Michael Hardner
-
Posts
45,823 -
Joined
-
Days Won
101
Posts posted by Michael Hardner
-
-
Expand
So...you approve of what DOGE and Trump are doing then?
Believe it or not, I approve of the principle behind it and everyone who lives in the west should.
Someone needs to pull apart, simplify, and retune government so that it's simple enough for the average person to understand. It's a fundamental problem, and adds to the general strife, that nobody can authoritatively say WTF is actually happening. We end up relying on tribal authorities, and objectivity becomes too expensive.Now, the methods that DOGE are using seem (SEEM) to be infantile. As someone who has spent their career working it large organization IT, I can authoritatively tell you that the narrative coming from both sides is riddled with misinfo/disinfo. NOBODY can show up on day one and have the effect that is claimed... claimed by BOTH SIDES. And this is evidence of my point in the paragraph above.
But the layoffs are real, and the cavalier approach are dully irresponsible so I would put a halt to it and restart with a process that is open, collaborative and agile. Believe it or not the workers themselves are likely to have the best ideas as to how to improve things, in my experience. But you have to change the culture.
-
Expand
I never watched that show. I might have seen some of the early episodes. I'm not a huge fan of that song, but it really does sound modern for it's time.
That's what hits you like your first bong hit. 1965 gets burst apart in one second when the needle drops.
-
Expand
It was not their first endeavor in psychedelic music. Revolver came out before Sgt. Pepper. John and George had taken LSD as early as 1965.
The appearance of that song in mad Men was sublime.
-
1
-
-
Expand
AKA, a whole thread about $1.35 worth of grass which "looks great." LMAO
What it's really about is the mythology of how American political economy works.
There's a massive private government that runs things invisibly. I'd be glad with a smaller government that did away with both public and private.
-
Expand
Have you forgotten what the title of this is, let me alliterate for you. Conservatives have taken the lead in the polls. Which is another misinformation from the right. Polls the whole topic is about the polls.
If you were alliterating, you'd say conservatives conquest in current canvas!
-
1
-
-
Expand
Elaborate??
Clinton and others were blasted for things that this administration does as well.
They are just better at politics, and have the top network squarely in their corner.
The whole farce of this administration going after the elite is a head shaker..
Working people are living day to day as Charles Schwab and others rake in billions.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-charles-schwab-stock-market-tariffs-nascar-b2731568.html
-
-
-
Expand
Here’s the good news: tariffs will make a man of ya.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tariffs-put-hair-chest-fox-233236384.html
This from a man who wears makeup all day.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Expand
It was in the cite, except it was 35%
You mean the sub stack? Okay, but as I said CTV doesn't qualify. So you're just talking generally then? Fine.
PP went after the CEO of Bell. That's what I was referring to when we got onto this thread.
-
Expand
As I said, I don't believe there's any organized conspiracy. It's each media company doing what they think its best for their bottom lines. As for who gets how much, information like that is closely held in Canada.
https://deanbeeby.substack.com/p/news-media-bailouts-short-on-transparency
CTV, as a broadcaster, does not qualify as an Canadian Journalism Organization.
Now you're saying the information on subsidies is closely held. But you had a very specific number:
"A quarter of their budget comes from government subsidies"
If you care to do the research to figure out where you got your number, I'd be interested. Thanks.
-
Expand
It's not a conspiracy. It's self-interest. A quarter of their budget comes from government subsidies and they know the Conservatives would have none of that. When I look around the web I see heavy coverage of everything related to Trump and tariffs and threats even when there's nothing new. The CBC had no less than a dozen new stories on their web site the other day related to Trump fearmongering and didn't cover the Carney Cayman islands tax shelter story at all. Same with Global news. CTV had one tiny box down low mentioning Brookfield but not mentioning the accounts with Carney's name on them.
And now we're getting multiple questions by the media to Poilievre on abortion. Why? Because they've been instructed to do so despite the fact Conservative policy has remained unchanged for twenty years and Poilievre has already reiterated it several times. So why the questions? So they can put the questions and answers on TV and in their newspapers to raise doubts and make people fear.
It's a very American tactic because the Liberals use Democratic advisors. Guns, gays and abortion in every election - scary scary! Don't look at that policy history! Don't think about our record! Look over there! Be scared! Be scared! And the media works with it every election and never calls it out.
