Press complains about access to Harper.

[Smallc]

what you consider yourself isn't accurate, statistically you can't be in the center, on the fringe of center possibly but center, no...to claim center support cpc would need 70% of the electoral vote...center still belongs to the liberals with the ndp shifting inwards as well...

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I have no home right now really, but the CPC is the closest to me on the issues I find important at the moment. The CPC can have support from the centre without having support from the entire centre. That's not really that difficult of a thing.

I agree that's why need a new electoral system, a PR system...we need to expand democratic choice not move toward less choice...I don't want to see the liberals disappear and I want to see the greens get fair representation...as do 1.5 million albertans who have not a voice federally in decades...

That's totally the opposite of what you just said...and you know I'm not a fan of PR. What I am a fan of is true rep by pop, or as close as we can get.

i certainly wouldn't call the LPC my normal home but I agree completely on not wanting a two party system. Interesting that wyly thinks he knows you better than you know yourself. Regardless of what he thinks, the Conservatives do need some support from the center in order to form a majority government.

Well, I mean, there are people who think they're something and seem to be something completely different, but I don't think I'm one of those people.

[TimG]

I agree that's why need a new electoral system, a PR system...we need to expand democratic choice not move toward less choice.

A PR system is tyranny of the minority. Sure in an ideal world PR sounds good but in practice there are two large parties that need to cut deals with minority fringe in order to run a government. This simply takes power away from the majority that vote for the two largest parties and hands it to the minority that support the fringes.

[PIK]

A PR system is tyranny of the minority. Sure in an ideal world PR sounds good but in practice there are two large parties that need to cut deals with minority fringe in order to run a government. This simply takes power away from the majority that vote for the two largest parties and hands it to the minority that support the fringes.

Exactly, to many fringe people to be given any power. We would be having elections every year, and this country would be crippled. This is the best system.

[bleeding heart]

Harper no doubt vowed that if he was ever in power and the media needed him he would pay them back! He has sent a strong message to the media that if they won't be fair then he owes them nothing more than the bare minimum law or custom demands. He DOES talk to a few members of the media - those that he considered fair. So they get the stories and interviews. The others don't.

I find it amusing, myself. I always love to see those who treat people badly get their comeuppance!

Wow.

We can trust Father Harper to know what's "fair" questioning and what is not.

Anyhow, if you were Harper I'm sure you would find trusting in the balance and fairness of the media to be almost impossilble after the way they have burned his ass! Saying its up to him to bring them around is like telling a school kid who is always being beaten up and bullied that it is HIS job to make friends with his attackers!

Poor little Harper, bravely standing up to media "bullies."

Edited November 4, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Wild Bill]

Wow.

We can trust Father Harper to know what's "fair" questioning and what is not.

I don't understand you. You seem to be saying that people do not have the right to recognize when they are being insulted or treated unfairly.

I think that you are simply being partisan, as usual.

[Argus]

Poor little Harper, bravely standing up to media "bullies."

Whatever you think of Harper you must agree that ,by and large, the national media are not overly fond of him, and that by their very nature they'll jump at any opportunity for a story which embarrasses him. Why, then, would he do anything to make their lives easier? He doesn't owe the national media a thing. He communicates with Canadians as he chooses. For example, he gave an interview to the Post the other day. During elections he tends to jump over the heads of the national media and do interviews with local media on local issues. He doesn't trust the national media to give him a fair shake -- with some justification.

[bleeding heart]

I don't understand you. You seem to be saying that people do not have the right to recognize when they are being insulted or treated unfairly.

I think that you are simply being partisan, as usual.

First of all, your defense of Harper--which is ongoing--is explicitly partisan; so I"m not sure why it's now a pejorative.

Second, any Prime Minister who is secretive is insisting that he not be trusted.

[bleeding heart]

Whatever you think of Harper you must agree that ,by and large, the national media are not overly fond of him, and that by their very nature they'll jump at any opportunity for a story which embarrasses him.

And you have evidence of this, no doubt. If "they'll jump at any opportunity" the number of unfair media attacks must be legion.

Why, then, would he do anything to make their lives easier? He doesn't owe the national media a thing. He communicates with Canadians as he chooses. For example, he gave an interview to the Post the other day. During elections he tends to jump over the heads of the national media and do interviews with local media on local issues. He doesn't trust the national media to give him a fair shake -- with some justification.

Truly, he's too good for this fallen world.

