Bionic Antboy

Maplesyrup vs. Willy... Using the same statistics no less. Gotta love it. From the same site.... What does it all mean? None of the leaders have a strong enough personality to appear as a STRONG lead for Prime Ministerial material (which I agree with), but Duccepe smoked them in the debating arena (which I agree with), and when it comes to policy the Bloq is tops, with a surprising number for the NDP. Since we're all playing armchair pundits, this is what I would tell each of them for the English debate. To the PM: Learn your own numbers better. Focus on the highlights of your record (there ARE some, after all). Be strong and leaderly, but NOT condescending. To Harper: Open up more. A lot of Canadians are painting you with a brush, because you're not supplying them with enough material. If you play it TOO cool and aloof, you aren't going to gain new ground. To Layton: Optimism is one thing, but roll up the sleeves and be more of a pit bull. More policy details. Shake off the "nagging nellies" that the previous two NDP leaders cloaked the party in. To Duceppe: Go get 'em. You don't have much to lose outside of Quebec, so focus on ideals, not details. You got the debating chops to do it, just tone down a LITTLE bit for English Canada. Just my take.

It's obvious that the article IS leaning a bit towards fear mongering, but I do agree with it in spirit. If the federal gov't is crippled by handing more ppwer to the provinces, the relatively small role Canada plays in world trade would just be further diminished. I agree with you entirely that we need one strong national voice on the world stage.

True there are inaccuracies, but that's a far cry from being subliminal. EVERY party is guilty of misrepresenting their political opponents. It only takes a few minutes of googling to find THAT out. This thread started out by falsely accusing one party of using subliminal messages, and I responded to disprove that half-baked theory. That's why I figured the thread was done with.

A subliminal message need not contain text or images. The idea here would be to affect or influence the mood of the viewer without being obvious about it. If the gun going off (incidentally, a hand gun, which has nothing at all to do with the gun registration controversy) in the face of the viewer has some kind of influence on the subconscious as he or she watches then that is indeed a subliminal message. To be honest, I did not know the gun had been fired until I saw the video slowed down in the news story. That would make it subliminal. Or perhaps someone who merely watched the news tonight where this was demonstrated, where it was pointed out that subliminal advertising was banned by the CRTC, and that there has been a complaint registered with them about this. Are you related to Takeanumber? "This is so because I say it's so!" You say-- A subliminal message need not contain text or images. The idea here would be to affect or influence the mood of the viewer without being obvious about it. Yes, deliberately hidden sound, text or images ARE the definition of a subliminal message. The ad attempts to affect the mood of the viewer overtly, not subliminally. It uses a gun raising, firing and revealing a bleak factory. Advertising has been deliberately affecting the mood of the viewer for decades without subliminals. This ad uses modern, evocative styles to elicit the moods desired in the viewer, without the use of subliminals. You say--To be honest, I did not know the gun had been fired until I saw the video slowed down in the news story. That would make it subliminal. Just because you missed it, doesn't make it subliminal, either. It only means that YOU missed it. I didn't miss it on television. Computer playback may vary for a number of reasons. You say---Or perhaps someone who merely watched the news tonight where this was demonstrated, where it was pointed out that subliminal advertising was banned by the CRTC, and that there has been a complaint registered with them about this. So what if someone complains? The complaint is without merit. You say--Are you related to Takeanumber? "This is so because I say it's so!" And I say you are totally wrong. I've clearly demonstrated what constitutes subliminal advertising, and how the example cited is NOT a bona fide case. Show me where my logic is flawed. Better yet, look up what subliminal messages are all about. It's not my fault you don't understand the definition of subliminal and how it pertains to this conversation. That's why this is a non-issue. Plain and simple.

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2//viewtop...der=asc&start=0 This is a thread from the original site. Quite humourous actually...

