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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » Are the attack ads over the top?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Are the attack ads over the top?
whosinpower
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11661

posted 11 January 2006 05:13 PM      Profile for whosinpower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think with the exception of the single ad that was pulled - the rest of the ads are good. They are consistant with what Harper has said and done in the past.

Let's not forget the ad that the conservatives were forced to pull last election time - the one ridiculing Chretien's face......

This outrage is carefully orchestrated - and I don't buy it. If Steven Harper would come out and publicly admit his past statements are wrong then I might give him a second thought - but he has NEVER said so - not once. Not once did he apologize for stating that Canada is the worst socialist-welfare nation in the northern hemisphere. Not once did he acknowledge that the will of Canadians was NOT to go to war in Iraq - and that he would support what the majority of canadians wishes. Not once has he acknowledged the need to respect the UN - or to support the UN.

He is always on the side of Americans is seems....even if that means being against the majority of Canadian wishes.

I like the ads. I like them allot. They tell the truth.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
hiti
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11230

posted 11 January 2006 05:17 PM      Profile for hiti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The ads only reflect what Harper said, even the military ad was in response to what he said on Dec 29th; "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."

So we are to have a full military presence in our towns and cities????????


From: Albertan by birth, Canadian by choice. | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rabelais
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6230

posted 11 January 2006 05:20 PM      Profile for Rabelais     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The trouble is, they make the Liberals look like a bunch of idiotic morons.

I'm tired of this crap. Liberals, Conservatives, I just want this election to be over so that Paul Martin and his crowd of anencephalic idiots can be quiet.


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
CF Pilot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11603

posted 11 January 2006 05:20 PM      Profile for CF Pilot        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by hiti:
So we are to have a full military presence in our towns and cities????????

Yeah, like Edmonton, Victoria, Moose Jaw, Winnipeg, Trenton, Bagotville, Halifax, Fredricton, Barrie, etc..


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 11 January 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
How many GAWD DAMN threads do we need on this ONE topic?!
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 11 January 2006 05:23 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
How many GAWD DAMN threads do we need on this ONE topic?!

At least one more.


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
whosinpower
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11661

posted 11 January 2006 05:24 PM      Profile for whosinpower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rabelais:
[QB]The trouble is, they make the Liberals look like a bunch of idiotic morons.

I disagree with you on this. The MEDIA is painting the liberals as idiotic morons - but the ads themselves speak precisely what Harper has said and done in the past. This outrage has been carefully orchestrated - they knew it was coming - and they prepared for it.

I hope the liberals stick with the plan to have the ads going strong and do not pull any others. They are good ads - negative - but truthful. We need to understand what kind of guy Harper is....and I don't think the image he is so carefully trying to cultivate is an honest one.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
CF Pilot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11603

posted 11 January 2006 05:25 PM      Profile for CF Pilot        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by obscurantist:

At least one more.


Ok, I'll start it in a couple of minutes...


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
BigLebowski
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11662

posted 11 January 2006 05:25 PM      Profile for BigLebowski     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
How many GAWD DAMN threads do we need on this ONE topic?!

Dude step outside and take a walk, you're imploding...


From: Montreal | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 11 January 2006 05:27 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CF Pilot:

Ok, I'll start it in a couple of minutes...


Too late!


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 11 January 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BigLebowski:

Dude step outside and take a walk, you're imploding...



Up yours.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Steve_Shutt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2922

posted 11 January 2006 05:46 PM      Profile for Steve_Shutt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The military ad forced me to laugh out loud, sorry but it wasn't effective - it was silly.

As for the ads generally, they may work to stem the tide. I'll be curious to see what the polls look like come Friday. Right now many of the polling numbers are still including pre-debate polling. I don't think that Martin wowed anyone during the debates but the question of who you would vote for is only now being asked in the context of a Con victory and that may change the response.

It will be interesting to see where the ads are placed too. The "culture of defeat" ad in Atlantic Canada will get heavy rotation I'm sure. The "common sense revolution" ad the same in Ontario. We should know soon if they have any traction. One of the myths of the Chretien ads was that it turned people off - it didn't. In fact the tracking polls were indicating that it was starting to get people to question voting Liberal - in other words, it was working! These too may work if given a chance to resonate.

