Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The "Media Party"


Recommended Posts

Ah, those chicks, eh, Waldo, we never shoulda let them out of the kitchen, right?

you were the one that needed your fix... you were the one that asked, "You got some video of that?". In spite of your white-knight attempt to hide your own long standing board misogyny, I emphasized Rempel's "tear-up/choke-up/semi-meltdown" was mentioned to highlight the lengths the PMO went to to push her out in an attempt to change the channel on Harper Conservative scandals. Notwithstanding Rempel's PMO-manufactured faux sexist charge was laid bare and quite handily refuted by one of the event organizers.

.

I suppose you figure nobody will actually look at the cite so you can fantasize all you want, right? To repeat, it wasn't his questioning which made her emotional. He showed the twitter item you seem to be so excited by, as, he said, an example of the kind of pathetic sexism women face in public life, focusing on and judging their looks, and she acknowledged it and started talking about women she had spoken to who won't go into public life for fear of attacks like that. That's when she got emotional. They were agreeing with each other, not with you and your twitter friend.

no - Rempel started to show her extreme sensitivity when Solomon started down the discussion path concerning her HOC seating assignment. As I also emphasized, that is (also) a legitimate point of questioning given the blatant playing to the cameras manipulation of those seating assignments by Harper Conservatives. If there was anything she should have been prepared for, that was it... she had been receiving and responding to criticism in that regard for a few days prior. But who knows, maybe twitter was simply hiding her emotions. But really, c'mon... you mean to say Rempel can't handle a little questioning from Solomon... geezaz, the guy was even more hand-holding with her than he usually is with many of his guests.

.

Somewhat contradictory? Given the 'criticism directed towards the photo" by a moron? Because some moron twits that a picture of her sitting on a desk is "sitting like a hooker" you take this as delegitimizing her view on sexism!?

no - the twitter comment was but one criticism, of many, related to that photo. The photo is as legitimate as her trumped up outrage over the e-invite. How weak was her sexist labeling when she has to resort to complaining about the pastel colouring, about the font! Yup, the colour and font... clearly sexist! :lol: How lame was her sexist charge when she has to claim that because the e-invite didn't include policy positions/statements... it's sexist! I do believe she started to crack at this point, realizing her own hypocrisy, particularly when Solomon asked her if she'd never attended a woman's organized and targeted event. In any case, as I said earlier, the event organizer quite handily addressed the failed Rempel sexist charge. Did I mention Rempel didn't have the wherewithal... the mettle... to actually debate the organizer one-on-one... that Rempel advised CBC/Solomon that she would only appear on the show if she didn't have to appear together with the event organizer.

.

And even though the Toronto Star acknowledges the tastelessness and stupidity of Trudeau's poster you again feel that her comments in that regard are contradictory because she's not wearing a burka and sitting like a good girl?

ya ya, op-ed's in any newspaper are a dime-a-dozen! :lol: Did you have to work hard to find that... I mean, clearly you think it means something by the way you earlier described the Toronto Star. Is that because, wait for it... the Star is a part of the "Media Party"? (/snarc)

.

Rempel has been 'out' for quite some time on a wide variety of issues. You probably ignored them because she's just a 'dumb blonde chick'.

I've not mentioned her hair colour once... shame on you! And no, given the new HOC seating assignments, other than seeing Rempel in pretty much every HOC TV coverage of Harper answering in Question Period, I know nothing about her. As I'm aware, her only other position was as a Minister's secretary... and now suddenly she's a junior Minister... for "Western Economic Diversification". Something she claims "she's fought hard for"!

.

Coy smile? Body language? You really need to give your head a shake. You sound more sexist than my grandfather.

nice try, hey! Read the comment again... I'm relaying some of the twitter commentary related to that photo. You know, the twitter brutes who so easily, apparently, got a rise out of Rempel. In your white-knight crusade, you may want to suggest to Rempel that twitter may not be the best place for her sensitive being.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's a present for a few of you, just to show I'm a good sport.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0zhZfhDGjE#t=26

Watch Ayaan Hirsi Ali teach Avi Lewis what freedom means.

Start watching at 4:55 and one minute in she starts telling him:

"You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom because you don't know what it is not to have freedom"

I didn't watch it, because I remember it perfectly well from seeing it years ago. I also remember Lewis remarking that he was "the wrong person" to conduct this interview.

The point being that an awful lot of people who did not grow up "in freedom" would obviously dispute Hirsi Ali, and without being the subject of the rhetoric: "you spit on freedom, because you don't know..." etc....

