# Online news comment boards. It seems ignorance is bliss.



## midget-boyd91 (28 Jul 2008)

I, as I'm sure others who visit the vast interweb, have often found myself raging on the inside after the times I read the comment boards of online news sites. 
Yes, I do understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion..... but some 'opinions' are just outright horse sh!t. I often find them offensive, as one posted by one who calls him/herself 'Captain Canada' did earlier, and I often find myself banging my head against the computer screen out of frustration built up by the sheer ignorance shown by many many many of these posters.
So, here's a place to post and discuss quotes from 'doozies' or just ones that make you boil on the inside, that you may have read. 


Here's one from a CTV.ca story on Minister MacKay confirming the additional Canadian personnel about to be deployed.


> *"End the Mission says:"*
> 
> _"More troops Mackay says?
> 
> ...



I wonder if "End the Mission" realizes that the 300 Afghan civilians killed by NATO last year were accidental, and that the 374 (how HRW was able to pinpoint those numbers, I don't know, and I very much doubt the accuracy of those numbers) that were killed by the Taliban were *all* intentional. Regardless of whether or not the NATO soldiers/pilots pulled the trigger or dropped the bomb on purpose, civilians were not the target.
When the Taliban detonate a suicide bomb or an IED in a crowded market killing dozens of civilians.... this "End the Mission" person needs to give their head a shake of reality.

So, discuss, or post your favorite hair pulling quote.

Midget


----------



## Love793 (29 Jul 2008)

I always wonder if the same people screaming "pull them out" and all the rhetoric that goes with it, are the same ones who will scream "why aren"t we there?" when people start getting murdered by the gross again.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2008)

Love793 said:
			
		

> I always wonder if the same people screaming "pull them out" and all the rhetoric that goes with it, are the same ones who will scream "why aren"t we there?" when people start getting murdered by the gross again.



They are: they want us to leave Afghanistan so we can intervene in Darfur.......Small issues like the fact we would have to invade the Sudan and the Sudanese government operates with the backing of China and Russia are quickly glossed over or ignored.  :


----------



## JAWS228 (29 Jul 2008)

Posted of course, by the lovely folks at the G&M comment boards regarding the shooting incident in Afghanistan of the 2 children and their father...this guy is just rtfo.......... :brickwall:


*Though I have heard of suicide bombers, I have never heard of suicide bomber families. 

This killing was yet another proud notch on the gun of one our own terrorist yahoos, let loose upon the people of Afghanistan from the wilds of some urban slum or country den of incest and depravity. 

The CF has always traditionally been a convenient warehouse for the socially undesirable, unhealthy, and unemployable. Why the surprise when we open the doors and let them roam loose with a licence to kill amongst innocent defenseless civilians. Just wait till they all come home to hero's welcome. You reap what you sew, people. *

Some people are so ignorant its amazing.......I wonder what this guy thinks would happen to him if he drove straight at a policeman pointing an assault rifle at him and telling him to stop... ???
___


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jul 2008)

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> *I wonder if "End the Mission" realizes that the 300 Afghan civilians killed by NATO last year were accidental,* and that the 374 (how HRW was able to pinpoint those numbers, I don't know, and I very much doubt the accuracy of those numbers) that were killed by the Taliban were *all* intentional.



And, if HRW had the resources (and/or the will) to look deeper into the 300, I wonder how many of them could be linked to bad guys using civvies as screens?

Like it or not, in a democracy, we have to put up with other opinions, uninformed as they may be.  That said, we can always use the same venues to put our comments out there as well, and we can rate comments we agree with high so (on the systems that use a rating system) those comments get closer to the top.  Gotta try to beat 'em at their own game...


----------



## RCR Grunt (29 Jul 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> And, if HRW had the resources (and/or the will) to look deeper into the 300, I wonder how many of them could be linked to bad guys using civvies as screens?
> 
> Like it or not, in a democracy, we have to put up with other opinions, uninformed as they may be.  That said, we can always use the same venues to put our comments out there as well, and we can rate comments we agree with high so (on the systems that use a rating system) those comments get closer to the top.  *Gotta try to beat 'em at their own game...*



I'd prefer just to beat them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2008)

JAWS228 said:
			
		

> Posted of course, by the lovely folks at the G&M comment boards regarding the shooting incident in Afghanistan of the 2 children and their father...this guy is just rtfo.......... :brickwall:
> ...
> Some people are so ignorant its amazing.......I wonder what this guy thinks would happen to him if he drove straight at a policeman pointing an assault rifle at him and telling him to stop... ???
> ___



The web, for all its real benefits, is a crude place – unrefined. In many (most?) ‘places’ almost anyone can and may say anything – often, if a bit of care is taken, with virtual anonymity.

