babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » The Pulled Ad Backlash

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Pulled Ad Backlash
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 11 January 2006 01:34 PM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it just me or are the Liberals wearing the pulled ad thing in a very big and bad way. I have been listening, reading, reading and listening - they are getting pilloried over this... here is what Paul Wells is saying on his blog.

quote:
It begins

Just now at the Subway on Bank St. 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.



From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 11 January 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any communications 101 student could have given advice to the Liberals that the military ad was very, very bad and going to backfire on them in a big way.

Too bad - a number of the other negative ads highlighting Harper's opinion and record in print were very good, and unassailable.

Now the military ad has obscured the entire ad campaign they sought to launch, exactly what you don't want.

Moronic handling; that ad should never have been written, never have been produced, let alone shown to the media or released to a web site.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 11 January 2006 01:41 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
Any response from members of the Canadian Armed Forces?
From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 11 January 2006 01:41 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I blame the NDP for this.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
guelpher
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9994

posted 11 January 2006 01:44 PM      Profile for guelpher     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I blame the NDP for this.

You're kidding, right?


From: Guelph, ON | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 11 January 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
The ads are from the Liberals. The content does not matter - there is a growing wave of people who now think anything said by the Liberals is mud, and probably based on desperate lies.

No matter what the other ads may say, the insult to Canadian Armed Forces personnel in the pulled ad will taint the rest. People will hear about the insult to our troops. Most people I know have had relatives in the Forces or people from earlier generations in their family who fought in the Army to defeat Hitler.

My cousin was one of the top grads from Kingston Royal Military College and went on to be a teacher with the mentally handicapped. No politician is allowed to insult my family with impunity.

The Liberals: dead man walking.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 11 January 2006 01:52 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
The Liberals: dead man walking.

... and the major benefactor is going to be the Conservatives and Stephen Harper will be Prime Minister.

Regretably.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 11 January 2006 01:52 PM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have been listening to a phone in here in Calgary - numerous calls from CF personnel - they are pissed in a very big way.
From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 11 January 2006 02:02 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
The reason people are turning to Harper is because the Liberals are corrupt and people no longer believe the desperate scare tactics. Maybe they should, but they don't.

If it is said by a prominent Liberal machine spokesthingy, chances are it's dirt or mud or as believable as Internet penis enlargement ads.

Example: my dad is a constitutional lawyer, my sister is a Crown prosecutor, my brother is a civil litigation lawyer. They all howled with laughter at the ridiculous and impossible pull-it-out-of-a-hat-at-the-last-nanosecond idea to amend the constitution to remove the notwithstanding clause. You will find no reputable or serious constitutional scholar who thinks the idea is a serious one. The Liberals are constitutionally incompetent and crazy. They open their mouths and out comes nothing believable.

The ads: just another example of the intellectual decrepitude of the higher echelons of Liberal Party of Canada.

Braindead man walking.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 11 January 2006 02:06 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If they use section 44(?) to amend the constitution using only an act of parliament then a future government could do the same to repeal the amendment.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 11 January 2006 02:14 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
If they use section 44(?) to amend the constitution using only an act of parliament then a future government could do the same to repeal the amendment.

Yes, but you can't add extra governments on to an amendment if it doesn't concern them.

Example, both Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador amended (with the feds' co-operation) the constitution to eliminate confessional school boards. A future Quebec government could decide to reinstate them with constitutional protection and ask the feds to amend the constitution again, and it will be changed. They couldn't have made the original request subject to the other provinces agreeing, just to make it harder to change in the future.

The provinces don't get any say in whether or not the constitution is amended to remove the NW clause from the federal government.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 11 January 2006 02:31 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

Yes, but you can't add extra governments on to an amendment if it doesn't concern them.

Example, both Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador amended (with the feds' co-operation) the constitution to eliminate confessional school boards. A future Quebec government could decide to reinstate them with constitutional protection and ask the feds to amend the constitution again, and it will be changed. They couldn't have made the original request subject to the other provinces agreeing, just to make it harder to change in the future.

The provinces don't get any say in whether or not the constitution is amended to remove the NW clause from the federal government.



Yes, I know. Martin's proposal deals with only the federal government's use of the notwithstanding clause. My point is that if the amendment is passed using section 44 (sorry if I have the number wrong) which only requires the approval of parliament then a future government can use section 44 to repeal the amendment just as easily (assuming it has a majority).

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
primary
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8598

posted 11 January 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for primary        Edit/Delete Post
If the Liberals do blow up, the NDP will gain from this as people will want a left-wing party in a major opposition position.
From: Windsor | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 11 January 2006 02:35 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Part of my work involves me dealing with courthouses where I deal with many lawyers at the level of federal and Supreme Court appeals. It is a big topic of conversation (and ridicule) since Monday - they are not taking any of this amendment talk with any degree of seriousness. Consensus: desperation by Martin, pure improvisation, which shows how dangerously out of touch he has become. Improvising at the last nanosecond when it comes to the Charter is the sign of a political death spiral.

Same as the last ditch attack ads.

Consensus among the Ottawa people I talk to: Death spiral.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 January 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really fail to see how the ad was a knock against the military ... the military does what it's told, and it is Harper that wants to have the military close to, and prepared to act, in cites.

The question is whether Harper would use the military in a less than acceptable manner ... as for the concept of a military acting against their own people within Canada, they have already done this in Quebec twice (War measures act, and Oaka.)

It may well be that Canadians don't remember that the military has already been used against the people, but if it's anyone that should be blamed for reminding them of this fact, it's Harper with his stupid idea of making use of the military, and not so much the Liberals for pointing out such a potentially deadly plan.

"Ohh, Harper wants to use the military in municipal civil protection and enforcement activities ... no one say anything negative about it, it might offend the military!"

Screw that noise ... this is an issue that should be high on the list of what Canadians are talking about, and not just because a few military types are offended that people remember what happened with the war measures act and Oaka.

Jesus Christ, sometimes right wing political correctness makes me want to puke.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Braindead man walking.