That is, a lot of people who grew up under oppression might ask Hirsi about her position with the American Enterprise Institute....whose primary goal is the enlargement of American Empire through violently military means. (The Iraq War catastrophe was one of their pet projects, as I remember.)

That is, the implied notion that those who do not come "from freedom" would side with Ali is pretty dubious. Ali's version of the world is aligned quite strongly with that of Western foreign policy hawks.

In fact, Lewis's worldview is more aligned with the global norms of opinion on most matters of policy.

To be fair, however, Lewis' apparent dismissal of American domestic freedoms was offside, in my view.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a present for a few of you, just to show I'm a good sport.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0zhZfhDGjE#t=26

Watch Ayaan Hirsi Ali teach Avi Lewis what freedom means.

oh my! I'm so confused... how could Ali appear at such a "clearly sexist event" as All About Women... oh the appeasement, oh the humiliation... oh the inhumanity!

All%20About%20Women%20168.jpg

Edited by waldo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what your point is ? She was great in that clip and in another appearance on the same show - but with Evan Solomon.

actually, I wasn't clear what your point was in introducing the reference to Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the first place... perhaps you could elaborate on that.

my point? I took the liberty of extending on your reference to showcase the All About Women event... that Ali spoke at. Essentially, an event organized by women, for women - like the "Ladies Night" event Harper Conservative Rempel trumped up her (PMO fueled) fake outrage and sexist charge against. And, of course, Ali's discussion with Evan Solomon had nothing (or little) to do with sexism/sexist labeling... CBC labels that video/talk as a discussion about what, " she calls a 'clash of civilizations' between Islam and the West".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any reporting yet by the media party on justins remarks about repealing minimum sentences for pedophiles. What gives, just imagine if a consevative mentioned something so evil like that. Minimum is about 1-2 years for the perverts. What was the boy thinking or was he at the time??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the impetus for talking about mandatory minimums was some guy getting like 3 years for posting a picture online of him holding a friends gun. Clearly not a violent gun crime.

Not when asked about perverts. He stepped into huge this time. He is a disaster as a leader.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be against mandatory minimums of I had any trust in the common sense of judges. Any policy with a mandatory sentence or punishment will ALWAYS have incidents where that sentence is simply wildly out of wack with justice. Unfortunately, since judges are not much interested in justice, even as a concept, mandatory minimums were introduced. By and large they're good the way they are as a stopgap measure. The real way to reform the system is to get judges in place who have more than half a brain cell functioning at any one time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any reporting yet by the media party on justins remarks about repealing minimum sentences for pedophiles. What gives, just imagine if a consevative mentioned something so evil like that. Minimum is about 1-2 years for the perverts. What was the boy thinking or was he at the time??

can you link the article that says Trudeau is going to do that because I can't find it but I did find an article that said he would concern SOME mandatory punishments and he does has support with some judges. http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/2013/11/11/trudeau-would-rethink-harpers-mandatory-minimum-sentences

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be against mandatory minimums of I had any trust in the common sense of judges. Any policy with a mandatory sentence or punishment will ALWAYS have incidents where that sentence is simply wildly out of wack with justice. Unfortunately, since judges are not much interested in justice, even as a concept, mandatory minimums were introduced. By and large they're good the way they are as a stopgap measure. The real way to reform the system is to get judges in place who have more than half a brain cell functioning at any one time.

...and I could be convinced to be FOR mandatory minimums if there were a shred of evidence that they were useful....

It may well be that the occassional judgment fails the common sense test, and that the occasional judge "is not much interested in justice".... but to make such a blanket accusation for all is, well, laughable.

Find me some facts, as opposed to the unfounded accusatory speculation that you have posted. Perhaps a study such as this one,

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/forum/e122/e122c-eng.shtml

... which explains why "Clearly, the prison as deterrent hypothesis is not supported. The opposite conclusion, and one that is widely endorsed in some correctional circles, is that prisons do increase recidivism, in other words act as “schools for crime”.

... and which ends with the summary:

"In summary, the addition of this body of evidence to the “what works” debate leads to the inescapable conclusion that, when it comes to reducing individual offender recidivism, the “only game in town” is appropriate cognitive-behavioural treatments which embody known principles of effective intervention."