Establishing, operating and maintaining a discussion forum with anything like a reasonable level of ‘accountability’ is a major undertaking: just ask Mike Bobbitt and his hard working moderators and the subscribers here at Milnet.ca. Most media outlets, like the _CBC_* and the _Globe and Mail_ are unwilling to spend the money necessary to do that. Put simply, they cannot justify the costs.

But, Canadians are _perceived_ to want to comment on the news – and some do. But the sad fact, it appears to me, is that most users of most media _comment_ sections are mindless partisans – they are either 100% committed to this, that or the other party, and quite unable to see the faults in their party’s platform (and there are real faults in all party positions), or they are 100% opposed to a party and equally unable to see that, for all its real faults, that party has some useful positions, as all do.

The end result is that comment sections are overwhelmed with the mindless partisans. Those, relatively few, I think, Canadians who *might* want to make a sensible comment are deterred by the nonsense spouted by the partisans.

My suggestion: read the _Globe and Mail_ (or the _National Post_ or the _Star Pheonix_, etc, etc) listen to/watch CBC and CTV (and _Global_ and, and, and ...) but, for the sake of your sanity, stay away from the comments sections – maybe all the mindless, clueless partisans will stay here and save our diligent moderators the problems associated with our warning/banning system.

Let’s also welcome refugees from the mainstream media – many without any military experience – who will be ignorant of our customs and methods. Let’s address their questions and comments and opinions fairly and politely – as we would hope to be addressed, ourselves.


----------
* The CBC had a properly moderated web site a few years ago. They had to close it. Resources for e.g. moderation were insufficient. The most that most media outlets can or will do is to require some sort of registration. Unlike Milnet.ca, most media outlets do not cross check registrants' IP addresses, etc.


Edit: typo


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jul 2008)

Agree.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jul 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Let’s also welcome refugees from the mainstream media – many without any military experience – who will be ignorant of our customs and methods. Let’s address their questions and comments and opinions fairly and politely – as we would hope to be addressed, ourselves.



Here here!



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The web, for all its real benefits, is a crude place – unrefined. In many (most?) ‘places’ almost anyone can and may say anything – often, if a bit of care is taken, with virtual anonymity.
> 
> Establishing, operating and maintaining a discussion forum with anything like a reasonable level of ‘accountability’ is a major undertaking: just ask Mike Bobbitt and his hard working moderators and the subscribers here at Milnet.ca. Most media outlets, like the _CBC_* and the _Globe and Mail_ are unwilling to spend the money necessary to do that. Put simply, they cannot justify the costs.
> 
> ...



Maybe I'm naive, but in the spirit of "better to light one candle than curse the darkness", I think without the other side in the comment fora, the record forever stays stuck in the same groove.  How long do I think it will take to change?  Good question - how long does it take to change attitudes?    Still, for me, gotta post comments, gotta keep it civil and gotta keep doing it.  Also, as Sun Tzu said, "Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles".



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> maybe all the mindless, clueless partisans will stay here and save our diligent moderators the problems associated with our warning/banning system.



C'mon - SOMETIMES it can be interesting, if only to see the lack of a viable alternative from the other side....  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/62465.0.html


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (29 Jul 2008)

> The CF has always traditionally been a convenient warehouse for the socially undesirable, unhealthy, and unemployable. Why the surprise when we open the doors and let them roam loose with a licence to kill amongst innocent defenseless civilians. Just wait till they all come home to hero's welcome. You reap what you sew, people.



       Pfff.
      /
    :

Personally, I never hit the view comment button on news articles. I hear enough eye rolling comments about the the CF and Afghanistan without introducing a new platform. That and I really don't care how anybody with internet access feels on a subject they clearly have no experience or education on.


