Left wing hypocrisy

[reasonoverpassion]

The American dream (aka the meritocracy) is crock. American are beginning to realize that now. Aside from entertainment or sports, few disadvataged people ever get rich. Those that do are so rare they are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. How many Fortune 500 CEOs came from underprivledged backgrounds?

Trickle down economics is also a crock. The rich get richer in America and the poor get poorer. Cut taxes for the rich and they don't share the wealth. They just keep it for themselves. Meanwhile the social infastructure of the poor areas just detoriates. Will New Orleans ever be rebuilt?

The idea every American can own their home is crock. This one came crashing down as the banks who preyed on the poor, lent money to people who could never pay it back. Then when the bubble burst they got bailled out with taxpayers money. Now the poor suckers who bought into the American Dream are left out in cold--literally.

American are also starting to question why they are only country in the developed world without state sponsored medical care. Why do millions of people have to pay for medical care (something that should be a human right) out of their own pocket? The reason is a narrow ideology which worships the market as the solution to any problem mankind has ever faced.

The Republican fantasy cooked up by Reagan and promoted by the Bushes seems hollow to many Americans now. A new day is dawning in America and I am hopeful a once great nation can rise from their delusions and face the mulitide of social challenges brought on from years of neglect.

[blueblood]

The American dream (aka the meritocracy) is crock. American are beginning to realize that now. Aside from entertainment or sports, few disadvataged people ever get rich. Those that do are so rare they are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. How many Fortune 500 CEOs came from underprivledged backgrounds?

Trickle down economics is also a crock. The rich get richer in America and the poor get poorer. Cut taxes for the rich and they don't share the wealth. They just keep it for themselves. Meanwhile the social infastructure of the poor areas just detoriates. Will New Orleans ever be rebuilt?

The idea every American can own their home is crock. This one came crashing down as the banks who preyed on the poor, lent money to people who could never pay it back. Then when the bubble burst they got bailled out with taxpayers money. Now the poor suckers who bought into the American Dream are left out in cold--literally.

American are also starting to question why they are only country in the developed world without state sponsored medical care. Why do millions of people have to pay for medical care (something that should be a human right) out of their own pocket? The reason is a narrow ideology which worships the market as the solution to any problem mankind has ever faced.

The Republican fantasy cooked up by Reagan and promoted by the Bushes seems hollow to many Americans now. A new day is dawning in America and I am hopeful a once great nation can rise from their delusions and face the mulitide of social challenges brought on from years of neglect.

Socialism is a bigger crock, case in point USSR.

[ReeferMadness]

Stephen Harper faced a motion of confidence and passed it in this parliament. Under teh rules of the House, he still has its confidence.

Only because he used the GG to avoid facing the body to which he is accountable.

But RM, you are terribly naive if you truly believe the idea that we elect representatives who then choose a PM. As Pierre Trudeau famously said, 100 yards from parliament hill, most MPs are nobodies. Canadians generally vote for the party and the leader and choose the MP as a consequence.

If Harper (and you) would like the rules to be that way, the ethical and honest thing to do would be to put it before the people and have the consitution changed. The dishonest and unethical thing would be just to pretend the rules are whatever happens to benefit the Conservatives. Guess what he chose.

It is a fair bet that if Dion and Layton had announced their coalition project before the last election, the respective popular vote totals would be nothing like what they were. Given recent polls, I think Harper would have won a landslide with over 50% of the vote.

And if Harper had announced before the election he was going to needlessly provoke the opposition how many votes would he have gotten?

So what if they are controlled by *evul* corporations?

Corporations are designed to generate profits and presumably, a newspaper or TV network generates profits by attracting an audience for advertisers. To attract an audience, I don't think that presenting uninteresting news or entertainment is a wise way to attract an audience.

IOW, corporations will present the news that is attractive to the their audience. I don't see that as a recipe for bias unless you feel that pandering to readers is evidence of bias.