It is not "justice" if the criminal harms society, then continues to cost society additional big bucks while you incarcerate him. "Justice" is for him to start working as quickly as possible to pay his debt back. And that means getting him to behave himself in the outside world.... Yes, there is the issue of which criminals are truly too dangerous to be let back out on the streets... and no doubt that parole boards have to do a better job to avoid them slipping through.

But that is no reason to throw all "criminals" in jail forever. You simply cannot afford it. And it does nothing to keep you safer. You may want to lengthen their mandatory supervision, etc., but mandatory minimum incarcerations are useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Icebound. You're right sentences do not act as a deterrent, when people have little to lose. Mandatory minimums are political ploys to please old, financially secure voters. People with something to lose believe that stiffer sentences make a difference because breaking laws could seriously disrupt their comfortable existence. The best way to fight crime is at the root. We need to combat poverty and income inequality. We need to create opportunity through outreach programs in under privileged neighbourhoods. Punishment for a crime is not a risk for those caught in the cycle of poverty and violence. We need to give them something to lose, even if that something is just an opportunity created through scholarships, training programs, co-op placements, mentorship or contact building.

However, Argus is also right that judges can sometimes disappoint. We need to give judges the freedom to levy punishments that fit the crime, yet somehow ensure they make sure that victims feel that justice was at least partially done. The conservative angle of trying to make sentencing black and white doesn't work but lenient judges create a lack of confidence in the system. What's the answer? Elected judges? A judicial review board with citizen representatives?

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you link the article that says Trudeau is going to do that because I can't find it but I did find an article that said he would concern SOME mandatory punishments and he does has support with some judges. http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/2013/11/11/trudeau-would-rethink-harpers-mandatory-minimum-sentences

Go to sun news and watch the reporter ask him if he would repeal the minimum for child molesters, and he said yes. So topaz do you agree with your boy on that????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to sun news and watch the reporter ask him if he would repeal the minimum for child molesters, and he said yes. So topaz do you agree with your boy on that????

standard PIK/SunNews crapola... I indulged your BS and watched that video. The video shifts from the 2 in-studio SunNews talking heads to commentary from Trudeau... the video does not include any direct questioning from a SunNews reporter/journalist... it does not include, "whatever the hell question proceeded the Trudeau commentary, how it was phrased and in what context"... his commentary is generalized and does not include any specific reference to... any specific crime/offense. Talk about the "Media SunNews Party"! Well done PIK! :lol:

Edited by waldo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched two videos and Justin was asked and he said for ANYONE. Today, we spend 60 Billion on prison industry and many people in there shouldn't be. child molesters, are mentally ill so sending them to prison does what?

Would you repeal minimums for child molesters. Yes I would. Very simple, lets remember his old man justice dept had said that reforming criminals is more important then the victims. To that effect. And they also wanted NO PRISONS at all. The libs have been soft on criminals forever and it has not changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not "justice" if the criminal harms society, then continues to cost society additional big bucks while you incarcerate him.

I'm very much in favor of work camps and work farms, where prisoners can, for example, spend all day picking apples or the like. I'm also in favor of corporal punishment to maintain discipline among them. The state ought to be able to turn a profit with free labour.

"Justice" is for him to start working as quickly as possible to pay his debt back. And that means getting him to behave himself in the outside world....

Neat trick if you can do it, but you can't. And you are ignoring the punitive requirements entirely. It's not good enough to teach a criminal that what he did is wrong without suitable punishment, especially for violent offenders.

But that is no reason to throw all "criminals" in jail forever. You simply cannot afford it. And it does nothing to keep you safer.

Well, it does keep you safer since they're in there and not out here. We need to make prisons more profitable by getting more work out of them. But no one has suggested throwing 'all' prisoners in jail forever. There are a numberof them, though, violent and repeat offenders who we ought to simply leave there set to work for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be against mandatory minimums of I had any trust in the common sense of judges.

To be fair to the judges, you have demonstrated trust issues through your posting history. You don't trust judges, you don't trust immigrants, you don't trust people that speak a different language from you, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't prisons then compete with private business? Do we want the public prison system using free labour to steal business or jobs from the private sector?

Not at all. We need to import foreigners to work on farms. Prisoners could replace them. We also can't do a lot of work in this country because of the cost of labour. The cost of labour for prisoners would be about zilch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to the judges, you have demonstrated trust issues through your posting history. You don't trust judges, you don't trust immigrants, you don't trust people that speak a different language from you, etc.

I have no 'trust' issue with immigrants or people who speak different languages. That's just your knee-jerk political correctness rearing its indignant and self-righteous head

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.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...