As always, could we avoid these cruel medical metaphors, please?

There are many readers here who will be hurt by them.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CF Pilot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11603

posted 11 January 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for CF Pilot        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by libertarian:
Any response from members of the Canadian Armed Forces?

The people at my base are upset by it. My feeling is that our local Liberal incumbant is gonna go down big time.

I've sent him an email asking what his opinion of the ad is. No response yet...


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 11 January 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by primary:
If the Liberals do blow up, the NDP will gain from this as people will want a left-wing party in a major opposition position.

People may want it; it seems unlikely they will get it. The NDP would have to surge big time in Saskatchewan to gain appreciably in seat count - they may not win a single seat there, again. Imagine that! Quite different from the days of Broadbent and Mulroney.

More than ever I fear an unchallenged Harper.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 January 2006 02:49 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re CF Pilot: And how do they feel about being put in a position to act against the Canadian people ala the war measures act and Oka?

It's not that I don't trust the military ... I trust them to do what they are told, even if that is to police their own people ... what I don't trust is the neo con Strussian USian imperialist wannabe prick that wants to put you in that position.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2006 02:54 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CF Pilot:

The people at my base are upset by it. My feeling is that our local Liberal incumbant is gonna go down big time.

I've sent him an email asking what his opinion of the ad is. No response yet...


CF Pilot, serious question: Do "the people at your base" vote by political principle, or on sentiment?

I haven't seen the ad, and it may have been ham-handed, and I hate Liberals too - however: the ad was clearly not about the military but about how some governments might use it.

Do members of the military grasp that distinction?

It sort of matters to the rest of us, y'know.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 11 January 2006 02:58 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The ad suggests that the Cons are set to turn Canada into a police state. That's insulting to the military (that they would obey) and to the general public (that people might actually believe Harper is planning a military coup). Its like Godwin's Law coming to political advertisement.

Seems to me I remember the Liberals calling on the army themselves in recent times ... I wonder if they at least blushed when they made the ad. Its just another attempt to get NDP voters to strategically vote for a Liberal party whose policies are almost identical to the Cons they're warning us about.

Right now I trust the military an order of magnitude more than I trust the Liberals.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 11 January 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"We're not making this up"

While the Liberals are mired in controversy about their ad that claims the Conservatives will send "soldiers with guns" into Canadian cities, one fact has been overlooked.

Soldiers will soon be in the streets of Winnipeg. And that's a good thing.

"More than 500 army troops, backed by helicopters, armoured vehicles and artillery will turn Winnipeg into an Armed camp..."

"Exercise 'Charging Bison' will unfold for seven days and nights beginning April 30 ...."
- Winnipeg Free Press (December 27, 2005, page A1)

"Charging Bison" is a Canadian Forces training exercise to help our soldiers prepare for the tough, complex and dangerous jobs they will be facing in places like Afghanistan.

But if other parties were like the Liberals, there would be ominous ads threatening that a Liberal victory would mean "soldiers in the streets of Winnipeg. With guns."

But we're not Liberals, so we don't manipulate the truth to scare Canadians - or insult the brave men and women in our armed forces.

And one final point - the last time we saw large numbers of soldiers in the streets of Winnipeg, it was another election year - 1997. They were helping to save the city from flooding.


Note that the NDP restrained itself from pointing out that it was a Liberal government that unleashed the War Measures Act on Quebec.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 11 January 2006 03:09 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I for one am embarassed to see that on the NDP website. Why would we jump into the mud to join this particular wrestling match?
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 11 January 2006 03:12 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Good lord. Why the hell is the NDP jumping on the right-wing crocodile tears bandwagon over this non-issue?
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 11 January 2006 03:19 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's a strong NDP contingent in the Armed Forces - particularly in the Navy, or so I gather. Using this gaffe to shore up their support seems like a pretty good idea to me.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 11 January 2006 03:21 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

CF Pilot, serious question: Do "the people at your base" vote by political principle, or on sentiment?

I haven't seen the ad, and it may have been ham-handed, and I hate Liberals too - however: the ad was clearly not about the military but about how some governments might use it.

Do members of the military grasp that distinction?

It sort of matters to the rest of us, y'know.



skdadl and No Yards:

#1/

Do you remember Winnipeg's Great Flood ('96?). Do you recall how many troops (reg' and reserve) worked tirelessly to protect citizens and property during that emergency?

#2/

Perhaps now more than ever before, citizen soldiers in this country are required to think about everything they do. I would hazard a guess that many are well aware that they are personally responsible for their actions, and that those actions will be examined to the nth degree. The argument that they were just "following orders" doesn't cut it any longer; and they know it.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: BillyBrindle ]


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 11 January 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
There's a strong NDP contingent in the Armed Forces - particularly in the Navy, or so I gather.

???

Why would that be?


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2006 03:27 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Billy, indeed I do remember the great flood and the heroic action of the CF. I have also read another wise babbler, member of the forces (Rand McNally), on the importance of maintaining major bases AWAY from major population centres for precisely that reason - that in case of natural disaster, any forces stationed on site would be affected by the disaster as well and therefore less useful. (Rand: I hope I haven't misrepresented your views. Please correct as necessary.)

And if we're doing sentimental credentialism here, I can put you to sleep with my list of family in the military - but I assume most of us are too grown up to pull that number, yes?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CF Pilot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11603

posted 11 January 2006 03:52 PM      Profile for CF Pilot        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

CF Pilot, serious question: Do "the people at your base" vote by political principle, or on sentiment?

I haven't seen the ad, and it may have been ham-handed, and I hate Liberals too - however: the ad was clearly not about the military but about how some governments might use it.

Do members of the military grasp that distinction?

It sort of matters to the rest of us, y'know.


I would argue that no one ever votes purely for logic or for emotion. That's not just military people I'm talking about, but everybody. Most people in the military are inclined to vote conservatively, but there are always exceptions.

