# Unacceptable Political Advertising: Liberals Attacking the CF



## North Star (11 Jan 2006)

I saw a political ad today that I view as unacceptable to members of the CF. Far from being quiet, I've fired off the letter below to the major political parties and major news outlets. 

To Whom It May Concern,

I have been a military officer for 11 years now, and as such have made numerous sacrifices for Canada. Until now, I always thought those in power had at the very least a degree of respect for those sacrifices as well as the high degree of professionalism my fellow soldiers and I demonstrate on a daily basis. 

This evening, I saw an election advertisement by a political party that shattered this illusion. The advertisement, which critiques another’s promise to enhance a military presence in Canada’s large urban centres, implies that the Canadian Forces and its members would willingly consent to abuse the position of trust granted to it by the Canadian people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Far from being an automaton with a gun, I am a thinking citizen of this country and would never consent to be a part of some kind of overthrow of Canadian democracy. I can say with full confidence that all of my peers feel the same way. To imply otherwise as did the advertisement in question is not only deeply insulting to me as someone who has contributed a great deal of their life to defend Canada, but to previous generations of Canadian who did the same.

Tomorrow morning, I have to provide leadership to soldiers who were hurt by this ad. I will stand in front of the men and women who serve under me and reassure them that their sacrifices are appreciated – that what they do is held in esteem by Canadians. I will try my best to have them put their self-doubt aside, and carry on with the task at hand. However, as one of their leaders it would be negligent of me to not make known the terrible damage caused by this advertisement to the morale and welfare of the soldiers, sailor and airmen who protect this country’s interests. As one of their leaders it would be negligent of me to lie down and accept the perpetuation of a negative stereotype that dogs the Canadian Forces for the sake of a few cheap political points. As one of their leaders it would not be honest of me to hide the feeling shared by many in uniform that this is yet another example of an unfounded suspicion of the military held by a portion of the political elites of this country, and that this suspicion is yet another weight on the backs of all service personnel. 

Accordingly, as a private citizen, I ask that the leader of the party that broadcasted this advertisement apologize to the men and women of the Canadian Forces, and publicly acknowledge that they were wronged by this attempt to attack one of the opposition parties. 

Although I do not feel as if I have violated, in my capacity as a military officer, the requirement to maintain political neutrality, I understand that some may have a different interpretation. From my perspective, I am writing this letter as a private citizen who also happens to serve in the Canadian Forces. I accept the consequences of anyone, including my superiors, feeling differently.

Sincerely,





Andrew James Duncan


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2006)

> I accept the consequences



That's the difference between you and them, Sir.


----------



## Slim (11 Jan 2006)




----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jan 2006)

What a great letter Andrew.


----------



## Dog (11 Jan 2006)

Is there anywhere that the ad can be viewed still? As far as I know it's nowhere to be seen... cbc has a link to it that won't work for me, and the liberal party website has yanked it.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (11 Jan 2006)

It appears to still be available here.


----------



## Haggis (11 Jan 2006)

North Star:

*IF* you receive any replies to your letter, would you be so kind as to post them here?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (11 Jan 2006)

You can see all the attack ads here:

mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/01/10/ctvvideologger2_143kbps_2006_01_10_1136914128.wmv

Note this isn't a standard HTTP link so it may not work for everyone. Ignore the tennis match at the beginning, the ads will start shortly.


----------



## Hunter (11 Jan 2006)

A very well written letter - thank you!.


----------



## Danjanou (11 Jan 2006)

Well done sir.


----------



## Dog (11 Jan 2006)

Thanks for the link, Mike. Although after watching it, I feel kind of upset.

I shouldn't, because the ads are not going to be played, few people are going to see them, and I've had a few members of this forum essentially tell me that I'm a nobody civvie, and that I'm not a member of the military yet,  but is this what people think of the military and it's members? Is this what the government thinks of _me_?

Don't mind me,
I'm just disconcerted...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2006)

We are discussing this in two other threads ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36886/post-319925.html#msg319925 and  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36924/post-319941.html#msg319941 ) and there is discussion on the TV and Radio today of this Attack Ad being Aired in Quebec on the French Networks.


----------



## Gunnar (11 Jan 2006)

According to CPAC, the french version is still playing in Quebec.  Can anyone confirm?


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2006)

CTV has a site where Canadians are placing their comments and views on the Liberal Attack Ads.

http://www.electionblog.ctv.ca/default.asp?item=130364

You will find links to other blogs, included in some of the comments from posters.

http://www.electionblog.ctv.ca/default.asp?item=130471

http://david-akin.electionblog.ctv.ca/default.asp?item=130364


----------



## Lance Wiebe (11 Jan 2006)

Man, I know that the libs have never hesitated to attack other leaders, parties, beliefs and so on, these new breed of attack ads lower an already low standard for the libs.

I hope that these ads blow right up in their faces.  Negative ads can be tricky......


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ........ and there is discussion on the TV and Radio today of this Attack Ad being Aired in Quebec on the French Networks.


The Original Ad in French, slightly different from the English ad in context, is being aired in Quebec on RDI.

As reported in Montreal:  http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=23&id=11111


----------



## Hunter (11 Jan 2006)

I don't think these ads will have much traction.  There are people of all political stripes in the CF, and we are all slagged by this ad.  As I see it, there's a certain irony to the Liberals claiming the Conservatives will put 'Canadian Soldiers...with guns' on the streets of Canadian cities in that to my knowledge, in the history of this country the Liberals are the only ones who have ever done that.  Examples that jump to mind are the Winnipeg General Strike, the October Crisis, the Ice Storm, the Manitoba floods, and that big snowstorm in Toronto.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (11 Jan 2006)

Hunter said:
			
		

> and that big snowstorm in Toronto.



That was soldiers with shovels... far less intimidating.


----------



## MdB (11 Jan 2006)

The ad is still airing on Radio-Canada as of yesterday evening.


----------



## Jaxson (11 Jan 2006)

"6. Military

Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up. Choose your Canada"

Didnt the liberals say they were going to increase the size of the canadian forces and increase their funding as well? or did they back down on this?.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2006)

Ads and slurs like this will certainly have the effect of politicising the Canadian Forces in ways which it never was before. Can you imagine what could happen if an Aid to the Civil Power or DOMOPS situation arises if a Liberal minorety is in power after the upcoming election?

On the one hand, there is a need to put "guns on the street", but on the other hand, the very people who slurred us and cast doubt on our professionalism and motives are now the ones telling us to perform the mission. It would certainly be in the back of everyone's mind that at some future point, these people may will turn around and use that against us. While there would not be mutiny or refusal to carry out orders, I could see a certain reluctence to go out, and an effort to keep the mission as limited as possible, not because of economy of force considerations, but to limit our exposure. The overall effect would be an ineffective mission and a further erosion of trust between the CF and the government.

The Liberals have only themselves to blame, by dragging the CF, a non political institution, into their political attack ads. A full appology should be given.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2006)

Arthur:

Further to your point, in a world where soldiers are being prosecuted for actions they take as a result of government orders, government condoned training and government decisions, how many soldiers are going to risk their personal freedom to support a government that patently does not support them?

Farewell the state.