The gang that Martin has surrounded himself with are among the most incompetent election campaigners to ever don Liberal colours, but they are still Liberals and those guys do know how to fight dirty. There is still a lot of time left on the clock.


From: coming in off the left wing | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
j_andrews
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5713

posted 11 January 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for j_andrews     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm really sick of political parties putting ads on TV that have nothing to do with their OWN party.

I wish there was a law passed that said during election time you can not mention another party leader, member or anything about another party in advertising be it radio, print or television.

I'm watching all these damn ads and it doesn't talk about ANYTHING that actual party sponsoring them is planning to do.

All it is is bitch bitch bitch about someone else. Give me a freakin' break already.

Let's see parties talk about what THEY plan to do if elected. Gawd why the hell do you think Kerry lost in 2004. We need to learn from mistakes like his not follow suit.

J


From: Saskatoon | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 11 January 2006 05:54 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by j_andrews:
I wish there was a law passed that said during election time you can not mention another party leader, member or anything about another party in advertising be it radio, print or television.

That's absurd. It would mean all parties would be free to lie outrageously and no one would be able to challenge them. The NDP and Conservatives have every right to challenge the Liberals' record. The Liberals have every right to challenge the Conservatives' beliefs.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
j_andrews
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5713

posted 11 January 2006 05:56 PM      Profile for j_andrews     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"That's absurd. It would mean all parties would be free to lie outrageously and no one would be able to challenge them."

Give me an example?


From: Saskatoon | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 11 January 2006 05:59 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
How can I give you an example when what you propose isn't the law?

I'm just taking it to its logical conclusions. If Party A isn't allowed to mention Party B, then how can they challenge their claims?

Party B: We will cut your taxes 30% and increase social spending 40%, while cutting the deficit.

Party A: Well gee, we'd like to tell you they're full of it, but we're not allowed.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
j_andrews
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5713

posted 11 January 2006 06:04 PM      Profile for j_andrews     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You can challenge party claims at the debates. You can challenge party claims on your websites. Even the news channels post sound bytes all the time.

What I'm saying is all I had to go by was a television set I'm not hearing anything about what the NDP, Conservatives or Liberals plan to do. All I hear are complaints about other parties and how I should vote for them because I'm not *insert party here*

That is what I'm tired of. Nothing constructive is coming from this television ads. All it has turned into is a bunch of little babies trading insults on a friggin playground.

At least on the debates these guys go into what they actually plan to do a little bit.

J


From: Saskatoon | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 11 January 2006 06:08 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
And what if people don't watch the debates or the news? What if their only source of information is the ads - and no one is allowed to counter anyone else's claims?

It's not realistic and it's almost certainly unconstitutional.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
j_andrews
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5713

posted 11 January 2006 06:12 PM      Profile for j_andrews     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"And what if people don't watch the debates or the news? What if their only source of information is the ads - "

I'm sure that is what they are hoping for.

Bottom line . . I would like to see more effort on the parties part to talk about their OWN platform. Talk about their own ideas, plans and goals.

That is why John Kerry lost the US election. He spent so much time talking about what Bush is/was nobody knew what he actually planned to do.

That is just my opinion. I would think people would like the idea of parties focusing their time / advertising on pushing their own agendas and ideas come election time.

J


From: Saskatoon | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 11 January 2006 06:28 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by j_andrews:

That is why John Kerry lost the US election. He spent so much time talking about what Bush is/was nobody knew what he actually planned to do.

And yet everyone you talk to who voted for Bush will tell that they weren't voting FOR Bush, they were voting AGAINST Kerry.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 11 January 2006 06:38 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
I thought they were all pretty good, except for the military one that got pulled anyway. I thought it was pretty dumb for two reasons:

1. Canadian soldiers are not bad people.
2. Did the Liberal party forget about October 1970?


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jason J. W. Lisenchuk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4496

posted 11 January 2006 07:47 PM      Profile for Jason J. W. Lisenchuk   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm really sick of political parties putting ads on TV that have nothing to do with their OWN party.

Well to be fair to the Liberals, they have run positive ads as well.

quote:
I wish there was a law passed that said during election time you can not mention another party leader, member or anything about another party in advertising be it radio, print or television.

Fortunately the Charter would make such a law impossible. Even the dreaded NWC cannot be used to abrogate basic legal or political rights.

quote:
Let's see parties talk about what THEY plan to do if elected. Gawd why the hell do you think Kerry lost in 2004. We need to learn from mistakes like his not follow suit.

