normanchateau

Exactly. This isn't bias they're talking about. If it was, then it wouldn't change with every election. It's reporting. Norman - there's nothing wrong with the data. What I disagree with is that reporting necessarily constitutes bias. I agree with you completely that reporting does not necessarily constitute bias. However, keep in mind that OMPP analyzed the data in two ways: (1) by news reports and (2) by opinion pieces. As far as news reports go, I can see your point. As far as opinion pieces are concerned, e.g., editorials, I can't.

Finally, a voice of reason. I wish there were more. And no, that wasn't intended as an insult to anyone.

Since when is the term "immature" associated with the display of insults? By your definition, the House of Commons is immature. I've been insulted repeatedly on this discussion board but don't see that as a sign of immaturity on the part of the person insulting me. If anything, it might be a sign of frustration. And since you're arbitrarily labelling those who insult you as immature, wouldn't it be equally arbitrary if I labelled as immature the insultee who, like a hurt child whining to his momma, goes running to the moderator for intervention?

But the money coming into Canada from that is vastly outweighed by the money going out of Canada to buy Chinese manufactured goods. We would be better off recognizing Taiwan and dealing with them. They'd be so grateful we'd become their favorite trading partner and we'd find all kinds of opportunities there. Canadian imports from Taiwan already are triple the level of Canadian exports to Taiwan. http://www.asiapacificbusiness.ca/data/tra...?Country=Taiwan Unsurprising. That's pretty much the way it is with all Asian countries. But if we established a particularly close trading relationship with Taiwan we might be able to do something about that. With negotiators like Harper and Emerson handling this, Taiwan will give Canada as much as the US did in the softwood lumber deal. And would you want Trade Minister Emerson to handle this given that he's made it perfectly clear that he wants to improve trade with China? Here's the latest on Emerson and China: http://www.canada.com/topics/finance/story...e43&k=33755 I wonder if Emerson, in his worst nightmares, imagined what Harper's attitude to China was when Harper offered him a cabinet position in order to get him to switch parties.

The softwood lumber deal in which the US kept more than a $1 billion of illegal duties and Harper's Canadian export tax of 15% which is now greater than the 10.5% illegal US duties is grovelling to the US lumber lobby. But why bother yourself with the novel concept of evidence. Gee, they get 1, we get 4. We get access to the US, and what taxes the lumber companies pay now go to us and not the US or the US lumber companies. Sounds good to me. Sounds like grovelling to me. When a bully steals $5 from you, bloodies your nose and gives you back $4, he's still a thieving bully. But grovelling Harper thought that was a good deal. We had access to the US before the softwood lumber "deal". The US bought our lumber when they taxed it at 10.5% and they're still buying it when we tax it at 15%. But shareholders in Canadian softwood lumber companies are paying the price for Harper's grovelling. This week my shares in Canfor, the largest softwood lumber company in Canada, hit a 52 week low. A number of BC lumber companies, thanks to Harper, are now operating at a loss but have not yet shut down operations to keep their workers employed. Read about it here: http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/10/13/Softwood/

I guess you're right, normanchateau, we presented the facts and now he's confused I think with some people, the facts need to be presented repeatedly before they penetrate. Of course this will likely confuse him as he so gratuitously acknowledged when he said "If either of you offered up any facts I'd certainly be confused..." In 2005, the Liberals reduced the lowest personal income tax rate from 16% to 15%. On July 1, 2006, the Conservatives raised the lowest rate to 15.5%. Here are the facts from Jim Flaherty's federal budget: FEDERAL BUDGET (May 2, 2006) Areas Which Impact Payroll The federal budget presented today by the Honourable James Flaherty, Minister of Finance provided changes that will impact the payroll community, directly and indirectly, in 2006 and over the next few years. The Finance Minister, in reading his budget document, did reiterate that any additional changes for 2006 will be effective July 1st, 2006. Personal Income Tax Rates and Basic Personal Amounts 1. Personal Income Tax Rates The lowest personal income tax rate will be reduced to 15 per cent from 16 per cent effective January 1, 2005. The rate will be 15.5 per cent effective July 1, 2006. Accordingly, the full-year rate for 2005 will be 15 per cent, for 2006, 15.25 per cent and, for the 2007 and subsequent taxation years, 15.5 per cent. For the 2005 taxation year the 15 per cent rate applies to taxable incomes of up to $35,595. For the 2006 taxation year the 15.25 per cent rate will apply to taxable incomes of up to $36,378.

