questionable content" blocker wouldn't allow me to use the actual fruit due to the 2nd to 5th letters in sequence. You might want to loosen the reins a bit.
Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at January 18, 2007 03:40 PM (Xiqvi)
2
Steve - This whole sorry saga about Deb Frisch reminds me of an old saying I first heard over twenty years ago - some people just aren't happy unless they're not happy. Most people, of any and every ideological persuasion, can usually be reasoned with. One can have a calm and rational discussion with them, agreeing to disagree with them if it comes to that. It's what I try to do, though there is certainly room for me to improve. One can always improve. But, even with that in mind, there are a few people, again from across the complete ideological and political spectrum, that seem completely incapable of carrying on a rational discussion. Deb Frisch certainly seems to be one of these unhappy souls.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 18, 2007 08:23 PM (X0vnb)
3
Steve,
Jeralyn did not write that response on Frisch's blog. It is an imposter. Jeralyn would never say "defamate" which is not a word. If you read Jeralyn's blog, http://talkleft.com, you will see she was on an airplane all day without internet access.
Frisch's post is best ignored.
Posted by: Defender at January 19, 2007 12:14 AM (wFjHf)
4
I really don't understand your obsession with Frisch.
It seems quite likely that she suffers from mental illness -- and I'm not saying this in a joking or insulting way -- and that she is someone who should be pitied not continually mocked. She needs help rather than abuse.
I am, however, relieved to see you defending defence lawyers against claims that their own views are the same as the folks who they defend.
I assume you also felt the same way when our Minister of Public published a letter accusing the defense lawyer Lorne Goddard of supporting child pornography because Goddard once defended a man charged with possession of child porn? AND then made Alberta's taxpayers pay his legal bills when Goddard rightfully sued him?
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 07:50 AM (Lmg9H)
5
To bob:
I'm not sure if Steve felt that way about the Day-Goddard tussel (I'd like to think he did if he knew about it), but I know I sure did (and I hope the fact that I was a PCer - who did support the merger btw - was not a factor). I certainly agree with you about Deb Frisch needing help, and hope that attitude came across in my previous comment.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 19, 2007 12:24 PM (X0vnb)
6
I think a couple of important elements of the Goddard situation are being overlooked. Goddard's position on the local school board had him in a conflict of interest situation in regards defending someone accused of possessing child pornography. There were plenty of other lawyers available in Red Deer who were not in such a conflict.
I also doubt that the defense of Timothy McVeigh involved any argument that what he was accused of was should be acceptable. I understand that Goddard raised a charter challenge to the law against the posession of child pornography; in effect agruing that this should not be illegal.
Posted by: Ferdy McFarquar at January 19, 2007 04:14 PM (y+ddN)
7
why i cannot understand what this dion guy says?
really i cannot understand every third word he is saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why
what language he speaks?
Posted by: george at January 21, 2007 12:27 PM (nHj8W)
8
Ferdy is right. Bob is wrong. In addition, Stockwell Day did not seek to have his defence paid for out of public funds. Ralph Klein ruled that Day had no choice but to have his defence provided by the public, and then hired and paid lawyers who proceeded to piss away Day's defences. Day had no control over what they did or billed, and got no benefit from it.
Posted by: ebt at January 25, 2007 05:34 PM (7y2db)
9
yea...deb prolly needz seroius help...this cite showz that her iillness has been active for many months
http://debfrischtimeline.blogspot.com/
Posted by: G4J at February 03, 2007 11:01 AM (ycHvb)
10
Cheap Jerseys, Wholesale Cheap NFL Jerseys Free Shipping
Posted by: Packers jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 10:26 AM (wmdzq)
Islamic taxi drivers pushed too far -- and now they've become the dhimmitude
In Minneapolis, there has been a recent problem with Muslim taxi drivers refusing fares at the airport. People who were carrying alcohol or were accompanied by dogs, including seeing eye dogs, were told that they could not get a ride. Why? Because of Islam's ban on alcohol, and the fact that dogs are considered unclean.
In case you were wondering just how big the problem is, almost 75% of the taxi drivers are Somali Muslims. But they are being influenced by an very fundamentalist Arab Muslim group, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Well, the cabbies, prodded by these imams, pushed too far, and the regulating authority is about to put in tough new rules. New rules for a group of religious believers designed to limit they ways in which they can express their religious beliefs. Sounds familiar.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
02:36 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1425 words, total size 10 kb.
