misinformation

[drummindiver]

Well except the PBO, and the banks, but other than them...we're "good to go"

Could you cite please. I found no evidence of this.

[waldo]

hey drummer... since you've chosen to provide a reply to my status update; one that speaks to a crafted piece of Harper Conservative misinformation, let's examine it:

in yet another piece of "one-liner out of context" misinformation, Harper Conservatives are running flush with attacks about, "the budget balancing itself". In actuality, this piece of purposeful misinformation comes from a Q/A style interview where the following exchange was made:

journalist Peter Van Dusen: "Would it worry you to go into deficit in this current climate to, as you say, put more people to work?"

Liberal Party leader, Justin Trudeau: "The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself"

[drummindiver]

hey drummer... since you've chosen to provide a reply to my status update; one that speaks to a crafted piece of Harper Conservative misinformation, let's examine it:

in yet another piece of "one-liner out of context" misinformation, Harper Conservatives are running flush with attacks about, "the budget balancing itself". In actuality, this piece of purposeful misinformation comes from a Q/A style interview where the following exchange was made:

journalist Peter Van Dusen: "Would it worry you to go into deficit in this current climate to, as you say, put more people to work?"

Liberal Party leader, Justin Trudeau: "The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself"

hey drummer... since you've chosen to provide a reply to my status update; one that speaks to a crafted piece of Harper Conservative misinformation, let's examine it:

in yet another piece of "one-liner out of context" misinformation, Harper Conservatives are running flush with attacks about, "the budget balancing itself". In actuality, this piece of purposeful misinformation comes from a Q/A style interview where the following exchange was made:

journalist Peter Van Dusen: "Would it worry you to go into deficit in this current climate to, as you say, put more people to work?"

Liberal Party leader, Justin Trudeau: "The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself"

So. Your refutation to him saying this is that he said it? Even in this context it's a ridiculous assertion. Even with record growth, with the spending the left does there would never be a guarantee of a balanced budget. one does not insure the other.

[waldo]

So. Your refutation to him saying this is that he said it? Even in this context it's a ridiculous assertion. Even with record growth, with the spending the left does there would never be a guarantee of a balanced budget. one does not insure the other.

no - there's a rather lengthy continuation of that exchange; but you and your favoured party hacks simply choose to play gotcha one-liner (out of context) games instead of dealing with substantive policy aspects. The interview exists within a CPAC video... starting at the 27:35 mark - enjoy... and come back with your apology for further disseminating this piece of purposeful Harper Conservative misinformation!

[drummindiver]

no - there's a rather lengthy continuation of that exchange; but you and your favoured party hacks simply choose to play gotcha one-liner (out of context) games instead of dealing with substantive policy aspects. The interview exists within a CPAC video... starting at the 27:35 mark - enjoy... and come back with your apology for further disseminating this piece of purposeful Harper Conservative misinformation!

you want me to ologizze for refuting what you presented, not what you should have could have presented? Really? I know you're much smarter than to expect that from anyone And I can't watch vids, I'm at cottage o. Gfs tablet using a hot spot.

[waldo]

you want me to ologizze for refuting what you presented, not what you should have could have presented? Really? I know you're much smarter than to expect that from anyone And I can't watch vids, I'm at cottage o. Gfs tablet using a hot spot.

what you do is clearly your decision... you can continue to disseminate Harper Conservative misinformation... or not! Given your holier than thou (apparently false/fake) opening post focused on "non-partisan", one would think you'd be... just that!

[Argus]

OK then, so nobody's refuting anything in the article. On we go.

i can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't bother to read anything there. It's an obvious propaganda site. I don't get my information from RT or FOX and don't feel the need to get it from RT Canada either. Nothing they say has any value so doesn't require me to refute it.

[Argus]

seems so... of course one can count on those who simply choose to instead attempt to distract by mentioning the source...

Gee, I posted a column the other day by Margaret Wendt on the party leaders position on carbon taxation and the first thing you did was mention the source - while ignoring the rest.

[Argus]

no - there's a rather lengthy continuation of that exchange; but you and your favoured party hacks

Where do YOU get off calling anyone else a party hack?