----------



## Greymatters (29 Jul 2008)

Still, Id be interest in knowing where THAT comment came from...


----------



## yak (29 Jul 2008)

Sometimes you need to do yourself a favor and avoid the comments section on CBC.ca or other similar forums. 

If you must, read the comments with the mindset that perhaps it is a blessing that we live in a society that has so many members that are inexperienced in warfare and oblivous to the brutality that people visit upon each other.  We have a population whose life has been, for the most part, spent in isolation from the horrors that are common across the globe, and that deployed troops witness while serving their country.  I think it's natural that a portion of our population will come to think that peace is free.  So that speaks for the security which we enjoy in Canada, as infuriating as some of the comments can be, it may be a sign that we, as a country, are enormously lucky.  Since they've not seen the scars of war or the incredible poverty the world over, many people (some who I count as friends) do not truly understand how damn lucky we are.

Personally, I find the "bring the troops home" comments to be callous and selfish.  Why should Canada, one of the richest countries in the world, not aid Afghanistan when their government requests help and the whole thing is UN sanctioned?  Since when are our rights and freedoms more sacred than the people in any other country?  But that point is never addressed by people who say we should leave Afghanistan to its own devices.  Probably because they do not view anything as worth fighting for - as they have other people standing up and doing the fighting for them.  It's a pity that they can't recognize that.  

Some of the usual posters on CBC.ca can't say anything positive on any topic, especially the police, military, or the government.  They are apparently a disaffected minority and you shouldn't let them get to you.  If you've been there and seen what goes on, you know what's been accomplished, what has worked and what hasn't.  The naysayers are not interested in any opinion that goes against their jaundiced world view.  Once you understand that, they don't get under your skin nearly as much.


----------



## Greymatters (29 Jul 2008)

To me, its not a case of getting under my skin so much as doing something to counter the uninformed and malicious comments.  Untruths spread well when not directly challenged.  Besides, I'm retired and can spare a few moments out of my busy schedule...


----------



## Strike (29 Jul 2008)

yak,

I think you should copy everything you just posted and keep it somewhere safe to post in the "comments" whenever it is needed.  Damn, that was good.


----------



## yak (29 Jul 2008)

I gave up on posting on comment pages for the most part.  Feel free to take what you want and post away...many aspects of what has come to be my view on this matter have originated or been shaped by posts on this site anyway.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jul 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Untruths spread well when not directly challenged.



Not to mention the fact that truths unspread never see the light of day....


----------



## Celticgirl (30 Jul 2008)

yak said:
			
		

> Sometimes you need to do yourself a favor and avoid the comments section on CBC.ca or other similar forums.
> 
> If you must, read the comments with the mindset that perhaps it is a blessing that we live in a society that has so many members that are inexperienced in warfare and oblivous to the brutality that people visit upon each other.  We have a population whose life has been, for the most part, spent in isolation from the horrors that are common across the globe, and that deployed troops witness while serving their country.  I think it's natural that a portion of our population will come to think that peace is free.  So that speaks for the security which we enjoy in Canada, as infuriating as some of the comments can be, it may be a sign that we, as a country, are enormously lucky.  Since they've not seen the scars of war or the incredible poverty the world over, many people (some who I count as friends) do not truly understand how damn lucky we are.



This is a great way of looking at it, and I think you are definitely onto something here. Nonetheless, I find the lack of compassion among some Canadians pretty disturbing. Where does that attitude manifest?



			
				yak said:
			
		

> Personally, I find the "bring the troops home" comments to be callous and selfish.  Why should Canada, one of the richest countries in the world, not aid Afghanistan when their government requests help and the whole thing is UN sanctioned?  Since when are our rights and freedoms more sacred than the people in any other country?  But that point is never addressed by people who say we should leave Afghanistan to its own devices.  Probably because they do not view anything as worth fighting for - as they have other people standing up and doing the fighting for them.  It's a pity that they can't recognize that.



This is the lack of compassion I referred to above. I hear many discussions about how badly women are treated in countries like Afghanistan and the various atrocities around the world, yet those same people say we have "no business invading" these places. Invading? How about responding to cries for help? Shouldn't the "haves" help the "have nots" on this planet? Why do Canadians deserve all these freedoms and Afghans or other citizens of the world not? I didn't choose where I was born...did anyone else?  :


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Jul 2008)

> This is a great way of looking at it, and I think you are definitely onto something here. Nonetheless, I find the lack of compassion among some Canadians pretty disturbing. Where does that attitude manifest?