1
How refreshing that something is being done to remedy the situation, rather than have a bunch of pc morons wring their hands and say that they can do nothing. I was expecting it to be a 'personal choice' for the cabbies. I'm certain that in Canada, that's the way it would be played - and, in fact, I'm sure that when it occurs here, that's the way it will be played at our airports.
Posted by: Twolane at January 18, 2007 03:06 PM (1AJjd)
2
For every action, there is an equal and opposing reaction. Physics 101.
Posted by: anonymous at January 18, 2007 03:50 PM (DO1b6)
3
It's pretty obvious when you're transporting a dog via taxi. But how would a Muslim taxi driver know whether or not I had liquor with me? If I was carrying liquor, chances are I'd be carrying it in my suitcase or a shoulder bag.
Is the taxi driver going to ASK me whether or not I'm carrying liquor, and if he did, would I be obliged to tell him? I don't know that it's ever been the business of a taxi driver to know what's in my bags--unless it's a bomb, and they're not asking that.
By being totally unreasonable, the Imam-influenced taxi drivers have, in fact, imposed these restrictions on themselves. It's called logical consequences, and I am grateful to see that the folks in Minneapolis haven't fallen victim to political correctness in their levying these rules.
Dhimmitude is as dhimmitude does.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 18, 2007 06:11 PM (yLiax)
4
The mind boggles at what whirlwind of media indignation would engulph the taxi drivers has this come from non minority drivers.
Sorry, I'm an equal opportunity basher when I see constitutional breech...these asshole should have their licence revoked maybe they can find work at a Mosque where the same ideals limit who can go in there.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 18, 2007 06:41 PM (e1kRH)
5
Uh... how can one distinct ethnic subgroup corner 75% of a profession in a very multi-cultural society? Is that not an example of corruption in itself?
Where is the diversity in 75% control?
Posted by: Real Conservative at January 18, 2007 07:11 PM (EZLLA)
6
Keep in mind that there are very few occupations that government f**ks with as much as taxi driving. Getting a license to practice medicine is probably less of a hassle and less costly. I can assure you that in occupations which are not f**ked with by government, Islamists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists get along perfectly fine with no squabbles about dogs, cows, pigs, chickens, prayer rooms, veils, holy days or anything else.
Whenever government is heavily involved in something, as the owner, the regulator, the keeper of a monopoly or oligopoly, the nanny, etc. you will find stupid, pointless conflicts like this cropping up. If you insist that some aspect of human activity is "too important", "too sensitive", "too ... you know, just too ... too ... whatever" to be trusted to free, private individuals to decide on a voluntary basis, then you can pretty expect it to be ruined by the heavy, forceful hand of government. That's why you hear about hissy fits happening in government-regulated airports, government-owned schools, within government departments, and in all occupations and activities which are heavily regulated or subsidized. It's because (1) it's a Tragedy of the Commons thing, i.e. nothing is really privately owned so there is no way to establish rules except by squabbling over them, and (2) the violations of freedom which are the result of government intervention leave everyone in a snarly, fighting mood. (A: "Goddamn it! I paid for this airport with my taxes and I goddamn well better get a taxi here pronto!", B: "By the beard of the prophet (peace be upon him)! I waited 8 years to get this taxi license and paid $35,000 dollars for it and I paid $30,000 for this taxi and curse to satan anyone who tries to tell me who can ride in it!")
Who gives a crap if someone refuses to carry someone with booze in their car? Because they have a taxi license! Why not just let someone else take the business from them? Because not everyone is allowed to drive a taxi! Why? Is driving a taxi some kind of extremely specialized, exotic or dangerous occupation? No, it's actually one of the most brainless, simple, joe-jobs that anyone who can see over the top of a steering wheel could do! So what would you do if someone who actually wants to carry all kinds of passengers shows up at the airport? We'd stop them at the airport entrance, fine them, and put them in jail! Why? Because driving someone in a car for money is too ... too ... too ... What are you, some kind of troublemaker? Why don't you just pull over there, and get out your license, registration and insurance! And keep your hands where I can see them!
To make a long story short: when government f**ks with your life, don't use it as another excuse to pick a fight with your neighbor. Get your government out of your face, and watch how well everyone gets along.
Posted by: at January 18, 2007 11:17 PM (a0Sy/)
7
I'm confused.
You don't like it when the nanny-state forces Christian marriage commissioners to perform homosexual marriages, and you don't like it when the nanny-state forces Christian printers to print anti-religious texts; but you want the nanny-state to determine who a Muslim cabbie should accept as a fare?