The ad itself is really odd, because since most bases are in or near cities, and Paul Martin has committed his government to increasing the size of the military, it stands to reason that those extra people would end up in or near cities. Whether it's SH or PM proposing extra military personnel in/near cities is irrelevant. That's where they're going to be based, because that't where the bases are.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2006 03:55 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You recognize, though, don't you, that the ad (I take it) was not aimed at the military but at political misuse of the military? Do you think other members of the CF will recognize the distinction?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 11 January 2006 03:59 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by primary:
If the Liberals do blow up, the NDP will gain from this as people will want a left-wing party in a major opposition position.

Nope.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 11 January 2006 04:00 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
Good lord. Why the hell is the NDP jumping on the right-wing crocodile tears bandwagon over this non-issue?

Probably the same reason they are jumping on other right-wing issues like crime & punishment.

Because the national NDP campaign is being run by a bunch of morons, none of whom remember what happened to the NDP in 1993.

Nine seats.

Remember that?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 11 January 2006 04:03 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:

Probably the same reason they are jumping on other right-wing issues like crime & punishment.

Because the national NDP campaign is being run by a bunch of morons, none of whom remember what happened to the NDP in 1993.

Nine seats.

Remember that?


They are going to get a good fucking reminder in about 12 days if they keep this shit up.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
CF Pilot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11603

posted 11 January 2006 04:05 PM      Profile for CF Pilot        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
You recognize, though, don't you, that the ad (I take it) was not aimed at the military but at political misuse of the military? Do you think other members of the CF will recognize the distinction?

No member is required to obey an order that is manifestly illegal. In fact, if you do obey such an order, you are just as guilty as the person who gave it.

So, let's say the PM tells the CDS to do a Winnipeg 1919-style apprehended insurrection attack on some demonstrators. He'll say no, because that order would be illegal.

Imposing martial law under the War Measures Act (or whatever it's called now) needs approval from Parliament. If it's passed, then fine, off we go.

Bottom line is that the PM can't just point the military at a city and say "attack". There needs to be political accountability.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 11 January 2006 04:08 PM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2006 04:08 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, then, CF Pilot, if you recognize the distinction, why do you think somebody/ies is/are trying to blow this story up into an attack on the military itself? Which was clearly never anyone's intention?

Who wants members of the CF and their families to feel personally attacked by this ad? Hmmmn.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 11 January 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Billy, indeed I do remember the great flood and the heroic action of the CF. I have also read another wise babbler, member of the forces (Rand McNally), on the importance of maintaining major bases AWAY from major population centres for precisely that reason - that in case of natural disaster, any forces stationed on site would be affected by the disaster as well and therefore less useful. (Rand: I hope I haven't misrepresented your views. Please correct as necessary.)

And if we're doing sentimental credentialism here, I can put you to sleep with my list of family in the military - but I assume most of us are too grown up to pull that number, yes?


Regarding your first paragraph: fair enough. However, considering the vastness our fair land, unless we significantly increased our ability to move our troopies around in a more timely manner...

Regarding your second: I'm not exactly sure what "sentimental credentialism" is. If you could define it fer me, I'd sure like to talkk about it.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2006 04:27 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BillyBrindle:

Regarding your second: I'm not exactly sure what "sentimental credentialism" is. If you could define it fer me, I'd sure like to talkk about it.


Well, Billy, there's something about these conversations I never understand.

Some political spinners seem to think that they can always get traction just by saying, "But we all LUUUUV the forces, don't we? We support them?" and everyone is supposed to salute and cry and pretend that we have somehow beaten off the forces of evil.

But what forces of evil? If some other parties are trying to figure out both principled and practical ways of re-funding and reorg'ing the forces, does that constitute an attack on the forces?

It seems to me that someone wants to make it look as though it does, as though any rational discussion of the forces is an attack on them, and it can always be short-circuited by appeals to emotion and loyalty.

But I am loyal, y'know? And I don't see what my loyalty to the forces has to do with a principled resistance to misusing them, y'know? Like, I don't see it. That is what I mean by sentimentalism.

If great big macho-guy-sobs are forever going to short-circuit rational discussion in this country, then ... we're never gonna have rational discussion, eh?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dackle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3870

posted 11 January 2006 04:29 PM      Profile for dackle        Edit/Delete Post
It sounded to me like Harper's proposal was to station troops in cities to help with aid to the civil authority.

Another side of the proposal was the desire for many CF members and their families to live in or near larger centers. When the base in Winnipeg moved to CFB Shilo, many members lamented the move because they were going to an area with far less services than Winnipeg.

The Harper proposal would be popular among the CF personnel who would prefer to live in a larger center. This would likely boost moral and enlistment.

Then along comes the Liberal Ad which makes it sound, not like the War Measures Act, but that CF personnel would be roaming our cities. With Guns. Canadian Cities. With Guns.

We all know how the Liberals feel about people with guns, so to me, this ad paints CF members as violent lunatics who could start firing at any moment and that these psychopaths need to be kept out of our cities.

Add the recent "gun crime" issues and "Soldiers in cities with guns" was just a stupid thing to say.


From: The province no one likes. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 January 2006 04:35 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So then from what I gather, the CPC announcement was to post military that were already stationed near cites, "near cities", in order to be capable of performing the duties they were already capable of performing.

Now I get it!

So tell me again which party is insulting the military?

If us "anti-military" types have no argument, then Harper made an announcement designed to troll the other parties into demonizing the CPC ... if there was something more to the Harper announcement then it is certainly justified to demand to know exactly what form this new military capability is going to take.

You can't have it both ways ... either it was a meaningless announcement designed to stir up shit, or it was a meaningful announcement that justifies a response and strong questioning.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2006 04:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
then Harper made an announcement designed to troll the other parties

Bingo.

Except the truly immoral part is that he was also trolling the Canadian public.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 January 2006 04:46 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, the truly immoral thing is the reaction by the media to anyone questioning Harpers planned use of the military in our cities.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
dackle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3870

posted 11 January 2006 04:50 PM      Profile for dackle        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You can't have it both ways ... either it was a meaningless announcement designed to stir up shit, or it was a meaningful announcement that justifies a response and strong questioning.

