ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Is there no ethical boundary these people won't cross? Chairman Harper and his politburo are changing copyright laws to favour their chances of re-election. Allowing free use of media content in attack ads will clearly be of most benefit to the party that most uses attack ads. And gee, which party is that? And of course, instead of publicly debating these changes, they're slipped into a ridiculous omnibus bill. Democracy in this country is a travesty. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Moonbox Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Umm...it's not just attack ads. It's all political advertisement. It's going to apply for all political parties. Your frothing rhetoric, however, is noted. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Umm...it's not just attack ads. It's all political advertisement. It's going to apply for all political parties. Your frothing rhetoric, however, is noted. I agree.......couldn't for example the Liberals/NDP leverage any coverage from next Spring's Duffy trial in their own commercials? Quote
cybercoma Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Well good thing they're making it easier to make Attack ads. That's something I've been hoping a government would do for a long time. Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Well good thing they're making it easier to make Attack ads. That's something I've been hoping a government would do for a long time. release the hounds slime! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Harper used attack ads quite successfully against Ignatief, even though they were mostly bullshit. So why wouldn't he want to try them again, ethics/truth who gives a fig? He's got a bucketful lined up against JT of course, but hey, I bet they backfire big time this time. I think people now see through the Harper sleaze. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 I don't see why this would favour one law over another, unless some party or other has a natural disadvantage to being held to their statements. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Boges Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Harper used attack ads quite successfully against Ignatief, even though they were mostly bullshit. So why wouldn't he want to try them again, ethics/truth who gives a fig? He's got a bucketful lined up against JT of course, but hey, I bet they backfire big time this time. I think people now see through the Harper sleaze. They were BS? Where does Iggy currently live? Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 They were BS? Where does Iggy currently live? just visiting, hey? Are you raising an objection to a Canadian pursuing a career, seeking a livelihood, outside of Canada? Quote
Boges Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 just visiting, hey? Are you raising an objection to a Canadian pursuing a career, seeking a livelihood, outside of Canada? Nope just saying pointing out said PM candidate spend a good portion of his life in the USA and implying that he's just here to win an election isn't quite offside especially considering after losing said PM candidate is back living in the USA. Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 I don't see why this would favour one law over another, unless some party or other has a natural disadvantage to being held to their statements. Harper Conservatives are the Party that took news media content for "attack ad" purposes... it is the Party that has received raised concern and pushback from the original media sources for using their content. So, of course, the natural Harper Conservative approach is to re-write the law to simply do an end-around media outlet's ownership. part of raised media concerns I've read is how their content may be misued/manipulated... out of context. You know, for example, in a media scrum exchange, ignore the main question/answer discussion and for attack ad purposes, pull out a 10 second sound bite, one completely out of context... or one lacking proper context. Given Harper Conservatives are the demonstrated party of attack ads, your statement Michael, presumes upon the NDP/Liberals sinking to the level of Harper Conservative's plying their worst through attack ads. Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Nope just saying pointing out said PM candidate spend a good portion of his life in the USA and implying that he's just here to win an election isn't quite offside especially considering after losing said PM candidate is back living in the USA. thanks for confirming you have a concern, you raise objection, to a Canadian seeking career aspiration/livelihood, outside of Canada. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Nope just saying pointing out said PM candidate spend a good portion of his life in the USA and implying that he's just here to win an election isn't quite offside especially considering after losing said PM candidate is back living in the USA. Yep.....still funny after all these years. Mr. Ignatieff should patent his American cloaking device and protect it with copyright law. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Boges Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 thanks for confirming you have a concern, you raise objection, to a Canadian seeking career aspiration/livelihood, outside of Canada. Nope just taking issue with member On Guard for Thee's claim that attack ads saying Iggy was "just visiting" was BS since, in hindsight, that's exactly what he ended up doing. Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Nope just taking issue with member On Guard for Thee's claim that attack ads saying Iggy was "just visiting" was BS since, in hindsight, that's exactly what he ended up doing. what's your point... he didn't win. Does your "hindsight", again, preclude someone from seeking career aspiration and livelihood outside of Canada? Are you stating he must remain in Canada... to reinforce the BS behind those "Just Visiting" attack ads. You want Iggy to prove the attack ads... wrong? Quote
