CdnFox

Satire is not synonymous with irony. At all. In fact satire is actually fairly protected against libel.

Oh please Well lets take a look Conservatives were found to be INNOCENT on the robocalls thing. All evidence pointed to one guy who did it on his own. FAIL Conservative "sting" operation - this was done by a single girl who VOTES CONSERVATIVE - not someone working for or connected with the gov't . It had nothing to do with harper. COMPLETE FAIL Del Maestro was sentanced because he overspent on his OWN campaign. It didn't benefit harper nor did harper know about it. FAIL "reprehensible Tricks" - this has nothing to do with corruption. This is politics. Politicians frequently pull this crap on each other. He didn't abuse his power, they did nothing ethically wrong and certainly nothing illegal. FAIL Bar Crosbie - Again, this is political but it has nothing to do with corruption or ethics and liberals and even ndp "parachute" preferred candidates into ridings all the time. You might not like it but it's just politics and not corruption or illegal. More 'dirty tricks' - see above. Also unproven in this case Unfixing fixed election - this one is just a blatant lie. In a minority gov't the OPPOSITOIN can bring the house down any time it wants regardless of law. THe opposition signaled they wanted to do that, harper met with every single leader asking if there was ANYTHING they could agree to work on and keep the gov't going, they all admit they said no. Well in a minority that means an election. He didnt' break it - they just wanted to have one and you can't pass a law that forbids that. "record use of personal attacks". Also bullshit. Seriously the liberals have done that MORE in every single election. "Secret agenda". "will bring back abortion". "soldiers in the streets". Ringing any bells? That's just childish. I guess we can stop there. The rest are teh same. Many are completely untrue. most of the remaining ones are just things the author doesn't like but aren't corrupt or abuses of power at all, and what's left is grossly distored. And in each case the liberals have previously done the same things and said that it was ok. So complaining when harper does it is just political nonsense. Like when he prorogued parliament - everyone claimed it was horrible but EVERY gov't EVER has done that. But ONLY when harper does it is it bad. In conclusion - if that was your best shot then i'm afraid you have been dishonest with us. Harper did nothing corrupt or remotely illegal at all. the closest we come to that is duffey, where he tried to use his power to FORCE SOMEONE TO GIVE TAXPAYER MONEY BACK TO THE PEOPLE. More scandals like that please.

You prefer the term collar and chain?

Sure big guy. I'm sure you've got all kinds of reasons why you prefer to be slaved to a monarch without any duty to canada or it's people. like i said, you do you. This IS a free country. Thanks to the people who worked to build it and care about it. You have fun with your blind devotion. I'm sure it's comforting.

Yes, well thank you, always nice to hear what the dog on the royal leash with no pride in canada thinks, that's really helpful. Keep in touch

read it again? You're doing amazingly well to get them to read it the first time. Most will only listen to the talking points of someone ELSE who read it and assume they got it right and that now they know everything they need to. And then there's those who don't even do that, they listen to someone who's listened to someone. it gets to be like that game played by kids where you pass a secret around a circle of people and laugh at how distorted it is by the time it gets to the end. It's a serious problem in today's world. You'd think with the internet more people would review the source material but the opposite is true.

Ok. So you have no honour and recognize no duty as a Canadian. Fair enough - you do you. I'm sure the monarch appreciates your blind and complete devotion. On behalf of your fellow canadians who work and struggle to build the country you live in and maintain it's soverignty and democracy, let me just say you suck.

the various acts already allow for that. They just don't do it. The public couldn't get the information they WERE given right, i doubt that would have helped. You have to remember that 50 percent of the public is below average. I would like to see more transparancy for sure. But if every gov't interaction is done in public on the big screen then nothing gets done because everyone's more worried about how their hair looks and sounding 'good' than they are working to find solutions. The press and the public can take every single word said out of context and frequently does. Zelanzki says "if we don't stop them here then your sons and daughters will wind up having to fight them later", and the press and the public hears "you should send your sons and daughters to help us fight right now". I mean .. seriously, how does letting people that stupid listen to every word in a negotiation help?

So you have no values and are useless in helping solve the problems we face. Welp. Thanks for coming out. I guess you can leave the conversation to the citizens.

Agreed. We've seen where "just following orders" has gotten countries before. It's a very difficult moral issue - but i do believe that there can come a point where your orders violate ethical and moral behavior SO badly that you have a greater duty to speak up. In this case - there is clear evidence of Chinese interference in our democracy and sovereignty that is going ignored and possibly even being encouraged and welcomed by our own gov't and our gov't is keeping it hidden from the public. THat's a pretty serious thing. That's not just a political decision someone doesn't like, there is a real threat to our democracy. I would say that most would agree that reasonably approaches the bar where there's more of a duty to be a whistle blower than to shut up

Yeah, that's great and all but it doesn't mean shite unless you're willing to do something about it. I would hope you'll be donating and actively participating in helping get a better gov't who will deal with it elected next election. I'm sure your local rep (or one of them) can use more doorknockers, callers and scrutineers. It's the boots on the ground that win elections.