I bet you find it so much easier to argue with what you would like me to have said instead of what I actually said. Go back, drink some coffee and re-read the original post. I responded to Ironstone who said there was "unquestionably a pro left wing bias in the media". I never said there was any bias. I only pointed out that the media was controlled by large Corporations who, in my experience, aren't noted for being run by wild-eyed communists; so a left-wing bias seems unlikely. I should also point out that I find the terms "left" and "right" to be largely meaningless.

With respect to the role of the media, it's often assumed they are in the business of selling news and entertainment to their audiences. In fact, advertisers generate most of the revenue and it's more accurate to say they are in the business of selling their audiences to the advertisers. Based on that, one could logically conclude that what the media put into their shows will be driven mainly by the interests of the audidences but there will be a strong interest in not alienating the advertisers. (In fact, if you go to the AdBusters website, you'll find that some of their ads are rejected because they are critical of other advertisers). Logically,. we can also conclude that in general, the programming will be skewed to the interests of wealthier groups because they're going to make more money selling these audiences to advertisers.

[-VMG-]

Socialism is a bigger crock, case in point USSR.

Case in point USSR was not "socilaist" it was a twisted authoritarian state with a "commuist" guise... it was all a lie... had nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with power hungry rulers.

Maybe if Lenin didn't die we would have seen what a real communist state could produce.

[blueblood]

Only because he used the GG to avoid facing the body to which he is accountable.

And the coalition wanted to take power without the election option, nice double standard

If Harper (and you) would like the rules to be that way, the ethical and honest thing to do would be to put it before the people and have the consitution changed. The dishonest and unethical thing would be just to pretend the rules are whatever happens to benefit the Conservatives. Guess what he chose.

Harper chose to do what the people wanted, how unethical!

And if Harper had announced before the election he was going to needlessly provoke the opposition how many votes would he have gotten?

Probably the same, the opposition didn't have to form this coalition. According to the left, governing is provoking the opposition

I bet you find it so much easier to argue with what you would like me to have said instead of what I actually said. Go back, drink some coffee and re-read the original post. I responded to Ironstone who said there was "unquestionably a pro left wing bias in the media". I never said there was any bias. I only pointed out that the media was controlled by large Corporations who, in my experience, aren't noted for being run by wild-eyed communists; so a left-wing bias seems unlikely. I should also point out that I find the terms "left" and "right" to be largely meaningless.

the media leans whichever way sells the most stories, for the cbc, that happens to be to the left.

With respect to the role of the media, it's often assumed they are in the business of selling news and entertainment to their audiences. In fact, advertisers generate most of the revenue and it's more accurate to say they are in the business of selling their audiences to the advertisers. Based on that, one could logically conclude that what the media put into their shows will be driven mainly by the interests of the audidences but there will be a strong interest in not alienating the advertisers. (In fact, if you go to the AdBusters website, you'll find that some of their ads are rejected because they are critical of other advertisers). Logically,. we can also conclude that in general, the programming will be skewed to the interests of wealthier groups because they're going to make more money selling these audiences to advertisers.

nope, programming is skewed towards the higher ratings. Shitty ratings = tv show yanked

[bush_cheney2004]

The American dream (aka the meritocracy) is crock. American are beginning to realize that now. Aside from entertainment or sports, few disadvataged people ever get rich. Those that do are so rare they are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. How many Fortune 500 CEOs came from underprivledged backgrounds?

How many Canadian PM's are from a "visible minority", a laughable and racist term in itself.

Trickle down economics is also a crock. The rich get richer in America and the poor get poorer. Cut taxes for the rich and they don't share the wealth. They just keep it for themselves. Meanwhile the social infastructure of the poor areas just detoriates. Will New Orleans ever be rebuilt?

I sure as hell hope not....New Orleans was an armpit before Katrina.