I wouldn't call it an "interesting" observation so much as a "retarded" observation. The whole problem with that analysis in the link is that what the author is claiming as a subliminal message, isn't. Subliminals are when images or text are "hidden" in the video, such as the infamous "SEX" in the clouds of the Lion King, or sexy ladies in ice cubes (I believe it was a brand of vodka). Even if subliminals were proven to work, which is far from the truth, there is nothing subliminal in a gun being raised to the camera and fired, and followed by a scene of a factory. As for the original article saying The muzzle flash itself would only be 3/100 of a second., well, so what? Shots of actual gun fire do record muzzle flash for a grand total of a single frame. There is nothing shocking or misleading about that. Muzzle flash can appear to last up to two frames, if the original source was interlaced and later brought into progressive mode, though it's clear that the flash is just a post-production effect. I find it amusing that the original author, clearly a conspiracy theorist of the highest order (and when I say highest, it COULD be in more than one context), goes on to call these tactics When they are nothing of the sort. To make a long story short, might as well lock the thread now, because that isn't an example of a subliminal message.

You should really provide the source, either append the author's name at the bottom, provide a link to the source, or preferably both. You can add the author's name to the bottom of the original post... That's really the ethical thing to do. Now, beyond that... I'd have to agree with your assessment for the most part. We should judge the man on his words, not the comparison to the current US president. It is tempting though, because there are a lot of, if not parallels, then curious commonalities.

What do you mean by "adopt our law code, and our democracy."? Sounds like they are doing just that, getting involved with politics on a personal level and taking it seriously. [sarcasm]How DARE they get involved with the Canadian political system! The OUTRAGE![/sarcasm] Is it a fault that the ethnic community is more active in politics, or is it the fault of the Caucasian, for not being involved enough? (If, indeed, there is anyone to assign fault to in the first place)

I was just going to post the same thing.... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report/

Amen to that.

Who are you to judge my reasons for not liking the gag order, and the general avoidance of discussing social issues that's become the Conservative Party line? Your comment that He has not told them to refuse to answer where they stand on those issue, merely told them not to make any outspoken, quotable, damaging statements. sounds kind of contradictory. In other words, you're saying that MPs can say what they want, unless is outspoken, damaging and/or quotable... what the heck is left?

Your opinion seems formed. I am sure no matter how much engaging or debate you would still hold the same opinion. As for the hiding, I have seen Harper in every province so far in this election and the candidates have been in local debates across the country. I have also seen Harper interviewed individually on all the major stations, and they will have the traditional debate this week. What else would you like, for him to call you at home? As for debating Layton, he only holds 18% of the vote now. If anyone should debate it is Harper and Martin and I look forward to that event. (If you didn't notice, I implied that Layton was irrelevant and for the Conservatives to win he is as his supporters are not likely to come on board but the Conservatives will attract more Liberals support before this is over.) You seem to think this is not enough but it appears to be good strategy as they are the party in the lead and has consistently grown in support in the last couple of months. Sucks to be in the minority eh? Actually, I don't consider myself to be in the minority, or majority. What I'm saying is that the official party clam-up on social issues bothers me. And stumping from town to town isn't the same as debating. There's a difference between going out and selling yourself, and answering direct questions from the electorate. The main reason I say that the Cons won't get my vote is because I want to have a comprehensive knowledge of where they stand, and they're actively AVOIDING telling Canadians that. It's the official party line. That doesn't strike me as very democratic. Your opinion seems formed. I am sure no matter how much engaging or debate you would still hold the same opinion. How could you possibly know? I've cast votes for all three major parties in the past and don't have a blind allegiance to any. The new CPC just seems to go out of it's way to avoid open discussions, instead sticking to it's "talking points". They certainly are BEHAVING like a party with something to hide regarding their social issues. And just to clear things up, although I am pro-choice, I have no problem with opening the debate on whether there should be some sort of restrictions, based on term and such. But they're even afraid to discuss that.

Just because there's a lot of negative press about the Conservatives doesn't mean it's wrong. The party isn't clarifying it's stance on issues, keeping mum on social agendas and in general avoiding anything resembling open dialogue with Canadians. This has been brought up before. Why aren't they saying anything? Evil may be to strong of a word, but they certainly are being shifty. To imply that the Liberals are conducting some kind of smear campaign through the CBC smacks of a conspiracy theory. Did you ever think that it's possible that the reason there's more questions being asked about Conservative policy has to do with their climb in the polls? Don't you think the Greens would face similar questions if they had the level of popular support the Cons had? Many Canadians are looking at the Cons because they're (rightly) angry with the corruption of the Liberals. After all, it always has been a Grits-Tory battle, and the new Conservative party has been labeled the Tories.