Primarily from our "tolerant" lefties in society, who only tolerate those who agree with them!



> This is the lack of compassion I referred to above. I hear many discussions about how badly women are treated in countries like Afghanistan and the various atrocities around the world, yet those same people say we have "no business invading" these places. Invading? How about responding to cries for help? Shouldn't the "haves" help the "have nots" on this planet? Why do Canadians deserve all these freedoms and Afghans or other citizens of the world not? I didn't choose where I was born...did anyone else?



Selfishness and an ever present anti-Americanism. If the US wasn't involved in Afghanistan but the UN wearing blue berets was, I would bet a years pay that Jack and the NDP would fully support us being there and helping the poor Afghan people.


----------



## TrexLink (30 Jul 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My suggestion: read the _Globe and Mail_ (or the _National Post_ or the _Star Pheonix_, etc, etc) listen to/watch CBC and CTV (and _Global_ and, and, and ...) but, for the sake of your sanity, stay away from the comments sections – maybe all the mindless, clueless partisans will stay here and save our diligent moderators the problems associated with our warning/banning system.



On the contrary, I think it is most necessary for those who know what the facts are to speak up, to counter the voices of ignorance and bias, however frustrating it may be. This is a chance to inform the public, to influence public opinion. That's not the mindless sheep and their antiwar rhetoric (you can't change them), but rather the middle-of-the-road reader who might otherwise be swayed by what he sees as a majority opposed to the CF. The best way to counter a lie is to drag it out into the open and compare it with the truth.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Jul 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Selfishness and an ever present anti-Americanism. If the US wasn't involved in Afghanistan but the UN wearing blue berets was, I would bet a years pay that Jack and the NDP would fully support us being there and helping the poor Afghan people.


If Barack Obama wins the upcoming presidential election in the US, the NDP (soon to be DP) will be all over the map about Afghanistan (my prediction).  Just as socialists (of the commie type, not the nationalist type) were all over Germany for its actions in Spain in the late 1930s, they did a hearty "FLOP" in August 1939 with the signing of the non-aggression pact between Tavarisch Stalin and Herr Hitler.


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Jul 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> If Barack Obama wins the upcoming presidential election in the US, the NDP (soon to be DP) will be all over the map about Afghanistan (my prediction).  Just as socialists (of the commie type, not the nationalist type) were all over Germany for its actions in Spain in the late 1930s, they did a hearty "FLOP" in August 1939 with the signing of the non-aggression pact between Tavarisch Stalin and Herr Hitler.



Agreed. Obama is all about the sound-bite. All flash and no substance, just like Jack and company.


----------



## stegner (30 Jul 2008)

> Agreed. Obama is all about the sound-bite.



Name one politician who isn't.  

Just so folks know.   The Liberal Party of Canada has closer relations and ties to the Democratic Party than the NDP.   The NDP is socialist, the Democrats are liberals/centrists, just as our Liberals are.  Please don't get confused by the similar names, as that is where the similarities end.


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Name one politician who isn't.
> 
> Just so folks know.   The Liberal Party of Canada has closer relations and ties to the Democratic Party than the NDP.   The NDP is socialist, the Democrats are liberals/centrists, just as our Liberals are.  Please don't get confused by the similar names, as that is where the similarities end.



And you don't think Obama is a socialist? And our Liberals party might be centists in theory but they are slowly edging leftward(?) in recent years.


----------



## stegner (30 Jul 2008)

> And you don't think Obama is a socialist? And our Liberals party might be centists in theory but they are slowly edging leftward(?) in recent years.



Two things.  Could you please:

1)Define socialist
2)Give an example of how Obama is a socialist, or how the Liberals are moving more to the left.


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Two things.  Could you please:
> 
> 1)Define socialist
> 2)Give an example of how Obama is a socialist, or how the Liberals are moving more to the left.