Nobody is covering the Trump tariffs to hurt Poilievre.
How is CTV subsidized by the government exactly? I'm not doubting that they are but just want to see where the numbers come from.
A lot of the rest of this is circumstantial, pretty hard to nail down proof of the conspiracy.
-
Expand
. He starts making up rules on the fly to explain why horrible behavior is different when a leftist does it.
Not a rule, an opinion. You disagree with me, and that's fine.
I don't think that leaders should use this kind of dialogue.
-
Expand
Like Carney, I'm a boomer. I've traveled lived abroad.
Canada is good!
Hey kids, pick your parents better.
He is Gen X, the forgotten generation.
-
Expand
You haven't provided any evidence that calling someone a Marxist is any more an example of ideologue-ish behavior than other forms of demonization. It's a rule you have just made up. robosmith does this sort of thing all the time. I can see some sense in what you are saying, but I think there are more factors than a lack of specificity of political terms that go into the severity of someone's rhetoric.
You haven't sufficiently made any point to refute.
Gotta get ready to watch the hockey game.
Cheers.
My interpretation of the definition. The first definition had additional terms.
-
Expand
1. How many examples have you provided? I was the one who actually provided two.
2. Trudeau was a leader and he labelled people who were vaccine-hesitant with all these terms which have no relationship to vaccine-hesitancy. He also asked whether we should tolerate them at all? That is horrible for a leader to do. No competent leader would try to create more division the way he did.
1. I didn't provide any. I've heard him say it. That's all. Clearly not a mistake.
2. I'm Not familiar with any of that. He called the leaders of the convoy, racist and misogynist, based on a few examples it seems. I don't know about that other stuff.
Regardless, you're not providing any more points against my fundamental objection that a leader calling a party Marxist is different than that.
-
Expand
1. One instance while talking to people one on one while out on the campaign trail. That to you is significant example of a return to McCarthy era discourse?
2. Using a defined term incorrectly does not make one an ideologue. You have failed to establish the connection.
3 You make think it's worse to call someone a Marxist incorrectly than to call a large group of everyday people racist and extremist and to question whether they ought to be tolerated (on live television, no less),
1. Are you saying he only said it twice? I feel better about it if so.
2. Yes I think it's worse. No competent leader would use such a term without forethought.
3. I already said so.
-
Expand
1. You still haven't provided any convincing examples of how Poilievre is a throwback to McCarthy era style discourse other than he called Liberals Marxist on the campaign trail once. He also took that statement back.
2. Trudeau has used far more inflammatory rhetoric to divide everyday people.
1. Other than the defining aspect of the McCarthy era? I'm glad to hear he took it back, but I did not know that.
2. It's subjective to say that his rhetoric was more inflammatory. I'm citing a specific case whereby a leader is using a defined term, absolutely incorrectly. Your apples to oranges comparison is yours to make. I don't think I said I was outraged.
-
Expand
You ignore people who are sometimes confrontational and tattle on them like a child, all the while praising unhinged rants. This all occurs right here, Mike.
Well, if you're asking about why I ignore people, it's because they're not worth speaking with. Perspektiv was such a vein and egotistical poster... If you ever called him on his contradictions he would go into a long diatribe about some ex-wife or something. Other people only discuss to when when, like it's a zero-sum game. You can't learn anything or get them to concede any point.
The idea that I would ignore someone because they're confrontational is strange.
I don't know how we got away from talking about Poilievre. The McCarthy era style of discourse is something I particularly detest. I'd much rather have Doug Ford and his pork barrel bakery....
-
1
-
-
Expand
I did not say that there was a comparison between private people and public figures, what I said is that within the confines of this forum your double standard is on full display. Of course there is no comparison. And you are free to like whatever you want. But you not only 'like' posts by these people, you like some of the most unhinged posts by these people. That is your right. But it says a lot about your tastes for rhetoric. You lose all credibility to talk about it when you praise the schizophrenic rants of a poster who sees politicians he doesn't agree with and people who support them as evil entities, demonic hordes with lying twisting tongues led by an evil clown. A person who never uses any facts to debate anything and uses the sort of extreme language and caricature-ish propaganda the Nazis were famous for.
