Conservatives give grant to conservative magazine

[Argus]

I have no doubt that high level cabinet ministers read the magazine and sympathize with the material.

S'funny. I've had no doubt for some time now that the Liberal party has organized party members to go on Canadian political web sites and spew out party propoganda all day every day.

[jdobbin]

S'funny. I've had no doubt for some time now that the Liberal party has organized party members to go on Canadian political web sites and spew out party propoganda all day every day.

I thought you believed that the Liberals had no money and no organization. How could such an impossible thing happen?

[jdobbin]

It's not lashing out to mock your assertion that we have a separatist conspiracy within cabinet and that these same cabinet ministers apparently read separatist magazines.

Think it all still comes under personalizing.

I never mentioned anything about a conspiracy. I mentioned very public sympathy for a separate cause by certain Tory members includiing the PM.

There's very little anyone can say when you start going down that road. It's far beyond the realm of intelligent argument or discussion. You bring the so-called 'personalization' on yourself.

And you are likely going to bring on suspension or banning yourself. Seen it happen too many times with poster here who go after the individual. And your argument is: they had it coming.

[jdobbin]

You seem to be so angry you can't form a coherent sentence. You need to calm down a little.

I think we know which posters who routinely fly off the handle in fury.

[Argus]

I thought you believed that the Liberals had no money and no organization. How could such an impossible thing happen?

Zealots don't need to be paid.

[jdobbin]

Quebecers probably believe now that they've extorted as much money from Harper as is possible, Iggy is another new sucker to come along to fleece.

I'm sure Harper will try to woo them over with the $3 billion he has for election spending. The question is whether they will trust him now for calling them separatists?

[jdobbin]

Zealots don't need to be paid.

Some do when they post from government computers.

[Visionseeker]

What is "le quebecois?" Are you stupid enough to believe that federal money has not been dumped into Quebec by the truckload for decades to sustain an enormous variety of "artistic and cultural" endeavors, many of which have a lot of seperatist connections and sympathies?

Let's see here... You profess your ignorance of Le Québécois (the counterpart to the publication in question here) and proceed to question my intelligence. Such hypocrisy! You must be one of those unprincipled conservatives I've identified.

As to those truckloads of monies supporting separatism, please provide spreadsheets. Your loosely veiled hatred towards Quebeckers suggests that you lack the intellectual impartiality for me to take you at your word.

The only report that it does so comes from a ultra-zealous Liberal party member who seems to spend all day on the internet propogating this sort of weaselly accusations in hopes of convincing fools to vote for his party.

Yep. Fox News field manual: ignore the argument; seek to discredit its author. May your mom be proud?

Yeah, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about and are too intellectually lazy and partisan to actually look into it.

Look Argus, anyone who defends Feron Ellis and his camp are pathetic. I know enough to recognize that your politics is small and, based on your exchange here, your character smaller still.

Question: what is it like going through life suppressing thought in order to be governed by your reflexes?

[Argus]

I'm sure Harper will try to woo them over with the $3 billion he has for election spending. The question is whether they will trust him now for calling them separatists?

I think he called separatists separatists. I know how that would outrage you guys since your party has done its best to suck up to the separatists.

[jdobbin]

I think he called separatists separatists. I know how that would outrage you guys since your party has done its best to suck up to the separatists.

I think your party is the one who recruited supporters of the PQ, etc.

Plus, Harper only uses the word separatists that name in English Canada to describe people who voted BQ. He uses a different word in Quebec.

Edited April 2, 2009 by jdobbin

[Argus]

As to those truckloads of monies supporting separatism, please provide spreadsheets. Your loosely veiled hatred towards Quebeckers suggests that you lack the intellectual impartiality for me to take you at your word.

It's common knowledge that the artistic and cultural elites in Quebec are filled with separatism, and that seperatist sentiment is commonplace among any number of Quebec publications and cultural presentations, much of which are funded by the federal government.

Yep. Fox News field manual: ignore the argument; seek to discredit its author. May your mom be proud?