Lets see here, you are the political science guy who will no doubt shred any definition of socialist I give in order to make yourself feel superior.  :As far as the Libs* heading* left in recent years i figure their track record since Trudeau is pretty self evident. The Libs haven't truly been centrist since Louis St. Laurent.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Jul 2008)

Here's a definition of socialist:

One who takes the hard earned money from honest folk and hands it out willy nilly to those who are too LAZY to look after themselves.

2 CDO is right. Trudeau was a socialist. Look at his record.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Just so folks know.   The Liberal Party of Canada has closer relations and ties to the Democratic Party than the NDP.   The NDP is socialist, the Democrats are liberals/centrists, just as our Liberals are.  Please don't get confused by the similar names, as that is where the similarities end.


Agreed; however, "name branding" is important in any publicly available commodity (be it beer, politics or record labels).  Jack et al would actually be wise to jump on the band wagon.  Having said that, their opposites in politics could simply point out other "democratic" regimes in history, such as the German Democratic Republic.
Anyway, as for defining "socialist", here is one take on it:
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer 
and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter. 
The two most important events in all of history were:
1. The invention of beer, and 
2. The invention of the wheel. 
The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man. These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals.
2. Conservatives. 
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were 
formed. Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night  while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the 
sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. 
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the 
Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided. 
Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by 
the jackass. 
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their 
beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of liberal women have 
higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat. 
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, 
lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone 
who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living. 
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more 
enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.


----------



## stegner (30 Jul 2008)

Sure Trudeau was a bit more to the left (just a bit  )  He was a socialist.  However, the Liberals under Chretien, and particularly when Paul Martin was Finance Minister, where heavily informed by neo-liberal (or neo-Conservative) economic principles.   Chretien was one of the most right-wing Liberal Prime Ministers.  Consider that there is little actual difference between policies pursued by Paul Martin as PM and Harper present-day.   Afghanistan and military funding serves as one example.    Martin was the guy who hired Hillier, finding that they shared many of the same world views, vis-a-vis military affairs.  Though Dion serves as a left-leaning leader, however, the deputy leader, Ignatieff is significantly to the right of Dion.  Ignatieff is the academic who thinks torture is all right in certain circumstances.   

I will offer a definition of socialism.  Socialism is the synthesis of Conservatism and Liberalism.  It stresses the equality and freedom espoused by Liberalism, but also the Conservative emphasis on the community, rather than the Liberal emphasis on the individual.   Socialists like Conservatives also view society as organic and holistic.    I hope this will encourage folks not to use  socialist or socialism as a pejorative.  Not all socialists are bad, just most


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> ... And our Liberals party might be centists in theory but they are slowly edging leftward(?) in recent years.



Our (Canadian) Liberals, traditionally - ever since King’s famous quip about the CCF being Liberals in a hurry, campaign on the left of centre, sometimes (e.g. Trudeau and Chrétien, pretty far left) and, generally, govern on the right of centre- as *directed* by the career civil service and their paymasters in big, BIG business. (Contrary to Canadian myth, the Liberals are the party of big cities and bigger business while the Tories – ever since R.B. Bennett – are the party of small towns and small business. The available data (from around 1940) are very, very clear on that point but, thanks to a lazy, inept (unwilling and academically unable* to deal with the data) and politically biased media the ‘story’ remains that the Tories are the big business party.)

----------
* In many Canadian (and US) universities, journalism remains one of the very, very few ‘honours’ or ‘professional’ or ‘graduate’ programmes that does not require at least enough mathematics to handle elementary statistics. One cannot get an honours BA in history without at least one math/stats course, but it possible to get a ‘pass’ BA and then a MA in journalism without having, ever, to demonstrate an ability to add and subtract, much less do enough math to do even elementary research into most subjects.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Two things.  Could you please:
> 
> 1)Define socialist
> 2)Give an example of how Obama is a socialist, or how the Liberals are moving more to the left.