It's not "sputtering nonsense", it's a FACT. Don't confuse him with facts.

So you didn't vote for Harper either? Or are conmen acceptable when they're so-conmen?

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence that Harper's efforts to grovel at the feet of Uncle Sam have been successful. No evidence he ever made any effort to grovel, either, but don't let a little thing like facts stop you. It never has before. The softwood lumber deal in which the US kept more than a $1 billion of illegal duties and Harper's Canadian export tax of 15% which is now greater than the 10.5% illegal US duties is grovelling to the US lumber lobby. But why bother yourself with the novel concept of evidence.

It remains to be seen what Rare will do but Harper already raised our taxes. On July 1st, 2006, the personal income tax rate on those who earned the least was raised from 15% to 15.5%. Sputtering nonsense. Will you keep it down? We already established that you live in an imaginary world were either the facts don't matter or you make them up. No need to interfere in other people's discussions by just making noise. My noise, unlike yours, at least has the advantage of being honest, succinct and to the point. Succinct and to the point anyway.

Odd that. I mean, some guy no one's never heard of does a study which conflicts with what people've been seeing, hearing and reading for years, surely that's enough to convince most people. Yeah, why believe scientific evidence from three researchers at McGill University When we all know that all academic studies are completely unbiased and flawlessly accurate. Yeah, personal beliefs, preconceptions and biases are far more valid and reliable than scientific evidence-based data.

But the money coming into Canada from that is vastly outweighed by the money going out of Canada to buy Chinese manufactured goods. We would be better off recognizing Taiwan and dealing with them. They'd be so grateful we'd become their favorite trading partner and we'd find all kinds of opportunities there. Canadian imports from Taiwan already are triple the level of Canadian exports to Taiwan. http://www.asiapacificbusiness.ca/data/tra...?Country=Taiwan

Odd that. I mean, some guy no one's never heard of does a study which conflicts with what people've been seeing, hearing and reading for years, surely that's enough to convince most people. Yeah, why believe scientific evidence from three researchers at McGill University when years of personal beliefs and preconceptions suggest otherwise? And of course when the same methodology at the same McGill research institute shows a pro-Chretien bias as it did in 2000, then the methods are obviously suspect....

But isn't the conventional wisdom among Conservative supporters that the media are biased towards the Liberals? Yes, it is and I am sure that many Tories won't believe that the media was more anti-Lib than anti-Con. Yes, I agree that many Conservatives won't believe it. Why burden themselves with contrary data and scientific evidence when their personal beliefs and preconceptions suggest otherwise.

It remains to be seen what Rare will do but Harper already raised our taxes. On July 1st, 2006, the personal income tax rate on those who earned the least was raised from 15% to 15.5%. Not quite true. The tax rate on the bottom tax bracket was raised from 15% to 15.5%. That affects everyone since a portion of everyone's income is in the bottom tax bracket. You're right of course. However, that tax increase was more punishing to those who earn the least than it was to those who earn the most. Of course it is. But that's how we always cut taxes - give the greatest benefit to the richest and kick the poorest. Harper didn't do anything in terms of tax cuts that Martin didn't do, or Harris, or Campbell, etc. In 2005, Martin lowered the personal income tax rate for the lowest tax bracket. In relative terms, wouldn't that be more advantageous to those who earn the least and less advantageous to those who earn the most?

But exactly the same methodology was employed to show a pro-Jean Chretien bias and an anti-Stockwell Day bias in the 2000 election. How could OMPP have foreseen in 2000 that the bias would be reversed in 2006?

But isn't the conventional wisdom among Conservative supporters that the media are biased towards the Liberals?

Well, David Asper the heir of the late Izzy Asper and his CanWest media empire campaigned with Stephen Harper across the country. He made hefty contributions to Harper's leadership campaigns. As CanWest media journalists well know, anyone who writes against the owner's beliefs gets fired, even if the guilty one is the best editor in the country. Is it a surprise that the headline in the CanWest papers a couple of days before the election was "Why you should vote Conservative"? I was out of the country during the last six weeks of the campaign and had no idea that the Globe and Mail endorsed Harper. Given Harper's performance since the election, it's hard to imagine he'll be endorsed next time. What's surprising about that endorsement is that the OMPP analysis showed a Globe and Mail bias towards the Liberals based on ALL the G+M opinion pieces (and not just the final endorsement). On the other hand, G+M news, as opposed to opinion pieces, did indeed show a bias towards the Conservatives.

