RNG Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Um, yeah, to a fault, actually. Look at Power and Politics: Nothing is ever discussed without having one person representing each party's perspective. I have never seen that show, but I used to listen to a political discussion panel on CBC1 in Calgary. I think the program originated from Edmonton, not sure. Anyway, they had a reasonable Liberal, a not too wacky NDPer but they chose the most ridiculous imbecile to represent the Conservatives. What a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) If this was a proven rub house and they let him go, did he exert his influence as a councillor to get out of trouble. The only way to judge this would be to know whether their were arrests in the raid.Kinsella notes something that I didn't know: Layton was on the Budget Committee and had oversight of the police budget. That would be a conflict of interest.What I find surprising in the story is that presumably in 1996, Layton's face was known around Toronto. Why would he take a chance and do something dumb like that? Someone was bound to recognize him. Now, your turn. Your contention that the CTV is biased against the Conservatives stems from... all those years they had Mike Duffy? It's standard to put one or two so-called right types in among the rest of the leftists - a Margaret Wente or a Rex Murphy. Wente and Murphy are at most hesitantly right wing.IMV, when CBC radio lets Mark Steyn have every other Sunday morning along with Michael Enright, then the CBC will be "balanced". ----- There are many issues (this thread is an example) that for some reason the MSM just won't touch. (They'll discuss endlessly however whether Harper uses the RCMP to exclude people from his rallies or whether Harper pockets religious hosts.) We have another thread about abortion that if anyone in the MSM tried to raise as an issue, they would immediately be castigated as a neanderthal. IMV, English-Canada's MSM is too leftist, and too Toronto-centric. In a genuine democracy, if a significant number of people have a particular viewpoint, then it should be part of general debate. Edited May 1, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 The Conservatives (or conservatives) are usually represented by someone high up in the party (Guy Giorno, Jamie Watt) or else by Tom Flanagan, their intellectual forefather, or a high-profile journalist like Tasha Kheiriddin. It's on for 2h nearly every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 Kinsella notes something that I didn't know: Layton was on the Budget Committee and had This quote is interesting (from Kinsella) he bigger scandal, here, remains unaddressed: at the time he was detained, Jack Layton was a city councillor on the City of Toronto’s budget committee, which has power over the police budget. The cops knew who he was, they knew the power he wielded over them. So what did they do? They walked him to the back door, and let him pedal away. Were the other men found at that place given that kind of treatment? If not, what happened here is a bona fide scandal, one that Toronto taxpayers need have probed, the passage of time notwithstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 The Conservatives (or conservatives) are usually represented by someone high up in the party (Guy Giorno, Jamie Watt) or else by Tom Flanagan, their intellectual forefather, or a high-profile journalist like Tasha Kheiriddin. It's on for 2h nearly every day. I often see Liberal/NDP shills like Ian Capstick, Tom Clark, Greg Weston on the same panel outnumber the one Conservative voice they have on P&P. If that's your idea of fair (3 on 1) then I guess the CBC is fair. Why have Weston and Clark on the same panel? All they do is parrot each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Kinsella notes something that I didn't know: Layton was on the Budget Committee and had oversight of the police budget. That would be a conflict of interest.Layton was member of the Metro Council from 1994 to 1997, then became (again) a member of city Council. Unless members of Metro council could serve on the City budget committee, I wonder how he could have been a member of the city budget committee in 1996.IMV, English-Canada's MSM is too leftist National Post, Sun newspapers (and now Sun TV), Globe and Mail... Edited May 1, 2011 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 Why have Weston and Clark on the same panel? Maybe because they're both well respected journalists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 1994 to 10997, Holy *&%^, that's a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 Holy *&%^, that's a long time. Didn't correct my typo quickly enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 Maybe because they're both well respected journalists? It's been a long day and I needed a good laugh. Thanks for something smallc. Weston and Clark respected journalists. :lol: Respected journalists aren't biased, dill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 I often see Liberal/NDP shills like Ian Capstick, Tom Clark, Greg Weston on the same panel outnumber the one Conservative voice they have on P&P. If that's your idea of fair (3 on 1) then I guess the CBC is fair. Why have Weston and Clark on the same panel? All they do is parrot each other. Are you serious? Just about every single panel contains three people, each of whom is clearly representative of one party or its viewpoints. (This does mean that the Conservative will always be only one out of three: We have a multi-party system.) Let's look at their online videos right now: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics The first clip features Jamie Watts (CPC campaign manager), Alfred Apps (LPC president), and Judy Wasylycia-Leis (former NDP MP). The next panel I see features James Rajotte (CPC candidate), John McCallum (LPC candidate), and Fred Clipsham (NDP candidate). I suppose the third features Joan Crockett (CPC), Ian Capstick (NDP ties), Rob Silver (LPC ties), and also Greg Weston - who's really a journalist and not especially partisan afaik. If we go to the next page of clips from Apr 26, all FIVE different panels are three-member panels that break down fairly straightforwardly CPC/LPC/NDP. If anything, I'd say it's the NDP perspective that gets left out if you have Coyne/Gregg/Hebert. If anyone should be complaining, frankly, it's the BQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted May 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 When will Layton come clean about what really happened behind that closed door in that suspected bawdy house in Chinatown? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 Are you serious? Just about every single panel contains three people, each of whom is clearly representative of one party or its viewpoints. (This does mean that the Conservative will always be only one out of three: We have a multi-party system.) Let's look at their online videos right now: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics The first clip features Jamie Watts (CPC campaign manager), Alfred Apps (LPC president), and Judy Wasylycia-Leis (former NDP MP). The next panel I see features James Rajotte (CPC candidate), John McCallum (LPC candidate), and Fred Clipsham (NDP candidate). I suppose the third features Joan Crockett (CPC), Ian Capstick (NDP ties), Rob Silver (LPC ties), and also Greg Weston - who's really a journalist and not especially partisan afaik. If we go to the next page of clips from Apr 26, all FIVE different panels are three-member panels that break down fairly straightforwardly CPC/LPC/NDP. If anything, I'd say it's the NDP perspective that gets left out if you have Coyne/Gregg/Hebert. If anyone should be complaining, frankly, it's the BQ. Greg Weston dislikes Harper and the CPC. He is just another useless liberal voice on that panel you mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 When will Layton come clean about what really happened behind that closed door in that suspected bawdy house in Chinatown? His wife did it for him. Next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 When will Layton come clean about what really happened behind that closed door in that suspected bawdy house in Chinatown? You're not calling for him to "come clean;" you are calling for him to 'admit' to what you believe is true. You'll never accept anything else as his being truthful, no matter if he's telling the truth or not. There's only one version of the "truth:" yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 Greg Weston dislikes Harper and the CPC. He is just another useless liberal voice on that panel you mentioned. Even if you're right, that's just one example out of how many? Most of the panels are clearly three-member panels. It doesn't seem at all evident that there's a strong bias in favour of one party. Honestly, I think you're just conflating the Liberals and NDP together as 'liberal voices' and so it seems like the 'conservative voices' are being outnumbered. But this just reflects the reality of our multi-party system. As I said, if anyone is getting left out, it's the Bloc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted May 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 You're not calling for him to "come clean;" you are calling for him to 'admit' to what you believe is true. You'll never accept anything else as his being truthful, no matter if he's telling the truth or not. There's only one version of the "truth:" yours. That's not true AW. He will barely even acknowledge it even occured. If he cannot face the Canadian public on this issue what will he do with a real crisis? Run and hide? We need a leader not a nice guy who can't take the heat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 That's not true AW. He will barely even acknowledge it even occured. If he cannot face the Canadian public on this issue what will he do with a real crisis? Run and hide? We need a leader not a nice guy who can't take the heat. He has acknowledged the facts. Not your fantasy about what happened. Big, big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 That's not true AW. He will barely even acknowledge it even occured. If he cannot face the Canadian public on this issue what will he do with a real crisis? Run and hide? We need a leader not a nice guy who can't take the heat. He has nothing to "acknowledge," other than that he went to a massage parlor that was, unknown to him, under investigation. And that has been acknowledged. He has faced the Canadian public on this. He just hasn't said what you would like him to say; he hasn't "acknowledged" what you say happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted May 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 He has nothing to "acknowledge," other than that he went to a massage parlor that was, unknown to him, under investigation. And that has been acknowledged. He has faced the Canadian public on this. He just hasn't said what you would like him to say; he hasn't "acknowledged" what you say happened. I haven't been saying that anything happened. I'm only commenting on what Sun News has told us all, which arguably came from a police mans notebook who was one scene. Not knowing it's under investigation is normal and I believe him. That's the idea of police investigations, for them to be secret. No one will ever know what happened behind that closed door except for Layton and the masseuse. Hopefully Sun News can find her. She will shed light on this for us for sure. He dodges many questions with political gobbledy gook and Canadians are tired of it. If Layton wants to be PM he needs to complete his job interview with Canadians and not hide from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 Considering the real crime is the police leaking information, when will Harper come clean about what he knows about this fortuitously timed leak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 I haven't been saying that anything happened. Yet, we have this quote from you:Layton is the one who campaigned against these bawdy houses during his time as city councilor saying they objectified women and made them sex slaves. Yet he was supporting such a place..... Don't worry. The "what I saty is not exactly what I say" line is not working... as usual. He dodges many questions with political gobbledy gook and Canadians are tired of it. Confusing Layton with Harper, I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 I haven't been saying that anything happened. Of course you have been. You've clearly said that you wish he would come clean. He has "come clean," he has said what happened. What more do you want him to say? What exactly should he be "coming clean" about? I'm only commenting on what Sun News has told us all, which arguably came from a police mans notebook who was one scene. No, you're not. You are drawing conclusions based on what the Sun News said, based, as you said arguably" on what one officer on the scene has in his notebook. Why would you, in the first place, hold what he said as a higher truth than what Layton has had to say? This police officer's notebook has Layton's reaction as "sheepish" while I read another officer describe his reaction to being told that the establishment was under investigation as "surprised." One officer's take on it, one officer's notes, isn't "proof" of anything. Not knowing it's under investigation is normal and I believe him. Then I fail to see how you can keep faulting him and in effect slandering him. That's the idea of police investigations, for them to be secret. No one will ever know what happened behind that closed door except for Layton and the masseuse. Hopefully Sun News can find her. She will shed light on this for us for sure. So the masseuse can "shed light on this" but Layton can't? Her word is good enough for you but Layton's isn't? A woman you know nothing about, her word you would accept? He dodges many questions with political gobbledy gook and Canadians are tired of it. If Layton wants to be PM he needs to complete his job interview with Canadians and not hide from them. I don't think it's "Canadians" who are "tired of it." At any rate, I fail to see what he has "dodged" regarding this incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted May 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) So the masseuse can "shed light on this" but Layton can't? Her word is good enough for you but Layton's isn't? A woman you know nothing about, her word you would accept? yes, she can. Layton has something to lose by letting it be known, she doesn't. You guys seem to think that Layton would never tell a lie or something. Give me a break. The guy is a politicain for cripes sake. Edited May 1, 2011 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 yes, she can. Layton has something to lose by letting it be known, she doesn't. Layton has nothing to gain by lying. She might. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.