I would invite you and all Canadians to visit the respective party web sites and read their literature, reflecting on the respective platforms mean to them, their families, their communities and their country.

Needless to say, they should also evaluate the credibility of the parties and specific platform planks.

There is a link to the leaked Liberal platform on the CBC web site. It is likely on the www.liberal.ca site as well by now.

Unfortunately, the average voter spends more time researching a car or stereo purchase than they do researching party platforms. Politicos and private citizens share responsibility for this level of disengagement.

Jason

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Jason J. W. Lisenchuk ]


From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 11 January 2006 08:09 PM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

The NDP and Conservatives have every right to challenge the Liberals' record. The Liberals have every right to challenge the Conservatives' beliefs.


And the NDP has every right to challenge Conservative beliefs. I wish they'd use it.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 January 2006 08:23 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
I thought they were all pretty good, except for the military one that got pulled anyway. I thought it was pretty dumb for two reasons:

1. Canadian soldiers are not bad people.


Nice people trained to take orders and kill ... The ad doesn't call the military a bunch of mean people, it questions the use that Harper is planning for them.

quote:

2. Did the Liberal party forget about October 1970?

You mean the time when the government used an armed military in Canadian cities to control Canadians? I think that's just a vicious rumour, as obviously making that kind of claim about government or the military is something only an extremist fear monger would make ... right?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 11 January 2006 08:51 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the last half hour during Coronation Street we just saw a biting anti-Martin ad and a biting anti-Harper ad.

And they were both true!


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kim Smith
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11672

posted 11 January 2006 11:30 PM      Profile for Kim Smith        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
You mean the time when the government used an armed military in Canadian cities to control Canadians? I think that's just a vicious rumour, as obviously making that kind of claim about government or the military is something only an extremist fear monger would make ... right?

I couldn't help but think back to that time myself. I wonder what on earth the Liberals were thinking when they ordered up this ad. I said this in another thread on the ads, but I just can't refrain from repeating it. From my book of Columbo's Canadian Quotations, I have typed in this quote:

"Yes, well there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more improtant to keep law and order in the society that to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of ..."

This quote is from former Prime Minister, Pierre E. Trudeau and was part of an interview with Tim Rafe of CBC news on October 13, 1970, during the October Crisis.


From: Vancouver Westside | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 January 2006 12:01 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I'm old enough not to have to go to a book of quotes to remember that one, and all you've told me is that Trudeau had balls to stand up for what he believed in, even if he was wrong ... do you have anything that Harper believes in that he's willing to stand up and tell Canadians as straight out as Trudeau would?

But more to the point ... if even that "left wing socialist" Trudeau could abuse the power of the military, then that all the more re-enforces my concern over anyone suggesting more military in out cities. After all, if Trudeau could make such ill advised use of the Canadian military, then what can we expect from the party that believes in the concept of BMD and Fortress North America? That their plans for military buildups are to fight ice storms in Quebec? Yeah, right!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
edgewaters72
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11649

posted 12 January 2006 12:04 AM      Profile for edgewaters72     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JKR:

And the NDP has every right to challenge Conservative beliefs. I wish they'd use it.


They seem to think cons doing well, means they do well. They seem to think that actually doing something to inspire and rally the people who'd like to support them, is of no value. All that's important is strategically challenging the Liberals for a seat or two.


From: Kingston Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
JeffWells
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4761

posted 12 January 2006 12:06 AM      Profile for JeffWells     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reluctantly, I have to say I like them, and I only wish the NDP would someday release something nearly as hard-hitting. (And I don't care WHO they hit, there are enough deserving targets. Just hit somebody, please!)
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
snowmandn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6785

posted 12 January 2006 12:18 AM      Profile for snowmandn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the ads are just plain dumb.

What's the real message behind them? Harper is evil. Really freaking evil. Hold your nose one more time, just like you did in 2000 and 2004. You have no choice. Not them--us.

I am a first generation Asian. I was a bit taken back by the one about "Western ridings and immigrants" for about 2 minutes, then I felt they're just trying to con me.

Don't confuse "factual" with "smart". We can all say a lot of factually dumb things. The Libs decided to say it all in a day.