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

As long as ads are attacking statements, policies, or the platform of the party/leader, I don't see a problem with them. Personal attack ads are another thing - IE "Mr. X earns 180 000 in a year, how sensitive do you think he is to the underprivileged?".

That Harper's being called on some of his more ignorant and revealing statements isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Hunter (11 Jan 2006)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> That was soldiers with shovels... far less intimidating.



Heh heh touche-eh Mike.  But it got me thinking about the ramifications of these ads in Quebec.  I imagine there are a lot of Quebecers with memories of when Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act, and I wonder whether the ad will benefit or hurt the Liberals in Quebec.


----------



## turretmonster (11 Jan 2006)

Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up. Choose your Canada"

Soooo is this an increase and addition to the 149 militia units out there now?  
Geesh. No wonder they pulled it. I'm sure most Canadians don't see guys in green as a bad thing. 

TM


----------



## Franko (11 Jan 2006)

When I was younger I was mad at the Conservatives and Mulroney for the debacle they made of the gov't. The insults and inuendo were flying everywhere.

Then there was the airbus scandle and countless other bunglings that came to light...a sure sign the boat was going down.

I felt a change was needed...and *regretably* I voted for the Liberals.

Jean and his cabinet seemed like a fresh change...mind you I wasn't in love with his proposed cancellation of the EH 101, I figured that after some careful deliberation he'd see the light and opt to keep it...for the future of the Forces. He'd lie like the rest, but in the long run, the people would understand.....

I was completly wrong and everyone knows the rest of the story.

The budget for the CF has been constantly been scrutinized and hacked apart by Paul Martin before he took over as PM. Yes, they've increased our budget now...mind you it's only because the forces can't operate on the level the gov't wants with the chump change they've been throwing at DND.

And that's what it's been....chump change, taken from behind the couch and given to us.

They've only restored our funding to where it was in the late 80s....nothing more, and don't delude yourself in thinking anything else either.

The only reason is because, unfortunatly, of the events of 911 and the increase of the operational tempo.

I've served for 17 years and have participated in Op Salon (Oka), Op Recuperation (Ice Storm),in Bosnia with NATO...

Now I'm in Afghanistan on Op Archer.

Paul Martin and the Liberals are now inferring that _*I'm*_ a brownshirt wearing jack boots, goose stepping around the city.....thanks to the latest commercial mentioned above.

*Congratulation Mr Prime Minister....you've alienated over 50,000 serving members of the CF and their families.
*
I'm going to the advance poll before heading back to Afghanistan.

I think it's time for a change again....

Regards


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> As long as ads are attacking statements, policies, or the platform of the party/leader, I don't see a problem with them. Personal attack ads are another thing - IE "Mr. X earns 180 000 in a year, how sensitive do you think he is to the underprivileged?".
> 
> That Harper's being called on some of his more ignorant and revealing statements isn't a bad thing.



However, they didn't attack Mr. Harper's statements, they totally misrepresented his statements.

The pulled ad will question the credibility of the other 11 ads.


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jan 2006)

Ridings...with soldiers...with Liberal MPs...

http://www.catprint.ca/blog/blog/politics


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> However, they didn't attack Mr. Harper's statements, they totally misrepresented his statements.
> 
> The pulled ad will question the credibility of the other 11 ads.



After reading the link posted, which discussed the ads and their claims, it doesn't seem they really misrepresented anything with the exception of the military ad. One quoted a WP editorial, not Harper himself, another quoted Harper's attitude towards US conservatism (the Cons can claim it's tongue in cheek all they want but when a conservative politician is addressing a conservative audience, he generally doesn't speak sarcastically of the ideology they all follow, especially when discussing the particular brand of ideology of his host nation - to do so would be insulting and I think the last thing Harper wants would be to insult the US politicians he looks up to so much). There was one add quoting Harper's statements on healthcare and they really require little in the way of contextualization. His comments on the maritimes are no secret, he's even had to apologize over them. 

The military ad was stupid and ignorant, no doubt about it. The others are perfectly legitimate, from what I've seen. The fact that they don't paint Harper in a very positive light (depending on your viewpoint) isn't wrong, it's just presenting things the way the Libs see them.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Jan 2006)

Wouldn't it be fun if someone could arrange an urban patrolling exercise in Ottawa in the next few days?  The E&K Scotts down here did a fully kitted up ex and you should have seen the calls rolling in.  However, once the worried citizens knew what was going on, they unanimously supported the drills.  And they weren't even being told that the patrol exercise was for use* not in Canada*.

The citizens support the military and I think that this add will bite them.  The add is also still available on this site:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_CTV_Liberal_ad_Cancelled.wmv


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> After reading the link posted, which discussed the ads and their claims, it doesn't seem they really misrepresented anything with the exception of the military ad. .........................
> 
> The military ad was stupid and ignorant, no doubt about it. The others are perfectly legitimate, from what I've seen. The fact that they don't paint Harper in a very positive light (depending on your viewpoint) isn't wrong, it's just presenting things the way the Libs see them.


So you see nothing wrong with the insinuations that Harper was receiving under the table funding from sources in the USA?

 'Liberal attack ad about Harper and his contributions', 'CTVNews'

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060103/ELXN_liberal_attackads_060110/20060111?s_name=election2006&no_ads=


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

Liberal attack ad angers military
Jan. 11, 2006. 02:32 PM
CANADIAN PRESS


OTTAWA — Soldiers past and present say they are insulted and outraged by a "despicable" and "incredibly stupid" Liberal campaign ad suggesting Canadian cities would be subject to military occupation under a Conservative government.

"It's pretty dumb to use soldiers as a wedge issue," said retired general Lewis MacKenzie, who ran for the Tories and lost in 1997. "It took my breath away; I just couldn't believe anybody could be that dumb."

The ad, which Liberals say was pulled before it ever ran on television (although it's been seen on news programs), opens with the ominous sound of a military drumbeat and the Conservative leader's blurred face in the background.

As the face comes slowly into focus, a concerned, measured voice speaks behind the words on the screen: "Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities.

"Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada.

"We did not make this up. Choose your Canada."

The ad was pulled from the Liberal party's English website but was still playing this afternoon on the party's French website.

Liberal spokesman Steve McKinnon said the ad was never approved and was included on a DVD distributed to the media and on the Liberal website in error. He said it was not run as a paid commercial and will not be run.

The Tories, who have proposed a permanent military presence in major Canadian cities as a ready aid in emergencies, said the ad implies that they are advocating some form of martial law.

The issue is particularly sensitive in Quebec, where long-held mistrust and resentment of the military was exacerbated in 1970 when the Liberal government of the day ordered martial law amid the FLQ crisis.

Soldiers, sailors and aircrew are formally prohibited from making public political comment or responding to political policy. But that didn't stop some from e-mailing expressions of outrage to advocacy and veterans' groups.

"People I work with echo my disgust that Canadian politicians are now using Canadian Forces personnel, past and present, to threaten people into voting Liberal," said one airman from Cold Lake, Alta.

The airman, who has served for 26 years, wrote in the e-mail to a national veterans' group that the ad appears directed at least partly at immigrants whose experience with militaries are almost invariably negative.

"We can only see this as a desperate attempt to win a few votes from what some would call the ethnic minority," he said.