Some of the multitude of political philosophy threads. Careful reading will allow you to see where Senator Obama (and leading lights of the Democratic House and Senate) are proposing socialist policies:

Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/20359.0.html
Deconstructing "Progressive " thought   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64647.0.html
Conservatism need work   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37454.0.html
Libertarians  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45537.0.html
Politics with more dimensions  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744.0.html 
Euston Manifesto  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42161.0.html


----------



## stegner (30 Jul 2008)

So where does Mr. Harper fall with respect to big business?   He seems to be a very good friend of Big Oil, particularly Imperial Oil, considering his intervention with respect to the Kearl Lake project.  Given that Stephen Harper moved to Alberta, because his daddy, an accounting executive at Imperial Oil, got him a job with the company out west, I have always found the 'Alberta' and 'populist,' 'little guy' credentials that Harper claims highly suspect.  Kearl Lake confirmed my suspicions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2008)

Look at these data, stegner. The Liberals consistently, often by a ratio of 3:1 (in e.g. 2000, 2001 and so on), got much, much more from corporations than did the Conservatives – and more big business money was ‘laundered’ through the “Electoral District Associations” (at a ratio of 10:1 for Liberals vs. Cons or NDP).

But the same data shows that the Conservatives are the party of _ordinary_ Canadians – they got ¾ of their donations from individuals while the Liberals got less than ¼.

There is, simply, no question: Liberals are the party if big business; they sold their souls, lock, stock and barrel back in the ‘60s. Facts are facts – even if Liberals lie and the media goes along for the ride.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> So where does Mr. Harper fall with respect to big business?   He seems to be a very good friend of Big Oil, particularly Imperial Oil, considering his intervention with respect to the Kearl Lake project.  Given that Stephen Harper moved to Alberta, because his daddy, an accounting executive at Imperial Oil, got him a job with the company out west, I have always found the 'Alberta' and 'populist,' 'little guy' credentials that Harper claims highly suspect.  Kearl Lake confirmed my suspicions.



Pardon my ignorance but I just googled that and can't find where Mr. Harper intervined......can you provide links, please?


----------



## GAP (30 Jul 2008)

Kearl  Lake confirmed my suspicions

Some supporting data/link would be nice....never heard of  Kearl Lake...is this some local bruhaha?


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Kearl  Lake confirmed my suspicions
> 
> Some supporting data/link would be nice....never heard of  Kearl Lake...is this some local bruhaha?



I’m guessing this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, may be what excites stegner's outrage:

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=568536


> New permit may put Kearl Lake on track
> *Imperial Oil*
> 
> Carrie Tait, Financial Post, with files from Reuters and Canwest News
> ...



In May the greenies’ hearts were all aflutter because the Federal Court had rejected Imperial Oil’s appeal of a regulatory decision that seemed destined to scupper the project. Only a month later the regulatory decision was made in Imperial’s favour. Harper must be on the take, no?

Of course, Liberal apologists never mention the direct interventions made by Trudeau and Chrétien into all manner of regulations and contracts – to satisfy the demands of their paymasters in e.g. Power Corp.


----------



## GAP (30 Jul 2008)

That's what Stegner is going on about?  :

*Twit!!*


----------



## stegner (30 Jul 2008)

> Look at these data, stegner. The Liberals consistently, often by a ratio of 3:1 (in e.g. 2000, 2001 and so on), got much, much more from corporations than did the Conservatives – and more big business money was ‘laundered’ through the “Electoral District Associations” (at a ratio of 10:1 for Liberals vs. Cons or NDP).
> 
> But the same data shows that the Conservatives are the party of ordinary Canadians – they got ¾ of their donations from individuals while the Liberals got less than ¼.
> 
> There is, simply, no question: Liberals are the party if big business; they sold their souls, lock, stock and barrel back in the ‘60s. Facts are facts – even if Liberals lie and the media goes along for the ride.



I am not denying that. never did, never will.    Indeed I have read George Grant's_ Lament for a Nation_ and support his mediation.  But your assertions are irrelevant now given thenew electoral laws.  All the parties are on even ground now.  No party gets money from big business anymore for the simple reason that such contributions are illegal. 



> Bill C-2, the new Federal Accountability Act, has made some important changes to the Canada Elections Act.
> 
> Among them are changes to the rules for political contributions  who can make contributions, how much and to whom. For detailed information on these and other important changes, visit www.elections.ca and click on General Information > Backgrounders.
> As of January 1, 2007, new rules for political contributions under the Canada Elections Act come into force:
> ...


  http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=fin&document=index&dir=lim&lang=e&textonly=false


Again your assertions are irrelevant given the recent legislation.   Also, Trudeau's been dead for 8 years and out of power for 24, so maybe it's time we start picking on people that are still with us no?   But one last dig: Trudeau was also beholden to E.P Taylor (don't forget him).   If we are going back to history, let us not forget Sir John A. Macdonald  Mr. CPR kickback stooge himself.   