Why haven't I noticed that Harper is afraid to "take questions from the people"? Could you point out an example of where Harper has been "afraid to take questions from the people"? Not attending the debate today, and avoiding one with Layton earlier, as well the party circling the wagons regarding commenting on social issues. That strikes me as somewhat fearful, esoecially since this IS an election we have going on. As for your assertion that even if all MPs were gone except for Conservatives that there would be no change in the abortion issue, that's kind of hard to prove, since they're not supposed to say anything publicly about such things. How am I able to form an opinion on them if they're not out there engaging the electorate beyond the standard stumping? As I've said before, I have no life long allegiances to any party, but their "hush hush" style is just too much.

Here I strongly disagree with you. To say that the US in any way planted the seed leading to bin Laden is absurd. bin Laden came from a wealthy family in a wealthy country. You might as well blame the Republican Party for causing Ted Bundy. Or why not the provocative clothes his victims wore? Well, I'm glad to see that we can agree on some things... As for the highlighted quote, the reason I say this is because it was the US support of bin Laden in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion of that country that laid the foundation of "Al-Qa'edah". This article from MSNBC back in 1998 gives just a little insight to why such policies can be dangerous. And remember, it was written 3 years before 9/11. http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

Although all parties are guilty of playing the same game, the fact that this lie was pointed out in a national publication and they STILL have it on their website is totally reprehensible. I REALLY don't like the way the Conservatives are running their campaign. Why is Harper afraid to take questions from the people, avoiding debates whenever possible and now the party is telling it's members to keep quiet on social issues? What are they afraid of? I've voted for each of the major parties at one time or another, but I see no redeeming qualities in the new Conservative party. The only reason they're seeing such high numbers has got to be due to the boondoggles of the Liberals.

Between WWII and 1991, the US was involved in an extremely serious Cold War against Communism. This war was a major preoccupation of every Administration. There is no doubt in my mind who the real thugs were in that war. Americans acted in general like a firm policeman. That's where I have to disagree. No doubt the Soviet Union was guilty of thuggery itself, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour of the US, and it's not just an isolated case. It was the US "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach to foreign policy that sowed the seed that bore the bitter fruit that is Osama bin Laden, for just one example. Not to question such fundamental issues is to ignore root causes of strife the world over, and in the end, does a disservice to the ideals of freedom and democracy. Any questioning or disageeing with policy, however, is met with a broad "anti-patriotic" brush, and this kind of attitude seems to be creeping more into Canada as well.

That's false. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on that question. Sorry, I should have said it goes against THE SPIRIT of the Charter of Rights. Keeping gays as second class citizens is just wrong. I'm sure that the Supreme Court will see it that way. How do you know what was the spirit of the Charter? Were you around when it was written? Are you aware that the attempt by some, such as Svend Robinson, to include sexual orientation in the charter was trounced by a huge vote? If a constitution is to have any moral authority it ought to be interpreted the way the framers of that constitution wanted it, not whichever way the political hack judges of today choose to interpret it. Remember, an arch conservative could appoint conservative judges to the bench tomorrow and hey, presto, suddenly the Charter was not meant to protect sexual orientation! .... I can't see how denying matrimonial rights to gays can be seen as anything other than treating gays as second-class citizens, and contrary to that spirit, in the context of a free and democratic society. More to the point, you haven't expressed one clear reason why you are against same-sex marriages.