It was an announcement designed to address a problem that many CF members encountered when the Urban bases closed.

Many members had spouses who lost jobs due to the transfers. Many families were uprooted, children were pulled out of school, second incomes lost, etc.

The announcement seemed to be about keeping small detachments in cites to allow more options for CF members to apply to serve in areas that may better suit they and their families lifestyle needs. This would also be a net benefit for the city in case of emergency. It's not as if no other troops wouild come, but they would have a head start.

I don't know how it is insulting to the CF to pledge to restore the option of being posted to a city, considering many urban members disliked the initial transfer.

What is insulting is suggesting members stationed in our cities would somehow be dangerous, simply for being there. With Guns.

What about the police? They're in cities. Canadian cities. With guns.


From: The province no one likes. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 11 January 2006 04:51 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper was definitely trolling. The insulting part of the Liberal ad was that it implied that the Canadian military is made up of evil people you'd be afraid to have around. Those of us who have friends and family in the military, or have been helped by them in a crisis find that a bit hard to take.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
hiti
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11230

posted 11 January 2006 05:11 PM      Profile for hiti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This ad was never approved for release. It was a part of the 12 ads that the ad company uploaded to the Liberal web site, which then were approved or not, in this case, by the Liberal party and subsequently this ad was removed from publication.

This ad was in response to Harper saying; "This is a full military presence," he added. "Obviously we would anticipate that its domestic need would be in case of disaster...but obviously they would be military forces that could be forward-deployed in the event of more serious military conflict elsewhere."

The CONS are spinning this for all they are worth, with lies and innuendoes. Someone should bust Jason Kenney's cherry. That guy makes me sick with his false indignation and hypocriticy.


From: Albertan by birth, Canadian by choice. | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
hiti
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11230

posted 11 January 2006 05:14 PM      Profile for hiti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:
Harper was definitely trolling. The insulting part of the Liberal ad was that it implied that the Canadian military is made up of evil people you'd be afraid to have around. Those of us who have friends and family in the military, or have been helped by them in a crisis find that a bit hard to take.

What a load of bs. This ad only implied that Harper would use the military for his personal means. The evil people are not the military but those who would use them as the means for their end.


From: Albertan by birth, Canadian by choice. | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 11 January 2006 05:17 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:

If it is said by a prominent Liberal machine spokesthingy, chances are it's dirt or mud or as believable as Internet penis enlargement ads.

Exactly. If the Liberal campaign said the sky was blue, I might be convinced it was really green.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 11 January 2006 05:32 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:

Exactly. If the Liberal campaign said the sky was blue, I might be convinced it was really green.



LOL! Burn!

I agree that it's important for folks to know what Harper's CPC's have planned, specifically, regarding this proposal. Do I think he has something up his sleeve? Honestly? My gut feeling is probably.
That guy kinda' scares me.

But at the same time, the masochist in me wants to see what he's gonna' try to do.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 11 January 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

Well, Billy, there's something about these conversations I never understand.

Some political spinners seem to think that they can always get traction just by saying, "But we all LUUUUV the forces, don't we? We support them?" and everyone is supposed to salute and cry and pretend that we have somehow beaten off the forces of evil.

But what forces of evil? If some other parties are trying to figure out both principled and practical ways of re-funding and reorg'ing the forces, does that constitute an attack on the forces?

It seems to me that someone wants to make it look as though it does, as though any rational discussion of the forces is an attack on them, and it can always be short-circuited by appeals to emotion and loyalty.

But I am loyal, y'know? And I don't see what my loyalty to the forces has to do with a principled resistance to misusing them, y'know? Like, I don't see it. That is what I mean by sentimentalism.

If great big macho-guy-sobs are forever going to short-circuit rational discussion in this country, then ... we're never gonna have rational discussion, eh?


Thanks sk'--

But I don't think I was being senimental; I was just citing an instance wherein having the military close at hand was a good thing for our cities. It was the first example I could think of that I thought folks might remember.

And I think it's unavoidable, when discussing our Canadian Armed Forces, for many folks to get their hackles up. That's Canada! LOL! "You can take away our rights, but leave beer, hockey, and the military out of it!"
You're right, it makes for difficult discussions.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 11 January 2006 05:47 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by hiti:
This ad was never approved for release. It was a part of the 12 ads that the ad company uploaded to the Liberal web site, which then were approved or not, in this case, by the Liberal party and subsequently this ad was removed from publication.

According to the 11:00 CTV news in Calgary (Sandy Renaldo??)last night all the advertisments, including the military one were released to the media for commentary and news in advance of the ads being run. For the media, there was no question that all had been released for the public.

edited to add

And why the heck am I doing responding to a Hiti post anyways??!!

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 11 January 2006 05:50 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

And why the heck am I doing responding to a Hiti post anyways??!!

Dunno, but can you hold off a mo' while I get some beer and popcorn?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
primary
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8598

posted 11 January 2006 05:59 PM      Profile for primary        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by hiti:
This ad was never approved for release. It was a part of the 12 ads that the ad company uploaded to the Liberal web site, which then were approved or not, in this case, by the Liberal party and subsequently this ad was removed from publication.

This ad was in response to Harper saying; "This is a full military presence," he added. "Obviously we would anticipate that its domestic need would be in case of disaster...but obviously they would be military forces that could be forward-deployed in the event of more serious military conflict elsewhere."

The CONS are spinning this for all they are worth, with lies and innuendoes. Someone should bust Jason Kenney's cherry. That guy makes me sick with his false indignation and hypocriticy.



Given it has the Liberal tag on the bottom and the fact a senior Liberal minister said Paul Martin approved it. It would appear that it was approved for release. Also the fact that they sent it out to the media.


From: Windsor | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 11 January 2006 06:01 PM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am troubled that it is still running in Quebec....
From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 12 January 2006 08:37 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...especially when you consider which party used the War Measures Act most recently.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 January 2006 08:44 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Weren't the military called out at Oka? Who was responsible for that?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 January 2006 08:47 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmmn. My googling tells me that Bourassa called for the troops (history repeats, eh?), but wouldn't Mulroney have had to give the order?