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 07:09 AM (Lmg9H)
8
If you set yourself up in a business which deals with the public, you have to deal with the public.
If someone is carrying alcohol by being intoxicated, a cabbie is well within their rights to refuse service. When someone is carrying a sealed, legal product such as a bottle of wine, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Where does it end?
I am a dog owner and I have no problem with certain taxis not wanting to transport dogs. I get it. They may have allergies or be worried about hair (although I probably have as much dog hair on my clothes as my wiener dog has on his body). However, a guide dog gets special treatment in society and that should extend to taxis. The 'dogs are unclean' theme is way overdone. Muslims don't hate dogs at all, just as most Muslims don't have a burning desire to commit suicide or wreak havoc.
If you don't like dealing with the public at large, which is completely understandable, then get a different job. I'm surprised the taxi association itself didn't step in to clear this up. Too bad, because when you ask the government to solve your problem, you rarely get an elegant solution.
Posted by: Selma at January 19, 2007 09:35 AM (BEnxZ)
9
Just to be clear, then, Selma. You don't mind it when the Government steps in to force Christian marriage commissioners to conduct homosexual marriages? Afterall, they are in a job that deals with the public at large. Same with Christian printers. If they don't like it, should they just "get a different job"?
Just trying to get a sense of the landscape here.
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 09:53 AM (Lmg9H)
10
bob, are you being purposely obtuse or are you just lacking in brain cells today?
The difference between a taxi driver and the Christian printer is that the taxi driver's job is regulated by the government and the private-entrepreneur printer's job is PRIVATE and non-government regulated--or, at least, the government should keep its nose out of a private entrepreneur's choice of who they will provide a service for.
In the private-printer business's case, supply and demand and word of mouth will regulate what business he takes in; it's definitely not government's business--unless we license big brother to interfere--to demand that he do the job himself (especially when he has offered, as this printer did, to find a company that was willing to do the job and to pay for it. Give me a break.)
There's a huge difference here, and it's unfortunate that you are unable to understand it. Perhaps you're someone who has already given over to big-brother governance, which might explain your fuzziness on the issue.
'Hope I've been able to help.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 19, 2007 10:12 AM (5qsfI)
11
And the marriage commissioner, which is regulated by the government . . . ?
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 10:16 AM (Lmg9H)
12
Just so I get this right, BATB, you seem to not only support the fact that Taxi drivers are "regulated by the federal government"; but you want the Federal Government to become EVEN MORE involved in the taxi business by imposing regulations on who drivers should take as fares?
Sorry. I'd go the other direction and say that the Feds should become LESS involved and so let individual taxi drivers, who often have to use their own cars or, at least, rent their cars from their employers, choose who they want to take.
I'm for less government interference in business, not more.
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 10:24 AM (Lmg9H)
13
If this is a religious issue, then why is it only happening in one city ? I've been following this story on some of the American sites and apart from one brief mention of a similar problem in Australia there are no other cities where this seems to be happening. Anywhere.
Everywhere you go, there are plenty of Muslims driving taxis. Are Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis more devout than the ones in L.A., San Francisco, Toronto, Winnipeg, London, Paris ? This issue has been going on for a couple of months now. If it was happening elsewhere, surely some blogger would have managed to dig something up on it (and you can bet some of them are looking).
Is it possible that Minneapolis is the site of an experiment by radical Islamists to see how far they can push ?
Posted by: up north at January 19, 2007 11:00 AM (wKFJ6)
14
up north - it is not just in the US, there is a case before the HRC in British Columbia right now for the same thing. Guide dog and owner at the Vancouver airport were refused by a taxi driver. According to the report, 35% of the taxi drivers for the company are islamists, not a surprise that the owner of the company backs the decision of the drivers.
Posted by: Don't Want To at January 19, 2007 11:41 AM (HI4Hj)
15
Regarding marriage commissioners, because it is regulated by the government, government has the duty to see that the services of a marriage commissioner are available to all, without regard to type of marriage being performed, and that a same-sex couple who wishes to get married has access to a marriage commissioner. However, I for one do not feel that government has the right to insist that a specific marriage commissioner perform it at the expense of his or her religious beliefs. Instead, government must make every reasonable effort to accomodate the commissioner. Nor, by the way, do I think that a same-sex couple has the right to insist that a specific, unwilling, commissioner perform the ceremony if there is an alternate one available - and if there isn't this is an issue between the couple and the government in question. This is part of an employer-employee relationship, since commissioners are paid directly by the government (I think - if I'm wrong about the general relationship between commissioner and government I apologize). In fact, I think Human Rights Code legislation specifies that an employer must make every reasonable effort to accomodate the religious beliefs and affiliation of its employees. This should apply whether the employee in question is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Shinto, Pagan, Buddhist(sp?), Wiccan, whatever. It should certainly also apply when the employer is the government.