> Of course, Liberal apologists never mention the direct interventions made by Trudeau and Chrétien into all manner of regulations and contracts – to satisfy the demands of their paymasters in e.g. Power Corp



Agreed.  But are you forgetting Brian Mulroney's  (Mr Iron Ore Canada) involvement with Desmarais and Power Corp.  Fair is fair.   


With respect to Kearl Lake, there is not enough water to support oil sands production at this site (something your National Post article purposefully forgets).   This is not simply an issue of crazy fringe elements.  Alberta has proportionally some of the lowest supplies of freshwater in Canada and major tributary the Athabasca River are already been stretched to the limit. 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061113/wwf_study_061113/20061113?hub=SciTech
  The Kearl Lake project does not have enough water without causing major ecological problems.  Instead of letting the courts adjudicate this dispute, Harper personally intervened, something that is grossly inappropriate given that he used to be an employee of the company is intervening for.  If Imperial Oil has enough oil surely than can prove this in a court of law no? I also suggest if your reading about Kearl Lake that you not limit your sources to the _National Post._   



It's easy for those such as GAP, E. R Campbell and the _National Post_ to criticize something they know little about.  They don't live there or really know anything about Alberta (or the health of democracy in that province) or the oil sands-so let's just pretend that people with legitimate concerns are crazy nut jobs  or greenies that are in the way of progress.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ...
> With respect to Kearl Lake ... Instead of letting the courts adjudicate this dispute, *Harper personally intervened*, something that is grossly inappropriate given that he used to be an employee of the company is intervening for.  If Imperial Oil has enough oil surely than can prove this in a court of law no?
> ...



Did he? You have a citation for us, I presume.


----------



## stegner (30 Jul 2008)

> Did he? You have a citation for us, I presume.



I'll provide a citation once you provide one for Chretien and Trudeau intervening on behalf of Power Corp.   Fair is Fair.


----------



## GAP (30 Jul 2008)

> But your assertions are irrelevant now given thenew electoral laws.  All the parties are on even ground now.  No party gets money from big business anymore for the simple reason that such contributions are illegal.



Who was the candidate for Liberal Leadership that had to drop out because it was brought to light that he received the Maximum allowed donation from a liberal businessman, his wife, and his little kids? 

Right....'days gonna follow duh ruls alrite...... :


----------



## stegner (30 Jul 2008)

Who was the candidate for Liberal Leadership that had to drop out because it was brought to light that he received the Maximum allowed donation from a liberal businessman, his wife, and his little kids?


> Right....'days gonna follow duh ruls alrite...... Roll Eyes



Joe Volpe.  In a strict legal sense, no laws were broken.   That's not why Volpe dropped out.  No one would vote for him-that's why.  He also returned the money.  Btw at least these folks were open with who was funding their leadership.   Harper, by the way, has never opened up his books.   Irony personified for a guy who claims to be open and accountable.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I'll provide a citation once you provide




HAHAHA.............


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jul 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Pardon my ignorance but I just googled that and can't find where Mr. Harper intervined......can you provide links, please?



Actually, I asked before Edward, and I didn't point any fingers at any other Prime Minister, so could you provide that link?

I mean, fair is fair, right?


----------



## stegner (30 Jul 2008)

Sure.  Sorry I missed your request.  

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2008/2008fc302/2008fc302.pdf  

http://www.financialpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=500315

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:rPDMfYeLGLUJ:www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html%3Fid%3D515102+Governor+in+Council+kearl+lake&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I'll provide a citation once you provide one for Chretien and Trudeau intervening on behalf of Power Corp.   Fair is Fair.



How about this?

The key bit is:



> Fifty thousand Canadian "gray marketeers" who can't do without small-dish satellite television have touched off a war here between telecommunications titans over who will provide the service. Jumping into the fray are members of the Government opposition charging the Prime Minister with nepotism, a communications regulatory agency complaining that its authority is being undermined and consumer groups protecting their interests.
> 
> On one side of the battle is Expressvu, a consortium of three of Canada's biggest electronics and communications companies, which had been scheduled to offer, beginning Sept. 1, direct broadcast from satellite, or D.B.S., television. This service, also known as the Digital Satellite System, not only provides images and sound that are close to laser disk quality but also upward of 100 channels, including pay TV.
> 
> ...