[Argus]

I've read through this thread and need to ask a question, I only picked your quote WB because it was first in defence of Harper not making himself available to the press.

Can you provide some examples of where the press (MSM is what again?) where someone was reporting on the news was biased or untruthful?

I think you can go all the way back to the "back of the room" story which was a theoretical question posed to Bob Ringma who happened to e an ex general in the army. You could also compare how the media focused on 'tainted tuna' when the tories were in power vs when the liberals were in power. Or there's that thing focusing on a Winnipeg candidate who had the misfortune to mention the 'asian invasion' a term she'd heard. There's also the continuing desperate attempt by the media to find the slightest whiff of racism or anti-immigrant feeling among anyone remotely associated with the conservatives so they can triumphantly bring back the 'big scary racist party' label they once applied to the Reform party.

[Argus]

del.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Argus

[Wild Bill]

First of all, your defense of Harper--which is ongoing--is explicitly partisan; so I"m not sure why it's now a pejorative.

Second, any Prime Minister who is secretive is insisting that he not be trusted.

I am defending Harper's attitude towards the press. I would do that for anyone who appeared to be unfairly treated by them. I have my own issues with Harper on most other matters. I blame him personally for throwing the Reform portion his merged party down the Orwellian memory hole. He allowed the party to be taken over by the remnants of the old PC party. Now, I see little or no difference between the present CPC and the old PC party that so many millions of us had abandoned.

You seem to see people in stark blacks and whites. I defended Harper's retaliation towards the press so therefore I must be a total, blind partisan supporter.

The fact that you could even suggest such a thing is telling.

[bleeding heart]

You seem to see people in stark blacks and whites. I defended Harper's retaliation towards the press so therefore I must be a total, blind partisan supporter.

On the contrary: you made a stated assumption that my criticism of Harper is exclusively based on my own partisanship...and I responded precisely in kind.

The fact that you could even suggest such a thing is telling.

???

It's your suggestion in the first instance, Wild Bill. Telling indeed.

[Argus]

And you have evidence of this, no doubt. If "they'll jump at any opportunity" the number of unfair media attacks must be legion.]

Perhaps I'm just not as naive and innocent as you and understand that controversy sells.

Truly, he's too good for this fallen world.

No, if he was kind and good and noble he'd just ignore all the above and be sweet and helpful to the media. He's not kind and good and noble. He's a ruthless sob and he has no interest in helping those he perceives as his enemies.

[Wild Bill]

On the contrary: you made a stated assumption that my criticism of Harper is exclusively based on my own partisanship...and I responded precisely in kind.

???

It's your suggestion in the first instance, Wild Bill. Telling indeed.

I made my accusation based on every post of yours I have read, and I have read almost all of them. Preston Manning used to joke that if Reform came up with a cure for cancer the papers would report it as "REFORM THROWS DOCTORS OUT OF WORK!"

I got the same sense from your posts.

Anyhow, YOU called my defense of Harper's treatment of the media "explicitly partisan". Since for some years now on this board I have often criticized him I could see no other logical reason for your opinion.

If you HAVE some evidence that I am a blind Harper partisan perhaps you could throw it out for discussion.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Wild Bill

[eyeball]

Now, I see little or no difference between the present CPC and the old PC party that so many millions of us had abandoned.

I see you still voting for it anyway.

You seem to see people in stark blacks and whites.

I see people as either being full of shit or not. Especially when it's obvious. When I can't see them or what they're doing, as is usually the case with Harper, I assume the worst. Especially when I hear his supporters lamenting what he's done/doing.

I defended Harper's retaliation towards the press so therefore I must be a total, blind partisan supporter.

Maybe you're just full of shit.

Edited November 4, 2012 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

I vote for the CPC only by default. It's possible I might switch (again!) in the future but only if one of the other parties drifts closer to MY values!

As for your other comment, I will be interested to see if you get a warning for it. It always seems comments like yours get ignored while some of us get warnings over thread drift or saying something less than nice about "rubble". For some reason personal attacks, which I would think are much more significant, must be specifically reported.

And as for "Maybe you're just full of shit." I suspect that the real problem for you is that I sometimes disagree with you and for you, that is the same thing.

[Wild Bill]

I see you still voting for it anyway.

I see people as either being full of shit or not. Especially when it's obvious. When I can't see them or what they're doing, as is usually the case with Harper, I assume the worst. Especially when I hear his supporters lamenting what he's done/doing.

Maybe you're just full of shit.