[Argus]

The NDP has been getting a free pass for decades, but now because of the negativity in the electorate they have the protest vote, inflating their numbers. The election campaign still has a long way to go, so now they will get more scrutiny,

Will someone ask them a question, please on this?

Tackling the infrastructure deficit through a Canada-wide funding program that includes the enhancement of the Gas Tax Fund transfers to municipalities.

If you're going to 'enhance' the Gas Tax Fund transfers you have to first 'enhance' the Gas Tax Fund. So how much do the NDP plan on raising gasoline taxes? And why hasn't anyone asked them? I remember when the Clark government was brought down and we fought an entire election on a seven cent gas tax. Now it looks like there's a statement in the party policy manual of the party leading or close to leading in the poll, that they would increase the gas tax, and the media is ignoring it.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Argus

[Smallc]

1 Cent is their number, apparently.

[Freddy]

Everything is relative to someone's stance on a subject. If I hate Jews then my world view is relative to that. What I perceive as truths or lies will change compared to someone who likes Jews.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Freddy

[drummindiver]

what you do is clearly your decision... you can continue to disseminate Harper Conservative misinformation... or not! Given your holier than thou (apparently false/fake) opening post focused on "non-partisan", one would think you'd be... just that!

And again with ad hominem instead of articulating a rational, Intelligent response. Why? Clearly, you cannot prove your point of view, so let's degenerate the conversation.

nice chatting with you.

[On Guard for Thee]

Could you cite please. I found no evidence of this.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/federal-government-to-run-1b-deficit-pbo/

[waldo]

Gee, I posted a column the other day by Margaret Wendt on the party leaders position on carbon taxation and the first thing you did was mention the source - while ignoring the rest.

at least spell your source's name right, hey! ... and I did have things to say about the contents of Wente's inane column!

[On Guard for Thee]

i can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't bother to read anything there. It's an obvious propaganda site. I don't get my information from RT or FOX and don't feel the need to get it from RT Canada either. Nothing they say has any value so doesn't require me to refute it.

Then I guess we'll just ignore you.

[waldo]

And again with ad hominem instead of articulating a rational, Intelligent response. Why? Clearly, you cannot prove your point of view, so let's degenerate the conversation.

nice chatting with you.

no - there's nothing 'ad hom' in what I wrote! Clearly, your OP emphasis on non-partisan lasted but a few posts as you chose to double-down on that piece of Harper Conservative misinformation. Even if you don't accept the related comments, there is a context to the focused one-liner... one that Harper Conservatives purposely chose to ignore in yet another 'one-liner, out-of-context', misinforming attack ad zinger!

.

[Argus]

Then I guess we'll just ignore you.

You couldn't if you tried!

[scribblet]

I am trying to look at all party's lies and get to the facts. non Partisan. I know it's too much to ask our elected officials to be honest, but I would like to have an idea of what the real facts are. Cheers.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27040/did-canada-go-from-2-5-million-protected-lakes-and-rivers-to-just-159

Good information, thanks... I knew the opposition was being disingenuous at best.

[socialist]

Good information, thanks... I knew the opposition was being disingenuous at best.

I know this will happen if the Libs/NDP /Green win:

1)no income splitting

2)no family benefit cheques

3)legalized pot

4)CPP contributions go up

5)corporate taxes increased

6)increase foreign aid

7)open constitutional reform talks again.....Meech Lake anyone, this is probably dangerous only way to remove senate though so good luck with that.

8)increase transfer payments to provinces for health, education, cities and also environmental items.

9)no bill c51

And as well, the recent crtc rulings on internet, cell phones and tv, forget those as well. The Liberals are firmly in Rogers and Bell media empire so I expect those to be reversed.

So the 2 items I see the left all excited about... pot and Bill c51. 1)legalize pot it will be way more expensive and your buddy down the hall wont be selling it anymore 2)your buddy down the hall is the only one freaking out about bill c51. funny how the NDP however wants to make a government survey mandatory, so much for privacy rights.

As much as Id like to see the Senate removed, I know I just know there is no way this will occur, Quebec and Ontario wont agree to it so that one is a out and out lie and the candidates know it.