From: Between the deep blues | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 12 January 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Cons (or Liberals for that matter) were going to create a military dictatorship in Canada, it wouldn't make the slightest difference where the troops were initially located. Its not Roman times, they've got trucks and armored personel carriers nowadays ... take a day at the most to drive from whereever they're stationed to whatever city they might want to level.

The best argument for not locating the troops in cities is that they could get caught in the same natural disaster (flood, blizzard etc) as the civilians you'd want them to help. The Liberal ad is totally beside the point. If they're evil it doesn't matter where they're stationed, if they're not we don't have to worry about them being in cities.

As an afterthought, there are only about 3000 combat troops in the Canadian army anyway, most of which are overseas in Peacekeeping missions. That would be about enough to take over a city the size of Guelph.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: retread ]


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Euhemeros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11067

posted 12 January 2006 01:13 AM      Profile for Euhemeros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Liberal ads are just silly; they wouldn't be so silly if you would not have said "We didn't make that up" or other statements to that effect.

Of course, if I were a Liberal advertising executive, I wouldn't be using rabble as a focus group on how to snatch NDP votes.

The LPC can only hope to gain 3-4 percent from the NDP vote at most using scare-tactics, even in face of a Conservative majority. We'll still end up with a CPC minority at least, which could be easily capitalized on through a short, gaffe free time in office to turn that minority into a majority, which, considering the current leadership state of the LPC, even if the LPC got back into power, we'd be seeing blue the election after that.


From: Surrey | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kim Smith
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11672

posted 12 January 2006 02:44 AM      Profile for Kim Smith        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Euhemeros:
The Liberal ads are just silly; they wouldn't be so silly if you would not have said "We didn't make that up" or other statements to that effect.

I agree. These are not commercials designed to appeal directly to the typical TV-viewer-swing voter. They are meant for consumption by political junkies, talking points for the Liberal Party's mass base out in the field. They mass support base is suppose to pick this material up and repeat it over coffee breaks with neighbours and co-workers, and get it into circulation. Good Luck!


From: Vancouver Westside | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
edgewaters72
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11649

posted 12 January 2006 04:31 AM      Profile for edgewaters72     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't understand; if you ask me, Harper's getting treated with kid gloves ... while Harper is on the topic of federal investigations, it's surprising nobody's mentioned Al Overfield.
From: Kingston Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pierre Cyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6278

posted 12 January 2006 08:29 AM      Profile for Pierre Cyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The ads are fair game after the tories started the negative ads earlier on (save that silly military one). But you'd think the many years where Harper had such a luve thing going for US right wingers there would be video of him speaking out. The quotes are effective but video of Harper could really hurt.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Pierre Cyr ]


From: Grand Falls NB | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ross J. Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11657

posted 12 January 2006 09:15 AM      Profile for Ross J. Peterson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
--==--
j_andrews
I'm not hearing anything about what the NDP, Conservatives or Liberals plan to do.

I would like to see more effort on the parties part to talk about their OWN platform.

Talk about their own ideas, plans and goals.

--==--
Steve_Shutt
The gang that Martin has surrounded himself with are among the most incompetent

election campaigners to ever don Liberal colours, but they are still Liberals and those

guys do know how to fight dirty.

--==--
whosinpower
We need to understand what kind of guy Harper is

--==--
S1m0n
everyone you talk to who voted for Bush will tell that they weren't voting FOR Bush,

they were voting AGAINST Kerry

For a myriad of reasons, most of the 'rabble-rousers' in this thread (some quoted above)

most of the cans theyhave kicked, set up interesting contrasts to the last presidential election south of the border -- in the U.S. .

But there, as opposed to in Canada, at election time, there is a rhetoric and focus on

mobilizing the each political party's base. But the corporate class is worried sick that the more social democratic elements will win at such a game (so they turn to the NASCAR dads in Kansas, but that's another topic all together).
When the ads hit the airwaves, these spots are so expensive that the warm-blooded campaign workers commited to reform platforms feel like it is suddenly the MONEY that is moving the vote, not their own grassroots work in the ridings and eighbourhoods or associations.

You could feel this in Canada big time as well. Do electoral work for the NDP or a municipal reform party.

