G Huxley

Actually I am defending the masses (you and myself included) from being brainwashed by the dissemination of mass political propaganda on the airwaves.

Kraychik the masses are fickle. This is proven. If they weren't you wouldn't be defending the right to manipulate them through the mass dissemination of political propanda on the airwaves. That's science and logic all in one for you buddy. Regarding your other statement. It's pure hysterics. All airwaves are regulated by the government. That's how channels and stations are accorded.

He should have a right to call me a slave on here. It only makes his own position look bad. The real irony is that he called me and other Canadians slaves to Ottawa and guess who is in Ottawa? The government which he supports. Which would make him be the supporter of a slave regime. Quite the gaffe eh Kray?

Actually as I mentioned in my other post ads on television and radio are different from print mediums in that they don't give the listener choice unlike print culture. They just flood the person's senses on that bandwidth or station without choice. Therefore I agree that political ads should be banned from the airwaves unless an option pops up and asks the viewer if they wish to see or listen to the ad.

If Kraychik wants to call me a slave he has the right to do so. I don't mind. What he doesn't have the right to do is to pay without limit for the mass dissemination of propaganda calling me a slave for partisan political purposes. That's not free speech. That's mass propaganda. Moreover the slave slur illustrates his thinking towards the masses whose minds he considers is just something to buy and turn into actual slaves. The 'slave owner' mentality. Regarding the Paine analogy it falls, because the original discussion was about TV and radio ads. TV and radio is different than print culture in that it is a medium which monopolizes attention without choice, as such it has been the favourite method of propaganda for totalitarian regimes such as Hitler's Germany for their propaganda.* *I use TV in a broad sense to include film as well in this regards. Actually television was pioneered in Nazi Germany (see the documentary Television Under the Swastika), but the number of television sets were very low during the Third Reich.

I didn't at all. I called for the restriction of funding for the mass dissemination of political propaganda by political parties. Money is not speech. Your equation of money with speech is "rich."

Your username is American in origin thus using your logic you should be rejected and not able to post here.

Political cause becomes a bit more ambiguous.

I don't think it should be a criminal offense to donate money to a political party, but I believe that the amount should be severely limited so that the rich can't control the political process which would be anti-democratic.

A great idea. Stop the rich elite from buying elections through the funding of the dissemination of mass propaganda. We should live in a Democracy not a Plutocracy.

I didn't call anyone a neocon yet my post was deleted. If the word neocon is offensive then it's because they've made such a bad name for themselves. And Charles Anthony I'm not in any way surprised that you once considered yourself a neocon. This is seriously unreal. If we can't even use the term of a genuine political movement this is thought control and there is no way to express dissent. This is the opposite of democratic. This board is seriously more against freedom of thought/expression than a Harper rally with a gag order.

Despite the fact it's an actual political movement. This is seriously ridiculous.

Apparently I'm not allowed to use the word neocon (my posts keep getting deleted with the term in it) despite that it is an actual conservative movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

That it blocked sight lines in the back of the car OK that I can understand. In more recent news much worse censorship: http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/08/participants-at-conservative-events-must-agree-to-gag-order/

I saw this amusing article about censorship in Canada today: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/bc/Anti+Harper+sign+draws+thumbs+middle+fingers+traffic+ticket/11302318/story.html I doubt the police stand a chance in court. Quoting Shakespeare's Henry V isn't a crime.

The person is a holier than thou 'moral crusader' who no surprise turns out to be a molestor and sex fiend to boot. If the truth gets out from his own stupidity is it any surprise?

He's too old to be a conservative or something?

"That's a false choice." That's exactly the situation we have now. The direction of authoritarianism towards a dystopian Orwellian future, or real democracy. "We have one of the strongest democracies in the world." Bill C-51 and Harper's belligerant actions/provocations on the world stage is a clear road towards an authoritarian Canada. Harper has cynically attempted and succeeded to stir violent conflict in order to ensure his own re-election. If it all sounds familiar, it's because he's taking his play book from George Bush his hero. Bill C51 is Harper's version of the Patriot Act, which like Bush he pushed partially to make the other parties look weak. It was pathetic the liberals played into this and into his belligerant militarism. It has cost them at the polls, but that was all part of the divide and conquer strategy Harper's party has been successfully utillizing. The other major attempt at this is Harper's anti-Democratic debate shenanigans, which Mulcair is also playing into. All of this is deeply disillusioning towards all three of these parties. If May and the other parties are excluded then we don't have a real democracy. We have a farce masquerading as a Democracy when it isn't. "May does have a voice that is already over-represented in comparison to her seriousness as a candidate of the job of Prime Minister. " That's not for you to decide for everyone else, it's for all the voters to decide after having a fair even representation of all the candidates. Personally I think she's much more serious than Harper who has no qualms about selling Canada's companies and resources to corrupt foreign regimes such as totalitarian China and who doesn't care one ounce about the very environment which provides the air he and the rest of us have to breathe. You like so many are are terrified of May so much so that you're willing to forgo Democracy in Canada. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Canada has a big problem with cons in Ottawa.