"We have been honoured to walk Canadian streets. We have gone to the aid of municipalities in ice storms and the odd snow flurry in Toronto. If a city asked us for armed help during a crisis (as in the Oka or FLQ incidents, both a Quebec problem), I hope we would serve Canada well."

Retired colonel Alain Pellerin called the ad an act of desperation that is particularly "despicable" since CF members — even the chief of defence staff — are muzzled and cannot publicly respond.

"To use the Armed Forces for a purely crass political aim, to me is despicable," said Pellerin, a former infantryman who heads the Conference of Defence Associations, a lobby group and think tank.

He said it's even more offensive given that it's virtually the only reference the Liberals have made to the military in the entire campaign.

The Conservatives are not proposing anything new, Pellerin added.

"The army with guns in the city — we've been there since the foundation of the colony. Most of the time they were there to help . . . like the Winnipeg floods, the floods in the Saguenay, the ice storm in Ontario."

In an online blog, former navy seaman Lance Levsen of Delisle, Sask., said he was angered by the ad.

"That ad doesn't attack Harper and the (Conservatives). It attacks me," Levsen wrote. "The group of people that this ad targets are suggested to be a threat to peace in our Home and Native Land. That was me. ME!

"That ad targets my comrades who had the courage to join a profession whose job description includes death. That ad targets the heroic people of the UN peacekeeping missions who stand between warring factions defending peace."


----------



## pbi (11 Jan 2006)

Bravo to you North Star, Bravo. My thoughts exactly. I am going to express similar sentiments to the local Liberal hopeful here. IMHO, this hideously melodramatic ad (which as of this afternoon was still running in Quebec) shows the true colours of those at the heart of the Liberal party. Just as in the last election, when they raised the military "spectre" with nonsense about the PCs buying "aircraft carriers", they reveal that we who serve this country are to be used as bogeyman to frighten an electorate that they hope in their splendid arrogance is ignorant enough to be stampeded by this BS. Sickening. At least they have "outed" themselves. And to think that, for a moment, I was considering voting Liberal for the first time in my life. Stupid me. Not now.

Cheers


----------



## kcdist (11 Jan 2006)

OK. The anger has now subsided. I can now view the anti-military ad and others in the series for what they are: The last desperate attempts of a morally corrupt political party desperate to remain in power. Imagine the skeletons that are about to be unearthed!

Anyhow, now it's time for the humour. Try these links for parodies to the new ad campaign:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005519.html

http://www.pomochristian.ca/negativity.wmv


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

So you feel "stabbed in the back" as a serviceman?  Hey, imagine what it feels like to be one of 3,000,000 gun owners!

 :rage:

Tom


----------



## midgetcop (11 Jan 2006)

This latest ad reflects a blundering, barely thought out campaign that I've been pretty surprised by. I mean, there are MANY different things on which to pick on Harper for....but too try and scare the public with its *own* military? Please.  

In general, I'm sick of *all* the political ads and smear campaigns. The conservatives have quite a few nasty ads also. And I certainly don't agree with Harper politicizing the 4 RCMP deaths during the latest debate. I don't believe for a second that the conservative government would have pro-actively increased mandatory sentences *before* all the media hoopla about gun violence this year.


----------



## Tow Tripod (11 Jan 2006)

All I can say is that when I deploy to Afghanistan on the 23rd of January we had better have a change of Government in this great nation. I feel personally insulted by this deplorable ad.

TOW TRIPOD


----------



## kcdist (11 Jan 2006)

Actually, this is pretty easy:

Stephen Harper is a man.

Almost all Domestic Assault is committed by men.

Men, just like Stephen Harper.

Does Stephen Harper beat his wife?

He won't admit to it.

But he *was* photographed punching a punching bag earlier in this campaign 

In Canada.

We're not making this up. 

Choose your Canada

Vote Liberal


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

"actively increased mandatory sentences *before* all the media hoopla about gun violence this year."

Good point.  They still have lots of lawyers in their ranks, and those guys stick togather like cow pies when they perceive a threat to their rice bowls.

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So you see nothing wrong with the insinuations that Harper was receiving under the table funding from sources in the USA?
> 
> 'Liberal attack ad about Harper and his contributions', 'CTVNews'
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060103/ELXN_liberal_attackads_060110/20060111?s_name=election2006&no_ads=



The wording of the ad was: 

"Who paid for Stephen Harper's rise to the head of the party? We don't know. He refuses to reveal his donors. What do you suppose he's hiding? We do know he's very popular with right-wingers in the U.S. They have money. Maybe they helped? We just don't know. He just won't say. Choose your Canada."

No accusation is made therein. Any contributions made to Harper from US sources need not be under the table, as Canadian election law holds that a candidate or individual may receive contributions from "a corporation that carries on business in Canada, other than a Crown corporation or a corporation that receives more than 50% of its funding from the federal government".


----------



## 48Highlander (11 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> The wording of the ad was:
> 
> "Who paid for Stephen Harper's rise to the head of the party? We don't know. He refuses to reveal his donors. What do you suppose he's hiding? We do know he's very popular with right-wingers in the U.S. They have money. Maybe they helped? We just don't know. He just won't say. Choose your Canada."
> 
> No accusation is made therein.



Let's not play these games.  You know full well exactly what's wrong with that add, and you don't need us explaining it to you.

Or, on the off chance that you REALLY don't "get it", check out Kcdist's ingenious post.  It's just two posts above yours.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Jan 2006)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Actually, this is pretty easy:
> 
> Stephen Harper is a man.
> 
> ...



LOL


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jan 2006)

TCBF,
Lets be fair, there is not a great lawyer conspiracy at work. If the Ontario Govt. suddenly started looking at getting rid of my golden goose, I would be fighting it too.

The hierarchy in the lawyer trade, well dem I have issues with.........the workers just try to plod along like the rest of us.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

Agreed.  The truth is more balanced - I know some good lawyers.  Like the military or any other profession, the bottom feeders are the ones who often influence the opinions of others.

Tom


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jan 2006)

If I'm not mistaken, foreigners (individuals and organisations) cannot make donations to Canadian political parties...


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

"If I'm not mistaken, foreigners (individuals and organisations) cannot make donations to Canadian political parties..."

Nor influence an election like Micheal Moore did during the last one - but was not charged.

But, nothing stops 'gifts' to individuals who happen to be politicians...

Tom


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jan 2006)

>And I certainly don't agree with Harper politicizing the 4 RCMP deaths during the latest debate.

I don't agree Harper politicized the deaths either.  Although I didn't watch or listen to the live debate, it's pretty clear from all the liveblogs and post-debate commentary that it was the moderator who politicized the deaths by asking the question specifically with regard to those deaths.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jan 2006)

And all Harper said was if the killer had been in jail where he belonged, it wouldn't have happened. Straight answer to an ambush question.


----------



## midgetcop (11 Jan 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >And I certainly don't agree with Harper politicizing the 4 RCMP deaths during the latest debate.
> 
> I don't agree Harper politicized the deaths either.  Although I didn't watch or listen to the live debate, it's pretty clear from all the liveblogs and post-debate commentary that it was the moderator who politicized the deaths by asking the question specifically with regard to those deaths.



Actually, I said that I didn't agree with him politicizing the deaths. 

But I haven't read the direct transcript, so I stand corrected if it was indeed the moderator who rigged the question.