The rest, just restoring government spending, departments and salaries cut by the Conservatives, The unions and their buddies in the NDP/Lib coalition are the only ones upset.

As for the voting changes, that one will condemn us to eternal elections and leftist coalitions, if this occurs I d suggest that anyone who doesn't want to live in Greece 2 to seriously consider leaving..that's whats coming, Anyone remember when the Bloq held the balance of power? That's what the NDP/Lib want..yippee!

[socialist]

And again with ad hominem instead of articulating a rational, Intelligent response. Why? Clearly, you cannot prove your point of view, so let's degenerate the conversation.

nice chatting with you.

The CBC's coverage is the most troubling. They're no different than a public sector union that campaigns in an election. At least public sector unions tell us were they stand and make no bones about who they oppose; there's no ambiguity there. I wish CBC journos would be as forthright and upfront. CBC should be barred from covering all federal election campaigns because of their glaring conflict of interest, standing to gain millions from the defeat of the CPC when the next budget is presented by Libs, NDP or a coalition of the two. With more funding for them, how could that not possibly colour their news coverage of this election??

[scribblet]

....... clipping post as per rules -

As for the voting changes, that one will condemn us to eternal elections and leftist coalitions, if this occurs I d suggest that anyone who doesn't want to live in Greece 2 to seriously consider leaving..that's whats coming, Anyone remember when the Bloq held the balance of power? That's what the NDP/Lib want..yippee!

One of my biggest beefs is that they will not hold a referendum on such a major important issue.

[socialist]

I am trying to look at all party's lies and get to the facts. non Partisan. I know it's too much to ask our elected officials to be honest, but I would like to have an idea of what the real facts are. Cheers.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27040/did-canada-go-from-2-5-million-protected-lakes-and-rivers-to-just-159

I agree with you that most members of the media are very interested in creating a false narrative, by asking Harper all sorts of loaded questions and by being extremely soft on Justin and Mulcair.

I believe, however, that the most intelligent members of the media, will come to a point where they will start thinking about Canada's future as well and will leave the hyped up Duffy trial for what it is (a tempest in a teapot) and move on to the real issues facing Canada.

I truly believe that.

[waldo]

One of my biggest beefs is

one of my biggest beefs is your purposeful misinformation... in your latest status update you wrote: "So Mulcair thinks that people in Africa shouldn't have clean water because it's provided by Christians . If Mulcair becomes PM he'll cut off funding and people especially kids and babies will die of dysentery, etc. Wow! What a merciful BIGOT ?"

this is a 2.5 year old event... what Mulcair did was raise a concern over CIDA funding for the Evangelical group 'Crossroads' based on it's anti-gay positions and messaging; in particular in relation to their work being done in Uganda amongst broader raised concerns over the persecutions of gays by the Ugandan government. Apparently, you see fit to ignore the same raised concerns from (former) Harper Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird - John Baird slams anti-gay statements by CIDA-funded group. Apparently, you see fit to ignore the action taken by (former) Harper Conservative Minister of International Cooperation, Julian Fantino, who ordered a review of the CIDA funding based on raised concerns from the public and Opposition parties.

Edited August 17, 2015 by waldo

[scribblet]

The CBC's coverage is the most troubling. They're no different than a public sector union that campaigns in an election. At least public sector unions tell us were they stand and make no bones about who they oppose; there's no ambiguity there. I wish CBC journos would be as forthright and upfront. CBC should be barred from covering all federal election campaigns because of their glaring conflict of interest, standing to gain millions from the defeat of the CPC when the next budget is presented by Libs, NDP or a coalition of the two. With more funding for them, how could that not possibly colour their news coverage of this election??

I don't see how you can bar any journalist from covering a situation, we should be requiring more journalistic integrity and unbiased objective reporting. Opinions of course are just that and hardly unbiased. The CBC does have a lot to answer for including pimping for more funding but even at that, they have a right to report.

What is even more troubling is the Star's publishing of an ex CBC head honcho's opinion that 'Harper is a bigger threat than ISIS' - even for the Star it's jumping the shark. Well, the whole Sharknado.