The idea every American can own their home is crock. This one came crashing down as the banks who preyed on the poor, lent money to people who could never pay it back. Then when the bubble burst they got bailled out with taxpayers money. Now the poor suckers who bought into the American Dream are left out in cold--literally.

As they should be...the American Dream isn't for everybody, especially the socialist-commies who think they are entitled to it.

American are also starting to question why they are only country in the developed world without state sponsored medical care. Why do millions of people have to pay for medical care (something that should be a human right) out of their own pocket? The reason is a narrow ideology which worships the market as the solution to any problem mankind has ever faced.

Because universal access systems like the world's worst in Canada should be a choice, not mandatory.

The Republican fantasy cooked up by Reagan and promoted by the Bushes seems hollow to many Americans now. A new day is dawning in America and I am hopeful a once great nation can rise from their delusions and face the mulitide of social challenges brought on from years of neglect.

Yeah..... then we can get back to bombing Vietnam with Canadian made napalm!

[blueblood]

Case in point USSR was not "socilaist" it was a twisted authoritarian state with a "commuist" guise... it was all a lie... had nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with power hungry rulers.

Maybe if Lenin didn't die we would have seen what a real communist state could produce.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It had everything to do with socialism. Nobody was allowed to make money there, it all went to the state.

Like what Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela, yah those are real winners.

Communism sucks and the Americans winning the cold war proved it. Any ideology that punishes people for succeeding is doomed to fail.

[-VMG-]

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It had everything to do with socialism. Nobody was allowed to make money there, it all went to the state.

Like what Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela, yah those are real winners.

Communism sucks and the Americans winning the cold war proved it. Any ideology that punishes people for succeeding is doomed to fail.

Yay for ignorance.

[blueblood]

Yay for ignorance.

nice of you to admit that. Some lefties have a hard time with that.

[Goat Boy©]

The fact you call it a coup shows how ignorant you are.

Along with the rest of the Canadian public who have no idea whats going on but decides to vote in a pole anyways.

The fact you put numbers of different poles in the same sentence really damages your credibility.

LMAO! Can't take a joke eh?

[Goat Boy©]

We just had an election... what came of that... nothing different than before... harper called an election cause he thought he could possibly win a majority.

Absolutely correct.

While, by the way, going against a bill he put forward, passed by parliament... for FIXED elections, not at the whim of the prime minister.

To quote the late Taliban Jack, "In spirit....."

How am i defending this change in government? I am defending the legality of a coalition and it's ability to take power in a time such as this.

No need to defend it, it's completely legal. However every day it appears to be more and more, morally wrong.

I don't know what side to take on this issue... i don't think either party (or coalition) can really do anything for our economy.

They'll probably spend too much time fighting over who get's two chocolate bars instead of one.

One thing that is for sure is that Harper is acting in self-interest and not on behalf of Canadians. And i think many people would agree on that. If you don't you are blind or ignorant.

To say the Liberal Party does not do the same thing while they are in power would be narrow minded. But one thing they didn't do was attempt to destroy other political parties through cutting their funding, and they could have easily during the 90s and early 2000's considering they had a majority government.

They're politicians. That's their #1 agenda, stay in power. Everything else is secondary. To say otherwise is an exercise in ignorance. What are you gonna do, go to work tomorrow and get fired for doing, "what's right?"

Not saying they didn't make some bad decisions... but don't be surprised, if the conservatives end up with a majority, if there is some sort of scandal happening or something Canadians don't want to happen but have no say in the matter.

The Liberal's have stumbled badly, Harper's support is at unprecedented highs. Whomever replaces Dion (Ignatieff) is left with a controversy to clean up that he never wanted to touch. Was this thing ever actually feasible? I certainly don't think so. Some of these wounds may take a very long time to heal. Most unfortunate. What did John Manley say? "Stephane Dion may well be the last person in Canada that thinks he has a shot at being PM?"

[Goat Boy©]

All politicians act in self interest, that's how the game is played.