You have no argument. You have nothing. Your sole basis for even associating this magazine with seperatism - other than it having published a story on the subject - is a fellow partisan from the far left of the political spectrum. Yet that seems to be entirely enough for you to have accepted this as an established fact. This does not do much for your own "intellectual impartiality".

Look Argus, anyone who defends Feron Ellis and his camp are pathetic

What camp? He's a pollster. What exactly are you suggesting he is, and what camp do you suggest he's a part of. Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever, even a hint that he has separatist sympathies or has in some way been involved with separatism in the West? And are you equally as dismissive and contemptuous of Quebec separatists and anyone involved in any way, shape or form with Quebec's nationalists or in defence of them, or even those who write about them?

Question: what is it like going through life suppressing thought in order to be governed by your reflexes?

That I couldn't answer. What's it like being a mindless ideologue?

Edited April 2, 2009 by Argus

[Canadian Blue]

You have evidence that Liberals try to fan the flames of separation in Quebec? That they proposed a firewall from Canada?

Which would be Constitutional by the way, but then again I guess the Constitution is anti-Canadian.

Do they support separation or are they an instrument of public policy for national unity?

So you do support funding newsmedia as long as it's extremely pro-Ottawa.

So it is your contention that Harper is a staunch federalist now?

Yes, he's basically abandoned all of his principles while in power.

They support it by fanning the flames and trumping up polls.

What exactly is "fanning" the flames jdobbin?

He certainly hates Canadian institutions. He's become our Richard Nixon and has proven since coming to office that he has no desire to govern, but instead to just tear down existing government structure. (The exact opposite of a Tory by the way)

What are you talking about? Is this the same Richard Nixon who brought troops back from Vietnam, created the EPA, and put in place the Endangered Species Act.

Liberals don't hate Western Canada. Liberals are a diverse group of people with varying opinions. Saying that all Liberals hate Western Canada is like saying all Conservatives are Hillbillies.

Much like saying any person who supports decentralization is automatically Richard Nixon or a separatist.

I'm not the one arguing for a break-up the country.

No, you're just saying that only central Canada should have a voice in how it's run.

[Canadian Blue]

Here is what I can tell so far from the debate:

Jdobbin thinks that any person who wants to see more power devolved to the provinces and municipalites at the expense of a federal bureaucracy and the Liberal Party is a separatist intent on destroying Canada.

Progressive Tory still has no clue what a "Tory" is, but has taken up the word because she's extremely ignorant when it comes to political philosophy and doesn't seem to understand she's a welfare liberal.

[Canadian Blue]

Jdobbin, a question if I may. Do you honestly think that any person who favour more decision making power being made at the provincial and local level instead of a central managerial state is automatically a separatist intent on destroying the country? I'll be awaiting your answer.

Or are you of the mind that Ottawa is far more intune with the needs of St. Johns and Red Deer than the actual residents of those communities.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[jdobbin]

Which would be Constitutional by the way, but then again I guess the Constitution is anti-Canadian.

Don't think I said anything about the Constitution. I said that financial support for a magazine that is sympathetic to separation is something the Tories would not likely do for Quebec-based media. I just wonder why it is okay for a western-based one.

So you do support funding newsmedia as long as it's extremely pro-Ottawa.

Not pro-Ottawa, pro-Canada. Don't think any media that is sympathetic to separation should expect support from the taxpayer to carry out their agenda.

Yes, he's basically abandoned all of his principles while in power.

That is certainly up for debate.

What exactly is "fanning" the flames jdobbin?

Doing more than reporting.

What are you talking about? Is this the same Richard Nixon who brought troops back from Vietnam, created the EPA, and put in place the Endangered Species Act.

I didn't write this.

Much like saying any person who supports decentralization is automatically Richard Nixon or a separatist.

Or this. You are responding to another poster.

No, you're just saying that only central Canada should have a voice in how it's run.

Didn't say that. I just said that the taxpayer doesn't have to fund those that would advocate for break-up.

Edited April 4, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin thinks that any person who wants to see more power devolved to the provinces and municipalites at the expense of a federal bureaucracy and the Liberal Party is a separatist intent on destroying Canada.

Oh, I think we are talking a little more that devolving power here. We are talking separate country and I don't see why Canada has to fund that discussion.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin, a question if I may. Do you honestly think that any person who favour more decision making power being made at the provincial and local level instead of a central managerial state is automatically a separatist intent on destroying the country? I'll be awaiting your answer.

I think we are talking more than just a shift of power out of Ottawa. We are talking about a separation that means a different country.

Or are you of the mind that Ottawa is far more intune with the needs of St. Johns and Red Deer than the actual residents of those communities.

Report magazine wasn't just talking about a shift of power. You know this.

[Canadian Blue]

Don't think I said anything about the Constitution. I said that financial support for a magazine that is sympathetic to separation is something the Tories would not likely do for Quebec-based media. I just wonder why it is okay for a western-based one.

Can you link me all the articles in the Report which supported western separation? I have not seen many and in most cases it seems the magazine is in favour of a DECENTRALIZED federal government.

Not pro-Ottawa, pro-Canada. Don't think any media that is sympathetic to separation should expect support from the taxpayer to carry out their agenda.

No, you're pro-Ottawa. That's why you're opposed to any politician defending their province against intrusions by the federal government.

Doing more than reporting.

Wow, who would have thought that a magazine with an obvious philosophy would have opinion columns. I gotta say though I love the double standard as you have no problem with funding the Walrus which tends to lean to the left.

Or this. You are responding to another poster.

I was responding to the ignorance of Progressive Tory.

Didn't say that. I just said that the taxpayer doesn't have to fund those that would advocate for break-up.

Which is a frivilous claim at the moment, since from the contents of the magazine I've read they are calling for DECENTRALIZED government. Something which is different from full fledged separation. As well most of the magazines content is CRITICAL of Stephen Harper's government and the budget.

Report magazine wasn't just talking about a shift of power. You know this.

No, because you weren't able to provide any cites showing that it's a full fledged separatist magazine. The only sympathies with separation is IF the federal government takes more power away from the west and put's it back east, thus creating a situation where separation would occur.

It's amazing that you can't tell the difference between stating what conditions might come about for separatism and supporting a full fledged separatist movement.

However you aren't very principled in your argument since you still support funding the media as long as it's touting the pro-Ottawa managerial state line.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[jdobbin]

Can you link me all the articles in the Report which supported western separation? I have not seen many and in most cases it seems the magazine is in favour of a DECENTRALIZED federal government.

They fan the flames of separation regularly with their sympathetic reports and with their guesting on radio talk shows. You say it is in support of decentralization but it sounds like the same blackmail we have from eastern quarters.

No, you're pro-Ottawa. That's why you're opposed to any politician defending their province against intrusions by the federal government.

I have no problem with provinces doing more. Why don't they? For example, why does Alberta still have the RCMP? It certainly can't be because the federal government is forcing it upon them.

Wow, who would have thought that a magazine with an obvious philosophy would have opinion columns. I gotta say though I love the double standard as you have no problem with funding the Walrus which tends to lean to the left.

I have no problem with the social and fiscal opinions. I do have a problem with supporting separatist sympathsizers with federal tax money.

Which is a frivilous claim at the moment, since from the contents of the magazine I've read they are calling for DECENTRALIZED government. Something which is different from full fledged separation. As well most of the magazines content is CRITICAL of Stephen Harper's government and the budget.

Read more then. It has been posted before in these forums.

It's amazing that you can't tell the difference between stating what conditions might come about for separatism and supporting a full fledged separatist movement.

However you aren't very principled in your argument since you still support funding the media as long as it's touting the pro-Ottawa managerial state line.

I don't support any media getting tax money if they are sympathetic to separation. This magazine has made the case for it a few times.

[Canadian Blue]

They fan the flames of separation regularly with their sympathetic reports and with their guesting on radio talk shows. You say it is in support of decentralization but it sounds like the same blackmail we have from eastern quarters.

Sympathy isn't the same thing as supporting full fledged separation. As well it's not blackmail if the calls are more or less for the government to butt out of the affairs of their community. Don't you think that most people in communities want to have some say over how their federal taxdollars are spent instead of seeing their incomes lost to buy votes in Toronto and Quebec.

I have no problem with provinces doing more. Why don't they? For example, why does Alberta still have the RCMP? It certainly can't be because the federal government is forcing it upon them.

That's what Harper proposed, you're the one who's comparing it to full fledged separation. Which it really isn't.

I have no problem with the social and fiscal opinions. I do have a problem with supporting separatist sympathsizers with federal tax money.

How many people have shown some sympathy with the goals of the Bloc Quebecois? With that kind of abstract thinking I'm sure most people would be considered "separatist sympathizers."

Read more then. It has been posted before in these forums.

Yes, which is why you still haven't posted it here.

I don't support any media getting tax money if they are sympathetic to separation. This magazine has made the case for it a few times.

Yes, we all know that you only want tax money to be funnelled to media outlets supportive of the Liberal Party. You still can't provide any articles, not to mention the fact that you basically stated that those who support decentralization are no different from separatists. So considering the fact your belief that separatist is anyone who once in a while attacks the Parliament of Whores in Ottawa, I'm not sure you can make a half decent case that this magazine is a full fledged separatist magazine.

But I like how you're all for funding shitty art but then are aghast that a tiny amount of money goes to a magazine devoted to political discussion.

According to your logic we should never have the Bloc Quebecois or PQ members on the CBC as that would fund "separatist views."

Edited April 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[jdobbin]

Sympathy isn't the same thing as supporting full fledged separation. As well it's not blackmail if the calls are more or less for the government to butt out of the affairs of their community. Don't you think that most people in communities want to have some say over how their federal taxdollars are spent instead of seeing their incomes lost to buy votes in Toronto and Quebec.

I do believe that sympathy for the separatist movement is support for it even if you don't. And I do believe it is blackmail.

That's what Harper proposed, you're the one who's comparing it to full fledged separation. Which it really isn't.

That's not what Harper proposed. He fanned the flames of separation.

How many people have shown some sympathy with the goals of the Bloc Quebecois? With that kind of abstract thinking I'm sure most people would be considered "separatist sympathizers."

Who has shown sympathy for the BQ?

Yes, which is why you still haven't posted it here.

How many times do we have to go over this? It was posted here even if you don't believe it.

Then there was the full court press on radio waves afterwards to promote the result of a dubious poll.

http://www.reportmagazine.ca/web/cover_0805.php

The title of that issue was "We Want Out!"

Yes, we all know that you only want tax money to be funnelled to media outlets supportive of the Liberal Party. You still can't provide any articles, not to mention the fact that you basically stated that those who support decentralization are no different from separatists. So considering the fact your belief that separatist is anyone who once in a while attacks the Parliament of Whores in Ottawa, I'm not sure you can make a half decent case that this magazine is a full fledged separatist magazine.

You seem to have no problem putting words in people's mouths. Where have I said any of what you wrote there?

But I like how you're all for funding shitty art but then are aghast that a tiny amount of money goes to a magazine devoted to political discussion.

You should be against it too if you are a real fiscal conservative.

According to your logic we should never have the Bloc Quebecois or PQ members on the CBC as that would fund "separatist views."

I can't recall the CBC with a program called "We Want Out!"

[Canadian Blue]

I do believe that sympathy for the separatist movement is support for it even if you don't. And I do believe it is blackmail.

Really, so you have never once had sympathy with any of the policies of the Bloc Quebecois?

That's not what Harper proposed. He fanned the flames of separation.

Yes it is, the "firewall" was meant to give Alberta more power under the Constitution. Stop being blatantly dishonest, nobody was fanning the flames of separation, the only people who fan the flames of separation are people like yourself who say that anyone who disagrees with the Liberal Party has to be anti-Canadian.

Who has shown sympathy for the BQ?

The Liberals and most of the left in the 2008 election.

How many times do we have to go over this? It was posted here even if you don't believe it.

Then there was the full court press on radio waves afterwards to promote the result of a dubious poll.

http://www.reportmagazine.ca/web/cover_0805.php

The title of that issue was "We Want Out!"

Which was reporting on the separatist movement in Western Canada, hardly out of the range of a political magazine and if it influencing politics then I'd hope someone would acknowledge it instead of putting their head in the sand as you seem to prefer.

If anything we do have solid proof that the best way to get what you want out of Ontario is to become separatists. It's worked for Quebec after all and Ottawa was more than happy to do everything they could to please the government there.

You seem to have no problem putting words in people's mouths. Where have I said any of what you wrote there?

By stating that a magazine which only reported on the separatist movement was for the separatist movement, which is idiotic since we have newsreports on the Quebec separatist movement all the time. Second, by stating any support for a firewall to protect Alberta from intrusions by a hostile federal government is akin to separatism. Which once again, isn't true.

You should be against it too if you are a real fiscal conservative.

No, the difference is that I've stated I'm against all subsidies to the media. You on the other hand want Canadian taxpayers to fund Liberal friendly media only. Big difference, I believe in a diversity of opinion in the media, you believe people should be forced to fund newsmedia that agrees with the Liberal Party and the left.

I can't recall the CBC with a program called "We Want Out!"

Really, their have been no stories on the separatist movement in Quebec? I've read plenty of articles and stories by seccessionists and decentralists, whom you seem to think have no real differences. Needless to say I'm not hypocrite unlike yourself in that I'd oppose funding for the CBC, Young People Fucking, the Walrus, and the Report.

If you weren't such a partisan hack you would oppose funding all media, but of course, you only want what's best for the Liberal Party.

[jdobbin]

Really, so you have never once had sympathy with any of the policies of the Bloc Quebecois?

Involving sovereignty or separation, no.

Yes it is, the "firewall" was meant to give Alberta more power under the Constitution. Stop being blatantly dishonest, nobody was fanning the flames of separation, the only people who fan the flames of separation are people like yourself who say that anyone who disagrees with the Liberal Party has to be anti-Canadian.

I think we can safely say Harper is more pro-Alberta than pro-Canada when he espouses such policies.

The Liberals and most of the left in the 2008 election.

For what BQ sovereignty?

Which was reporting on the separatist movement in Western Canada, hardly out of the range of a political magazine and if it influencing politics then I'd hope someone would acknowledge it instead of putting their head in the sand as you seem to prefer.

Please. We Want Out and making claims to a dubious poll? Really.

If anything we do have solid proof that the best way to get what you want out of Ontario is to become separatists. It's worked for Quebec after all and Ottawa was more than happy to do everything they could to please the government there.

Yes, we all know about the blackmail angle.

By stating that a magazine which only reported on the separatist movement was for the separatist movement, which is idiotic since we have newsreports on the Quebec separatist movement all the time. Second, by stating any support for a firewall to protect Alberta from intrusions by a hostile federal government is akin to separatism. Which once again, isn't true.

I've said the magazine fans the flames of separation. They are not a simple reporter of facts. They trump up dubious polls to that effect.

No, the difference is that I've stated I'm against all subsidies to the media. You on the other hand want Canadian taxpayers to fund Liberal friendly media only. Big difference, I believe in a diversity of opinion in the media, you believe people should be forced to fund newsmedia that agrees with the Liberal Party and the left.

Give me a break. I'd hardly call Maclean's Liberal friendly but whatever.

Really, their have been no stories on the separatist movement in Quebec? I've read plenty of articles and stories by seccessionists and decentralists, whom you seem to think have no real differences.

You have seen stories advocating for separation on CBC? When?

Needless to say I'm not hypocrite unlike yourself in that I'd oppose funding for the CBC, Young People Fucking, the Walrus, and the Report.

Think I have already said here many times that I don't think the CBC should have direct taxpayer money so you are wrong about that.

As far a Telefilm goes, I support this program because Telefilm acts as an investor in projects that leverage quite a lot of private money. I know some Tories don't like some of the films. Some Liberals don't like others. This is as it should be.

I believe it is the title of YPF that got Tories all upset. As Roger Ebert said:

not a great movie, but fun, and the title makes it sound cheaper than it is.

He gave it 3 stars which was not bad.

The film went on to be one of the highest grossing Canadian films.

Telefilm is a public private partnership and one that generally does pretty good.

Many Tories like public private partnerships.

As far as periodicals go, I don't support any direct subsidies to any of them. I only support help when it comes to mailings.

If you weren't such a partisan hack you would oppose funding all media, but of course, you only want what's best for the Liberal Party.

Now, don't you feel a little silly making a blanket statement that are not true.

[Canadian Blue]

I think we can safely say Harper is more pro-Alberta than pro-Canada when he espouses such policies.

Who cares, it's much like how the Liberals are only pro-Toronto/Montreal when it comes to most policies they espouse. They rarely care about the rest of the country and why should they if those people don't vote for them.

Please. We Want Out and making claims to a dubious poll? Really.

Well considering the fact that separation has been a topic in the west for some time then it's not outside of the realm of reason to allow a magazine to print an article on it. I would rather the media report on such topics as compared to your tactic of digging your head in the sand or screaming "lalalala" whenever it comes up.

Yes, we all know about the blackmail angle.

Key difference, said blackmail is telling Ottawa to butt out, not asking Ottawa for more art subsidies.

I've said the magazine fans the flames of separation. They are not a simple reporter of facts. They trump up dubious polls to that effect.

I've seen many polls by respectable organizations which have asked westerners about their support for western separation. All you're saying is that the magazine "fans the flames of separation" by pointing out what issues these people have with confederation. Perhaps if someone like yourself would actually respond to them instead of saying we should all bow down to the Liberal Party you'd be touting a different line.

Give me a break. I'd hardly call Maclean's Liberal friendly but whatever.

I think you should give me a break friend, you're the one arguing that a piddly amount given by bureaucrats to a magazine with a single article on western separation is tantamount to being anti-Canadian.

You have seen stories advocating for separation on CBC? When?

They've reported on polls on separatism, which apparently is akin to fanning the flames of separation in your world.

As far a Telefilm goes, I support this program because Telefilm acts as an investor in projects that leverage quite a lot of private money. I know some Tories don't like some of the films. Some Liberals don't like others. This is as it should be.

I believe it is the title of YPF that got Tories all upset. As Roger Ebert said:

Yes, we all know that you think Canadian's should be forced to fund crappy movies. I didn't object to the movie because of the title, I objected to it because it was a crappy piece of art.

The film went on to be one of the highest grossing Canadian films.

Telefilm is a public private partnership and one that generally does pretty good.

Many Tories like public private partnerships.

As far as periodicals go, I don't support any direct subsidies to any of them. I only support help when it comes to mailings.

Really, is that why you're so angry about a tiny amount given to a magazine in the west but fully supportive of funding the Walrus.

Now, don't you feel a little silly making a blanket statement that are not true.

No, more or less because the comment was true. Since you can't tell the difference between those who advocate for more power to the provinces and full fledged separatists you just have to make things up. So any person who opposed the National Energy Program or supports Senate Reform is "fanning the flames of separation." You've likely never read the "firewall letter" more or less because it's better to be ignorant and make idiotic statements then know the truth, plus it confirms your pleasent fiction that all Conservatives secretly want to break up the country while only politicians from Toronto can save us.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

He gave it 3 stars which was not bad.

The film went on to be one of the highest grossing Canadian films.

Yes, and Baywatch was one of the most watched television series of all time. Doesn't mean we should fund every single piece of crap that comes onto the market. If you like "Young People Fucking" so much you should stop forcing other Canadian's to fund it. But this has been enlightening, I think I might get a video camera and just film penises flapping in the wind for about an hour and a half since people like you think that's worth funding from the Canadian taxpayer. I could make a decent living off it.