Canada's Deficit Lower than Predicted

[Smallc]

Ha, I don't care what Asper was. Canwest is the farthest from Liberal of ANY of the Canadian media.

[Keepitsimple]

Ha, I don't care what Asper was. Canwest is the farthest from Liberal of ANY of the Canadian media.

If some people argue CanWest has some Liberal bias - and others say it's Conservative biased.....I guess they're doing a reasonable job of staying somewhere in the middle. Personally, it appears to me that they lean a little towards the Conservatives.....but are not hesitant to offer up severe criticism of the government when necessary. I find the G & M to be a bit more biased towards the Liberals - at least historically....but they too will criticise the Liberals when required. In fact, the G & M seems quite disillusioned with the Libs at this point and seems almost balanced in their reporting. The Star on the other hand, is nothing but a cheerleader for all things Liberal....pathetic journalism.

[msj]

Sorry, I asked for an original Harper's statement, not what the partisan anticonservative Canwest implies. The Canwest is known for its liberal bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canwest

Do you have an independent source of this quotation? Was it written? Where was this said?

However its just technicality. It is not important.

You asked for a "citation" which does not mean an original source. I have referenced a particular phrase in context and you prefer to muddy the waters with an ad hominem style attack on the source.

Quite a pathetic tact but not surprising that you would use it.

Let me repeat it (i.e. dumb it down) for you). Slowly. Before October 15, the only way to ensure that Canada would not have a carbon tax, tax increases, deficit and recession was to vote the Conservative party. Lots of stupid people did not do that. I do not blame them - it is democracy. But now to blame the minorty government that cannot fulfil its promises exactly because the three opposition parties united and demanded for the huge deficit, is at least dishonest. You cannot blame a person for the events that are beyond his control.

So you can honestly claim only what Harper said after the election, i.e. after October 14, 2008.

Do you get it?

I get it.

I am clearly replying to your request of toadbrother for a citation.

I have provided one and you prefer to move the goal posts.

The way I see it is this:

Harper did state that there would be no deficit (he never said anything in the quote about minority or majority governments).

Smallc and toadbrother have rightfully brought this fact up.

You have asked for a citation to prove it.

It has been provided.

You attack the source of the citation.

Then you justify why Harper did run a deficit.

I have little to say on the justification of the deficit since that is not the point I have made.

The point I made is that there is a credible source attributing to Harper that he said the CPC would not run a deficit.

It is fine by me for you to come up with all kind of excuses for why Harper broke his promise.

They may even be legitimate and I may even agree with most of them (in fact, I do to some extent - although the size of the deficits are arguable) which mitigates Harper breaking the promise.

But the facts remain: you asked for a citation and you got one.

[YEGmann]

You asked for a "citation" which does not mean an original source. I have referenced a particular phrase in context and you prefer to muddy the waters with an ad hominem style attack on the source.

I thought, a citation means the citing of an original source. You referenced one sentence by a second hand source, where the original context is not known and cannot be verified, at least I did not find any records of Mr. Harper's speech or an article, or an interview on October 12, 2008. This gave me a basis for doubts about authenticity of the cited words.

However, it is not my major point. By the balance of probabilities, I can accept Harper did say that. It is important though to follow the context.

I am clearly replying to your request of toadbrother for a citation.

Yes, you are, and I appreciate that.

I have provided one and you prefer to move the goal posts.

The way I see it is this:

Harper did state that there would be no deficit (he never said anything in the quote about minority or majority governments).

I see. You are playing childish games. Yes, in the single sentence canwest and you torn out of context, which nobody can verify, there is no mention of majority or minority government. However even in that phrase, he says a great "if": vote for the Conservative party. I think it is obvious that voters can rely on pre-election promises (at least in theory) only if the party can implement those promises, i.e., to have a majority. Pretending that a party in the minority situation can be held responsible for all its promises is at least naive. In your case, I suspect it is a deliberate game pretending ignorant. You think you are smart at it, I think it is simply dishonest.

To simlify for you, by child words: Mr. Harper said: "No deficit if you elect Conservatives to majority power. If you do not elect conservatives to the majority power you get a deficit."

You attack the source of the citation.

Of course I did, because I asked for something verifiable. I am not sure if you know the old joke about "singing Caruso". This is exactly the case.

My point is not justifying the government running a deficit now. My point is that Harper never promised unconditionally there would not be any deficit. What he actually said was the conservative party policy would be not running a deficit. And he fought to the end, up to the constitutional crisis. But his words were readily distorted by left-leaning media and imprinted in the brains of of the opposition supporters.

You are the very clear example how the opposition is crying a broken promise where there is no one.

But the facts remain: you asked for a citation and you got one.

No, I have not gotten what I asked for. Even the ersatz you provided confirms my point. Otherwise you have to select your stand: either you insist Harper put conditions when he said no deficit and those conditions were not met, thus no broken promises - and I agree with you - or he promised deficit unconditionally, therefore he broke his promise - and here you are helpless to substantiate your claim. But you cannot have it both ways.