It was Chretien who passed laws severely impacting party financing. The tories figured out a way to raise money, the Liberals didn't. Cry me a river.

It would annihilate the green party and cut the legal legs out from under the NDP. I for one am most happy to have them around, I think it's a terrible idea.

[Goat Boy©]

Except Liberals had a majority of seats... So there is a difference. I considered the conservatives back when they had a reasonable leader... namely joe clark.

Perhaps we'll see Peter Mackay in the future? How fitting & Canadian, the minister of national defense is a peace activist.

[Goat Boy©]

i know he was referencing the popular vote.... but that is what everyone seems to take into account... people don't seem to understand that we don't go by popular vote we go by seats in the house.

Obviously you understand that... but there are a lot of people who don't. Those being the people who think the Coalition is undemocratic, when it is democratic.

People have started to realize this, but have now turned to a different reason why they disagree, and that is because the Bloc is supporting up... i really think it comes down to being bitter that they are trying to "take over" from the conservatives.

I don't know where to stand on this issue... and people are taking the US approach... you're either with us or against us....

The argument applies equally to both parties, therefore it should be discarded.

[blueblood]

It would annihilate the green party and cut the legal legs out from under the NDP. I for one am most happy to have them around, I think it's a terrible idea.

Piss on them. They can raise their own damn money. Why should tax dollars be going to political parties. That money can be used for so much more other purposes than financing posters and tv ads. The tories can raise money with small donations, why can't the others?

[Goat Boy©]

Case in point USSR was not "socilaist" it was a twisted authoritarian state with a "commuist" guise... it was all a lie... had nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with power hungry rulers.

Maybe if Lenin didn't die we would have seen what a real communist state could produce.

Case in point:

The Marxist ideology of,

"To each according to his capability, to each according to his need,"

Is a complete failure. Human greed guarantees that consumption will always outperform production, unless kept in balance. Socialism cannot stand alone, just as capitalism cannot. Canada is a perfect example of how to make it work.

[Goat Boy©]

Piss on them. They can raise their own damn money. Why should tax dollars be going to political parties. That money can be used for so much more other purposes than financing posters and tv ads. The tories can raise money with small donations, why can't the others?

Were you to decide to start your own political party tomorrow, you may say different. That's a big part of what Canada is about, giving to the little guy.

[blueblood]

Were you to decide to start your own political party tomorrow, you may say different. That's a big part of what Canada is about, giving to the little guy.

No that's a big part of socialist stupidity. The little guy can either sink or swim just like everyone else. I don't need my bank account raided for giving money to political parties and skids.

[Goat Boy©]

No that's a big part of socialist stupidity. The little guy can either sink or swim just like everyone else. I don't need my bank account raided for giving money to political parties and skids.

LOL, you sound like a Republican. Regardless, you my friend...live in the wrong country.

[blueblood]

LOL, you sound like a Republican. Regardless, you my friend...live in the wrong country.

No I'm a tory. There are others who think like this and there are a lot of them. Hence the large amount of people who thought that a coalition with the primary intent of taxing and spending, be rejected. Sorry, I'm living in the right country. Socialism sucks accept it.

[reasonoverpassion]

Socialism sucks accept it.

Yeah and lassez-faire economics sucks too. Let the market run wild with no restrictions and you'll get a subprime mess on your hands. The market needs to be regulated, taxes need to be raised and public money needs to be spent helping people, not feeding the military-industrial complex.

[Smallc]

Pretty much any system sucks in its pure form...at least at the level we're at as a people.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah and lassez-faire economics sucks too.

Right....but it doesn't suck for everybody...see the difference?

[Smallc]

Right....but it doesn't suck for everybody...see the difference?

If done right, socialism wouldn't have to either...in fact it wouldn't suck for anyone.

[bush_cheney2004]

If done right, socialism wouldn't have to either...in fact it wouldn't suck for anyone.

Yes it would....there would be universal limitations. That's what sucks.