In the past, when campaigns involved popular (rank-and-file) organizers, when the

party-representing-the-private-sector-interests as opposed to more democratic

interests suddenly brought out their expensive billboards across all urban

territories, these social dems on telephones shuttered at the expense their candidates could not afford. Corporate campaign donations were swamping the modest ones with only their volunteer hours to give.

National political attack ads have, once again, upped the ante in terms of expenses.

The parallel with the U.S. that grabs me is not that money talks in election

campaigns (another dilemna of MODERNITY) but specifically that KERRY for the left was a pale second to Howard Dean during U.S. Democratic Party primaries, particularly for the folks who had the energy to do serious rabble-rousing. But when Dean went down, all that progressives were left with as a slogan was 'hold your nose, vote Kerry when you go to the polls.' Nothing about imperial power, nothing about social housing, nothing about social health care mattered any more. The rank-and-file didn't even have a politics of STYLE with or without somebody like Michael Moore to entertain them anymore. It was like the NDP running campaigns and attack ads featuring Naomi Klein and a Guardian logo or Margaret Atwood calling on Liberals to organize dinner parties to stop Harper.

Here, I am expressing the same irony and cynicism that infected a well known entertainer like Michael Moore on the US scene. Canadians feel, especially after these ads (our topic), that no matter who wins, we will be better off than south of the border (military presence or no). And we got that Peace-in-Canada crap from the likes of the very same Michael Moore (check Bowling for Columbine out) who effuses that either political party 'is just the same'. All the media hype, despite Liberal attack ads telling us otherwise, swamps us from south of the border and screams 'I'm all right Jack, I'm in Canada.' The left liberals locked up under Trudeau in 1970 would beg to differ, however, back then.

This is what I pick up from the messages of 'whosinpower'. Expose Harper and vote Liberal 'holding your nose.' But that stance, in terms of discussing political party advertising, is complete abdication to the entertainment industry takeover of both politics and journalism, not to mention abdication to those with political power over Canadians.

Saying thus and so, I am not willing to even give the corporate class control over that, over entertainment. So let me entertain you with my poem in the writers circle under the right brain logo here on the babble forum: SEE

web page; LOWER CANADIAN BLUES

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=17&t=000368

If you are interested in contrasting a more populist spin toward electoral campaigning with the advertising dimension of what is coming down between Conservative, Liberal and NDPs, and then you wish to muse upon how little this seems to mean in the here-and-now of January 2006, try googling this string of words:
"Vermont governor, Kerry, youth, presidential campaign, Internet"
. . . and see what they were saying about Howard Dean. Then google
"NDP, youth, party militants, Internet" with 'pages from Canada' marked


From: writer-editor-translator: 'a sus ordenes' | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
lonewolf2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10589

posted 13 January 2006 12:44 AM      Profile for lonewolf2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Martin now saying he only approved the transcript of the military ad (after trying to dodge the whole affair) just reinforces the pattern we've seen with 'it's not my fault' Paul.

Just like the Gomery scandal...

quote:
"I see NOTHING !
I hear NOTHING !"

(anyone remember Sargeant Shultz from Hogan's Heroes tv series?)

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: lonewolf2 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 13 January 2006 12:59 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Yeah, I'm old enough not to have to go to a book of quotes to remember that one, and all you've told me is that Trudeau had balls to stand up for what he believed in, even if he was wrong ... do you have anything that Harper believes in that he's willing to stand up and tell Canadians as straight out as Trudeau would?

But more to the point ... if even that "left wing socialist" Trudeau could abuse the power of the military, then that all the more re-enforces my concern over anyone suggesting more military in out cities. After all, if Trudeau could make such ill advised use of the Canadian military, then what can we expect from the party that believes in the concept of BMD and Fortress North America? That their plans for military buildups are to fight ice storms in Quebec? Yeah, right!



Excuse me? Hello?! MAIL BOXES GO BOOM! British envoy gets murdered. An organisation called the FLQ threatens lots more violence, which the police are not equiped to defend against.

The FLQ were TERRORISTS. Dirt bags. Scum. The parliment of the time did what was expected of it to protect the majority of the people against TERRORISTS who would put bombs in mail boxes.

If it is troubling to you that the military was called out to defend the Canadian people against a very real threat from within, then please, feel free to tell the terrorists not to do such things.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 13 January 2006 01:17 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I remember that time, so here comes a history lesson from an old fart.