----------



## nowhere_man (11 Jan 2006)

No matter how Harper got his funding or w.e. this commerical is still a low blow.


----------



## North Star (11 Jan 2006)

Lol....

Stephen Harper, on occassion, wears a brown shirt.

A brown shirt.

Hitler had brown shirts.

Therefore Stephen Harper is Hitler.

We're not allowed to make this stuff up.

Vote Liberal.

Wow - they should use some of these ads for LSAT argument questions. The answer is the underlying assumption is the Canadian Voter is dumb.


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Almost all Domestic Assault is committed by men.



That's grossly inaccurate. Women and men perpetrate intimate violence at almost even rates. Where child abuse is concerned, a woman is usually the abuser. 



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, foreigners (individuals and organisations) cannot make donations to Canadian political parties...



You're correct, though I'm uncear on "personal gifts". If you want to contribute and you're a foreigner, do so through a Canadian corporation or start your own - it's not hard to start up a numbered corporation, I used to trudge the articles of incorporation down to the ministry in Toronto for a law firm and I can tell you, it's pretty cheap to incorporate. 



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Let's not play these games.  You know full well exactly what's wrong with that add, and you don't need us explaining it to you.
> 
> Or, on the off chance that you REALLY don't "get it", check out Kcdist's ingenious post.  It's just two posts above yours.



;D Yes, I get it. 



			
				nowhere_man said:
			
		

> No matter how Harper got his funding or w.e. this commerical is still a low blow.



Not really - if it was an established fact that Harper received oodles of contributions from organizations such as the NRA and Focus on the Family, it's entirely pertinent to the election. A candidate/party's contributors are a good way of gauging who that candidate/party will cater to. There's a reason people and organizations contribute to political campaigns and it's often not out of idealism.


----------



## Blue Rowan (12 Jan 2006)

In regard to those horribly done ads... both my husband (who has served) and myself (who am still serving) - we are deeply offended.  My first thought was what the hell were they thinking?  And I absolutely agree that this needs to be followed up with decisive action.  Thanks for posting all the great links...  

Blue Rowan


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Jan 2006)

(set with an Islamic call to prayer wailing in the background)

Steven Harper received campain money.

Lots of Money

In Canada

Osama Bin Laden has money

Lots of Money

Stephen Harper wont say where he got his money from.

Stephen Harper was seen eating a shwarma

IN CANADA 

We couldn't make this up.

Your Canada, your Choice


----------



## Harris (12 Jan 2006)

I too was deeply offended.  I've sent a letter of complaint to all 3 party reps in my region and I've asked the Liberal one for an explanation.  I'll post it if I get one.


----------



## Rescue Randy (12 Jan 2006)

What you may wish to consider is that if this is the mindset of the Liberal brain trust, what chance does the CF have of actually getting the toys that have been promised to Ranger Rick?  The fact that no real money has yet been forthcoming from the current government places our defense procurement plans in the same category as child day care - that promise has taken ten years, and still hasnt gotten beyond the "agreement" stage.  If the Canadian electorate return the Liberals to power, don't hold your breath waiting for support.  Their true colours have shone through.


----------



## Thompson_JM (12 Jan 2006)

And Another one... though i dont feel its quite as good as the all yours, I felt compelled to join in..


Stephen Harper Wants to Put soldiers in canadian Cites....

In Canada.

Building up a military,

In canada

You know who Else wanted to build up their Military

Hitler Did......

In Germany...

theres an "A" in the word Germany,

theres three "A"s in canada....

Think About it...

We couldnt make this up if we tried....

Choo-Choo-Choose your Canada


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (12 Jan 2006)

This is a copy of an open letter I wrote in response to a Vancouver Province editorial on this ad.
Sir,
    I feel compelled to respond on behalf of my still-serving brothers and sisters in the Canadian Armed Forces who are forbidden by our laws from speaking for themselves.  I see in the Liberal party ads that your article references attempting to drum up fear of armed Canadian soldiers being based in our cities.  Right now some two thousand more armed Canadian soldiers are being sent at the "Right Honourable" Paul Martin's orders to the war in Afghanistan.  When some of them come back in flag draped coffins, I expect Mr Martin to be there with his press entourage to grab headlines at the funeral, as he has done so callously in the past.  For those soldiers who are lucky enough to survive following Mr Martin's orders, you are apparently not welcome to march home.  Apparently, the cities that birthed them must now be afraid of them.  Is this to be our Canada?


----------



## dorionhawk (12 Jan 2006)

I was sickened by that ad...Sure not the same government I served under. This is a copy of an email I just received .


Rally at Ottawa Armory, 2pm
Rendezvous point: Foyer at Ottawa City Hall, 1:30pm


Reason for it:

The Liberal Party has recently launched political attack ads that are an insult to the military and to all Canadians.

When the military was deployed in Ottawa after the ice storm it was to save lives and help people – not to launch a coup.

The fact these ads were even conceived tells you that Paul Martin will say anything to hold onto power.

We must let him know that this is not acceptable.

 Thanks!




I realize that a lot of members and veterans are really upset with this ad . Rallies like this will remind all politicians that you cannot take the Canadian Forces for granted anymore.Time to stand up with one voice and show our displeasure with Martin and his anti-military ad.


----------



## dorionhawk (12 Jan 2006)

I  just posted this on the Defence policy forum, where as it should belong in this forum





I was sickened by that ad...Sure not the same government I served under. This is a copy of an email I just received .


Rally at Ottawa Armory, 2pm
Rendezvous point: Foyer at Ottawa City Hall, 1:30pm


Reason for it:

The Liberal Party has recently launched political attack ads that are an insult to the military and to all Canadians.

When the military was deployed in Ottawa after the ice storm it was to save lives and help people – not to launch a coup.

The fact these ads were even conceived tells you that Paul Martin will say anything to hold onto power.

We must let him know that this is not acceptable.

 Thanks!




I realize that a lot of members and veterans are really upset with this ad . Rallies like this will remind all politicians that you c

annot take the Canadian Forces for granted anymore.Time to stand up with one v


----------



## camochick (12 Jan 2006)

Martin is quoted on the CBC website as saying that the 

"The ad was intended to criticize the Conservatives' policy because it would spread soldiers too far apart across the country, Martin said. 

"We want to have a critical mass," Martin said. "That would allow large numbers of soldiers to respond to natural disasters at home or to security crises abroad." 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/12/elxn-libs-research-military.html

He is so full of crap. Why does he think we will believe this junk?yarghhhhhh >


----------



## Monsoon (12 Jan 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> This is a copy of an open letter I wrote in response to a Vancouver Province editorial on this ad.
> Sir,
> I feel compelled to respond on behalf of my still-serving brothers and sisters in the Canadian Armed Forces who are forbidden by our laws from speaking for themselves.  I see in the Liberal party ads that your article references attempting to drum up fear of armed Canadian soldiers being based in our cities.  Right now some two thousand more armed Canadian soldiers are being sent at the "Right Honourable" Paul Martin's orders to the war in Afghanistan.  When some of them come back in flag draped coffins, I expect Mr Martin to be there with his press entourage to grab headlines at the funeral, as he has done so callously in the past.  For those soldiers who are lucky enough to survive following Mr Martin's orders, you are apparently not welcome to march home.  Apparently, the cities that birthed them must now be afraid of them.  Is this to be our Canada?


