Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Turning a blind eye: Elections Canada gives a shrug of the shoulders t


Recommended Posts

Nowhere in this thread up until your post here did anyone say that.

The Conservatives acts of having committed Election fraud and ostensibly rigging elections still trumps some folks not having paid off their debts to run for party leader.

What I understood from that was that one groups should be punished for an alleged crimes because those alleged crimes are worse than the crimes of the Liberals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are suggesting we stop investigating these people and do not punish them? I love your sense of justice, don't punish the liberals, but by god punish the conservatives for some random accusations not even proven in court.

Please read this........................http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/10/pol-conservative-election-in-and-out.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dryden, Joe Volpe, Hedy Fry and Martha Hall Findlay have failed to pay back their campaign debts from the 2006 Liberal leadership race despite more than five-and-a-half years of fundraising and two extensions.

If any one of these upstanding Liberals decides to run for the leadership, it might be preferable that he/she pay off this debt before racking up a new one. Imagine a candidate holding a fundraiser and asking supporters to make two donations; envelope number one is for 2006 and envelope number two is for 2012. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither did I, and chances are it will never happen, even though Dryden and three other former Liberal leadership candidates are now in violation of the Elections Act. Dryden, Joe Volpe, Hedy Fry and Martha Hall Findlay have failed to pay back their campaign debts from the 2006 Liberal leadership race despite more than five-and-a-half years of fundraising and two extensions.

Read more on all the one sided business they dohttp://www.ottawasun.com/2012/07/05/turning-a-blind-eye-elections-canada-gives-a-shrug-of-the-shoulders-to-leftie-antics

You posted this Sun article quote without properly quoting it, other than sticking a link at the end. It makes it seem like you wrote the opinion, until i realized you didn't when i read the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The National Post joined the leftists years ago when it jumped in bed with the CBC. The Sun News Network is the only large media outlet in Canada with a decidedly conservative perspective. So they're competing with the CBC (TV and radio), Global, CTV, and the plethora of leftist newspapers such as the Toronto Star.

Here's one of several interesting books I read that examined media bias in Canada. Bear in mind this was many years ago in university and the media landscape has changed for the better with the slow dismantling of the dominant leftist media establishment via the internet and the greatly reduced prices of recording equipment. The media is no longer as tightly controlled by leftist elites, which is fantastic. There's still a long way to go, though.

http://www.ubcpress.ca/search/title_book.asp?BookID=2960

Not having read the book, I can't comment in depth, but this is a serious problem, already nicely addressed by others [bolding mine]:

Focusing primarily on the political orientation of journalists, Miljan and Cooper investigate the link between what journalists believe about politics and how they report political issues.

If that's indeed the primary focus, then it would be a pretty lazy and aritifically narrow "study" indeed.

Herman and Chomksy's Manufacturing Consent, on the other hand takes an institutional examination of news media; obviously, in studying an institution, this is the way to go. The political leanings of Walmart's top tier, for example (mostly very conservative, incidentally) is in most ways irrelevant to the company's business practices.

Much the same can be said for media institutions. Most journalists, yes, are "liberal" (Establishment liberal, however, not "far left"...a profound difference, as the two camps are practically ideological enemies). But it's moot anyway, as journalists do not run the rodeo, so to speak, not in a large-scale institutional setting.

First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the "Propaganda model" views the private media as businesses interested in the sale of a product readers and audiences to other businesses (advertisers) rather than that of quality news to the public. Describing the media's "societal purpose", Chomsky writes, "... the study of institutions and how they function must be scrupulously ignored, apart from fringe elements or a relatively obscure scholarly literature".[1] The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five classes are:

1. Ownership of the medium

2. Medium's funding sources

3. Sourcing

4. Flak

5. Anti-communist ideology

The first three are generally regarded by the authors as being the most important. In versions after September 11th, Chomsky and Herman updated the fifth prong to instead refer to the War on Terror and antiterrorism, although they say it operates in much the same manner.

Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles which the model postulates as the cause of media biases.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that initiatives to restrict freedom of speech, expression, and political financing are almost exclusively leftist in origin.

I have two sincere questions for you. I've only read a few of your posts and I don't feel I can adequately gauge what your perception of Left vs. Right is. These are terms that I'm a loathe to use as they are all too often used as trump cards to refute arguments that may be contrary to one's own views. "Well that's just part of the neo con agenga" or "That's leftist drivel". Neither of these statements engage nor do they even address the points in each particular point of view.

So what in your view is the Left vs. the Right? Is it purely distribution of wealth? Are there social aspects to these views? Ethnic, cultural and economic contributors? In all honesty I'm trying to gain a frame of reference for your statements. Saying something is "exclusively leftist in origin" while to you may be quite a clear statement, for the rest of us it's rather vague without an understanding of your perception of "leftist"

Finally, what specifically are you referring to in terms of restriction of freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is not a right in Canada as defined by the charter of rights and freedoms nor by the constitution itself. In the US it's a constitutional amendment but not so here. Could you elaborate on this?