If there's no comparison between private individuals, making statements, and public individuals making statements, then why are you saying I follow a double standard by treating those things differently?
Liking a post by someone doesn't mean I think they would be a great leader. Sometimes it's just a good point buried within it
I had no idea anybody looked at my posts so carefully.
-
Expand
Yes, Mike, your double standard with regard to rhetoric is on full display on this forum. You talk about things like rhetoric and civil discussion. You express distaste for certain posters when they get more heated and insulting. That is understandable. And to your credit, you are very good at not engaging in such language yourself. You deserve a great deal of credit for that. But also you betray these so-called values because you consistently 'like' some of the most unhinged posts on here. You came to the defense of the worst offender on here. A person who has expressed his desire for other posters to drop dead on multiple occasions and has made disgusting accusations about other posters. You 'like' the schizophrenic rants of a particular poster who uses overdramatic apocalyptic poetry to paint politicians he doesn't like and the people who support them as actual demonic entities. Like a mad army led by an evil clown. That is far more dangerous rhetoric than simply calling someone a Marxist. He has even invoked the Lord of the Rings more than once and compared people Sauron. To him, the political opposition is not just extreme or radical, they are the embodiment of evil. And if you disagree with him, you quickly become one of Sauron's orcs.
There's no comparison between what private people say and what public leaders say. I have liked posts from people that I even have on ignore, so there's no principle behind me liking a post or not. I can dislike you and like one of your posts.
Back to the point, Pierre is running a very different kind of campaign that was successful against Trudeau. I doubt that it's going to be successful now, but I don't know.
And yes, he comes across as an ideologue with very different modes of politicking than others.
-
Expand
1. So is it ok to call them Nazis?
1. Some of leadership? Absolutely. It's not the same as calling an entire party, the Communist party. Have you seen Pat King's hilarious racist videos? He imitates a Chinese guy
...
ExpandCrazy in what/which way? Were they Marxists? What rationale?
Western separatists, racists and such... I don't remember the details but at least a few of them deserved the moniker.
-
Expand
Yes, but it's not the quality of the rhetoric you care about. It's who is delivering it.
No. Calling the opposing parties Nazis or Marxists isn't ok.
There's some rationale for calling the convoy leaders names is ok to a point because they were crazy.
-
Expandideologue /ī′dē-ə-lôg″, -lŏg″, ĭd′ē-/noun
- An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.
- An adherent to or advocate of some ideology{3}.
Accusing someone else of being extreme is not an inherent feature of being an ideologue. You may consider it an example of behavior common among ideologues, but you have only provided one example of Pierre ever doing so. It's not common practice with Pierre. Tons of politicians have made extreme comments like this. As for distinguishing between whether someone merely calls someone an extremist or labels them with a specific type of extremism (whether mistakenly or not) has nothing to do with being an ideologue. That is just a rule you have made up on the fly. You say you haven't seen any argument against your point. You haven't even made a point to begin with.
OK, that is a the real definition of being an ideologue, but you still haven't provided any examples of Pierre being one.
Stand by it all you want. You just fail to make any case as to how someone fits the dictionary definition of ideologue.
Let's be honest here, Mike. You heard of one incident where Pierre called Liberals marxists while door knocking. All of a sudden you start calling him Trumpian. You make a lot of pretense about how all this sort of thing is offensive to your high standards, while you consistently praise posters who call others fascists, wish other posters dead or accuse them of having a sexual attraction to their own children. You don't care about rhetoric.
I've heard him say it more than once. I got my definition from Merriam-Webster I think, and it's got nothing to do with calling somebody extreme. It's got to do with using the specific label. Try and find an example of a politician doing this in before Pierre did it, you won't find that.
I don't know why people who like him try to pretend it's the same as other conservatives. He's not.
I do care about rhetoric.
Carney/Boomers vs Kids/Rest of you
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by Michael Hardner
I don't think so. If you do, then you must agree with the changes in social attitude that find significantly more support with younger folks.
Adding: a true community weighs the opinion from diverse sources, including the wisdom of age and the optimism of youth. That's the core of why 'diversity' is important - it's a natural way to mitigate one-sided opinions.