Edited May 31, 2010 by YEGmann

[bloodyminded]

Sorry, I asked for an original Harper's statement, not what the partisan anticonservative Canwest implies. The Canwest is known for its liberal bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canwest

According to the source you cite as evidence, CanWest has been charged with having a bias towards the Liberal Party. However, the rest of the entry--the source you provided as proof, remember--goes on at length about the paper's conservative biases (the political stance, not the Party), which are listed as extensive. It is charged, in yoru source, as having a profound neoconservative bias; and a profound bias for right-wing Likud in Israel. There are no op-eds critical of Israel, according to your source...which IS proof of bias, since no one is above criticism; reports on the Israel-Palestine conflcit and the Iraq War were biased in favour of labelling people as "terrorists," when the matters were not always so clear. Left-wing commentator Haroon Siddiqui was censored by Can-West, so obviously and egregiously that ten CanWest journalists felt compelled to go o strike.....

And so on.

From the source you provided as evidence:

reporter Bill Marsden has said that the Aspers "do not want any criticism of Israel. We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that express criticism of Israel and what it is doing." [17] A study released in 2006 by the Near East Cultural and Educational Foundation of Canada found that the National Post was 83.3 times more likely to report an Israeli childs death than a Palestinian childs death in its news articles headlines or first paragraphs.[18] In 2008 Canwest launched a lawsuit against the Palestine Media Collective for producing a newspaper parody of The Vancouver Sun that satirized this bias.[18] In 2004, the Reuters news agency protested after Canwest altered newswire stories about the Iraq war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such that Reuters felt it had inserted Canwest's own bias under Reuters bylines. The changes were apparently made in accordance with a Canwest policy to label certain groups as terrorists. [19]

Canwest editorial control and management itself. In December 2001, 77 staff members at The Montreal Gazette signed a letter and launched a web page, Media Giant Silences Local Voices: Canadian Journalism Under Attack,[20] opposing the national editorial policy, and the reporters among them participated in a byline strike, refusing to sign their names to their stories in the newspaper in protest. Management responded with a gag order. The next year, several journalists left The Halifax Daily News over similar conflicts, and ten journalists at The Regina Leader-Post were reprimanded or suspended after a byline strike to protest censorship of coverage of a speech in Regina by Toronto Star columnist and Canwest critic Haroon Siddiqui.

Upon acquiring Southam's Newspapers from Hollinger International, Israel Asper continued Conrad Black's policy of 'blacklisting' influential Canadian world and military affairs journalist Gwynne Dyer's internationally published articles. This antipathy was prompted by Dyer's views on conflict in the Middle East and his opposition to neoconservatism, which run contrary to the ideological views of Asper and others on Canwest's board of directors then and today

Edited June 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[msj]

I thought, a citation means the citing of an original source. You referenced one sentence by a second hand source, where the original context is not known and cannot be verified, at least I did not find any records of Mr. Harper's speech or an article, or an interview on October 12, 2008. This gave me a basis for doubts about authenticity of the cited words.

You asked for a "citation."

It has been provided from a reputable source which agrees with one of the defintions of citation which is to show a "passage cited; quotation."

However, it is not my major point. By the balance of probabilities, I can accept Harper did say that. It is important though to follow the context.

Ah, yes, so you waste everyone's time with this slippery nonsense and then say it's not important.

Then you go one defending this unimportant point.

Ok, I'm not wasting anymore time with a confirmed pedantic.

Thanks for playing, though.

Edited June 1, 2010 by msj

[YEGmann]

According to the source you cite as evidence, CanWest has been charged with having a bias towards the Liberal Party. However, the rest of the entry goes on at length about the paper's conservative biases which are listed as extensive. It is charged as having a profound neoconservative bias; and a profound bias for right-wing Likud in Israel. There are no op-eds critical of Israel, according to your source...which IS proof of bias, since no one is above criticism; reports on the Israel-Palestine conflcit and the Iraq War were biased in favour of labelling people as "terrorists," when the matters were not always so clear. Left-wing commentator Haroon Siddiqui was censored by Can-West, so obviously and egregiously that ten CanWest journalists felt compelled to go o strike.....

And so on.

I am glad we both came to the conclusion that the canwest is heavily biased and cannot be considered as an example of high-standard journalism. So I think you will agree that it is a good idea to try finding an independent confirmation of canwest reports.

[YEGmann]

Ok, I'm not wasting anymore time with a confirmed pedantic.

What is left for you if you cannot substantiate your point as an adult...

[msj]

What is left for you if you cannot substantiate your point as an adult...

It has been established and even you admit to it, claim it is unimportant, and, yet, here we are still discussing it.

At least we're not discussing it in any detail... oh, and I think at least one of us is acting as an adult.