-
Posts
45,793 -
Joined
-
Days Won
101
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Michael Hardner
-
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
-
CTV, as a broadcaster, does not qualify as an Canadian Journalism Organization. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/corporations/business-tax-credits/qualified-canadian-journalism-organization.html 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.
-
Carney/Boomers vs Kids/Rest of you
Michael Hardner replied to August1991's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
He is Gen X, the forgotten generation. -
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ... Western separatists, racists and such... I don't remember the details but at least a few of them deserved the moniker.
-
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.
-
1. I'm not ignoring it, I just haven't seen an argument against my point that I believe. We're not talking about his ideology, we're talking about him behaving like an ideologue. And making extreme statements is definitely a sign of an ideologue. He's not just saying that Trudeau is Extreme, he's calling him a Marxist which is something specific and pretty blatantly not true. 2. Everything is ideology, including centrist policy and everything you wrote there. It's all ideology. Everyone has ideology, not everyone is an idealogue, which refers to someone who is uncompromising and dogmatic 3. Yes, calling another party. A Nazi party is a sign of ideologue. There are lots of examples of calling people dictators, which I also don't support, but that's mostly insults. The conservative MP Rachel Thomas indicated that Trudeau could be a dictator, but I don't think that makes her an ideologue. It's just an insult in that level. Anyway, at this point we're just arguing about our personal interpretations of words. I'll stand by the dictionary definition of ideologue. And for the definition of ideology, I would refer to Slavoj Zizek's popular description of it referring to unknown knowns... See Donald Rumsfeld... Cheers
-
As is pointed in the comments, we need to understand what this money actually was spent on. The fact that they put the word gender in there, versus women, tells me they're probably trying to spike the punch. As for Pierre, calling Liberals "Marxist" is about all you need to know, with regards to his ideological rhetoric.
-
Liberal Party Takes Lead in Polls
Michael Hardner replied to TreeBeard's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Cardy Leader Dominic Cardy... -
Well I never understood the strategy, but I'm not really the target either. Regardless of how it appears to a CBC panelist, or to me (a conservative btw) I don't see how anyone can assert that it has the opposite effect unless they do some kind of survey. Even then, it would be difficult. "In a survey of potential voters who are undecided, x% indicated that the large rallies will make them definitely not vote CPC" That seems like a survey that would just produce a percentage of percentage of undecided about being undecided.