Edited by Dave_ON
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two sincere questions for you. I've only read a few of your posts and I don't feel I can adequately gauge what your perception of Left vs. Right is. These are terms that I'm a loathe to use as they are all too often used as trump cards to refute arguments that may be contrary to one's own views. "Well that's just part of the neo con agenga" or "That's leftist drivel". Neither of these statements engage nor do they even address the points in each particular point of view.

So what in your view is the Left vs. the Right? Is it purely distribution of wealth? Are there social aspects to these views? Ethnic, cultural and economic contributors? In all honesty I'm trying to gain a frame of reference for your statements. Saying something is "exclusively leftist in origin" while to you may be quite a clear statement, for the rest of us it's rather vague without an understanding of your perception of "leftist"

Finally, what specifically are you referring to in terms of restriction of freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is not a right in Canada as defined by the charter of rights and freedoms nor by the constitution itself. In the US it's a constitutional amendment but not so here. Could you elaborate on this?

Well, I use the term leftist in the pop-culture sense, with all of its internal contradictions and shortcomings. It's not a perfect term, but it is still very useful and a great tool when used to predict people's attitudes towards various issues once they've been categorized.

Generally speaking, I use the term leftists to describe folks that in the context of domestic policy (either in Canada or America) was increasing government control over the freedoms of the individual, in both the social and economic spheres. Generally speaking, leftists (who compose the entirety of the NDP and overwhelming majority of the LPC) are those who reflexively support many government regulations, licenses, and provisions of "social services" via redistribution of wealth. A leftist is a person who support price-control measure such as minimum wage regulations, rent controls, and price ceilings. A leftist believes that a "food inspector" is necessary to do weekly visits to restaurants to stick thermometer in butter chicken dishes to "protect" the public. A leftist believes that the interests of business are the opposite of the interests of employees. A leftist believes in restricting on individuals can express themselves by supporting so-called "hate speech" laws. A leftist believes in cultural relativity. A leftist tends to view America and the broader West in a negative light, while lionising inferior societies and cultures as victims bravely combating imagined imperialism. A leftist supports destructive policies like the Kyoto protocol. A leftist expresses solidarity with the socialists and communists defecating in public as part of the "occupy" movement. A leftist signs petitions like "Stop Fox News North" to prevent Sun News from getting its broadcasting license. A leftist loves chanting and groupthink and opposes individuality. There's a lot more to this, but do you get my point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What heavily leftist slant?

It's a declaration, so it's fair to ask you to support it.

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhh--prove it yourself, listen to the CBC for 5 minutes (don't try anymore, you could get nauseated) buy (or get one out of the recycle bin)the Star, or any one of their 30 affiliated papers, read it for 10 minutes and if you don't find 10 slams At the Conservative government, put your reading glasses op & reread it. you'll have proof that even a die hard leftist like yourself can't argue with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhh--prove it yourself, listen to the CBC for 5 minutes (don't try anymore, you could get nauseated) buy (or get one out of the recycle bin)the Star, or any one of their 30 affiliated papers, read it for 10 minutes and if you don't find 10 slams At the Conservative government, put your reading glasses op & reread it. you'll have proof that even a die hard leftist like yourself can't argue with.

I asked for evidence...and you refuse.

Fine, that's your right. But enough said.

By the way...i don't even much like the CBC. But we're talking about its "left wing bias."

So put up, or...don't! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped reading kraychik's response after he said that the Left whether in Canada or the US wants to limit people's social freedom. So wrong it borders on absurdity.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped reading kraychik's response after he said that the Left whether in Canada or the US wants to limit people's social freedom. So wrong it borders on absurdity.

Whew! you don't know the half of it, cyber. Elsewhere, he got very hostile to matters of "evidence" and "citations."

Such things are "name dropping" evidently, as well as irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped reading kraychik's response after he said that the Left whether in Canada or the US wants to limit people's social freedom. So wrong it borders on absurdity.

....and so your list of ignored members grows ever longer, only reading those who agree with you? Figures....

Link to post
Share on other sites

....and so your list of ignored members grows ever longer, only reading those who agree with you? Figures....

The number of trolls grows longer each day. When someone says something as wrong as the Left wants to control people socially, there's no reason to really take anything they say seriously. It's the Right that wants to restrict marriage for gay people, legislate women's vaginas, restrict access to birth control for teenagers, and bring religious dogma into science classes. To say that it is the Left that wants to control people socially is completely and utterly wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of trolls grows longer each day. When someone says something as wrong as the Left wants to control people socially, there's no reason to really take anything they say seriously.