The army was called out under the "Aid to Civil Powers Act" to maintain order while all the cops that Quebec had were set to tracking down the FLQ. The cops found them, some (who did not kill their hostage) were allowed to leave for Cuba. Others were arrested, tried, and convicted.

The "War Measures Act" was invoked to make the FLQ an illegal organization and to arbitrarily detain people, in this case, anyone with a public identification with separatism. This included just about everyone who was working on defeating Jean Drapeau in the Montreal elections, well, not everyone, but a significant number of senior players. AFAIK no one arrested under the War Measures Act was convicted of belonging to the FLQ, or any other crime, for that matter.

Mythology is fun, reality is another matter.

quote:
British envoy gets murdered.

Missed this one. Nope, envoy gets released. Quebec cabinet member got murdered.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: jrootham ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 13 January 2006 01:20 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
I remember that time, so here comes a history lesson from an old fart.

The army was called out under the "Aid to Civil Powers Act" to maintain order while all the cops that Quebec had were set to tracking down the FLQ. The cops found them, some (who did not kill their hostage) were allowed to leave for Cuba. Others were arrested, tried, and convicted.

The "War Measures Act" was invoked to make the FLQ an illegal organization and to arbitrarily detain people, in this case, anyone with a public identification with separatism. This included just about everyone who was working on defeating Jean Drapeau in the Montreal elections, well, not everyone, but a significant number of senior players. AFAIK no one arrested under the War Measures Act was convicted of belonging to the FLQ, or any other crime, for that matter.

Mythology is fun, reality is another matter.


So, I guess the bombs in mail boxes, and threats of continued violence were a myth then...

So murdering a Quebec cabinet minister, and kidnapping a British envoy (sorry, got the two mixed up) is ok. That alone, sure not terrorism. Exploding mail boxes, and a promised campaign of terror. Fraid, that makes a terrorist.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 13 January 2006 01:26 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wasn't trying to defend the FLQ, I think you are right, they were trying to be terrorists. I was objecting to the imposition of the War Measures Act and to your suggestion that the police were impotent with respect to the threat.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 13 January 2006 01:35 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
I wasn't trying to defend the FLQ, I think you are right, they were trying to be terrorists. I was objecting to the imposition of the War Measures Act and to your suggestion that the police were impotent with respect to the threat.

At the time, no one had any way of knowing how large of an organisation the FLQ was. After the bombings and the threats, the government had to expect the worst. The police are not equiped at all to handle any type of large fighting force... They were not then, they are not now.

In the face of the unknown, in a situation like that, the government has a responsiblity to act in a way to protect the majority of the people, they had to act on the basis of worst case scenario, and given Ireland's history and struggles at that time, one has to understand no one wanted that kind of conflict here (well, with the exception of the FLQ terrorists).

I do not like Trudeau. I think he was a pompous ass. Further, I loathe Liberals. At the end of the day though, despite my dislike, I respect the man. He made the choice, which must have been extremely painful to him... The only choice he could have made to protect his people. He did not mince words, he did what he had to do with all his actions (perhaps my dislike is more to do with him being a liberal.. I'll reexamine this later).


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 13 January 2006 01:42 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Piffle, I was a high school student in Toronto and I knew better than that.

It was a deliberate exploitation of a shocking event to cement political power in the hands of several corrupt regimes. Notably Drapeau and Quebec Liberals of the time. Plus the Mounties used it to justify their own trampling of the law (that was bad enough to trigger the creation of CSIS).


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 13 January 2006 01:51 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
Piffle, I was a high school student in Toronto and I knew better than that.

It was a deliberate exploitation of a shocking event to cement political power in the hands of several corrupt regimes. Notably Drapeau and Quebec Liberals of the time. Plus the Mounties used it to justify their own trampling of the law (that was bad enough to trigger the creation of CSIS).


To understand the situation, you have to understand that people had to do a very quick study of terrorism, and the use of cells as opposed to large fixed units. One of the things the use of cells does, is mask numbers. You could have thousands (as the claims of the time implied) or you could have very few.

The FLQ proved to have the means and will, but kept numbers hidden. I say once again the government had to do what was demanded of them by the terrorists (envoke the War Measures Act).