Bionic, the US a thug? I hope, in God's name Bionic, you never meet a real thug. Your propensity for quoting a dozen people and replying to single sentence comments strips away contextual understanding of the original comments. When quoting me, in particular, in the context of the way the US has handled it's foreign policy, it sure is a thug. It's not the only one, but ever since WWII it has sanctioned the assassination of democratically chosen leaders, propped up dictatorships that were friendly to US "interests", though their reigns were brutal and contrary to the will of the people. There's a long list of friendly dictators, so yes in that light, I think the word "thug" is accurate (okay, maybe I should have said greedy thug). A foreign policy that includes the belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has made made for a world of unnecessary human suffering. Let's try and keep things in context here. Labeling people who disagree with US actions as spouting "garden variety anti-Americanism" is a gross oversimplification.

You are in the business now of interpreting spirits? Just stating my opinion. Is there a problem with that?

That's false. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on that question. Sorry, I should have said it goes against THE SPIRIT of the Charter of Rights. Keeping gays as second class citizens is just wrong. I'm sure that the Supreme Court will see it that way.

We should fry his ass, uh. War mongerer! I'm cutting and pasting this from a previous thread, because it bears repeating... [the teammartinsaid website contains a number of] out of context sound bites, with no detailed reference to source material, which is spurious to say the least. Just one example of a blatant lie by the Conservatives... “I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible," (Paul Martin, Prime Minister, North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003) The implication is that we should get troops on the ground, where in fact Martin was talking about humanitarian aid. Many other quotes are out of context half-sentences as well. Try googling some of the quotes and you'll find out. The teammartinsaid website was created as a response to the stephenharpersaid commercials and website. Each Harper quote contains original articles to put the quote in proper context, something the Conservatives haven't got the balls to do. Here's the Globe and Mail article regarding that quote... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...N20/TPNational/ Quoting the second paragraph... This news came out in late May. So is Martin a warmonger for wanting to send humanitarian aid to Iraq? Would you like some salt and pepper for the crow you're eating?

Okay, you say that over half of Canadians want laws against abortion. When you say that, do you mean over half of Canadians want a ban on abortions, or set limits as to when they can be performed? Your wording is kind of fuzzy, so if you have some data to back that up, that would be swell... (what the hey, I'll google it myself ) On abortion, you imply that over half of Canadians want laws against abortion. Let's take a look at this first... According to a poll conducted by Ledger Marketing, and commissioned by the Christian Coalition International Canada (not exactly a pro-choice champion), the fact is that the large majority of Canadians support access to abortion although they don't say the exact number, interestingly enough. They also say that over 75% of Canadians support restrictions to abortion but they don't qualify that with what types of restriction. Here's the link... http://www.ccicinc.org/editorials/111003.html So you're statement regarding Canadian opinions on the issue misleading, to say the least. I'm sure I could dig up some less biased data, but hey, when even the CCI© says the "large majority supports access to abortions" why belabour the point. As for the same-sex marriage issue, as Gunner stated, it's basically a 50/50 split, and fluctuates in a minor way. That's besides the point, because same-sex marriage is a Charter of Rights issue. It wouldn't matter if 80% of the population is against it, because it's WRONG. Gays are equal under the law as straights and deserve the same rights and freedoms we enjoy. Denying gays the same matrimonial rights as straights goes against the Charter of Rights. Giving gays the right to marriage does NOTHING to diminish the rights of straight couple. Despite the red herring some Conservatives have implied, gay marriage doesn't mean that churches would EVER be forced to perform a same-sex wedding. Religious rights are already protects, and would be in no way diminished. Plain and simple.

Whoa, lighten up, righty! Self-righteous indignation and name calling is never gonna win you points. Harper has said on more than one occassion that we should have had troops on the ground in Iraq. Why? Iraq and al-Qaeda aren't the same thing. The Iraq Invasion was a distraction from the so-called "war on terror". Tagging along would have been morally bankrupt. The CPC have out of context sound bites, with no reference to source material, which is spurious to say the least. Just one example of a blatant lie by the Conservatives... “I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible," (Paul Martin, Prime Minister, North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003) The implication is that we should get troops on the ground, where in fact Martin was talking about humanitarian aid. Many other quotes are out of context half-sentences as well. Lies and BS to be sure. Do some research...

T'was a good show. Thanks for the heads-up. I would have liked to have heard something from Harper other than sound-bites and spin control coming from the Refor-er-Alli-er Conservative leader.