CBC's Pro-Palestine Coverage

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Maybe you should try working (commercial fishing) with cameras monitoring you along with GPS tracking software collected in a black box that auditors come and swap out when you're unloading before dismissing the idea of using cameras to keep our governance honest.

Do the cameras follow you into the bathroom? Do the cameras record every single thing you say? Do the cameras follow you off the boat?

No?

Dishonestly is your bread and butter isn't it. 

[Venandi]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Maybe you should try working (commercial fishing)

Been there done that actually, albeit briefly.

Forestry too but to my knowledge there was no cameras on the trees... I never fully trusted the squirrels though, always felt like they were spying on us.

High security Ops centres in diverse vacation spots too, radio, telephone and secure chat conversations all recorded, internal movements recorded on video and by ID/swich key access logs.

  I love this part BTW, thanks for your service:

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Don't say it can't be done to someone who's done it.

If we're comparing resumes, for me it's mostly military and commercial flying where every word you say and every control input you make is recorded on CVR/FDR and mission computers.  

But the CVR/FDR doesn't follow you into the lav, it doesn't record flirty conversations with FAs at Tim Hortons, it isn't in the crew transport, the taxi or in the hotel room at the end of the day. It doesn't' follow you to the restaurant to make sure you didn't have a glass of wine within 12 hours of show time and it doesn't gallop behind the car on the drive home from the airport.

 I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said the idea was silly. 

And speaking of silly, all of this off topic stuff has created knots in  "Mr Offtopic's" underwear.... It's actually the first post he appears to have gotten right though and I don't want to ruin the moment for him.  

I'll leave ya to it.

 

Edited June 9 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Venandi said:

I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said the idea was silly. 

Precisely. Which is bad enough, but it's also utterly futile and pointless. Unless they are literally going to wear the camera 24/7 there will always be an opportunity for discussions to be had that aren't recorded. Even more so, it's easy for one of your subordinates to go have a conversation on your behalf so unless you're also going to record every single waking activity of all of the people that work for the parliament as well, There's no point to it. Now you're into 24-hour surveillance of tens of thousands of people. And who who goes through all of this footage to make sure nothing untoward happened?

And to top it all off, there are tons of corrupt things we already know about and people tend to blow that off. So what would be the difference if we knew even more? He's never been able to answer that question.

This is just the ramblings of someone who doesn't actually want the government to be more accountable. For quite a while there he tried to blame harper saying harper could have brought in tougher laws that Justin couldn't get rid of that would have solved the problem.

[eyeball]

17 hours ago, Venandi said:

But the CVR/FDR doesn't follow you into the lav, it doesn't record flirty conversations with FAs at Tim Hortons, it isn't in the crew transport, the taxi or in the hotel room at the end of the day.

It wouldn't be perfect but like you say it can be done. There'd have to changes to the Lobbying Act to open meetings involving public business to the public. It wouldn't be perfect but if things that were discussed in public didn't match up with the policies or actions arising from these discussions there'd be grounds for suspicion and closer scrutiny. 

And as I've said before there's nothing stopping politicians from just voluntarily eschewing as much secrecy as humanly and decently possible and then daring competitors to do the same or better.

As an indication of the direction I think we should be going, the FOI Act should be upended in such a way that governments would apply to keep something secret as opposed to using the Act to obstruct public access to information that falls within the public domain. Exempting of course matters of obvious national or military security.

Edited June 10 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It wouldn't be perfect but like you say it can be done. There'd have to changes to the Lobbying Act to open meetings involving public business to the public. It wouldn't be perfect but if things that were discussed in public didn't match up with the policies or actions arising from these discussions there'd be grounds for suspicion and closer scrutiny. 

And as I've said before there's nothing stopping politicians from just voluntarily eschewing as much secrecy as humanly and decently possible and then daring competitors to do the same or better.

As an indication of the direction I think we should be going, the FOI Act should be upended in such a way that governments would apply to keep something secret as opposed to using the Act to obstruct public access to information that falls within the public domain. Exempting of course matters of obvious national or military security.

Not what you've proposed it couldn't. 

[WestCanMan]

On 6/9/2024 at 8:05 PM, eyeball said:

It wouldn't be perfect but like you say it can be done. There'd have to changes to the Lobbying Act to open meetings involving public business to the public. It wouldn't be perfect but if things that were discussed in public didn't match up with the policies or actions arising from these discussions there'd be grounds for suspicion and closer scrutiny. 

What makes you think that politicians can't have proxies do all these things for them?

https://nypost.com/2023/05/10/how-the-bidens-used-shell-companies-to-enrich-themselves/

Quote

As an attorney at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Hunter worked for Popoviciu starting in 2015 and even enlisted the help of former FBI Director Louis Freeh to help the Romanian tycoon fight bribery charges. His efforts were in vain, as Popoviciu was convicted in 2016.

Vice President Biden had visited Romania in May 2014 to deliver a speech on the dangers of corruption.

“Corruption is a cancer, a cancer that eats away at a citizen’s faith in democracy, diminishes the instinct for innovation and creativity; already-tight national budgets, crowding out important national investments,” he said at the time.

There's Joe lecturing Romanians on the topic of corruption, while his son was there with a former FBI agent trying to help GAbriel Popoviciu get away with corruption. And in Burisma, Joe and Hunter helped the CEO get away with corruption by going so far as to have a prosecutor fired just a month after he had won court orders to seize the Biden family friend's assets.

You see, uncovering corruption only matters if the media and general population care about that corruption. If the media is owned by the gov't, the story can go away, and no one will care. 

[eyeball]

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

What makes you think that politicians can't have proxies do all these things for them?

Nothing. They can do whatever they want but like I said if we see policies and measures happening where there's no record of anyone having discussed them or what was discussed we'd have better grounds to ask wtf.

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You see, uncovering corruption only matters if the media and general population care about that corruption. If the media is owned by the gov't, the story can go away, and no one will care. 

You must believe you're completely helpless in the scheme of things - you exist in a state of perpetual victimhood. There's a difference between not caring and giving up.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Nothing. They can do whatever they want but like I said if we see policies and measures happening where there's no record of anyone having discussed them or what was discussed we'd have better grounds to ask wtf.

You mean like if we saw the prime minister get a free vacation worth hundreds of thousands from a person lobbying his gov't we could take action and vote him out?  Oh.... wait..... 

What would happen is the proxies would meet behind closed doors, work everything out, secure the appropriate tits for tats, and then the lobbyist and politiican would meet openly and magically agree to the things each other wanted and any 'additional' considerations would be out of sight. 

It's just not a real thing. 

Right now you can already measure results. We can look at the money spent on arrivecan and look at that contract and realize something was very wrong.  we can look at the aga khan issue and know it was 100 percent corruption.  We can look at all the single sourced contracts to liberal supporters that did not follow gov't outsourcing and know that misdeeds were done. 

So we have that already. Everything you want, we can already do.  The question is what will you do with that? 

And your answer so far is 'just keep accepting liberal gov'ts i guess'.  So what's the point?

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Nothing. They can do whatever they want but like I said if we see policies and measures happening where there's no record of anyone having discussed them or what was discussed we'd have better grounds to ask wtf.

But you ignore this stuff when it's being exposed. Why ignore it, and then also complain about it? 

Do you just plan to exist in a state of perpetual victimhood?