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 12 January 2006 08:56 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by stupendousgirlie:
I am troubled that it is still running in Quebec....

Someone last night said it was running in French all day yesterday, is this true?


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
chilipepper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11377

posted 12 January 2006 09:09 AM      Profile for chilipepper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On CTV last night it was stated that the ad was running in Quebec. I also heard from a Western friend that it did run in BC for a short time.

It certainly undermines the credibility of the rest of them and shows how desperate the liberals are becoming now.


From: GTA | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 January 2006 10:00 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It also stated that a *DIFFERENT* version of the ad was running in Quebec (or it should have stated that, but with CTV, you may be correct. They seem to have no problem spinning for the CPC.)

As to the "insulting" of the military ... what exactly is it that is "insulting"?

Has it come to the point where accusing harper of potential abuse of the military is now an insult to the people he will abuse?

When the CPC were going on about how the Liberals were abusing the powers of the RCMP, the Justice system, the treasury, where these all insults to those organizations?

Another fucking right wing political correct attempt at silencing legitimate political debate in Canada.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 January 2006 10:06 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Has it come to the point where accusing harper of potential abuse of the military is now an insult to the people he will abuse?

When the CPC were going on about how the Liberals were abusing the powers of the RCMP, the Justice system, the treasury, where these all insults to those organizations?


Precisely, No Yards.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 12 January 2006 10:46 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its insulting because it suggests having the military in the city is dangerous. I've yet to see an ad suggesting that the same would be true if the number of RCMP in the cities were increased.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 January 2006 10:51 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Armed military in a city *IS* dangerous ... but that's not what the ads suggest. The suggestion is that Harper would misuse the military, not that the military would on its own go out of control, strap on their gear and start shooting up the city.

Also, a little bit of free education; there is a difference between a police force and an military force.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 12 January 2006 11:15 AM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
No Yards, if I want to know if something is insulting to group X, I ask group X.

This morning, all across Canada, there are articles and local radio reports about how irate military personnel are from coast to coast about the impugned ad.

The ad is an insult. If you can't see it, you have the problem, not the Armed Forces personnel who know when they are being dissed by a desperate government in free fall.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 12 January 2006 11:21 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Armed military in a city *IS* dangerous ...

You need to do a reality check. Try talking to the people helped by the military during the Winnipeg flood, the Quebec ice storm, or the great snow storm of '99 in Toronto (stop laughing).

I wonder how you feel about Armed police in a city?


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 12 January 2006 11:25 AM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
From the Toronto Star:

Negative Comedy
Just in case anyone thought the Conservatives were taking the Liberal attack ads seriously, here are five "new ads" being circulated in blogs and email around Ottawa by Tories today. Cue the menacing drum-roll and read on...


NEW LIBERAL ATTACK AD ONE:

Stephen Harper has a dog.

You know who else had a dog?

Hitler.

Adolf Hitler.

That’s who.

Did Stephen Harper train his dog to attack racial minorities on command?

We don’t know.

He’s not saying.

Choose Your Canada.

[QUOTE] http://thestar.blogs.com/notebook/ [/QUOTE


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 12 January 2006 11:27 AM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is named "Stephen".

As in "St. Stephen".

The name of a saint.

A Christian saint.

Christian like Adolf Hitler.

Does Stephen Harper have a hidden agenda to turn Canada into a Christian theocracy?

We don’t know.

He isn’t saying.

Choose your Canada.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 12 January 2006 11:31 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
[drift]

These days I'm finding it easier and easier to explain to francophones how my first name is spelled. 'Comme Stephen Harper?'?

[/drift]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 January 2006 11:35 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:

You need to do a reality check. Try talking to the people helped by the military during the Winnipeg flood, the Quebec ice storm, or the great snow storm of '99 in Toronto (stop laughing).

I wonder how you feel about Armed police in a city?


The military in Winnipeg and Quebec were not armed.

Armed Police are trained for policing, an armed military is trained for war.

But that is not the point anyway. The point is that the concern is how a Harper government would use the military and not how the military would run out of control if stationed in a city ... as someone who spend most of my younger years in Halifax, and four years working at DND Halifax, I know what the military stationed in a city is all about. I don't fear the Canadian military for the sake of fearing the military ... I fear what Harper will do with the military ... that is not an insult to the military, any more than accusing Harris of misusing the OPP at Ipperwash is an insult to the OPP, or accusing the Liberals of misusing the Supreme Court is an insult to the Supreme Court.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Shakeyhands
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8370

posted 12 January 2006 11:38 AM      Profile for Shakeyhands     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
The ads are from the Liberals. The content does not matter - there is a growing wave of people who now think anything said by the Liberals is mud, and probably based on desperate lies.

No matter what the other ads may say, the insult to Canadian Armed Forces personnel in the pulled ad will taint the rest. People will hear about the insult to our troops. Most people I know have had relatives in the Forces or people from earlier generations in their family who fought in the Army to defeat Hitler.

My cousin was one of the top grads from Kingston Royal Military College and went on to be a teacher with the mentally handicapped. No politician is allowed to insult my family with impunity.

The Liberals: dead man walking.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]



My daughter is an OCdt at Royal Military College, I also have a cousin who is in the 2nd Mech and my other daughter is testing to go to RMC next year, and I can tell you I wasn't bothered by the ad... Right, wrong or indifferent, it was not aimed at the military, but at Harpers stupid idea.

Its just another case of the Alliance/Reform being able to deflect off of the other outstanding ads, its too bad.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 12 January 2006 11:45 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My daughter is an OCdt at Royal Military College, I also have a cousin who is in the 2nd Mech and my other daughter is testing to go to RMC next year, and I can tell you I wasn't bothered by the ad... Right, wrong or indifferent, it was not aimed at the military, but at Harpers stupid idea.

Its just another case of the Alliance/Reform being able to deflect off of the other outstanding ads, its too bad.