I think this duty by the government vis a vis the commissioner (to accomodate his or her religious views) is even stronger with respect to commissioners that were hired or appointed BEFORE same-sex marriages were legalized. The job description was changed on the commissioners, from one which did not require them to perform same-sex marriages to one which could, and at the cost of violating his or her religious views. This is quite unfair.
With respect to taxi drivers, it MIGHT be different IF there were sufficient numbers of other taxi drivers available. However, it seems clear that there are not. This results in an unfair restriction on the rights of people wishing to engage a taxi.
With respect to the general issue of "government interference in business," government always will (and should in my opinion) get involved when it is a case of having to balance competing interests. That is what governing is all about.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 19, 2007 01:05 PM (X0vnb)
16
Thanks 'Don't Want To' -I hadn't heard of any others.
The report I read from Australia was dated Oct 10, 2006. It made mention of the case in Minneapolis back then.
You'd think we'd have heard of a case or two out of Toronto. TO's a helluva lot bigger than Minneapolis and unless there's been some serious ethnic cleansing since I was last there, there should be plenty of Muslim cab drivers (not to mention people with assistance dogs). Ditto for Winnipeg -which I do visit from time to time.
So, again, why is this battle being fought almost exclusively in one North American city ? I'm not looking for a conspiracy theory. I just find it damned curious.
Posted by: up north at January 19, 2007 01:42 PM (DtKc9)
17
"With respect to taxi drivers, it MIGHT be different IF there were sufficient numbers of other taxi drivers available. However, it seems clear that there are not. This results in an unfair restriction on the rights of people wishing to engage a taxi."
First, I'm not sure when you got married; but we found it a lot more difficult to book a marriage commissioner for a Saturday afternoon that it was to book taxis.
Second, do you really want to make hiring a taxi a "right"? Do people really have a "right" to hire a taxi? It seems to me that increasing the number of taxis is a better solution to there not being enough taxis than forcing drivers to accept fares they don't want.
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 02:17 PM (uvT7t)
18
bob,
Suppose we increase the number of taxis so that there will be more available to people who carry booze or have an assistance dog. That would mean resticting the additional hiring to non-Muslims. How well do you think that would go over ?
Plus, now that we've got all these extra taxi's vying for the regular (non-alcoholic/non-canine) business -that's going to put a serious crimp into all the cabbies' wages.
I drove hack for a while. I didn't like carrying drunks -they're often a pain in the ass. But it goes with the job. You take what you can get -driving taxi is hardly the path to riches. Would you prefer that the drunks drove themselves ?
And the last time I checked, it is illegal to refuse admittance/access whatever you want to call it -to a person with an assistance dog. (come to think of it, where is the vaunted ACLU in all this brouhaha in Minneapolis ?)
My personal belief: this is Islam making a "test shove" on this side of the world.
The solution: shove back. Hard. Do it now while it is still relatively easy to do.
Posted by: up north at January 19, 2007 06:13 PM (LlyGk)
19
By the way bob,
This just occurred to me (everything always occurs to me after the fact ...sigh) since you insist on turning this thread into a referendum on same-sex marriage:
Those same cabbies who are so devout that they won't carry dogs or alcohol would sure as hell not be having anything to do with a same-sex wedding.
Maybe you oughtta be helping us shove back...
Posted by: up north at January 19, 2007 06:24 PM (LlyGk)
20
Well, Bob, since you're asking in your characteristically collegial manner, I am personally not against same-sex marriage. It's not mandatory. If Hank wants to marry Barney, why should I care? It doesn't affect me personally, it's been decided as a Charter issue and I agree with the decision.
I don't know about the Christian printer you mention, but if it involves freedom of expression being constrained, I'm against that. I think everyone should be free to voice their opinion, with the caveat that others aren't hurt in the process, such as with hate mongering or child pornography.
Oh, here's the kicker - politically, I'm a conservative. I support Harper all the way and I'm glad he got in because we needed a breath of fresh air in this country, in more ways than one.
Back to the taxi thing, how would it work if there were bus drivers who wouldn't take passengers carrying particular products? Would that be acceptable?