Boges Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) what's your point... he didn't win. Does your "hindsight", again, preclude someone from seeking career aspiration and livelihood outside of Canada? Are you stating he must remain in Canada... to reinforce the BS behind those "Just Visiting" attack ads. You want Iggy to prove the attack ads... wrong? It's an irrelevant point. It was an attack ad, political parties can opine what they think life would be like if an opponent wins an election. Just pointing out that the ad wasn't exactly wrong. Do we have troops in the streets? No that Attack ad was BS! Edited October 9, 2014 by Boges Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 It's an irrelevant point. It was an attack ad, just pointing out that the ad wasn't exactly wrong. Do we have troops in the streets? No that Attack ad was BS! the "wrongness" of your pointing out is predicated upon YOU denying the right of any Canadian to seek career aspiration/livelihood outside of Canada. Well done! are you suggesting that by pulling out past ads from other parties, that is a testament that other parties use/rely upon attack ads to the degree Harper Conservatives do? other than satisfying your apparent zeal for more of your favoured parties attack ads, do you actually have anything to say on the OP itself... on the end-around attempt to usurp media ownership... on the burying of the attempt in an omnibus bill? Quote
Boges Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 the "wrongness" of your pointing out is predicated upon YOU denying the right of any Canadian to seek career aspiration/livelihood outside of Canada. Well done! are you suggesting that by pulling out past ads from other parties, that is a testament that other parties use/rely upon attack ads to the degree Harper Conservatives do? other than satisfying your apparent zeal for more of your favoured parties attack ads, do you actually have anything to say on the OP itself... on the end-around attempt to usurp media ownership... on the burying of the attempt in an omnibus bill? Nope, couldn't care less about attack ads. Libertarianism FTW! Just don't call an attack ad BS unless it's making a claim that's verifiably false. Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Nope, couldn't care less about attack ads. Libertarianism FTW! Just don't call an attack ad BS unless it's making a claim that's verifiably false. for someone claiming not to care about attack ads, you've got a lot of "hindsight" to offer. Does your supposed libetarian bent support the kind of attack ad that relies upon an out-of-context or lacking-context soundbite manipulation of media sourced content? Quote
Boges Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) for someone claiming not to care about attack ads, you've got a lot of "hindsight" to offer. Does your supposed libetarian bent support the kind of attack ad that relies upon an out-of-context or lacking-context soundbite manipulation of media sourced content? The beauty of our free and open society is that media outlets that have a political bias are always there to call any attack ad out on their "BS". I don't remember all of the 2011 Iggy ads but the most effective ones, I do remember, showed him identifying with Americans. Who cares if they're out of context, it supports the claim being made. He's the one who spent most of his adult life in another country. Edited October 9, 2014 by Boges Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Nope just taking issue with member On Guard for Thee's claim that attack ads saying Iggy was "just visiting" was BS since, in hindsight, that's exactly what he ended up doing. Bang on - everything that was said about Iggy was true - and was proven true. Soldiers in the streets - with guns - in our streets! :angry: Those meany Liberals. Ignore Waldo - he's entombed in one of his inane circular discussions that say nothing and lead nowhere. Edited October 9, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 The beauty of our free and open society is that media outlets that have a political bias are always there to call any attack ad out on their "BS". Who cares if they're out of context, it supports the claim being made. so you have no problem with your favoured Harper Conservatives manipulating media content... that you'll rely upon the media to monitor... call out... Harper Conservative manipulation of media content! Is that your libetarian bent or your uber-partisan zeal for gutter politics? Accepting to your rather peculiar take on libetarianism... that "media will regulate the rightness/accuracy of manipulated attack ads", do you actually think the media running an article highlighting an overt manipulation of their content, will play like an attack ad running for weeks on end through multiple media venues? Quote
Boges Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Do you actually think the media running an article highlighting an overt manipulation of their content, will play like an attack ad running for weeks on end through multiple media venues? Yes, yes I do. Because it's not just an article. If a campaign tells a whopper of a lie in an election ad it'll be picked up by multiple media sources. That "Soldiers in the Streets" ads was derided by multiple media sources for its fear mongering. Teachers Unions buy ads in Ontario every election cycle saying how the PC candidate will destroy the province. It's they're right to do that. Quote
Boges Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Ignore Waldo - he's entombed in one of his inane circular discussions that say nothing and lead nowhere. Without breaking forum rules, Circular is an excellent analogy when I get into these arguments with said member. Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Yes, yes I do. Because it's not just an article. If a campaign tells a whopper of a lie in an election ad it'll be picked up by multiple media sources. That "Soldiers in the Streets" ads was derided by multiple media sources for its fear mongering. of course, that ad never saw the light of day... other than being posted on the Liberal website for a few hours. The real manipulation of that ad came from Harper Conservatives in how they played the media to go after it. It's quite amusing to read related comments from the Harper Conservative campaign chairman of the day (John Reynolds)... complaining about the Liberal ads manipulating out of context statements! Perfect. . Teachers Unions buy ads in Ontario every election cycle saying how the PC candidate will destroy the province. It's they're right to do that. we're not talking about the right to create attack ads. We're talking about the purposeful intent by Harper Conservatives to do an end-around raised concerns/objections by media over use/manipulation of their content. Quote
.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.