Now, as it transpired, Power Corp could not worm its way past the CRTC and DirectTV did not come to Canada – but not for lack of trying through “unprecedented and controversial Cabinet order.” This is Canada; there are no cabinet orders, controversial or not, without the PM’s explicit approval. Chrétien gave his son-in-law a cabinet level “freebie” – to hell with laws and regulations.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jul 2008)

Nope, couldn't find where 





			
				stegner said:
			
		

> Instead of letting the courts adjudicate this dispute, Harper personally intervened,


 but maybe you could cut out the quote for me?


----------



## stegner (30 Jul 2008)

It's the Governor-in-Council bit.   It was a cabinet order.

To quote Mr. Campbell:



> This is Canada; there are no cabinet orders, controversial or not, without the PM’s explicit approval.






> How about this?



Perfect.

I have heard rumblings that Power Corp was involved in the recent wireless spectrum sale?  Does anyone know if this is true?


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Sure.  Sorry I missed your request.
> 
> http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2008/2008fc302/2008fc302.pdf
> 
> ...



Great, but where, in any of those three documents does it say that *PM Harper* acted in any way at all, improper or not?

It appears, to me to be quite different, indeed, from Chrétien and the “unprecedented and controversial Cabinet order” that overturned a CRTC decision that was, incontrovertibly, proper and lawful. 

Did the Harper cabinet overrule any court, board or agency? Or did it just apply the laws and regulations as they stood?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jul 2008)

I have the same question..........


----------



## stegner (30 Jul 2008)

> Did the Harper cabinet overrule any court, board or agency? Or did it just apply the laws and regulations as they stood?



There is only evidence of the later.  Harper chose a minimalist interpretation of the recently altered _Environmental Assessment Act_.  Harper rather than overruling a court or a board or agency chose not to enforce significant provisions of the _Environmental Assessment Act_.  He signed off an a project that could have been made to better adhere within the laws of Canada.   In short, one might say that he failed in his duty as an officer of Parliament to ensure the laws of Canada are applied uniformly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ...
> I have heard rumblings that Power Corp was involved in the recent wireless spectrum sale?  Does anyone know if this is true?



_Groupe Vidéotron_, part of _Québecor Inc_, was a big player. For a while, at least, Luc Lavoi, Brian Mulroney's smarmy (my opinion) _spokesman_ was fronting for them. I'm guessing that prior to _l'affaire Schreiber_ Québecor boss Pierre Karl Péladeau thought that having a Mulroney ally would help in Tory Ottawa.

I don't pretend to understand the tangled web of Québec's corporate superstructure so I cannot even guess how much Power Corp money is in Québecor or Vidéotron.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ...  He signed off an a project that could have been made to better adhere within the laws of Canada.   In short, one might say that he failed in his duty as an officer of Parliament to ensure the laws of Canada are applied uniformly.



Did he? I thought I read that the minister of fish and water, or whatever, signed off on whatever regulation was being applied, legally and properly, as I understand it.

One *might* say almost anything - including that the PM did his duty according to the laws and regulations as written.

Finally, I think uniformity is hard to obtain in _sui generis_ situations.


----------



## jacksparrow (2 Aug 2008)

The intention is to get you going, and it seems to be working. Like you said, it's a matter of opinion, it doesn't mean it's the gospel. It's up to individuals to deduce what is truth and what is horse poo as you so eloquently put it.

You can't get your knickers in a twist over what some nincompoop posts on a website.




			
				uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> I, as I'm sure others who visit the vast interweb, have often found myself raging on the inside after the times I read the comment boards of online news sites.
> Yes, I do understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion..... but some 'opinions' are just outright horse sh!t. I often find them offensive, as one posted by one who calls him/herself 'Captain Canada' did earlier, and I often find myself banging my head against the computer screen out of frustration built up by the sheer ignorance shown by many many many of these posters.
> So, here's a place to post and discuss quotes from 'doozies' or just ones that make you boil on the inside, that you may have read.
> 
> ...


----------