Just noting the obvious intolerance for views that differ from your own....more and more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I use the term leftist in the pop-culture sense, with all of its internal contradictions and shortcomings. It's not a perfect term, but it is still very useful and a great tool when used to predict people's attitudes towards various issues once they've been categorized.

Generally speaking, I use the term leftists to describe folks that in the context of domestic policy (either in Canada or America) was increasing government control over the freedoms of the individual, in both the social and economic spheres. Generally speaking, leftists (who compose the entirety of the NDP and overwhelming majority of the LPC) are those who reflexively support many government regulations, licenses, and provisions of "social services" via redistribution of wealth. A leftist is a person who support price-control measure such as minimum wage regulations, rent controls, and price ceilings. A leftist believes that a "food inspector" is necessary to do weekly visits to restaurants to stick thermometer in butter chicken dishes to "protect" the public. A leftist believes that the interests of business are the opposite of the interests of employees. A leftist believes in restricting on individuals can express themselves by supporting so-called "hate speech" laws. A leftist believes in cultural relativity. A leftist tends to view America and the broader West in a negative light, while lionising inferior societies and cultures as victims bravely combating imagined imperialism. A leftist supports destructive policies like the Kyoto protocol. A leftist expresses solidarity with the socialists and communists defecating in public as part of the "occupy" movement. A leftist signs petitions like "Stop Fox News North" to prevent Sun News from getting its broadcasting license. A leftist loves chanting and groupthink and opposes individuality. There's a lot more to this, but do you get my point?

Ok so in summation it seems this view is heavily weighted toward economic and wealth distribution if I take your meaning. So then my next question would be must one reject all these items you've listed in order to not be considered a leftist? Is there no middle ground? Can one not support some of these items but not all? Is it truly fair to brand someone a "leftist" simply because they may support one of the items you've listed above? Many would posit that your concerns over economic restrictions held by the left are offset by social liberties, which as a general rule the right often rejects. ie. Equal marriage, abortion, etc. These two topics in particular Mr. Harper has wisely avoided and kept his party under wraps in order to ensure they do not interfere with their economic goals.

I suppose my central point is, it's very difficult to so easily categorize people as left or right as both "philosophies" comprise a number of different beliefs and address a number of different issues that arise from various frames of reference. Some are economically centred, while others are socially centred. The role of government in the economy vs. role of the government over personal freedoms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so in summation it seems this view is heavily weighted toward economic and wealth distribution if I take your meaning. So then my next question would be must one reject all these items you've listed in order to not be considered a leftist? Is there no middle ground? Can one not support some of these items but not all? Is it truly fair to brand someone a "leftist" simply because they may support one of the items you've listed above? Many would posit that your concerns over economic restrictions held by the left are offset by social liberties, which as a general rule the right often rejects. ie. Equal marriage, abortion, etc. These two topics in particular Mr. Harper has wisely avoided and kept his party under wraps in order to ensure they do not interfere with their economic goals.

I suppose my central point is, it's very difficult to so easily categorize people as left or right as both "philosophies" comprise a number of different beliefs and address a number of different issues that arise from various frames of reference. Some are economically centred, while others are socially centred. The role of government in the economy vs. role of the government over personal freedoms.

Do you really think, honestly, that I am unaware of the limitations of the right-left spectrum? I know that certain people can hold a position on one issue that is typically on the right, and then hold a position on another issue that is typically on the left. I am aware of the internal contradictions that occur with this limited paradigm. That doesn't mean the term doesn't still have great utility in the sense that effectively categorizing a person in or the other section gives a great level of accurate predictability to that person's views on a broad range of issues. The right-left system of categorizing people certainly isn't perfect, but it's effective. Trust me, I do not need your guidance when it comes to understanding political philosophy.

You're also mischaratcerizing "equal marriage" (which is clearly leftist spin towards movements to redefine marriage as including same-sex couples) and abortion as issues of social freedom, which is certainly debatable to say the least. Although that is a subject for another thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think, honestly, that I am unaware of the limitations of the right-left spectrum? I know that certain people can hold a position on one issue that is typically on the right, and then hold a position on another issue that is typically on the left. I am aware of the internal contradictions that occur with this limited paradigm. That doesn't mean the term doesn't still have great utility in the sense that effectively categorizing a person in or the other section gives a great level of accurate predictability to that person's views on a broad range of issues. The right-left system of categorizing people certainly isn't perfect, but it's effective. Trust me, I do not need your guidance when it comes to understanding political philosophy.

You're also mischaratcerizing "equal marriage" (which is clearly leftist spin towards movements to redefine marriage as including same-sex couples)

It's not a "spin," it's a plain and unambiguous reference to it.

What else do you suppose it could be referencing?

Although that is a subject for another thread.

I eagerly await your thread on the evils of same-sex marriage.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...