The McGill University Observatory on Media and Public Policy (OMPP) statistically analyzed newspapers to see if there was a bias against Stockwell Day in the 2000 election. And there certainly was. However, the OMPP analysis of the 2006 election revealed a strong anti-Liberal, pro-Conservative bias which raises the question of whether this bias contributed to the defeat of the Liberals in the last election. During the 2006 election campaign there were 3,753 articles written about the election in the 7 newspapers studied (The Calgary Herald, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, the Toronto Star and the Vancouver Sun, La Presse and Le Devoir). Of those 3753, 3035 mentioned the Liberal party. Out of those 3035, there were 40 with positive mentions of the Liberal party and 445 with negative mentions of the Liberals, giving a 11 to 1 ratio of negative mentions to positive (slightly higher than last election's 10-1 ratio). Meanwhile, for the Conservative Party, the figures were 2730 total articles, including 144 positive mentions and 127 negative mentions, for a slightly positive overall slant (the positive mentions were similar to last election, but the negatives were cut in half). The NDP garnered 2% positive mentions and 3% negative mentions, while the Bloc received 2% positive coverage, 4% negative. The numbers for the party leaders are quite similar with Martin getting 5 negative mentions for every positive one, while Harper received more favourable than unfavourable mentions. Detailed results and methodology appear in the pdf below: http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/mar06/andrew.pdf

It remains to be seen what Rare will do but Harper already raised our taxes. On July 1st, 2006, the personal income tax rate on those who earned the least was raised from 15% to 15.5%. Not quite true. The tax rate on the bottom tax bracket was raised from 15% to 15.5%. That affects everyone since a portion of everyone's income is in the bottom tax bracket. You're right of course. However, that tax increase was more punishing to those who earn the least than it was to those who earn the most.

CB, I'm simply pointing out that hypocrisy is not a unique feature of some Liberals. The 40 Conservative MPs who voted last year to prohibit floor-crossing were remarkably accepting of the Emerson floor-crossing.

Who would have thought that the Conservatives, the "new" Government of Canada, would have degenerated so quickly in the minds of Conservative supporters?

Reality? Hypocricy is a more accurate descriptor. Harper did not need to make the Fortier and Emerson cabinet appointments as his first act in office.

Campaign or not, here's a list of the 40 Conservative MPs who voted to prohibit floor-crossing on November, 23, 2005: http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=241 And the 44 that opposed the motion....... Way to go norman, what the hell did you prove besides that the CPC has a majority opposition to limitations on floor crossing? That 40 out of 84 Conservative MPs are hypocrites.

Socon isn't, militarists I'm guessing mean's soldiers. Well I don't mind supporting the conservatives since they support the troops and are giving us the money to do our job. I don't mind supporting the troops and giving them money to do their job either. But Harper's appointment of a defense industry lobbyist to the position of Minister of National Defence was pandering to special interest groups. "Controversial Cabinet selection Though somewhat muted by the higher profile issues in the namings of David Emerson and Michael Fortier to the cabinet, the posting of O'Connor to the position of Minister of National Defence by Prime Minister Harper was met with controversy. Harkening back to ethics and accountability issues including a promised crackdown on lobbying and reforms to lobbying legislation [2] that Harper raised during the 2006 federal election, O'Connor's employment as a lobbyist for several major defence industry companies including some of the world's largest military contractors, such as General Dynamics, BAE Systems and Airbus as recently as 2004 was seen by many as peculiar. Some feared that with the posting the minister would often be dealing with the very companies for whom he advised for and assisted in soliciting defence contracts; seemingly putting him in constant peril of conflict-of-interest issues[3]. However, the aim of the Accountability Act is to prevent people from moving from government to lobbying, and not the opposite as was the case with O'Connor There were potential conflict-of-interest issues early in his term as one of the first major issues the Conservatives pledged they would sort out is the replacement of the Forces 'tactical airlift' fleet. One of the most prominient companies bidding for the contract to replace the present fleet of C-130 Hercules Turboprops is Airbus S.A.S. for whom O'Connor worked as a lobbyist until February 2004, lobbying the former Liberal government to purchase the airplane that would become the Airbus A400M for its tactical airlift fleet."