The letter would have been more effective without the "finger quotes", but otherwise I think there's nothing there that anyone here would disagree with.  Well said.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Jan 2006)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The letter would have been more effective without the "finger quotes", but otherwise I think there's nothing there that anyone here would disagree with.  Well said.



Well, the reference to "when" some of them come back in flag draped coffins seems a bit dramatic.  It's not a foregone conclusion nor is it the goal of the operation.  Using our dead as a chip in a political argument is crass and defeats the message.  The letter was well written, however, and that is the only really objectionable portion, in addition to your valid point about finger quotes.


----------



## Hunter (12 Jan 2006)

North Star said:
			
		

> Lol....
> Stephen Harper, on occassion, wears a brown shirt.
> A brown shirt.
> Hitler had brown shirts.
> ...



Well there's more to it than that!  Hitler's birthday was April 20.  And so is Stephen Harper's.  We're not allowed to make this up.  But it never stopped us before.


----------



## fdengr (12 Jan 2006)

The Liberal attack ad is not only insulting, but it really shows the complete lack of understanding of the military by the politicians WHO HAVE NEVER THEMSELVES SERVED.  I find it sad that military service is almost considered cumpulsory to be a US politician, whereas in Canada it is rare indeed.  

I am personally insulted by the content of the attack ad, both as a voter and particularly as a soldier.  That the governing political party would paint its own military as a scary and undesirable entity (like a virus) meant to be kept away from "the rest of society" is far beyond unacceptable.  These are the politicians that control our budget and write our orders.  How disheartening.


----------



## McG (12 Jan 2006)

GonzoScribe said:
			
		

> I do have to wonder from where did the concept of having military bases in major urban areas?  Did the defence review come up with this one, some think tank or is this merely politicizing the military issue?
> 
> We know we need more money in the military.  But, considering the limited funds we constantly run up against, I would like to think we form defence policy on well-thought out strategies.  While the Liberal ad upset me, I don't think it was meant to diss the armed forces, rather to make citizens consider what it might look like - a throw back to the October crisis' state of martial law.  It was designed to create a level of fear of a police state.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jan 2006)

I really loved this add.
increase military presence in our cities. 
Canadian cities. 
Soldiers with guns. 
In our cities. 
In Canada. 
We did not make this up. 
Choose your Canada."

Ohhh, scarry.   I was all mezmerized and shit.

Hey Canada who would you rather carry guns in the streets? YOUR soldiers who will give their lives defending Canadian interests abroad (and at home) or gang bangers who blow away 15 year old girls.



> PS.  In the new array of "Kill Stephen" attack ads the Liberals had one criticising Harper for wanting to put "Soldiers, with guns" in Canadian cities.  Interestingly that ad was pulled from their web site within hours.  Speculation on CTV was the the military had made it known that they weren't pleased at having it suggested that they might be used against Canadians.



Some people are pissed off at this ad. Others chalk it up to stupidity and no big deal.

As a soldier I was very insulted. Maybe I read too much into it. Hearing this add made me feel very untrusted as a Canadian soldier. It made me feel like Canadian soldiers were not Canadian citizens.  The Liberals ad totally came across as suggesting Canadian soldiers would be used on the citizens in some storm trooper gestapo sort of way.

As desperate as the liberals may or may not be, don't dishonour the Canadian Forces with that garbage, and don't dishonour yourselves by walking that road.


----------



## Cliff (12 Jan 2006)

The democratic socialists who run Canada have always hated the military and what it represents = so it's nothing new. This open disdain for the CF and military types has becomed ingrained in the masses over the course of many years.


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (12 Jan 2006)

> Soldiers with guns.



Vs. what? Soldiers with pool noodles?  :

Yet another reason why I hate the _Lie_berals, I think they just lost whatever small portion of the military vote that they might have had.  The liberals really do seem to be getting quite desperate!

Planes


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Jan 2006)

The ad was actually accurate on one point : The Conservatives have put forth a proposal for 100 regulars, and roughly 3-400 reservists to be based in every major Canadian city. However,  the idea behind this was for a rapid response to natural disasters or a terrorist attack. It had nothing to do with what the ad suggests, or armed soldiers in the streets. The ad is ridiculous, but the Conservative proposal has also been panned by conservative and liberal commentators alike. Jack Granatstein, an avid support of the CF, dismissed the Conservative plan, saying that deploying troops in such piecemeal numbers makes no sense. This does not excuse the ad however, and the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for even making such piece of trash.


----------



## rifleman (12 Jan 2006)

Bottom line. Those attack ads do nothing to convince the voters as to why I should trust them to vote liberal. 
I hope they pay for their arrogance.

I recommend some random drug testing because I want to know what they are taking.

Harper says we don't have any election platform..

the Liberals...

Us...

Well we don't...

Cause we can't make things up...

Ooops I wasn't suppose to say that...

Choose OUR Canada.


----------



## armyrules (12 Jan 2006)

Nice Letter ASir let us know of any replies please.  Thanks and good job


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2006)

First "Beer and popcorn", now this. Nice for the party to tell us what they _*really*_ think of parents and servicemembers. (And for people like me who fall into BOTH categories?)

For the fun stuff:

*Paul Martin wants:

more Liberal MPs in our cities. 

Canadian cities. 

Liberal MPs in Parliament. 

with our tax dollars.

In Canada. 

We did not make this up.

Choose your Canada."*


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (12 Jan 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Well, the reference to "when" some of them come back in flag draped coffins seems a bit dramatic.  It's not a foregone conclusion nor is it the goal of the operation.  Using our dead as a chip in a political argument is crass and defeats the message.  The letter was well written, however, and that is the only really objectionable portion, in addition to your valid point about finger quotes.


       I do apologize for the when.  As a soldier I always forced myself to work within the assumption that casualties would happen, so that I would be able to continue my duties without interruption in the event I was confronted with injury or death while on duty.  I hope none of our soldiers suffers any harm in the comming rotation, but even best trained troops face risks in high tempo operations in Afghanistan.  As a pessimist, I love it when I am proved wrong.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> *Paul Martin wants:
> 
> more Liberal MPs in our cities.
> 
> ...


Now Andrew.....That is an Ad worth running!   ;D

I don't think the Liberals would find that offensive at all.  It is after all one of their own.......just turned around.


----------



## medicineman (12 Jan 2006)

I seem to remember doing battle PT, ARMED, walking/running through the streets of Calgary alot - not many complaints at all (smart assed remarks, but that's a little different).  I guess that means we were soldiers in the streets of a Canadian city, with guns and they didn't complain about it then...

On a personal side, being that Gagetown is a large Army base, and the MP for the area is a senior Liberal Cabinet Minister, I'd say there might be a rude shock come election day - not to mention Edmonton (if they're still Liberal), Pembroke/Petawawa, Winnipeg and Brandon, etc ad nauseum.  Should just give them some shovels (and dynamite if they live somewhere really cold) and just let them dig/blast out their own graves.  Don't get mad - get even (ain't democracy a b*&^h??!!) with your ballott.

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jan 2006)

> I guess that means we were soldiers in the streets of a Canadian city, with guns and they didn't complain about it then...