Glad you're not offended. I am and I am pretty sure the Liberals lost the current CF members vote, past CF members vote, families of past and present CF members, war veterans and war veteran families.

Even if they didn't intend for the ad to besmirtch the good name of Canada's volunteer armed forces, it ain't playing out that way.


From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 January 2006 11:51 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by stupendousgirlie:

Glad you're not offended. I am and I am pretty sure the Liberals lost the current CF members vote, past CF members vote, families of past and present CF members, war veterans and war veteran families.


What an odd conviction. Huge "war veteran family" here, nobody offended. And by war, I mean both WWI and WWII. And by huge, I mean more vets than you could shake a stick at. Like, dozens. Including both of my parents and the uncle who died at Passchendaele.

Speak for yourselves, people.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 12 January 2006 11:53 AM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Harper is Hitler, Harper is Satan, Harper is the AntiChrist, Harper is an alien, Harper has bad breath. [Huff and puff and hyperventilate and get red in the face. Repeat every 5 minutes as the Liberal campaign crashes]

Layton has already ridiculed the Liberal ad campaign. He commented that the only thing Liberals seem to have left to say after everything else has failed is that volcanoes will wipe out all life on earth if Canadians don't vote Liberal. Quebec editorialists and commntators have already savaged the campaign. The Liberals have also already been ridiculed, not criticized, ridiculed in the Quebec media, for their improvised amateurish idea about the notwithstanding clause.

The ad campaign is an insult to armed forces personnel. It has now become an insult to the intelligence of the citizens.

"Harper is Hitler, if you vote for him, the sun won't rise January 24th". Pathetic. Corrupt. Dead man walking.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 January 2006 12:37 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well. Talk about hyperventilating.

One serious problem is one of the main men behind Harper - Tom Flanagan. If people don't know about Flanagan and his (extremely ill-informed, ideologically driven) campaigns against Canadian FN, then they should find and read Marci MacDonald's profile of him from The Walrus - I'll see if I can come back with a link.

Conservative and Liberal politicians both have felt free to send in any police force they had handy, including the CF, against First Nations peoples in the past, always with disastrous results.

On that count specifically, of all the politicians on offer at the moment, knowing the ideological background he is coming from on FN issues, I would say that Harper is the most seriously worrying.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 12 January 2006 12:44 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
Harper is Hitler, Harper is Satan, Harper is the AntiChrist, Harper is an alien, Harper has bad breath. [Huff and puff and hyperventilate and get red in the face. Repeat every 5 minutes as the Liberal campaign crashes]


You forgot one: Harper is a neocon. Despite his current "centrist" campaigning, Harper was, is, and always will be a neo-con. It ain't scare-mongering if it's true.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
longtime lurker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10920

posted 12 January 2006 12:57 PM      Profile for longtime lurker        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
You forgot one: Harper is a neocon. Despite his current "centrist" campaigning, Harper was, is, and always will be a neo-con. It ain't scare-mongering if it's true.

The focus shouldn't just be on Harper. His probable foreign minister has stated publically that he doesn't believe in evolution and is reported to have refused to send condolences to the Palestinian people on the death of President Yassir Arafat because he thought he might have died of AIDS:-

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2004/12/01/TheManwhoWalkswithDinosaurs/

People need to be reminded this is still basically the Reform Party that right now are on the brink of majority control of federal governance for the next 5 years.

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

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: longtime lurker ]


From: London, Ont. | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 12 January 2006 01:01 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
from skdadl - knowing the ideological background he is coming from on FN issues, I would say that Harper is the most seriously worrying.

This is where I was coming from when I posted in the other military thread on this issue. I am not worried about armed forces themselves I am worried about our human rights when those rights become inconvenient for whatever political party that happens to be in power.
Very troubling is the type of candidates that are quietly running for the Conservatives this time around. Phil Eidsvik who slipped in without much fanfare to replace Gurmant Grewal is a devoted anti-FN rights crusader, campaigning to do away with treaty rights ( actually sent out questionnaires to municipalities to destroy the Nisga'a treaty process). This guy is a champion of two tier health care saying in the Surrey Leader this week that Canadians have a right to private care and also jumping enthusiastically on the minimum sentence bandwagon.
Should there be a dispute over land claims with FN people which is entirely likely given that BC has not bothered negotiating treaties with the FN inhabitants of our province, I don't believe that Eidsvik would hesitate for a moment to use the military to solve that dispute given the man's rhetoric.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 12 January 2006 01:05 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

The military in Winnipeg and Quebec were not armed.

Armed Police are trained for policing, an armed military is trained for war.

... I know what the military stationed in a city is all about...


Hmmm--

Well I can recall one lad who was stationed in Winnipeg for three years, who was armed to the teeth

An armed military is trained for war? Really? They are also trained for, among an almost endless list of other things, policing (Military Police, et al.)

Only the CPC's know if Harper has any nefarious plans for our military (at least, I hope they do ).


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 January 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
Harper is Hitler, Harper is Satan, Harper is the AntiChrist, Harper is an alien, Harper has bad breath. [Huff and puff and hyperventilate and get red in the face. Repeat every 5 minutes as the Liberal campaign crashes]

Harper is also a politician running to become Prime Minister if Canada, a country of which I am a citizen, Canada, a democratic country with the right to free speech .... I'll say whatever the fuck I like about Harper, and if you have a problem with it then take your thumbs from out of your ass and stick then in your ears, or better yet replace your thumbs with your head so you don't have to listen ... got it asshole?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 12 January 2006 01:11 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
What a brilliant realization: the Conservatives are... conservative. D'uh.

The obvious point some of us are trying to make is the abysmal level the Liberals have reached in their desperation.

And all some NDPers can say is "I agree with the Liberals, Harper is the AntiChrist".

The point is to give the citizens a positive reason (does anyone remember the concept: "positive"?) for having anything to do with politics. The other point is the majority of the Canadian people, apparently, no longer believe the "Harper is Satan" spiel. Going on and on along those lines produces nothing except to add to the deep dislike citizens already have for all politics and all politicians.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
longtime lurker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10920

posted 12 January 2006 01:14 PM      Profile for longtime lurker        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BillyBrindle:
Only the CPC's know if Harper has any nefarious plans for our military (at least, I hope they do ).