The taxi industry is regulated for reasons of safety for the drivers and the public. It is a public business, like running a restaurant. If I moved to Saudi Arabia and started refusing passengers wearing burnooses, a) how much sympathy would I get and b) how much money would I make?
I guess this artificial crisis is great for the 25% who will accept any passengers, they must be making a mint.
Posted by: Selma at January 19, 2007 07:46 PM (BEnxZ)
21
Thanks, Brian in Calgary, for your articulate answer to bob's questions about Marriage Commissioners.
If, bob, Muslims' religious sensibilities are taken into consideration--which, in Canada, they are all the time: In the public education system, Muslim prayer rooms are regularly popping up, whereas if any Christian group asked for similar accommodations, they'd be told to go fly a kite because their request would be considered "insensitive," not "open," and "intolerant" of other cultures--then other cultural groups' religious sensibilities (aka Christian, Hindu, Jewish, etc.) should be too.
I, like you, bob, would like to see LESS government involvement in the affairs of its citizens, but with the new multiculti dispensation in Canada, this is just a distant dream. As Marriage Commissioners happen to be government-appointed marriers of couples, their religious sensibilities should, definitely, be taken into consideration vis a vis SSM. There will always be another Marriage Commissioner who would be happy to perform a SSM.
You don't seem to think that Christians have religious sensibilities that need to be protected, whereas your position seems to be that all other religious groups, in this case Muslims, should be accommodated at all times.
Please explain again. I didn't quite get your drift the first time. And please refer to Brian in Calgary's e-mail, posted at 1:05 p.m., Jan. 19, 2007.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 19, 2007 08:26 PM (g1hUC)
22
bob: I'm not defending the fact that taxi drivers are government-regulated. I'm simply stating the fact that they are. That's a fact and there's nothing I can do about it. They have been for a long time.
Which means, ipso facto, that they aren't private businesses.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 19, 2007 08:32 PM (g1hUC)
23
"a bottle of wine in hand and a weiner dog in tow"
Better, for males, would be a to carry a dozen miniature liquor bottles and a chihuahua in your matching handbag. Matching, that is, your dress.
Posted by: Hershblogger at January 20, 2007 05:52 PM (PWVQi)
24
I had originally dropped in just to let the writer of the article know that I found it well written and informative. I found myself caught up reading the previous comments and now I also want to send cudos to those of you who have posted so many interesting opinions!
Posted by: Brockvillian at January 20, 2007 08:31 PM (Xvu5H)
25
There is one solution for these ultra religious Muslims...go to hell back to the Country they came from which is ruled by their religion.
Our Western Democracies and strict Islam are not a fit. We live in the 21st century, they are still stuck in the stone age.
We simply cannot afford to give up any more of our way of life to accommodate all and sundry stupidity.
We have a very dangerous mix with the Charter and Multiculturalism, it will erode all this Country was built on. We will stand for nothing.
Time to wake up is now.
Posted by: Liz J at January 20, 2007 09:41 PM (MDSHD)
26
Steve, I disagree that the Muslim taxidrivers in Minneapolis-St. Paul are in a state of dhimmitude as a result of the expected regulation.
There is NOTHING in this regulation that controls what livelihood they pursue, imposes a tax on them for being Muslim or prohibits them from full citizenship and voting -- to name just a few elements of the real status of dhimmis under Shari'a.
If MSP is anything like most other cities in the US, the cab concession is allotted to multiple companies who bid for it. They in turn hire drivers, often from among friends, family and those of similar ethnic background, hence the concentration of Somalis at MSP. Moreover, while some may be employees, legally speaking, chances are most are independent operators who rent the cab from the company rather than own it themselves.
It is a voluntary association, in other words, unimposed in any way. And as such, it is the responsibility of the cab drivers to accomodate the public and not vice versa. Note that there are plenty of other entry-level jobs that immigrant Muslims with poor educations can take that would NOT require them to deal directly with that public.
They want the job - which is not, I agree, the most attractive or lucrative way to make a living - they need to accomodate the public. Period.
I've about had it with the demands that Muslim sensibilities be imposed on the majority in this country. Even if there WERE one single majority Muslim country that had the equivalent respect and forebearance for other faiths -- and there isn't -- it would still be wrong to impose their demands on the rest of us. And it's triply wrong to do so as an immigrant.
Posted by: Molon Labe at January 21, 2007 02:29 PM (Qincd)
<< Page 1 of 2 >>
370kb generated in CPU 0.1103, elapsed 0.1998 seconds.
113 queries taking 0.1538 seconds, 638 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
113 queries taking 0.1538 seconds, 638 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