Wow - project much? LOL The channel is the same. If you don't like your choices in political parties and their priorities, you have to get involved in the process of creating the political parties and setting their priorites. That is the channel. Going off about how you served at a land planning commission for your local area and that's the same as attending a party policy convention is changing the channel. If you refuse to be part of the solution, you can't really whine about the problem can you.

Yes. Wandered a little off topic near the end there but basically yes True democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

No, you're just deflecting. You didn't like the fact that in all sincerity i told you how to resolve some of the concerns you had about our political parties and rather than address that you PRETENDED you were involved and then it turned out you weren't. No, you're just changing the channel because the idea that you need to do more to make positive change did not fit your narrative. No, that is NOT how it works. That's like buying something at the grocery store and then claiming you've helped run the grocery store, just in a 'different capacity'. What you're saying is you are NOT INVOLVED AT ALL. And my point is that if you don't like what's out there for political choice - then you need to get involved. democracy IS a responsibility. And no we don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional or respresentational democracy. Thank god - a true democracy would be horrible. So it's an even BIGGER responsibility. No. That's not even close. Sorry. You cannot conflate the business of gov't with the formation of gov't. They have nothing to do with each other. So what you're saying is YOU HAVE NOT PARTICIPATED AT ALL other than to vote (and i'm assuming you vote, maybe you don't even do that much). What i'm saying is that if you genuinely don't like your choices, you need to participate. That's the duty that comes with democratic representation. You can't complain about dinner if you refuse to help plan the meal or cook. That is not how it works. That may well do some good for something somewhere or have value outside of politics but if that's what you've done then YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS IN THE SLIGHTEST. So get involved.

Yeah - it's been at least 20 years since that was a thing Math is racist now. Once the bar has been set that low basically everything is unless it's the liberals doing it. Remember when it was RRRRRRRRRRAAAAACCIST to suggest shutting down the border to china at the beginning of the pandemic? Remember when the gov't did it a year later during a later outbreak and suddenly it was perfectly normal?

Well.... glorious anyway. Well.... north anyway.

And look what a huge failure that was. The amerian system became so rigid that only two parties were ever developed and it's basically impossible for new ones to get started. What were you saying about wiping out competition? The corruption is rampant, the politicians spend more of their time fundraising than working for their constituents (true fact,) NUMEROUS Predsidents have committed crimes for which they got off scott free, they've had influence peddling of every sort etc etc. They are far worse off than we are. Canada's democracy is actually objectively stronger than the us's at the moment. As to the actual working of the gov't again ours is much more effective at the moment. We don't shut down the entire country because we can't agree on a budget. When there's a minority the parties know they have to find ways to work together to get business done. So lets go through your points 1) But don't. More and more the president takes power into his office and the house hasn't been able to stop it, AND because the PARTIES are still linked to a president they're not really independent in practice. If presidents weren't allowed to belong to a party it would be different but If the president and the house are both of the same party - there's no checks and balances. So it's utterly meaningless. 2) Well you note it's erroding but really it's gone. Remember when trump was running against clinton? Both stood up in a debate and PROUDLY said they would appoint judges that would support their way of thinking - clinton on gun control and trump on abortion. They literally BRAGGED they were going to find judges that would NOT rule on the basis of law but on their beliefs. And there is AMPLE evidence that frequently the justice department is used for POLITICAL ends. Remember when Bill Clinton ran across the tarmac to talk to the AG and suddenly his wife got off the hook? The justice system has been compromised 3) That doesn't exist and never has. There is no 'strong tradition' of 'independant' institutions capable of holding the gov't in check. They're all political one way or another. 4) You must be joking. That has devolved into the worst kind of tribalism imaginable. If anything the media in the states more than anything else will prevent them from ever being a united country again and has interfered with their voting and elections in a HORRIBLE way. Remember when biden's laptop story got surpressed during an election so voters coudln't know about that corruption till after? Sorry but the US is a disaster right now. We're actually better off, and that's really setting the bar low. There are always pros and cons and no system is going to give you perfect or even great results or resist corruption. The people have to be the circuit breaker that prevents that.

It's racists if the question annoys the liberals. Otherwise it's fine.