Harper did appear to me to maybe have timed his statement about having the military based in major cities to tap into public fear in the aftermath of the Boxing Day shooting incident in Toronto. Is it normal to have army bases in major cities? The only reason for that would normally be pork barrel politics I would have thought. Places like Petawawa are usually better suited since sparsely inhabiated areas are better for commando training etc.


From: London, Ont. | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
longtime lurker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10920

posted 12 January 2006 01:17 PM      Profile for longtime lurker        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
What a brilliant realization: the Conservatives are... conservative. D'uh.

The point that needs to be made is that they are not traditional Progressive Conservatives. For the most part the newly rebranded Conservatives are former Reformers who owe a lot more to the traditions of the Social Credit party than they do to the legacy of Sir John A. MacDonald.


From: London, Ont. | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 12 January 2006 01:17 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

...

Conservative and Liberal politicians both have felt free to send in any police force they had handy, including the CF, against First Nations peoples in the past, always with disastrous results...


Always with disastrous results? I'm going to Google "Oka Standoff" to see how many people were killed in that disaster. Brb...

Okay, the only person killed during the crisis was a Police corporal, and that was before the army was called in.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: BillyBrindle ]


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 12 January 2006 01:17 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
And once again, No Yards ends a post by calling someone else "asshole". Well at least it was not "motherfucking asshole" or "dipshit asshole" or "cocksucking asshole" or "fascist asshole" or "scumsucking asshole" or "knuckledragging troll asshole" or some other typical variant so this does show some improvement in that person's still shaky understanding of how to participate as an adult in a serious discussion.

But since the use of words like "asshole" usually means that the discussion is about to rapidly degenerate into childish insults by the likes of No Yards & Co., I guess I'm outta here.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 12 January 2006 01:21 PM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am listening to a phone in show talking about the ad issue and the internet, mostly how the parties haven't really tapped into the power of the web and that this election is being defined by "other than mainstream media" - namely blogs, web forums, etc...

The point "expert" made that hammers the point home was that the Liberals are saying that the ad was never released, but their frame of reference is mainstream media - what they are not getting is the fact that the definition of media has changed so once something is online - baby it's out there and it ain't coming back.

Fascinating discussion...


From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 January 2006 01:28 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're sounding pretty breathless there CM2, I hope you're not hyperventilating.

If you attack someone be prepared to get attacked back ... a lesson you and the conservatives need to learn I see.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 12 January 2006 01:37 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by longtime lurker:

...

Is it normal to have army bases in major cities?



Well, historically, in Canada anyway, We've had garrisons all over the place: London, ON (pop. 320k+), Winnipeg (pop.650k+), Edmonton (pop. one million+?), etc..


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 12 January 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by stupendousgirlie:
I am listening to a phone in show talking about the ad issue and the internet, mostly how the parties haven't really tapped into the power of the web and that this election is being defined by "other than mainstream media" - namely blogs, web forums, etc...

The point "expert" made that hammers the point home was that the Liberals are saying that the ad was never released, but their frame of reference is mainstream media - what they are not getting is the fact that the definition of media has changed so once something is online - baby it's out there and it ain't coming back.

Fascinating discussion...


That is pretty cool, 'girlie. It's hard to believe the people running these campaings aren't tapping into such a potentially highly effective, relatively low-cost, medium like the www.

These folks need to get more innovative, and less, uh.. "mud-slingy"


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 12 January 2006 02:03 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:
Its insulting because it suggests having the military in the city is dangerous. I've yet to see an ad suggesting that the same would be true if the number of RCMP in the cities were increased.

Although, come to that . . . if anything, I find that a rather more plausible position. There seem to be fewer constraints stopping government from using large numbers of heavily armed riot cops against the citizenry than there are stopping them from using the military. And the recent history of them being used in just that way is quite a lot richer, from the big famous protests (Quebec city etc.) to little peaceful demonstrations suddenly charged through by guys on horses with clubs and body armor (Halifax, Toronto, lotsa places); and then there's Gustafsen Lake, arguably a nastier event than Oka, although rather less publicized because more remote from cameras. The recent history of more spontaneous police violence against citizens in general is also a heck of a lot more extensive than the history of such behaviour in the military. It's arguable that police violence against citizens forms a fairly strong pattern, but there's really no similar pattern to talk about in the Canadian military.

Do we really want more police walking on our city streets, armed?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 12 January 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
What a brilliant realization: the Conservatives are... conservative. D'uh.

The obvious point some of us are trying to make is the abysmal level the Liberals have reached in their desperation.

And all some NDPers can say is "I agree with the Liberals, Harper is the AntiChrist".

The point is to give the citizens a positive reason (does anyone remember the concept: "positive"?) for having anything to do with politics. The other point is the majority of the Canadian people, apparently, no longer believe the "Harper is Satan" spiel. Going on and on along those lines produces nothing except to add to the deep dislike citizens already have for all politics and all politicians.


Blah blah blah. The criticism of Harper's neocon past/present/future started even before Harper used his long knife to merge the neo-con party with the old-line conservatives, in case you haven't been paying attention. Pointing out that Harper is mini-Bush is not a new NDP line, nor is it following any sort of Liberal lead. I (and many, many others) have been consistantly raising the alarm on his politics for many years now. For good reason...his policies would be bad for Canada, from economic, security, and human rights standpoints.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 12 January 2006 03:13 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Armed military in a city *IS* dangerous ... but that's not what the ads suggest. The suggestion is that Harper would misuse the military, not that the military would on its own go out of control, strap on their gear and start shooting up the city.

Well, you know, I hate Harper's guts, and I'm not a big supporter of the military especially as currently defined. But looking at the text of the ad, it seems hard to argue that it's that specific. It just basically puts out the notion of Canadian military people, with guns, in Canadian cities as unthinkable. It doesn't talk about why or under what circumstances. The most obvious inference is really more that it's an unthinkable act, and Harper is bad because he's proposing to do it--not that it would be bad under Harper but OK under someone else. If I were military, I'd say I'd take insult from it. It's way clearer than some of the stuff we, I think accurately, consider to be quite clear examples of racism or sexism.