Same here. I remember soldiers deploying around trenton, brockville, belleville, kingston etc..  for two weeks carrying weapons. We put up vehicle check points stopping traffic, went to visit companies and factories to practice speaking with the public and getting information, practiced following "suspects" around town. Even practiced raiding an airport full or "terrorists".   (Which was all covered in the media I'll add)

Cops we're always helpful and supportive. Big games of I'll show you mine if you show me yours 
Citizens were always supportive, inquisitive and when we actually asked if our presence upset they they said no. They felt safer and it was nice to see *their* soldiers walking around. Everyone had a story about an uncle who was in bosnia or a grandfather who was a highlander in ww2 or something about the defense budget.  We were constantly bombarded with tim hortons coffee and donuts and home made snacks, just like the ice storm.

I don't think the liberals truely understand the relationship the CF has with Canadian citizens. Or perhaps don't want that relationship?  What happens when citizens start to question and complain over issues surrounding the CF..


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Jan 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> We were constantly bombarded with tim hortons coffee and donuts



Welcome to my world ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2006)

Medicineman:

Running through the streets of Calgary

Soldiers.

With guns.

No complaints.

Stephen Harper comes from Calgary.

Harper's values aren't Canadian values.

Calgary isn't a Canadian city.  ;D


----------



## medicineman (12 Jan 2006)

Good point - forgot it's west of the Lakehead - not part of Canada.  Come to think of it, isn't Missisauga considered Western Canada?

MM


----------



## Inch (12 Jan 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> On a personal side, being that Gagetown is a large Army base, and the MP for the area is a senior Liberal Cabinet Minister, I'd say there might be a rude shock come election day - not to mention Edmonton (if they're still Liberal), Pembroke/Petawawa, Winnipeg and Brandon, etc ad nauseum.  Should just give them some shovels (and dynamite if they live somewhere really cold) and just let them dig/blast out their own graves.  Don't get mad - get even (ain't democracy a b*&^h??!!) with your ballott.
> 
> MM



I don't know that that is a huge concern, I know most guys in Shearwater haven't changed their SOR and therefore vote in the riding in which they lived prior to enrollment. I'm posted to Shearwater yet I voted for a candidate in Sarnia-Lambton today.


----------



## glock17 (12 Jan 2006)

A little off the topic but:

The Liberal candidate for Dufferin Caledon is a former RCR Major, Garry Moore, why not let him know how you feel about the recent ad that garnered so much attention.

garrymoore@garrymoore.ca  or through  www.liberal.ca   1-888-205-2855


Pro Patria


----------



## Long in the tooth (12 Jan 2006)

I've dropped off and picked up my children at day care in uniform for the last 14 years (3 kids).  We have often been on the board of directors as well.
I spoke with the staff at the day care today and they all got a kick out of the ad.  Liberals?  Stupid?


----------



## RCD (13 Jan 2006)

BRAVO


----------



## Blakey (13 Jan 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Here are some other opinions from the "tolerant", "open-minded" and "enlightened" left:
> 
> http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005165
> 
> BE WARNED: have a bucket by your computer.  And you might want to have a shower after reading it.


I'm sorry, but...sweet fuking christ! ignorant ungrateful troglodytes, but hey...watch them all cry when they need us to sandbag their homes or shovel their driveway!....
Incidentally, back at the Liberal ranch....


> Martin says he only approved transcript of controversial 'soldiers' ad


Watch the interview...backpedaling bas....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





edit: oops, the link>>  http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/12/elxn-libs-research-military.html


----------



## Gobsmacked (13 Jan 2006)

A_Major,  good one re: Lib MPs in Citys - got a real chuckle out of that!  8)


FYI, just thought everyone should know what PM PM's view is of the whole CF attack ad:
(Compendium of blurps from: Tor Star, CBC, CTV, Can AM, etc)
[My comments Thusly]

Martin said an ad that outraged present and former military personnel was not meant to target soldiers.  
[Yep, Suure,  :  and I suppose he didn't eliminate the deficit by 'permanently borrowing', into federal coffers, the approx $46B Surplus which had built up in the once separate EI account - a surplus which now exists only on paper as a 'hidden debt'.]
The ad claims Harper would put soldiers in Canadian cities and suggested Canada could become a police state under his leadership.

The ad, which Liberals say was pulled before it ever ran on television, opens with the ominous sound of a military drumbeat and the Conservative leader's blurred face in the background.
As the face comes slowly into focus, a concerned, measured female voice speaks behind the words on the screen [in an ominous tone]: 
"Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities."
"Canadian cities."
" *Soldiers with guns.* "
" *In our cities. In Canada.* "
"We did not make this up."
"Choose your Canada."   >
"Vote FIBeral/LIEberaL" [or insert your favourite word]   

[* Yet, most Media outlets rec'd the ad on the same CD as part of a 'Super Slam' pkg of 12 Attk ADs, 
All approved by the PM himself (as acknowledged by the PM on Canada AM this AM and Ujal Dosanjh the other day) * 
- with the AD in question not pulled until 4 Hours later 
- once they realized how it was starting to blow up in their faces.]
Paul Martin has defended the ads, and In an interview Thursday morning on CTV's Canada AM, *Martin said he approved every one of the harshly critical ads -- including one that suggested the Tory Leader would use the military to occupy Canadian cities.*
Liberal spokesman Ken Polk told The Globe and Mail:  The ad "was inadvertently posted," he said in an e-mail to the newspaper. Then he sent another e-mail, saying: "The ad has not been aired. It may still."
A few minutes later in another e-mail, he said: "The ad will not air in its present form and was never intended to."

The ad was pulled from the Liberal party's English website but still appeared Wednesday afternoon on the party's French website.  
Thursday saw the Liberals chasing their own tails in the attempt to control the fallout from an attack ad that mistakenly made it to the party's web site and has raised rancour among Canadians.
[Yet PM asserted] "it has never been shown in Quebec"
McLellan, the Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal candidate in Edmonton Centre, said the ad was never approved by the prime minister and should have never seen the light of day.
[Meanwhile,] Liberal MP Keith Martin said "Some idiot inadvertently sent out an ad that was not approved and not supported by the party with the 11 (ads) that were supported."
Liberal Leader Paul Martin said the controversial "ad was pulled because the ad was pulled, and because there were better ads -- that's essentially it.''   ???

[Hold on, here come the dizzying Spin]
Martin said. "Take a look at what we're attacking. There's support for the soldiers."
[This AM on Canada AM - PM said "the AD was not an AD, it was never an AD." ]
[Tonight on CBC, PM said "the AD never actually aired . . . the AD does Not exist."]
ushup:

Still, McLellan said the ad's purpose was simply to point out the expense of Harper's plan to station troops for emergency response in four Western cities.
[Martin asserted] (The ads have) "nothing to do with soldiers."
Martin said Harper's plan to establish a permanent military presence in major Canadian cities as a ready aid in emergencies would dilute the Forces and create an administrative and logistical nightmare.
 "It's not me," Martin said.
The chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick "Hillier's the one who said `I want to have a Canada Command; I want to be able to really have top-flight soldiers in top-flight positions with top-flight equipment.
You can't do that if it's spread out all across the country."
[During a live News event Thur AM, PM asserted (from memory)] "what we need most is Strategic Deployability, we need forces concentrated as we can't wait a few days for them to be concentrated."