So why are you having trouble naming or describing one. Go on. Give me an example of one then because if it's "ANY" other than ours you have a lot to choose from around the word. Painted yourself into a bit of a corner didnt'cha Sorry, some of the brightest minds in history have tried and failed. It always comes back to the same issues - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Any system of checks and balances has to do a balancing act with freedoms and effectiveness and protections etc. Your 'cornerstones' are kind of just childish rantings. Most of that is the voter's job, but voters really don't do their job anymore these days. Look at you - you're all worked up about this, how many policy conventions have you attended in your life? None? Have you even volunteered for a local campaign before? Or even scrutineered? Right. tell me all about how it's the system that's the problem. Its true that good governance is a difficult balancing act between the leadership having enough power to do it's job without hinderance and enough constrains not to go off the rails, and increasing the one means decreasing the other as a rule. But the lynchpin in the system is the people. The people who help build the policy, help recruit the candidates, who pick the leaders and who help set the agenda and then vote the parties in and out of power based on performance. That is the final check and balance - and we've just seen two elections where the people KNEW the gov't was corrupt and voted them back in anyway. That's a bigger problem than what system we're using.

Not defensive - annoyed. I find that level of "dense" a bit off putting. Seriously, this was pretty bad. Not only would they - they would be in serious legal trouble if they didn't. Postmedia carried LOTS of ndp and liberal ads. Never not happened either - can you show me any evidence they tried and were turned down'? NO? thought not. Any paper will run political ads for any party during an election. it's a very long standing tradition. They're very careful about pricing too so they don't look like they're donating to the campaign. Every single paper will do that if you pay them. It's not even a 'front page' its just a sort of flyer that goes over their front page. They've done it for other advertizers as well. Got big bucks, you can do that. Look - you want to have a sane discussion about media bias, that's fine. There's lots of bias in media. But this - this specific example - you have to be 17 different kind of thick to think that's an example of media bias. FFS dude. PLEASE do a little more research than that.

Heh - i was once young and foolish myself (i'm saying that fondly not derogatory) Ok i doubt you'll come up with anyhting i haven't heard of or thought of but lets test your supposition out. Describe a model that doesn't have those weaknesses and is still democratic to a resonable degree and lets see how you do.

Getting hit by a car may bring you into closer contact with it, but its' not the same as driving it. We're discussing how to make a difference to the political parties and what they put forward. So that's something very different and you can have an effect there there's politics in all governance, so either your kind of pulling our leg or you're trying to split hairs. And the liberals have shown us just how bad things can get if you have politics without governance. In any case we're talking about political parties and shaping and making them work. And clearly you have not been involved with that process. Trying to pass off working with them from the outside as the same thing is simply not real. If you're unhappy with your political options then ACTUALLY get involved. You CAN make a big difference. If you don't then you have to live with whatever scraps others leave for you and for some people that works out just fine, but it doesn't sound like it's working for you. I know that it takes time and nobody has any today but it is important that you do your bit for democracy. Democracy is a hell of a lot more than just showing up to vote once every 4 years or so. For the people to govern, the people have to govern. And that means participating.

That's actually a pretty good line

ROFLMAO - well nothing makes your point like misspelling that when you're using it Maybe pick a different word if you can't spell it and look slightly less dense That is YOUR position. "This will be the last war if we just let them win!!!" Nope. Letting them win will encourage MORE war, not less. It did not need to happen, and was instigated by putin and him alone. Did he attempt to negotiate with these 'other parties'? Nope. Did he even suggest he was considering war if they couldn't come to an agreement? Nope. Did he deny he was considering war even as he moved his troops up? Yep. Did he blame third parties for the war? Nope - it was to 'get the nazis'. Did he offer to stop the war if they agreed not to join nato or anything? Nope. No negotiation at all and flat out refusal for quite a while, then 'mayyyyybeee we'll talk' when he started to lose. This was absolutely not instigated by third parties. He did not need to do this at all. Except that he wanted Ukraine in his possession again. Of course not. But it will mean less war by far and less likelyhood of a nuclear exchange by leaps and bounds. But you don't really give a crap about anyone or nuclear war. You just want to see russia win and the US lose. And if 10 or 20 thousand innocent women and children have to die for that - oh well. Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right tovarhish?

Yeah - no. Those papers also sold ads to the liberals. And ndp. And so did every paper. That's just the papers the conservatives chose to buy ads in. You have a very poor understanding of how the news media and politics work if you thought that during an election ANY paper would refuse ads for a political party. The liberals would have been able to buy the same ad if they'd had any money left. That was a COMPLETE swing and a miss. Wow. Edit - and those ads sure turned out to be true didn't they The liberals certainly did cost us. Huge. Truth in advertising.