You could perhaps argue that it's a *justifiable* blanket condemnation of the military, but the argument that it's just a "Harper would use them wrong" ad seems to me very weak. The wording does not seem to me to support that reading. People on this board, if they were to put together an ad that opposed Harper's proposal to put military forces in cities, would no doubt have made one that used that argument. If so, we would not have ended up with this ad, but a quite different one. This is an ad made by unscrupulous but dim PR hacks with a tin ear.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 12 January 2006 04:06 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
B.C. Liberal blames military ad on an 'idiot'

That certainly narrows it down.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 12 January 2006 06:20 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Couple of points on this, and I am speaking for myself. The add is offensive to me, and here's why.

It plays to a presumed ignorance of the Canadian people (ignorance which I have seens displayed by at least one person in this thread). This is ignoarnce on many levels:

1. The military is already in ever city that has a population of 100,000+ (and many smallerr communitees. We have been in these communitees for (in some cases) the better part of the past 150 yrs. All those reserve units are armed, and they are riding the bus right next to you, in the supermarket with you, going to school with you. Harper's promise comes out to, in some cases, maybe another 100 or so person in each city (TO has closer to 800 res/reg in the GTA)... Harper basically just commited to keeping those positions there, and a small increase in other areas (though I am not entirely sure if he knew this was the case).

2. Military in the community is a good thing, for the civilian population and for the military. The military is usually the single largest contributor of volunteer hours of any organisation of any size in Canada (we generally keep a very low profile on this, as we could care less about public gratification). The military also contributes to charitible organisations (United Way, March of Dimes to name two) by the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands yearly (out of soldiers pockets contributions). Military familes buy food, buy clothing, furniture, go to movies, restaurants and bars... They buy things in the local community which keeps people employed. Staying in communitees also benifits military pers as our spouses need to work (most here can appreciate the reality of trying to feed and raise kids on one income). Moving the military from urban centres takes away from our spouses ability to work, or or work in chosen profession (bit of a slap in the face to tell a school teacher that because of the next posting they can get used to working for $7/hr at McDonalds).

3. The truely offensive thing about this add is that it directly implies that we are incapable of understanding our role in Canadian society. It suggests none to subtly that we would obey manifestly illegal orders to seaze by force the cities we are in.

Some people here have made a claim that we have been used against the Canadian population before. This is a truely IDIOTIC idea. They are trying to use the response to the FLQ terrorist threat, and the Oka crisis as examples. Let me think about this for a second:

1. The FLQ (October Crisis), involves exploding mail boxes, and to kidnapped political officials, one of which was murdered in cold blood (who incidently was a British envoy). PARLIMENT (it's in bold to make sure it's clear that it was not the PMO that sends the military, the PM just signs the final order) gave the order in light of the fact that the average Canadian was concerned about his/her safety WRT simply dropping a letter in the mail. It was clear the SQ, RCMP, and OPP were ill equiped to put a cop on every street corner, so a soldier was on every street corner instead. The government had no choice but to act in the face of terrorist action, and as the bombings and kidnappings stopped I assume the action had the intended effect.

In this type of situation, if a soldier arrests someone for something on the street, said person is turned shortly there after to the local police, and they would still get a trial and the whole nine yards. The advantages of the military in such a situation, is we generally have a very high collective tolerance for abuse (paint bombs, bricks stones, urine... Just to name a few of thing things thrown at recent "peaceful" protests). Restraint in this situation is clearly demonstrated throughout Canadian history, as recently as 1998 in the Drvar riots in BiH.

2. The Oka Crisis. First off, let me say that the whole thing could have been avoided. The mayor of Oka, and the Quebec provincial government completely fucked that one over. If I am not mistaken, this is the case of some developer getting a FN burial ground zoned as an expansion for a golf course ... That should be expected to cause a reaction. Continued mismanagement of the situation caused it to escalate beyond the SQ or RCMP ability to respond, so, in light of the fact that band warriors chose to take up arms (illegal weapons at that) and kill an SQ Cpl, the Quebec government had to call for the army). Our concern for the time was to draw a line in the sand, and keep any potential violence form spilling out. Having done that, negotiations took part, when those failed, the army advanced to take down the barricades, warning all along that they would shoot if fired upon. Only one person was killed that entire action, and that person was a cop.

When a group rightly or wrongly takes up arms in Canada, the majority of the people expect whoever is the government of the time to act to protect them. That is a function of the CF. The police are not equipped to go up against a large group of people equiped with assault rifles, the military is. As a citizen of Canada first, my concern in that situation, is first containing the situation, and then find a way to prevent ANY bullets from flying anywhere... If that means I have to take some idiot spitting on me and calling me nasty names, then so be it.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 12 January 2006 06:49 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One last point, some one questioned the comment on some NDP support within the miliary. I can tell you right not there is a fair bit of supoort for the NDP within the military, and not just the navy either. Several in my workplace I have very enjoyable arguements with (one of the reason for my growing support).
From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
What_The_Puck?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11671

posted 12 January 2006 10:09 PM      Profile for What_The_Puck?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The ad was pulled because the ad was pulled." - Paul Martin the Scholar

Wow! What a great answer to why the military ad was pulled...

I think our men & women in uniform deserve a huge apology.

So let's see, so far in this campaign the liberals has slammed:
1. conservatives
2. parents
3. aboriginals
4. soldiers
5. quebecers

Am I missing anyone?


From: London | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 13 January 2006 12:20 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now Martin says he only approved of the transcript of the ad...

Holy fuck - make up my mind!


From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 13 January 2006 12:26 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think we're beyond Mr. Dithers as a viable nickname by this point. He's achieved some sort of supernatural state of constant opinion flux.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 January 2006 12:36 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread! I think we can probably continue this discussion in this thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca