Conservatives give grant to conservative magazine

[jdobbin]

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.

I think many Canadians seem to care since Harper has not been able to get his majority.

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.

I have no problem that they print it up. I am against taxpayer support for it, even more so since it is sympathetic to separation.

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

Is that what Report magazine did?

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.

I'm saying the poll that Report magazine issued was not respectable.

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.

Think I've already shown it wasn't a single article.

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

They have trumpeted polls that did not meet the sniff test.

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.

So then you've see it?

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.

I support no money for editorial. I especially support no money for editorial sympathetic to separation.

Does it help to lie when you make an argument? I don't support money going to editorial. I only support help for mailing.

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.

Guess you ignored all the areas where you made accusations.

Read it again:

No tax money for CBC.

No money to support editorial for periodicals.

I do support Telefilm as a public private partnership.

As far as Harper goes, if he ever did have a pro-Alberta bias, it was lost in trying to plow money into Quebec only to have Charest use it for a tax break and then ask for more.

[jdobbin]

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.

The Tories are free to cancel all TV and film funding whenever they want.

My thinking is that it is a business that employs 131,000 Canadians, contributes about a $5.2 billion to Canada's economy a year and exports over $2 billion a year.

For every federal tax dollar contributed, it garners $2 from other funders. In short, the money is paid back in taxes taken in profits, royalties, employee pay, company taxes and the like.

Edited April 5, 2009 by jdobbin

[Canadian Blue]

I think many Canadians seem to care since Harper has not been able to get his majority.

No, only you.

I have no problem that they print it up. I am against taxpayer support for it, even more so since it is sympathetic to separation.

So you're just supportive of money going to crappy films that many Canadian's would find offensive.

I'm saying the poll that Report magazine issued was not respectable.

How vague, I find most polls to be not respectable.

Think I've already shown it wasn't a single article.

Actually you did, that's why you posted a single article.

So then you've see it?

Yes, and I'm sure if I was a teenager with cable I would have enjoyed it on Showcase on a friday night for one reason only.

I support no money for editorial. I especially support no money for editorial sympathetic to separation.

Does it help to lie when you make an argument? I don't support money going to editorial. I only support help for mailing.

Is that why you have no issue with money going to the Walrus, a magazine which does discuss politics.

Guess you ignored all the areas where you made accusations.

Read it again:

No tax money for CBC.

No money to support editorial for periodicals.

I do support Telefilm as a public private partnership.

As far as Harper goes, if he ever did have a pro-Alberta bias, it was lost in trying to plow money into Quebec only to have Charest use it for a tax break and then ask for more.

Well their you go, I'm glad that you now recognize that all grants are bad, regardless of which party does it. This is a big first step for you since you first confined your criticism to one party only instead of the program in general. Perhaps you will be able to criticize government policies based on the policies instead of soley on which party is advocating it.

[jdobbin]

No, only you.

So, I must have missed Harper winning his majority.

So you're just supportive of money going to crappy films that many Canadian's would find offensive.

I support an industry that more than pays for itself in jobs and many productions that get nominated for Genies, Oscars and does good box office.

How vague, I find most polls to be not respectable.

So you see no difference between a Sun call in vote and other polls? The poll that Report used was widely scoffed at.

Actually you did, that's why you posted a single article.

Would you like more? As I've told you, these have been posted before even if you haven't seen them,

Yes, and I'm sure if I was a teenager with cable I would have enjoyed it on Showcase on a friday night for one reason only.

So what compelled you to watch it? Just wanted to see a crappy film?

Is that why you have no issue with money going to the Walrus, a magazine which does discuss politics.

Try to get this straight. No money to the Walrus. No money to Maclean's. No money to support editorial. Why do you feel the need to lie?

When have I said anything about the Walrus? Ever?

Well their you go, I'm glad that you now recognize that all grants are bad, regardless of which party does it. This is a big first step for you since you first confined your criticism to one party only instead of the program in general. Perhaps you will be able to criticize government policies based on the policies instead of soley on which party is advocating it.

My criticism still stands on the Tories. They have made it clear that they support giving $75 million a year to magazines. I don't think it should go to those that sympathize with separation.

[Cameron]

It's like a cage fight in here...

[Canadian Blue]

I support an industry that more than pays for itself in jobs and many productions that get nominated for Genies, Oscars and does good box office.

Yeah, Nickelback is also a Canadian band that makes tonnes of money, doesn't mean I want taxpayer funding going to all douchebag rockbands because it might create the odd job. If I had to choose between getting an extra police officer patrolling the block or having some bureaucrat fund a crappy artist that nobody likes, I would have to go with the police officer who is doing something productive in society. By productive I mean not merely inflating the egos of a few Liberal Party members. We would likely still have a film industry without said subsidies, not to mention that it wouldn't be relegated to movies about necrophilia, the poor man's American Pie, or for that matter Pearl Harbour part 2.

So you see no difference between a Sun call in vote and other polls? The poll that Report used was widely scoffed at.

Yes, and I'm sure we should have hired about a dozen bureaucrats earning six figures to do all the research required before giving said magazine $25,000.

Would you like more? As I've told you, these have been posted before even if you haven't seen them,

Wow, nice way to answer a question with a question. Yes, I'd like more, and they have to specifically stating that western separation should happen instead of articles where separatism is merely mentioned. Not this idiotic notion you have that any criticism of the Liberal Party or the coalition is akin to "fanning the flames of separatism."

So what compelled you to watch it? Just wanted to see a crappy film?

I heard their was nudity in it, you don't watch that kind of film for the dialogue or humour. The same effect comes across if you mute it.

It wasn't that great, if David Duchovny was the star it would have been great though.

Try to get this straight. No money to the Walrus. No money to Maclean's. No money to support editorial. Why do you feel the need to lie?

I don't, I'm simply pointing out your hideous double standard in that you would never criticize such funding if a different political party of your liking was in power that's all.

By the way taxdollars also go to the magazine "Alberta Views." A magazine with a notable left wing bent when it comes to how it reports the news.

Here is the previous listing of magazines which got support from the government: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/list0607-eng.cfm

I don't feel the need to lie, just to point out that you're a blatant partisan hack who gets into a tiff over a piddly amount of money going to a magazine which mentioned "separatism" but then support taxdollars going to projects which are largely wastes of money that most Canadian's wouldn't support. It would be nice if you actually held consistent positions once in a while.

My criticism still stands on the Tories. They have made it clear that they support giving $75 million a year to magazines. I don't think it should go to those that sympathize with separation.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll drop all criticism of the government once the Liberal Party gets into power regardless of what they do. I can only hope that the money which has gone to the Report will go to something more worthwhile, a film about necrophilia perhaps.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[jdobbin]

If I had to choose between getting an extra police officer patrolling the block or having some bureaucrat fund a crappy artist that nobody likes, I would have to go with the police officer who is doing something productive in society.

Conservatives always make it an either/or situation. It isn't.

Yes, and I'm sure we should have hired about a dozen bureaucrats earning six figures to do all the research required before giving said magazine $25,000.

How about simply ending support for editorial? Isn't that easier?

Wow, nice way to answer a question with a question. Yes, I'd like more, and they have to specifically stating that western separation should happen instead of articles where separatism is merely mentioned. Not this idiotic notion you have that any criticism of the Liberal Party or the coalition is akin to "fanning the flames of separatism."

http://www.reportmagazine.ca/web/cover_0209.php

February's edition where they continue to pump up polls that were laughed out by other pollsters.

I heard their was nudity in it, you don't watch that kind of film for the dialogue or humour. The same effect comes across if you mute it.

It wasn't that great, if David Duchovny was the star it would have been great though.

So you're only problem is that it didn't have a U.S. actor starring in it?

I don't, I'm simply pointing out your hideous double standard in that you would never criticize such funding if a different political party of your liking was in power that's all.

I have criticized the Liberals on CBC for years now. Why continue the lying?

By the way taxdollars also go to the magazine "Alberta Views." A magazine with a notable left wing bent when it comes to how it reports the news.

Here is the previous listing of magazines which got support from the government: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/list0607-eng.cfm

And I have already said all of them should get no money for editorial.

I don't feel the need to lie, just to point out that you're a blatant partisan hack who gets into a tiff over a piddly amount of money going to a magazine which mentioned "separatism" but then support taxdollars going to projects which are largely wastes of money that most Canadian's wouldn't support. It would be nice if you actually held consistent positions once in a while.

It would be nice if those on the right didn't feel the need to act like a horse's ass with their personalizing.

Once again you lie that I support funding any magazine funding. I don't.

Let me repeat it again. And again. I don't support money for editorial.

You are the one that is saying it is only a small amount of money. I don't care how much it is. It is $75 million altogether for editorial content that shouldn't be spent.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll drop all criticism of the government once the Liberal Party gets into power regardless of what they do. I can only hope that the money which has gone to the Report will go to something more worthwhile, a film about necrophilia perhaps.

I'd rather have the money go to reduced government spending. That is something the Tories don't seem capable of doing.

[Moonbox]

It would be nice if those on the right didn't feel the need to act like a horse's ass with their personalizing.

I think you've crossed the line here more than he has.