[Umm, did he forget only 2-3 Hercs available for such duties??   :blotto:
Plus, to move any substantial amount of equip, especially if rail lines or Mtn Passes are unusable due to a Maj Quake in BC, we require Rented Russian/Ukranian Antonovs at OUTRAGEOUS Rental Rates ~US$880M per flight (per Dart in Jan 2005).  
Not to mention that these rented aircraft, even under the NATO SALIS agmt, would not be available at Cdn Military airfield before minimum 72 hrs - plus requiring Undamaged airstrip sufficiently long to land on.
*72hr Antonov availability would be Insufficient to meet the FSA SOR 48hr availability window in respect to national deployments in response to a natural disaster (such as a major BC earthquake or another Winnipeg Flood or Ice Storm) or a northern Canada MAJAID (MAjor AIr Disater). *    :brickwall:
US C-17/C-5 begging/borrowing might be even more Problematic considering how PM keeps Slagging the US who have stepped up in past to help with Winnipeg Flood & Ice Storm Outsize airlift.]   :-[


[Plus, don't forget their Inane News Release]
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11250
_*Stephen Harper's Mixed-Up Military Priorities*_
December 13, 2005
_Stephen Harper's announcement of the Conservative defence plan today demonstrates his party's mixed-up military priorities.
Mr. Harper also announced his new plan would also include increasing heavy air lift capacity by buying larger aircraft.  *Heavy airlift capacity has one purpose: the deployment of a quick response for military or humanitarian reasons.*  Mr. Harper's should come clean and explain why he believes Canada needs this kind of airlift capacity: is it for military or humanitarian purposes?_
[Pls see my earlier post for further elaboration on that Brain Fart]
http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/36924/post-308912.html#msg308912

BTW, not bad overall summary of platforms.
http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/static/issues/defence.html
[Although they seem to have completely missed the CPC promise for Minimum 3x Strategic Airlift aircraft,
which coincidentally, the Libranoes need for their Rapid Deployment assertions.  Ironic Eh?]  :nana:


Hows This Eh?   ;D
[Military music circa French Revolution beating (louder and louder) in background on a Blood-Red screen.]
[Tank roaring straight at screen, gun firing]
_The Liberals forced the CF to scrap tanks in favour of Mobile Gun Systems.
Tanks bad, might actually scare someone._ 
[MGS wheeling happily by, turret swiveling back and forth merily.]
_Mobile Gun Systems . . . In our Cities.   
Canadian Cities._
[Pictures of riots from FLQ days]
_Canadian Peasants on the streets._
[MGS wheeling happily by, turret swiveling back and forth merily.]
_Soldiers with Mobile Gun Systems . . . on the streets . . . In Canadian Cities._
[Dead & injured civilians lying on ground after a riot]
_We're not making this up, Really!_
[MGS wheeling happily by, turret swiveling back and forth merily.]
_Mobile Gun Systems are actually very useful to quell Domestic disturbances . . . In Canadian Cities.
Choose your Canada, or else._


----------



## 48Highlander (13 Jan 2006)

Gobsmacked said:
			
		

> Martin said an ad that outraged present and former military personnel was not meant to target soldiers.
> [Yep, Suure,  :  and I suppose he didn't eliminate the deficit by 'permanently borrowing', into federal coffers, the approx $46B Surplus which had built up in the once separate EI account - a surplus which now exists only on paper as a 'hidden debt'.]



You know, when he says is wasn't mean to target soldiers, I actually belleive him.  The Liberals see us as mindless killing machines.  It probably never even occured to them that we could get offended, and especially that we could get offended by the suggestion that we're dangerous.  From their twisted perspective, they probably thought they were complimenting us.  Just goes to show how truly clueless these people are.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jan 2006)

Gobsmacked said:
			
		

> "The ad has not been aired.



As of this morning (13 Jan), it's STILL playing in Quebec


----------



## MdB (13 Jan 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> As of this morning (13 Jan), it's STILL playing in Quebec



In fact, the ad is not the same as the english version. The ad contains many messages, including the message that the CPC want to station soldiers in cities. Nowhere as attacking as the english ad. And yes, it's still airing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jan 2006)

I took a look at that babel sight. Wow and I thought we banned people fast HERE.

Those guys are really fucked up.  Hard core left and right wing people are scary. I was banned for attempting to verify that I was a soldier when someone called me on it.  Someone who uses full metal jacket as a reference for what happens in training. They REALLY don't like people who are right of center or soldiers, what a waste.

A_Major, in my first time forwarding something ever en masse, I sent that liberal ad to everyone on my list  

I'm also going from voting myself to making sure my whole family votes, all of my friends vote and anyone I speak with.   I'm writing the local Liberal candidate and telling him my feelings on how disapointed I am.

Hey the Liberals got me involved in politics, who'd have guessed.


----------



## Haggis (13 Jan 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I'm writing the local Liberal candidate and telling him my feelings on how disapointed I am.



Your local Liberal candidate is a former member of your Regiment.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Jan 2006)

ouch


----------



## Popurhedoff (13 Jan 2006)

As with many others like NorthStar,  I could not in good conscience let this lie.  I sent a letter to every paper in Canada.  I know about my obligations as a soldier and I happily accept all consequences of my actions and article submitted.

Letter of the day Calgary Sun:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2006/01/13/1391579.html

_This WEEK was the lowest point of my 27-year career within the Canadian military.  I was embarrassed by the callous misrepresen-tation of our military to be that of the Jack-Booted thugs of the Nazi regime of Second World War.  The best of our Canadian values, truth, honesty, courage, and integrity were nowhere to be seen from this particular Liberal advertisement.  I am still in shock the leadership of our country so blatantly sacrificed the good name of all our military members in an attempt to scare voters. 

My deceased grandfather served, my deceased father served, I am currently serving, and my son is serving as well. None of us, not one Canadian deserves to be insulted in that manner. I am glad my grandfather is not alive to see this.  After the sacrifices he and others made defending our freedoms, fighting the Nazis, this would have killed him. 

For that I can not excuse the Liberal party. 


Patrick McCafferty _  
(We understand your anger.) 

Cheers
Pop


----------



## TCBF (13 Jan 2006)

Very good letter.  Just the right tone, the right length, and the right structure.  Editors love them like that.

Well done.

Thanks.

Tom


----------



## McG (13 Jan 2006)

MdB said:
			
		

> In fact, the ad is not the same as the english version.


Could someone provide an English translation of what is in the French ad?

Which language was the approved transcript?


----------



## karl28 (13 Jan 2006)

Man oh man I just watched this add from one of the links here . I'm not in the military but god was I offended when I saw this. To make our soldiers look like thugs with guns is unforgiving .It's one thing to attack a political opponent but to attack people who are protecting are rights and freedoms  just gets under my skin . I sure hope that on the 23rd of Jan we can get a change of government .


----------



## Armymedic (13 Jan 2006)

Now to see how the Liberal Gov't thinks about this...

Has anyone seen or heard hide or hair of Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence) speaking or commenting on this?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Now to see how the Liberal Gov't thinks about this...
> 
> Has anyone seen or heard hide or hair of Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence) speaking or commenting on this?