Scott agreed. It's usually the fanatical 'moral' crusaders who end up being found in a bathroom stall with a couple of tranvestite hookers snorting crystal meth.

Good luck with 1 in 5 people in Ottawa using Ashley Maddison. haha

"It is democratic, and it is fair." Of course it isn't if only a slim selection of candidates are allowed in the National Debates. "No one is being excluded from the democratic process." Of course they are. Fair and impartial debate is an essential part of the democratic process. This was a key foundation of Democracy when it was founded. The Pnyx and the Areopagus were a place where any citizen could have an open say on the political situation. "There's be no point in holding the debate, that would just be a gong show with that many people talking over each other." No they would each have turns to talk, so they wouldn't be talking over each other. "The "Other debate" is not a bad idea though. Let any party that doesn't meet official party status have their say there." Only official party status should be set at if they can field 20 candidates nationally so as to be inclusive as Democracy requires. "No one is afraid of them." Obviously 20% of the country including many of the wingnuts here are terrified of real democracy coming into Canada like it might affect their investment portfolio negatively or something. These people don't give a damn about real democracy. Some people just want to see a composed, serious leaders debate." That's why May needs to be included. A leaders debate can't be serious if it is denying other contenders be involved. To exclude the Greens a powerful national party whose numbers and seats exceed the numbers of those previously involved in the debates (e.g. The Reform Party when it first started, the NDP which was polling in the single digits 20 years ago etc.), is anti-Democratic and makes the debates simply a farce, an act of strong armed tactics used to sideline democracy in order to consolidate the elite's hold on power. The same thing goes for the other parties which have MPs as well. "One where the people who actually have a chance of becoming the next PM can let people know what the people might be getting." If it was fair Elizabeth May would have a chance at becoming the next PM, but since you are for deciding against her having a fair chance unilaterally your position is anti-Democratic. The vote is at the polls on election day. It is not decided before hand who the next PM will be. Elections should not be bought and sold on how many people can be manipulated through paid for televised propaganda, which is the current model of election advertising and rigged exclusionary debates which only favour the prevailing elite. That is an artificial plutocratic manipulation of the Demos and is also anti-democratic. (not to mention a gross waste of time and resources). Beyond that it's also about giving parties a chance to expand themselves by giving them a fair chance democratically by having an even playing field instead of merely consolidating the elite's position through undemocratic exclusionary means. This isn't an American two party State separated from totalitarian/communist China by only one party and it being a vote on who will be the next president. This is a parliamentary system. That means that it's not all about the Prime Ministers, but the ministers and the members of parliament representing Canadians. It's about real choice instead of an illusion of choice as in one party or two party states. This isn't some two party winner takes all presidential election. It's about parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary systems frequently involve coalitions. In order for democratic coalitions candidates running for MP need to be given a fair chance and an even playing field. A real democracy needs opposition and alternatives and for their views to be heard. Silencing them is just making the country more and more authoritarian as if that wasn't obvious already with Canada getting mired into multiple Bush emulating wars and eroding citizen's rights on the neocon Orwellian model via Bill c51 etc. We can have Democracy or an authoritarian Orwellian dystopia. Take your pick.

"This isn't the "let's hear everyone talk event". It's an election to decide who will govern the next parliament. " Another of the 20% who doesn't understand the meaning of the word Democracy. If it's a democratic election it has to be fair. That means not excluding others from the Democratic process so that the oligarchy maintains it's grip on power through anti-democratic means. Rather ironic that Harper called the consortium a cabal and then immediately goes about trying to appeal to the elite to not allow alternatives into the process. You know the same thing Hitler did. I would say the line should be if any party can field 20 candidates nation wide. As for independents and parties smaller than that there should be another debate for them as well. Are you really scared of the rhinos? Do they scare you so much you're willing to sacrifice democracy to stop them from being heard? What a laugh. A sardonic one.

"indeed, 81 per cent of his supporters think he should participate)." 81% of Mulcair's supporters think he should participate in the consortium debate. http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/08/fractured-country-produces-tight-and-unpredictable-race/ "We understand why the NDP might not want Green Party present at the debates" [They should take the word Democratic out of their name then as it would be false advertising.] ... "– it is clear they are toe-to-toe in some ridings in British Columbia. However, refusing to debate the Green Party will, at best, deny the Green Party one to two seats (and this is a generous estimate). The voters who are angry over his refusal to participate, however, may well cause far more serious losses, as the promiscuous progressives are a highly fluid group. Indeed, in this case, the potential downside to not participating certainly outweighs the upside."

Where's the option Joe Clark?