Eyeball, I'm through fighting. When someone can say what you did to me, proves I'm right about how far MLW has drifted away from civility.

It's not you, it's me. You seem to be what is now the typical MLW poster and I just don't have the inclination to fight it anymore.

The problem is me, I realize, for having overly high expectations. By expecting more I seem to just cause hard feelings.

So "Good bye! And thanks for all the fish!"

[eyeball]

I vote for the CPC only by default. It's possible I might switch (again!) in the future but only if one of the other parties drifts closer to MY values!

As for your other comment, I will be interested to see if you get a warning for it. It always seems comments like yours get ignored while some of us get warnings over thread drift or saying something less than nice about "rubble". For some reason personal attacks, which I would think are much more significant, must be specifically reported.

And as for "Maybe you're just full of shit." I suspect that the real problem for you is that I sometimes disagree with you and for you, that is the same thing.

I'm just trying to reconcile between what you say and what you do.

BTW check out the post I just left in the insulting posters thread. The timing is exquisite wouldn't you say?

And just for the record I didn't technically say you WERE full of shit, I just suggested that you might be. There is a vast difference and I stand to be corrected as opposed to punished.

[bleeding heart]

I made my accusation based on every post of yours I have read,

Since for some years now on this board I have often criticized him I could see no other logical reason for your opinion.

OK...so your stance is this:

You know I'm unreasonably partisan because of "every post" I have ever written.

Simultaneously, you are not partisan, because of your criticisms of Harper.

.....And you find it odd that I don't instantly agree with this assessment?

Anyway, you can find a ton of examples about my obvious partisanship--to whom, I don't know, as you have so far restrained from clarifying--but it'll be simple..because it's present in every last one of my posts!

So show me the partisanship in, oh, say, this one, right here...and then pick a bunch of others at random, and expose my partisanship there, too.

A very fair request for a very easy project.

Edited November 4, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

Perhaps I'm just not as naive and innocent as you and understand that controversy sells.

That's your answer to my (implied, but obvious) query about evidence?

But ok, I'll bite: perhaps I'm not as naive and innocent as you, to take the news media's self-described, masturbatory, but largely false self-assessment as "combative to Power" seriously.

Mostly, they're court stenographers.

[eyeball]

No, if he was kind and good and noble he'd just ignore all the above and be sweet and helpful to the media. He's not kind and good and noble. He's a ruthless sob and he has no interest in helping those he perceives as his enemies.

If he was open and honest he would bypass the media and simply stream what he says and does live to those he perceives as his friends. If people could see first hand how kind and noble he really is there'd be little to cause them to listen to his enemies.

Perhaps I'm just not as naive and innocent as you and understand that controversy sells.

Perhaps I'm too naive and refuse to believe that people are generally stupid and would rather be fed speculation, innuendo and controversy instead of the unvarnished truth.

I suspect the latter in some cases is probably even more controversial than what we've imagined.

Edited November 4, 2012 by eyeball

[jacee]

That's a good point eyeball.

Harper could release information directly to the public so the media didn't have to hound him for every tidbit ... But he doesn't seem too interested in giving info to us.

Since freedom of the press is one of the safeguards of democracy - our right to know what our governments are doing - I say they should continue to hound him and complain publicly, because it IS our business what he's doing.

We pay Harper to work for us, and report to us.

[eyeball]

I think we rely way too much on the media to take care of our business. Doing so leaves us open to the charge that we're too stupid, disengaged or otherwise distracted to do anything other than jump when it points. Oh look, there goes another pill-popping celebrity's life down the drain.

The truth is however, I would simply be too busy to audit everything the government was saying or doing but should these directly impact my life or livelihood I would definitely make time to review them. In a open transparent state of governance I could depend on my fellow citizens to similarly keep the government's nose clean when their sectors or areas of interest are effected by governance. This way we all become one big self-supporting web of accountability that the government is constrained to no matter which way it turns.

As for obvious matters of security or privacy I suggest a Secrecy Commissioner, to whom the government must apply to have things kept out of the public's domain as opposed to a Privacy Commissioner to whom the public must apply to find anything out. If the former sounds Orwellian the latter sounds lame, especially in a day and age where the Internet practically hums with all the bandwidth dedicated to complaining about closed and or mealy-mouthed politicians.

Edited November 4, 2012 by eyeball

[Mr.Canada]

Eyeball, stop posting. You don't give a shit about Canada remember so why not just leave the country?

[eyeball]

How about you get your shameful country off my planet instead.