From what I have seen, the Liberals have run and hid, and are hoping the media will forget this gaffe (and considering the slant of many outlets, I'm sure they are happy to oblige). We can only hope for the next "beer and popcorn" moment (and notice how fast THAT went into the memory hole).



			
				karl28 said:
			
		

> Man oh man I just watched this add from one of the links here . I'm not in the military but god was I offended when I saw this. To make our soldiers look like thugs with guns is unforgiving .It's one thing to attack a political opponent but to attack people who are protecting are rights and freedoms  just gets under my skin . I sure hope that on the 23rd of Jan we can get a change of government .



Then you know what you have to do.


----------



## RangerRay (13 Jan 2006)

Check out Dithers here...

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_Self-Satisfied.wmv


----------



## Blakey (14 Jan 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Check out Dithers here...
> 
> http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_Self-Satisfied.wmv


Thats even better than the straight run CBC video  ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (14 Jan 2006)

Squirm, monkey...Dance monkey...DANCE MONKEY...yessss

Later creep.  Enjoy your full pension and offshore assets.


----------



## armyvern (14 Jan 2006)

Oh yes blithering indeed

and with the Liberals saying goodbye to the 'unauthorized/authorized' add...they can also say goodbye to my 'previously undecided' vote...

This add was THE factor in deciding my vote... and it won't be Liberal.

To quote from Mike Duffey's show (I can't remember who said it...but it goes with your monkey perceptions)...

"Paul Martin seems to be slipping worse than a drunk on a floor of banana peels."

Indeed.


----------



## North Star (14 Jan 2006)

Apparently the National Post published some letters from retired and serving members over this controversy. 

Also, check out the regional tracking poll. The Liberals took a nosedive in Atlantic Canada, where the CF has a huge presence.


----------



## North Star (14 Jan 2006)

Sorry - SESResearch Tracking Poll


----------



## McG (14 Jan 2006)

So, I guess nobody knows what is said in the French version of the ad?


----------



## MdB (14 Jan 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, I guess nobody knows what is said in the French version of the ad?



Well, there's no french equivalent as the soldiers-in-cities ad. There's only this one: http://www.liberal.ca/multimedia_f.aspx . That's the first in the list.


----------



## Donut (14 Jan 2006)

North Star, I saw your letter the other day in the Post, BZ for that  one, Sir.

The French adds aren't nearly as offensive as the English one, they present it differently, as a list of Harpers pros and cons; For...troops on the streets, against a womans right to choose....  

For some reason flash is really choppy on my pc right now, so I can't catch every word, but I'll put it this way, I'm not personally offended when I watch the French add, unlike the English one.

DF


----------



## McG (14 Jan 2006)

MdB said:
			
		

> There's only this one: http://www.liberal.ca/multimedia_f.aspx . That's the first in the list.


I'm still going to need a translation.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jan 2006)

http://babelfish.altavista.com/


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jan 2006)

just simply copy the text from the French ad (if you have it) click French to English and it should give you a rough translation.
Or send it to Jungle.


----------



## medicineman (14 Jan 2006)

Just read this today:

"Just now at the Subway on Bank Street, I was buying my lunch and there . . . in line . . . standing in front of me . . . was a soldier. In our cities. In Canada. A soldier. He seemed to be ordering the six-inch ham and turkey. With chipotle sauce. In Canada. We're not making this stuff up."

Nice to see someone with a sense of humour ehÉ

MM


----------



## MdB (14 Jan 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> I'm still going to need a translation.



Off voice: "If S.H. becomes PM there will have pros and cons." (well, in fact, fors and againsts somethin) On screen: For (up) Against (bottom).

The rest is off voice and on screen:

Against Kyoto Protocol.

For war in Irak.

Against the free choice of women. (concerning aborption)

For the presence of the army in all our cities.

Against same-sex marriage.

For American Ballistic Missile Shield. (or whatever it is called...)

Against small arms ban.


Off voice: "And Gilles Duceppe won't be able to prevent it... nor for or against it."

Off voice: "Vote against this regress."

Off voice: "Vote for Paul Martin's Liberals."

On screen: "Make a success of Canada." (Which is Grits french motto.)


----------



## Fraser.g (15 Jan 2006)

Latest in the Liberals attack adds

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/worst-attack-ad.wmv.

GF


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Jan 2006)

RN PRN said:
			
		

> Latest in the Liberals attack adds
> 
> http://www.stephentaylor.ca/worst-attack-ad.wmv.
> 
> GF


that was brilliant!


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Jan 2006)

RN PRN said:
			
		

> Latest in the Liberals attack adds
> 
> http://www.stephentaylor.ca/worst-attack-ad.wmv.
> 
> GF



The playmobile swordfight scene had me in stitches. Gold, pure gold.


----------



## pbi (16 Jan 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Ujjal Dosanjh (sp?) was on CTV last night before the ad was pulled.  He said each one, including the anti-military one, was approved by Paul Martin himself.



The PM later admitted as much, although he said that he "only read a transcript". Come on...please. Even a "transcript" has the same words in it as the ad. Spare us.


Cheers


----------



## Fraser.g (16 Jan 2006)

He only read the transcript

In Ottawa

And approved the add

In Ottawa

And Waffled to the nation

From Ottawa

We are not allowed to make this up

 ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jan 2006)

> The PM later admitted as much, although he said that he "only read a transcript". Come on...please. Even a "transcript" has the same words in it as the ad. Spare us.



Thats wild.  I saw him on TV saying he never seen nor approved the ads.   Now he approved them and just read the transcript?

I suppose that's like Mr Clinton and his not having sexual relations with monica trick.  It's all in the wording I guess.


----------



## MdB (16 Jan 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Thats wild.  I saw him on TV saying he never seen nor approved the ads.   Now he approved them and just read the transcript?
> 
> I suppose that's like Mr Clinton and his not having sexual relations with monica trick.  It's all in the wording I guess.



I would write a biography of Paul Martin titled _Paul Martin: Of promises and Smoke_ if it wasn't that easy to summarize: Paul Martin is a *liar*. In Canada. Our Canada. End of the story.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jan 2006)

Hey if the Liberals win can we edit all our posts or what?


*watches over shoulder*

 :blotto:


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (19 Jan 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Hey if the Liberals win can we edit all our posts or what?
> 
> 
> *watches over shoulder*
> ...


Why bother?  If they decided to kill everyone who spoke out against them they would establish a new agency to hunt us down, staff it with Liberal supporters, channel $2.6 Billion into it, and we all know the results.  Half a billion back into Liberal party coffers, four fired heads of the program with golden parachutes equal to our lifetime earnings, expenses indicating the fifty four fact finding missions on successful deathsquads to Hawaii, Australia, Bermuda, and Disneyland.  The program will fold with none of us even catching a cold. Bring it. :threat:


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Why bother?  If they decided to kill everyone who spoke out against them they would establish a new agency to hunt us down, staff it with Liberal supporters, channel $2.6 Billion into it, and we all know the results.  Half a billion back into Liberal party coffers, four fired heads of the program with golden parachutes equal to our lifetime earnings, expenses indicating the fifty four fact finding missions on successful deathsquads to Hawaii, Australia, Bermuda, and Disneyland.  The program will fold with none of us even catching a cold. Bring it. :threat:



Better still, lets join that agency...


----------