Hypothetically. What do you think would have happened if the FLQ was an army. The army it claimed to be, and they actually did real damage like what was seen in Ireland throughout must of the last century? What would have happened if the Government did not react? My guess is many more lives would have been lost, and parts of Canada would now being saying the Pledge of Alliegnce daily as opposed to general apathy.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 13 January 2006 01:55 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was quite clear at the time that the FLQ was not the army you are positing. The assertions to the contrary were alarmist spin.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 13 January 2006 02:00 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
It was quite clear at the time that the FLQ was not the army you are positing. The assertions to the contrary were alarmist spin.


I am working my way through this now... It's an FLQ web space, apparently entirely from an FLQ perspective (in english at that, cool... Wish I was bilingual).

FLQ Manifesto


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
GuiltySpark27
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11713

posted 13 January 2006 03:25 AM      Profile for GuiltySpark27        Edit/Delete Post
Wow I have to admit, what a wild site. Some of the posts i've read over the last 2 hours are genius. Some of them are right out to lunch.

I'm going to chime in on this debate about the ad from the point of view as a Canadian soldier.

I have never felt so untrusted by my government. Each and everyone of you will form your own opinion on this ad. Some of you will state it's just facts and it's true. Others will say there was a hidden implied message. I'm with the latter.

To me this ad came across as portraying Canadian soldiers in a sort of nazi-era stormtrooper mentality. Like soldiers on Canadian streets would some how be used against you citizens. This ad make me feel like Canadian soldiers we infact not citizens but some kind of monster.

Of course it's all subjective, thats the thing about politics. One word can have 500 implied meanings. What you may have seen as a simple ad deeply hurt others like myself with 10 years service to my country.

I have been on Canadian streets with guns along side my brothers and sisters in the Canadian Forces. Let me tell you we were bombarded with praise and honour. While slowing trafic with roadblocks (used by us as training aids to prepare us for duty overseas) the people we inconvienced often came back with coffee, donuts and home made cooking. The guns we carried didn't scare anyone, everyone had a story about a friend of a friend who was in the army or an uncle or grandfather who served. People were proud to see THEIR soldiers and get the chance to talk to them.

This ad accomplishes nothing other than appemting to scare citizens with some big brother boogman theory.

Is Canadian soldiers on the streets such a horrible idea? Maybe maybe not. Some will think it's great, others will think it's an invasion and their freedoms are being taken away.

Who would you prefer on the streets carrying guns, Canadian soldiers or gangbangers who think nothing of blowing away a 15 year old girl.

Anyways, was Mr Haprers idea about Canadian soldiers in cities actually based on the idea of having full and part time soldiers on stand by incase of a natural disaster or terrorist attack?

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: GuiltySpark27 ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 13 January 2006 03:31 AM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GuiltySpark27:

Who would you prefer on the streets carrying guns, Canadian soldiers or gangbangers who think nothing of blowing away a 15 year old girl.

Are you implying the solution to street crime is martial law?

How's this: I'd prefer nobody on the streets carrying guns. (Failing that, a well-trained, well-disciplined, accountable police force would seem to be the best alternative.)


From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
GuiltySpark27
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11713

posted 13 January 2006 03:38 AM      Profile for GuiltySpark27        Edit/Delete Post
Not at all, and this wasn't what the 'soldiers on the streets' were intended to be used for. Like I said the whole soldiers in cities were for some kind of relief/terrorist reaction force.

The ad, to me, implies that soldiers WOULD be used for some type of police action or martial law (which is a stupid concept that's not only non-required but would never happen). Using what the ad implied, that soldiers would be used in this manner I am arguing which of the two evils you would hypothetically prefer, soldiers or criminals.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 13 January 2006 03:47 AM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GuiltySpark27:
...I have been on Canadian streets with guns along side my brothers and sisters in the Canadian Forces....

As a former soldier, I have to call you on that word: gun. Any soldier will tell you the old saying they remember from basic training:

This is my rifle
This is my gun (gesture to groin)
This is for fighting
This is for fun (gesture to groin)


No soldier would ever refer to a rifle as a gun.....and you were born in '79? you have 10 years in?

This of course is nothing like Magoo's great cooking wine caper, but something smells a bit funny....


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
GuiltySpark27
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11713

posted 13 January 2006 04:02 AM      Profile for GuiltySpark27        Edit/Delete Post
That's fine you can PM me and verify my details and ask me what colour the boat house is or my uniform size or my favorite IMP.

Rifle, gun, means the same to me. Yes guns are machineguns or artty.
I shot guns from age 7 or 8 up. Used rifles in the army. I still call magazines clips.
The ad also uses the word guns as opposed to rifles, firearms or small caliber weapons. That saying wasn't from basic training it's from full metal jacket which every single person who has watched that movie, has memorized. Marines DO say that during their bootcamp however I'm not a marine.

As for having 10 years in you caught me there. I have 9 years and 9 months in. You caught me trying to squeeze off an inch.

quote:
No soldier would ever refer to a rifle as a gun

Not true.
Soldiers refer to their rifles in all manners of names. Rifles, Gats, boomsticks, 6 or 9 Iron, Rods. Further bullets become shells and rounds. It's a psychological device that soldiers use to unassociate the weapons they use with death. (Pick up on killing by dave grossman)

We're getting off topic here though. You called me out (which i've often done in the past) so PM me to verify my service (or not) and maybe post a retraction


Back to the topic.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: GuiltySpark27 ]

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: GuiltySpark27 ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kim Smith
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11672

posted 13 January 2006 04:20 AM      Profile for Kim Smith        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:


I am working my way through this now... It's an FLQ web space, apparently entirely from an FLQ perspective (in english at that, cool... Wish I was bilingual).

FLQ Manifesto



You're sounding like some kind of Canadian Anne Coulter, telling us all to listen up while you tell us how frightful honest to God terrorists really are.

The use of troops in Montreal in 1970 was more political theatrics than anything else. The troops made it look to the TV news watching voters as though the Liberal Govt of P E Trudeau was taking strong action in a situation that was very plainly a major national embarassment. But the troops had no practical role to play in actually capturing the kidnappers, it was all just image politics.

Oddly enough, that seems to be what the Liberals are now accusing Harper of wanting to do, use troops to change the overall social and political climate in "our cities", ... by which I think they mean "Liberal urban areas".

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Kim Smith ]


From: Vancouver Westside | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 13 January 2006 06:54 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It begins
quote:
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: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 13 January 2006 07:22 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kim Smith:


You're sounding like some kind of Canadian Anne Coulter, telling us all to listen up while you tell us how frightful honest to God terrorists really are.

The use of troops in Montreal in 1970 was more political theatrics than anything else. The troops made it look to the TV news watching voters as though the Liberal Govt of P E Trudeau was taking strong action in a situation that was very plainly a major national embarassment. But the troops had no practical role to play in actually capturing the kidnappers, it was all just image politics.

Oddly enough, that seems to be what the Liberals are now accusing Harper of wanting to do, use troops to change the overall social and political climate in "our cities", ... by which I think they mean "Liberal urban areas".

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Kim Smith ]


Ya, whateever, get back to that granola bar.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 January 2006 07:32 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GuiltySpark27:
That's fine you can PM me and verify my details and ask me what colour the boat house is or my uniform size or my favorite IMP.

No need, right_wview. BTW, when you're banned, that means we don't want you to come back with a new account. Just so you know.

And Reason, knock off the "granola bar" insults. If you don't like people with left-wing views then this isn't the site for you.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
chilipepper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11377

posted 13 January 2006 09:22 AM      Profile for chilipepper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Little Susie Smith, a seven year-old girl in Brampton, Ontario, has her

bicycle stolen.

A pink bicycle.

With little streamers on the handlebars.

And who just happened to be campaigning in Brampton that day?

Stephen Harper.

That's who.

We're not making this up.

Choose your Canada.


From: GTA | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 13 January 2006 09:32 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure looks like Dr Keith Martin has just called his boss PM Paul Martin an idiot - he was using that term to dsescribe the person who had approved the LPC ads.
From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 January 2006 05:18 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
At the time, no one had any way of knowing how large of an organisation the FLQ was.

Except for the cops...and some Cabinet Ministers, and they knew they were dealing with only a few tiny cells.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
CWW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9599

posted 13 January 2006 05:32 PM      Profile for CWW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Yukoner:
[QB]

This is my rifle
This is my gun (gesture to groin)
This is for fighting
This is for fun (gesture to groin)

QB]


I'd make it to the second line & start giggling every time. It's a good thing I'm not in the forces


From: Edmonton/ Calgary/Nelson | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca