I started writing a comment on LibLogs blogger Blunt Objects blog about his stupid, childish, and immature post titled "Fuck you, Harper".
Since it has been months since I last posted, I decided to respond to the post here.
Volkov, you're a blogger who tries to parlay profanities as intelligence. You bring what should be honest and passionate debate to a new low. You are one of the reasons why political discourse is so dysfunctional in Canada. Political commentators should be civilized and intelligent. We can disagree with each other without naming calling and profanities. This goes for all bloggers, including me.
I know in my younger blogger days I said some stupid and immature things.
And to those bloggers, analysts, and commentators that think the summit should have been held offshore, or in the remote wilderness, I have one word for you, appeaser. You do not think through your arguments. If you host summit in the wilderness, you basically say that we as country cannot guarantee security for our visitors.
What does that say about us as a country?
If you host your summit in the middle of the ocean, what serves as the focal point for the protesters? Instead of one big protest you will likely end up with smaller protests across the country.
Furthermore, by hosting your summit in the Arctic you deny a protest avenue for peaceful protesters looking to be heard. People have the right to meet where they want. Protesters have the right to _peacefully_ protest and be heard. However, no one has the right to destroy anyone else's property.
This is what happened this weekend. The so called "Black Bloc" took over the labour movements (and others) protest. Sullying their peaceful protest message with the anarchists message of violence.
I for one want to live in a country where anarchists are dealt with quickly, and peaceful protesters get to sing and chant to their hearts content. In my Canada, peaceful protesters deserve that right, and violent protesters go to jail.
Showing posts with label liblog bashing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liblog bashing. Show all posts
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
I can hear the crowing from Liblogs miles away
Well, a new poll came out today that should the Conservatives and Liberals in a VIRTUAL DEAD HEAT!!!! OMG!!! Let's leave aside the fact that this poll is part phone and part online, and online polls are never as accurate. And let's leave aside the Angue Reid poll that showed the Conservatives at 34%. And of course the torqued headlines at the Red Star.
Our friends over at LibLogs are now salivating at these poll numbers, thinking they will soon overtake the Conservatives.
Of course they forget that this drop in the polls happens all the time, the Conservatives lose support, drop down to about the level of the Liberals then suddenly come back up again. The Conservatives lose support when the house is sitting and gain support when the house isn't. Been like this for years.
These polls are coming off of the Christmas break where no one was watching, after the attack by the MSM over the prorogation issue, and now we see the Liberals launching attack ads. The attack ads are well timed from the Liberals for once, even though they break a Liberal promise not to launch attack ads. I wonder if Peter Donolo paid for these ads on his credit card?
But I am not sure I would crow over the poll results just yet. While the Conservatives have lost support, the Liberals haven't gained support. This can't possibly bold well for them.
I predict that over the reminder of the prorogation period that the Conservatives will launch ads, take to the airwaves, cheer on Team Canada and continue handing out the stimulus money. This will in turn cause their poll numbers to go up, the Liberals to get cold feet, then abstain or vote for the budget.
This is not to mention that the Conservatives have been out-campaigning and out fund-raising the Liberals for years. Nor does it address the fact that Conservative supports are more dedicated, and they tend to out perform their poll numbers at the ballot box.
I am not worried yet, but if I was a Liberal I would be wondering and worried as to why we haven't picked up any support yet in the polls....
Our friends over at LibLogs are now salivating at these poll numbers, thinking they will soon overtake the Conservatives.
Of course they forget that this drop in the polls happens all the time, the Conservatives lose support, drop down to about the level of the Liberals then suddenly come back up again. The Conservatives lose support when the house is sitting and gain support when the house isn't. Been like this for years.
These polls are coming off of the Christmas break where no one was watching, after the attack by the MSM over the prorogation issue, and now we see the Liberals launching attack ads. The attack ads are well timed from the Liberals for once, even though they break a Liberal promise not to launch attack ads. I wonder if Peter Donolo paid for these ads on his credit card?
But I am not sure I would crow over the poll results just yet. While the Conservatives have lost support, the Liberals haven't gained support. This can't possibly bold well for them.
I predict that over the reminder of the prorogation period that the Conservatives will launch ads, take to the airwaves, cheer on Team Canada and continue handing out the stimulus money. This will in turn cause their poll numbers to go up, the Liberals to get cold feet, then abstain or vote for the budget.
This is not to mention that the Conservatives have been out-campaigning and out fund-raising the Liberals for years. Nor does it address the fact that Conservative supports are more dedicated, and they tend to out perform their poll numbers at the ballot box.
I am not worried yet, but if I was a Liberal I would be wondering and worried as to why we haven't picked up any support yet in the polls....
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Another day, another Liblog to bash
OK, this is getting to be a bit of a habit. Seems most of my posts lately are about bashing poor Libloggers. C'est la vie. It is kind of fun :)
At least this Liblogger is trying to rally the troops, put forth ideas, and start a discussion. Too bad many of his ideas are stupid, impractical, or not in the domain of the federal government. You read his rant here. To be fair, I do agree with some of them.
Things that need to be legalized
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Yes. Yes. Hell no. At least any proposal but forth to date. No euthansia should ever be legalized unless it can only be initiated by the person to die. No doctors, no family, just the patient gets to decide. Assuming they pass a psyche examine. Any other approach opens up avenues for abuse.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental dental
2) Full day Kindergarten and Playschool
3) Natonal Drug plan
No. No. No. For many reasons, first amongst them, the constitution. Those are all provincial responsibilities.
Full day kindergarten and playschool? First of all, my kid already has full day kindergarten. Unless you mean pre and post school. If your school board only offers half day kindergarten, talk to your trustees.
Upgrading of national standards
1) $10 hour National minimum wage indexed to inflation
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Number one is a provincial regulation. Many provinces are already doing this, or are in the process. You do realize that this will hurt many small businesses right? When Ontario raised the minimum wage a few years ago, almost every Dennys closed in Ottawa. You may not like Dennys, but they employeed dozens.
Why should employers, many of which are small companies in the service industry be responsible for distributing income? Furthermore, over 1/3 of all minimum wage earners are teenagers. They are not necessarily living poverty.
Again, number two is a provincial responsibility, unless it is only for federally regulated industries. Also, many places already give more then 2 weeks of vacation. I have 4 weeks, my parents have 4 weeks, most of my friends have 3 or 4 weeks. Unions already get their members sweet deals. The private sector is in a benefits race to attract and keep top talent.
For number three, I am not sure what the average population per riding is, but there is little that can be done to fix this without causing massive internal strife. Again, the constitution will cause issues. You would need to add seats, you cannot remove seats from provinces for several reasons:
1. They are all grandfathered to have at least as many seats as they had in the 33rd parliament.
2. They have to have at least as many MPs as senators.
3. They can't drop more then 15% in any given reshuffling.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification
One and three are agree with. Number two I am not so sure. Are you aware that your opinions are not at all like the Liberal party?
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
The temporary works are mostly for farm work, and mostly because they can't hire Canadians to do the work. Same for all the unskilled workers. Canadians don't want to do the work. During the oil boom a few years ago in Alberta, Tim Horton's employers were paying 20 dollars and hour, and still couldn't fill their positions. Labour shortages are bad for the economy.
5) The Monarchy
Why? So we can be more American? Its a nice tradition that odds pomp and dignity to our cerimonies. Gives people a nice symbol to enjoy. Replace the GG with a head of state will accomplish nothing. Many countries have powerless Presidents too. Removing the Monarchy and GG would require a huge consitutional change.
Since many of your opinions are not Liberal, I have to wonder what makes you a Liberal? It seems, your Liberal streak manifests itself through big national programs that you would implement despite the fact that it intrudes on areas of provincial responsibility. That would annoy Quebec a lot!
At least this Liblogger is trying to rally the troops, put forth ideas, and start a discussion. Too bad many of his ideas are stupid, impractical, or not in the domain of the federal government. You read his rant here. To be fair, I do agree with some of them.
Things that need to be legalized
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Yes. Yes. Hell no. At least any proposal but forth to date. No euthansia should ever be legalized unless it can only be initiated by the person to die. No doctors, no family, just the patient gets to decide. Assuming they pass a psyche examine. Any other approach opens up avenues for abuse.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental dental
2) Full day Kindergarten and Playschool
3) Natonal Drug plan
No. No. No. For many reasons, first amongst them, the constitution. Those are all provincial responsibilities.
Full day kindergarten and playschool? First of all, my kid already has full day kindergarten. Unless you mean pre and post school. If your school board only offers half day kindergarten, talk to your trustees.
Upgrading of national standards
1) $10 hour National minimum wage indexed to inflation
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Number one is a provincial regulation. Many provinces are already doing this, or are in the process. You do realize that this will hurt many small businesses right? When Ontario raised the minimum wage a few years ago, almost every Dennys closed in Ottawa. You may not like Dennys, but they employeed dozens.
Why should employers, many of which are small companies in the service industry be responsible for distributing income? Furthermore, over 1/3 of all minimum wage earners are teenagers. They are not necessarily living poverty.
Again, number two is a provincial responsibility, unless it is only for federally regulated industries. Also, many places already give more then 2 weeks of vacation. I have 4 weeks, my parents have 4 weeks, most of my friends have 3 or 4 weeks. Unions already get their members sweet deals. The private sector is in a benefits race to attract and keep top talent.
For number three, I am not sure what the average population per riding is, but there is little that can be done to fix this without causing massive internal strife. Again, the constitution will cause issues. You would need to add seats, you cannot remove seats from provinces for several reasons:
1. They are all grandfathered to have at least as many seats as they had in the 33rd parliament.
2. They have to have at least as many MPs as senators.
3. They can't drop more then 15% in any given reshuffling.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification
One and three are agree with. Number two I am not so sure. Are you aware that your opinions are not at all like the Liberal party?
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
The temporary works are mostly for farm work, and mostly because they can't hire Canadians to do the work. Same for all the unskilled workers. Canadians don't want to do the work. During the oil boom a few years ago in Alberta, Tim Horton's employers were paying 20 dollars and hour, and still couldn't fill their positions. Labour shortages are bad for the economy.
5) The Monarchy
Why? So we can be more American? Its a nice tradition that odds pomp and dignity to our cerimonies. Gives people a nice symbol to enjoy. Replace the GG with a head of state will accomplish nothing. Many countries have powerless Presidents too. Removing the Monarchy and GG would require a huge consitutional change.
Since many of your opinions are not Liberal, I have to wonder what makes you a Liberal? It seems, your Liberal streak manifests itself through big national programs that you would implement despite the fact that it intrudes on areas of provincial responsibility. That would annoy Quebec a lot!
Lies, damned lies, and Liberal half-truths
I read everything, and I mean everything. I read the Globe and Mail, the National Post, CBC, CTV, Toronto Star, Blogging Tories, Liblogs, Macleans, and Progressive Bloggers. I am sure I am missing some out of this list. The point is, I read everything I can get my hands on about politics, policy, and news. I don't just read news sources to reinforce my own view. Occasionally I stumble across idiots, and I take the time to refute them harshly. I have done this to Liblogs, and BloggingTories. Ignorance knows no side.
This afternoon I stumbled across a blathering fool of a blogger on Liblogs. This blogger tries to make a case of incompetence on the part of the Conservative government in relation to their H1N1 vaccination program. A program that has had some issues, but when viewed in the larger context, has been pretty darn successful to date.
Let's view his ramblings point by point, I shall quote him as I go.
Health Minister Aglukkaq ordered 1.8 million doses of unadjuvanted vaccine in September. That order had to be placed to cover off the expected needs of pregnant women, which was forgotten, apparently, when the same Minister got around to placing her original order in August.
The order wasn't forgotten, it wasn't ordered. You see, there is no research that points to adjuvanted vaccines being harmful to either the mother or the fetus. None, zip, zero. Why did we order unadjuvanted vaccines then? Because there is no evidence that it doesn't hurt the mother or the fetus. There hasn't been enough research yet to be medically certain.
It was decided that it was better to err on the side of caution, that being said many pregnant women received the adjuvanted version as they were in the high-risk groups.
The August "order" was among the last placed worldwide.
So what? Placing an order in March for a vaccine that is not ready to be produced is no more efficient. Canada has a contract, we jump the queue, and go to the front of the line in terms of production.
The 1.8 million dose order for non-adjuvanted vaccine then disrupted and delayed GSK's "bottling" of adjuvanted vaccine, which was intended for use in the broader population. This delay caused line ups and general mayhem along the vaccination distribution system as there was a shortage of vaccine, which exists to this day.
At the same time, GSK wasn't able to get the non-adjuvanted product ready quick enough anyway and the government had to order 200,000 doses from another supplier in Australia.
Sigh. When the immunization programme started, cities had thousands and thousands of vaccine doses. The line ups were caused by the sheer fact that you cannot immunize everyone at once. And poor organization at the local level for the vaccination rollout.
For the first few weeks, vaccination clinics were going full bore immunizing the high risk groups. It is only now that there is some shortages due to the interruptions in the production line to make the unadjuvanted version.
Even as late as Oct 24th, barely half of Canadians were planning on getting the shot. Only 30% of Canadians get the seasonal flu shot. Its hard to fault cities and the federal goverment for making plans based on the best available data at the time.
Regarding Australia, would you rather have the government not try and get other supplies?
All the while, mass confusion amongst the health providers and pregnant women as to what really was the advice of the government.
Really? All advice I have heard was consistent.
Rather, these women should get the advanced form of the vaccine that includes a booster to increase immune response, she said.
Last week, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada also said all evidence suggests that adjuvanted vaccines are just as safe as non-adjuvanted vaccines. But the preferred version for pregnant women is the non-adjuvanted version because there hasn't been a lot of research on the use of the adjuvant in pregnancy.
Now we hear that Aglukkaq has approved the non-adjuvanted GSK product for use by everybody. Another day...another change in plan...this ordering fiasco and not realising GSK bottling challenges is something that needs a thorough review when this is all over.
She has approved the vaccination for everyone as the non-adjuvanted vaccine has been available for sometime now, and they likely figure everyone who was going to get the non-adjuvanted one has already. They ordered more then what was needed. There are not 1.8 million pregnant women in Canada.
There has been a definite glossing over of the truth along the way. It was in September that the mantra began: “In Canada, we are lucky that the issue is not whether we will have enough vaccine for everyone who needs it, but how quickly we can immunize everyone,” said Dr. Butler-Jones, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer. While the Health Minister intoned her now all too familiar, “The Government of Canada will ensure that all Canadians who need and want the H1N1 vaccine will get it.” Aglukkaq's Butler-Jones laying tracks so that the provinces can be blamed for the failure in distribution that they new was coming. At the same time, a Minister providing an assurance bereft of any time frame against which to apply future accountability and responsibility. Typical.
You cannot immunize 33 million people at once. Over 50 million doses of vaccine was ordered, many more millions will be immunized by Christmas. The line ups (in my community anyway) were not very long after the initial rush.
Neither of these comments reflected what these officials could and should (and maybe did) know about GSK packaging shortcomings.
Yes, the one legitimate point, they should not have interrupted the the production of the adjuvanted vaccine. But that is the benefit of hindsight. Easy to see the errors.
Now lets look at the big picture.
- Canada has rolled out more vaccine per capita then any other country in the world.
- Canada has rolled out more the twice the vaccine per capita then the US
- A pandemic of fear was caused by the deaths of two young children that caused long line ups
- The perception of scandal is more media (and Liberal) generated then a reflection of widespread unease
- Nearly 2/3s of Canadians think the Government has done a fair job.
- Canada has produced about 8.5 million doses of the vaccine.
See the big picture. It is disgusting that the Liberals are trying to politicize this issue, even as their MPs try to hysterically jump the queue. I am looking at you Hedy Fry!
Might I suggest fist bumping Hedy?
This afternoon I stumbled across a blathering fool of a blogger on Liblogs. This blogger tries to make a case of incompetence on the part of the Conservative government in relation to their H1N1 vaccination program. A program that has had some issues, but when viewed in the larger context, has been pretty darn successful to date.
Let's view his ramblings point by point, I shall quote him as I go.
Health Minister Aglukkaq ordered 1.8 million doses of unadjuvanted vaccine in September. That order had to be placed to cover off the expected needs of pregnant women, which was forgotten, apparently, when the same Minister got around to placing her original order in August.
The order wasn't forgotten, it wasn't ordered. You see, there is no research that points to adjuvanted vaccines being harmful to either the mother or the fetus. None, zip, zero. Why did we order unadjuvanted vaccines then? Because there is no evidence that it doesn't hurt the mother or the fetus. There hasn't been enough research yet to be medically certain.
It was decided that it was better to err on the side of caution, that being said many pregnant women received the adjuvanted version as they were in the high-risk groups.
The August "order" was among the last placed worldwide.
So what? Placing an order in March for a vaccine that is not ready to be produced is no more efficient. Canada has a contract, we jump the queue, and go to the front of the line in terms of production.
The 1.8 million dose order for non-adjuvanted vaccine then disrupted and delayed GSK's "bottling" of adjuvanted vaccine, which was intended for use in the broader population. This delay caused line ups and general mayhem along the vaccination distribution system as there was a shortage of vaccine, which exists to this day.
At the same time, GSK wasn't able to get the non-adjuvanted product ready quick enough anyway and the government had to order 200,000 doses from another supplier in Australia.
Sigh. When the immunization programme started, cities had thousands and thousands of vaccine doses. The line ups were caused by the sheer fact that you cannot immunize everyone at once. And poor organization at the local level for the vaccination rollout.
For the first few weeks, vaccination clinics were going full bore immunizing the high risk groups. It is only now that there is some shortages due to the interruptions in the production line to make the unadjuvanted version.
Even as late as Oct 24th, barely half of Canadians were planning on getting the shot. Only 30% of Canadians get the seasonal flu shot. Its hard to fault cities and the federal goverment for making plans based on the best available data at the time.
Regarding Australia, would you rather have the government not try and get other supplies?
All the while, mass confusion amongst the health providers and pregnant women as to what really was the advice of the government.
Really? All advice I have heard was consistent.
Rather, these women should get the advanced form of the vaccine that includes a booster to increase immune response, she said.
Last week, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada also said all evidence suggests that adjuvanted vaccines are just as safe as non-adjuvanted vaccines. But the preferred version for pregnant women is the non-adjuvanted version because there hasn't been a lot of research on the use of the adjuvant in pregnancy.
Now we hear that Aglukkaq has approved the non-adjuvanted GSK product for use by everybody. Another day...another change in plan...this ordering fiasco and not realising GSK bottling challenges is something that needs a thorough review when this is all over.
She has approved the vaccination for everyone as the non-adjuvanted vaccine has been available for sometime now, and they likely figure everyone who was going to get the non-adjuvanted one has already. They ordered more then what was needed. There are not 1.8 million pregnant women in Canada.
There has been a definite glossing over of the truth along the way. It was in September that the mantra began: “In Canada, we are lucky that the issue is not whether we will have enough vaccine for everyone who needs it, but how quickly we can immunize everyone,” said Dr. Butler-Jones, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer. While the Health Minister intoned her now all too familiar, “The Government of Canada will ensure that all Canadians who need and want the H1N1 vaccine will get it.” Aglukkaq's Butler-Jones laying tracks so that the provinces can be blamed for the failure in distribution that they new was coming. At the same time, a Minister providing an assurance bereft of any time frame against which to apply future accountability and responsibility. Typical.
You cannot immunize 33 million people at once. Over 50 million doses of vaccine was ordered, many more millions will be immunized by Christmas. The line ups (in my community anyway) were not very long after the initial rush.
Neither of these comments reflected what these officials could and should (and maybe did) know about GSK packaging shortcomings.
Yes, the one legitimate point, they should not have interrupted the the production of the adjuvanted vaccine. But that is the benefit of hindsight. Easy to see the errors.
Now lets look at the big picture.
- Canada has rolled out more vaccine per capita then any other country in the world.
- Canada has rolled out more the twice the vaccine per capita then the US
- A pandemic of fear was caused by the deaths of two young children that caused long line ups
- The perception of scandal is more media (and Liberal) generated then a reflection of widespread unease
- Nearly 2/3s of Canadians think the Government has done a fair job.
- Canada has produced about 8.5 million doses of the vaccine.
See the big picture. It is disgusting that the Liberals are trying to politicize this issue, even as their MPs try to hysterically jump the queue. I am looking at you Hedy Fry!
Might I suggest fist bumping Hedy?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Warren - Way out of line
Seriously??????
Warren Kinsella is blaming the Prime Minster Stephen Harper for a Bloc MP voting in the House today to protect the gun registry? Warren, are you actually blaming PMSH for a lack of common sense from a Bloc MP? Lame.
Oh, perhaps that Bloc MP had no idea that the vote would be the blow out that it was. After all, at the end of the day, his vote didn't make a difference. Perhaps the Tories knew it was going to be a blow out, and hence just wanted to say their entire party supported it.
Here is an idea, perhaps one of the Liberals voting to scrap the gun registry could have stayed home instead?
And then this post about extra and unneeded portions of the vaccination being exported.
Here is a possibility Warren, to help other countries? You know, actually be the generous, world citizens that Liberals pretend to be? But no, Warren believes he is entitled to his entitlements, and would rather stockpile antigen that they can't be used instead of actually exporting it to countries that can use it.
Typical.....
Hopefully you will soon be muzzled, as you are way out of line these days. Go back to being thoughtful, and full of ideas like you used to be a few years ago. I enjoyed that Warren.
Warren Kinsella is blaming the Prime Minster Stephen Harper for a Bloc MP voting in the House today to protect the gun registry? Warren, are you actually blaming PMSH for a lack of common sense from a Bloc MP? Lame.
Oh, perhaps that Bloc MP had no idea that the vote would be the blow out that it was. After all, at the end of the day, his vote didn't make a difference. Perhaps the Tories knew it was going to be a blow out, and hence just wanted to say their entire party supported it.
Here is an idea, perhaps one of the Liberals voting to scrap the gun registry could have stayed home instead?
And then this post about extra and unneeded portions of the vaccination being exported.
Here is a possibility Warren, to help other countries? You know, actually be the generous, world citizens that Liberals pretend to be? But no, Warren believes he is entitled to his entitlements, and would rather stockpile antigen that they can't be used instead of actually exporting it to countries that can use it.Typical.....
Hopefully you will soon be muzzled, as you are way out of line these days. Go back to being thoughtful, and full of ideas like you used to be a few years ago. I enjoyed that Warren.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
I am just wishing the Liberals would shut up
Oh my god, why can't the Liberals and their supporters just shut up. Do they really think, the the Conservatives had anything to do with their logo? That sounds absolutely lunatic, WK should start to stand for whacked out krack head.
Childish name calling, baseless accusations, making up excused for an election absolutely no one wants.....and they wonder why the are dropping in the polls.
A "C" with a maple leaf in the centre, yup, no one could think that up on their own.
Get a grip.
Update: So I guess the Conservatives also invented a time machine and went back into the past and had the Royal Canadian Air Force model their logo after them. Those evil bastards.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Bring on the lawsuit?
C A I T I - O N L I N E slanders one of Canada's newest Senators with a despicable blog by smear. CAITI-ONLINE is an annoying farce, but they should be careful about what they print. If I was Doug Finely I would sue over this, take all their money, then donate it to charity. It has never been proven that Mr Finely bribed anyone.
Now if CAITI posted "HARPER BREAKS ANOTHER PROMISE, APPOINTS MORE SENATORS", that is something I could agree with.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Rest in Peace Wafergate
So, does "wafergate" as some media outlets and bloggers call it have any legs? Is this faux scandal dominating conversations around both the boardroom table and the kitchen table? Or is this a complete tempest in a teapot?
In my opinion this story is a complete and utter waste of time. The media outlets, bloggers, and others looking to make this a wedge issue or spin it for partisan game need to give their heads a shake.
There is no story here! Warren Kinsella, a prominent though massively partisan blogger is once again throwing out insults and trying to spin this this into a story. The sad thing is, I used to read WK as he had some insightful stuff to say. But that was when he was on the outside looking in, and not that he is back in the war room he is a venomous little troll.
In his latest posting WK proudly hosts the video that "proves" Stephen Harper didn't consume the host, or at least that's what he thinks.
As Michael Geist has written tonight on his top-ranked blog, Radio-Canada - a fully-funded agency of the Harper government, last time I checked - has gone after YouTube for hosting the now-infamous clip I and others posted two days ago. Before it was yanked, that little YouTube video was seen by more than 50,000 people around the globe - which may explain why Rad-Can was pressured to get it off the Internet. (CP and the Star have a segment of the video posted by "Kramet1" here.)
But, in pushing to censor the video, the Harper Cons have drawn yet more attention to Harper's mistake, one that many Catholics consider sacreligious - and, moreover, revealed themselves to be in the full-on (but ineffective) damage-control mode.
Anyway. Here's the video again. I will keep posting it, over and over, until they give up.
You could call me, ahem, a willing host for this one.
Not only is WK desperately trying to manufacture outrage and create a story, WK is also trying to lay the foundation of a conspiracy theory. What is going though his head?
This "controversy" has been laid to rest. The priest has come on record saying that the Prime Minister did consume the host.
The priest who delivered the homily at the funeral mass of former governor-general Romeo LeBlanc said Stephen Harper behaved properly when he took part in the communion service last week.
“The Prime Minister did consume the host; he did not put it in his pocket,” said Father Arthur Bourgeois, who had been a friend of Mr. LeBlanc for 30 years.
Oh, and WK feel free to keep posting the video, since it has been proven the Prime Minister did consume the host you will just keep looking like the petty little hack that you have become.
Thankfully, at least some of the LibLoggers are seeing this "scandal" for what it is. Hattip to you RedTory!
In my opinion this story is a complete and utter waste of time. The media outlets, bloggers, and others looking to make this a wedge issue or spin it for partisan game need to give their heads a shake.
There is no story here! Warren Kinsella, a prominent though massively partisan blogger is once again throwing out insults and trying to spin this this into a story. The sad thing is, I used to read WK as he had some insightful stuff to say. But that was when he was on the outside looking in, and not that he is back in the war room he is a venomous little troll.
In his latest posting WK proudly hosts the video that "proves" Stephen Harper didn't consume the host, or at least that's what he thinks.
As Michael Geist has written tonight on his top-ranked blog, Radio-Canada - a fully-funded agency of the Harper government, last time I checked - has gone after YouTube for hosting the now-infamous clip I and others posted two days ago. Before it was yanked, that little YouTube video was seen by more than 50,000 people around the globe - which may explain why Rad-Can was pressured to get it off the Internet. (CP and the Star have a segment of the video posted by "Kramet1" here.)
But, in pushing to censor the video, the Harper Cons have drawn yet more attention to Harper's mistake, one that many Catholics consider sacreligious - and, moreover, revealed themselves to be in the full-on (but ineffective) damage-control mode.
Anyway. Here's the video again. I will keep posting it, over and over, until they give up.
You could call me, ahem, a willing host for this one.
Not only is WK desperately trying to manufacture outrage and create a story, WK is also trying to lay the foundation of a conspiracy theory. What is going though his head?
This "controversy" has been laid to rest. The priest has come on record saying that the Prime Minister did consume the host.
The priest who delivered the homily at the funeral mass of former governor-general Romeo LeBlanc said Stephen Harper behaved properly when he took part in the communion service last week.
“The Prime Minister did consume the host; he did not put it in his pocket,” said Father Arthur Bourgeois, who had been a friend of Mr. LeBlanc for 30 years.
Oh, and WK feel free to keep posting the video, since it has been proven the Prime Minister did consume the host you will just keep looking like the petty little hack that you have become.
Thankfully, at least some of the LibLoggers are seeing this "scandal" for what it is. Hattip to you RedTory!
Friday, May 15, 2009
Deficit or Debt? No, they are not interchangeable words
Oh dear god, sometimes I wonder why I even bother reading the Libloggers! One of their bloggers had a posting that caught my eye on the aggregator mostly because I knew it would be easy picking to take apart, and hey, I am feeling lazy tonight.
RGM Unlimited was pontificating about the 85 billion dollar deficit, and how Stephen Harper was saying how it could be bigger if required when he addressed a group of Quebec mayors.
RGM Unlimited was pontificating about the 85 billion dollar deficit, and how Stephen Harper was saying how it could be bigger if required when he addressed a group of Quebec mayors.
- All you lefties whined and cried to get deficit financing to help the "needy". You all whined when the budget came down, and made clucking sounds about how it wasn't enough. Now you whine if it might get bigger? You're all taking your cues from iffy.me and are flip-flopping around like a dying fish.
- It's not a 85 billion dollar deficit, unless you mean, a cumalative over 5 years. Or perhaps better sad, the Canadian government will be adding ~85 billion to the Canadian debt over the next 5 years. Stop trying to scare people with big numbers
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Let me explain to you how the Internet works
Liblogger Darryl Raymaker needs to go back to school to learn how the Internet works. His post is utter garbage, but I will focus only on one part in particular. It is late, and I have to work tomorrow.
His post is rambling, but near the end talks about Don Martin's article:
But the excesses of the Harperites are even too much for Martin. His column today describes the tasteless ads and gives his readers the address of the Conservative website on which the ads can be found. The domain name is registered in the Balkans – Montenegro, to be exact, which as an aside he tells us is governed by a coalition. The web administrator is based in Arizona. The Conservatives have taken as much trouble to obscure the particulars of the website as Mulroney did to hide the cash he got from Schreiber. In addition Martin tells us that websurfers have told him that the domain is used frequently to exhibit pornography!
Oh my god, not pornography on the Internet!!!! Some people host pornography on the Internet under the top level domain of ".me"?
Don and Darryl are talking about the new Conservative attack website www.ignatieff.me.
Darryls thesis is that the Conservatives are trying to hide that fact that they designed and put up the site. His prove is that the domain is "registered in the Balkans". I guess he doesn't understand how top level domains work on the Internet. Every single country in the world is assigned a top level domain, such as ".ca", ".me" is Montenegro's TLD.
Oh wow, damn Europeans are in on this conspiracy too.
The fact that the website is hosted in Arizona is also meanlingless, perhaps the webhosting company had a good deal on, and it was cheaper then hosting it themselves, or in Canada. You can buy hosting space almost anywhere, and you usually go for the cheapest. The website is not hosted in Montengro.
They picked ".me" as the TLD because its like "me", as in Ignatieff is all about himself. Or perhaps, because the Liberal Party already registered Ignatieff in all the other TLDs :)
And lastly, if the Conservatives were really trying so hard to hide their involvement in that site, they really should remove the "Authorized by the Registered Agent for the Conservative Party of Canada" tag line at the bottom of the site.
Yes Darryl, the Conservatives have taken a lot of trouble to hide who is behind that site! Don't worry, one day you too can understand how domain names work. And one day, you might get a brain.
His post is rambling, but near the end talks about Don Martin's article:
But the excesses of the Harperites are even too much for Martin. His column today describes the tasteless ads and gives his readers the address of the Conservative website on which the ads can be found. The domain name is registered in the Balkans – Montenegro, to be exact, which as an aside he tells us is governed by a coalition. The web administrator is based in Arizona. The Conservatives have taken as much trouble to obscure the particulars of the website as Mulroney did to hide the cash he got from Schreiber. In addition Martin tells us that websurfers have told him that the domain is used frequently to exhibit pornography!
Oh my god, not pornography on the Internet!!!! Some people host pornography on the Internet under the top level domain of ".me"?
Don and Darryl are talking about the new Conservative attack website www.ignatieff.me.
Darryls thesis is that the Conservatives are trying to hide that fact that they designed and put up the site. His prove is that the domain is "registered in the Balkans". I guess he doesn't understand how top level domains work on the Internet. Every single country in the world is assigned a top level domain, such as ".ca", ".me" is Montenegro's TLD.
Oh wow, damn Europeans are in on this conspiracy too.
The fact that the website is hosted in Arizona is also meanlingless, perhaps the webhosting company had a good deal on, and it was cheaper then hosting it themselves, or in Canada. You can buy hosting space almost anywhere, and you usually go for the cheapest. The website is not hosted in Montengro.
They picked ".me" as the TLD because its like "me", as in Ignatieff is all about himself. Or perhaps, because the Liberal Party already registered Ignatieff in all the other TLDs :)
And lastly, if the Conservatives were really trying so hard to hide their involvement in that site, they really should remove the "Authorized by the Registered Agent for the Conservative Party of Canada" tag line at the bottom of the site.
Yes Darryl, the Conservatives have taken a lot of trouble to hide who is behind that site! Don't worry, one day you too can understand how domain names work. And one day, you might get a brain.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Is Warren targeting Shaidle?
Seems so, with a blog all about hauling her in front of the HRCs. Is she a racist? Is she annoying? Is she a pink bunny? I don't really care, whatever Shaidle's shortcomings may or may not be, hauling her (or anyone) in front of those kangaroo courts is just asking for disaster.
How do I know that this blog is run and maintained by Warren Kinsella? Well, I don't but there is an interesting post where he refers to himself by his own name.
"frankly, Warren, I haven't spent any time on this yet today...I haven't put mind to it yet at all." So if Steve wasn't in on this decision, who was?"
Now I have absolutely no idea about the laws on this, but calling someone a racist on a public forum could open you up for all sorts of nasties, at least I would think.
How do I know that this blog is run and maintained by Warren Kinsella? Well, I don't but there is an interesting post where he refers to himself by his own name.
"frankly, Warren, I haven't spent any time on this yet today...I haven't put mind to it yet at all." So if Steve wasn't in on this decision, who was?"
Now I have absolutely no idea about the laws on this, but calling someone a racist on a public forum could open you up for all sorts of nasties, at least I would think.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Another "prominent" Liberal claims Canada is in deficit, lies about income tax
Garth Turner, a self-proclaimed communications expert claims on his blog that Canada is in deficit.
... spend more than Liberals, to reduce a surplus to a deficit,...
Garth Turner. Is. Dead. Wrong.
Repeat after me:
Canada is not in deficit.
Canada is not in deficit.
Canada is not in deficit.
Let's talk about this "massive" spending increases. As I have already talked about here, you can see that most of the increased spending is in transfers to the provinces and territories. The finance department is now projecting about a 3 billion dollar surplus, a slight increase from the 2.3 billion originally forecast.
If you don't believe, what about what the Globe and Mail said?
Substantial increases in transfers to the provinces have meant that provincial budgets are now far healthier, and federal-provincial bickering has dropped to a dull roar.
Garth, are you against increased transfers to the province to improve health care and education? Would you prefer that the Government of Canada keeps those billions to spend in March Madness and instead force the provinces and territories to raise it from increased taxes?
Jim Stanford, economist for the Canadian Auto Workers conceded that "Our schools and our hospitals are in better shape than they would have been otherwise,".
The lowered corporate tax cuts (that the NDP wants to take away) have helped Canada's corporations remain competitive.
The last round of tax cuts, announced last November, were particularly well timed to help stimulate a flagging economy.
Garth goes onto to lay out another whopper out when he claims that "Income taxes have not come down a dime since Harper came to power. In fact, he raised them in his first budget.".
You sir, are deliberately lying.
This government has lowered the income tax paid to the government for all Canadians, in the 2007 fall fiscal update income tax reductions have occurred or were scheduled:
Lowering personal income taxes for all taxpayers, which, together with the GST reduction, provides almost $20 billion in tax relief to individuals over the next two years. It will do this through:
So Garth, can we expect an apology from you regarding your misleading and outright lies contained in your blog post?
We're better off with Harper.
... spend more than Liberals, to reduce a surplus to a deficit,...
Garth Turner. Is. Dead. Wrong.
Repeat after me:
Canada is not in deficit.
Canada is not in deficit.
Canada is not in deficit.
Let's talk about this "massive" spending increases. As I have already talked about here, you can see that most of the increased spending is in transfers to the provinces and territories. The finance department is now projecting about a 3 billion dollar surplus, a slight increase from the 2.3 billion originally forecast.
If you don't believe, what about what the Globe and Mail said?
Substantial increases in transfers to the provinces have meant that provincial budgets are now far healthier, and federal-provincial bickering has dropped to a dull roar.
Garth, are you against increased transfers to the province to improve health care and education? Would you prefer that the Government of Canada keeps those billions to spend in March Madness and instead force the provinces and territories to raise it from increased taxes?
Jim Stanford, economist for the Canadian Auto Workers conceded that "Our schools and our hospitals are in better shape than they would have been otherwise,".
The lowered corporate tax cuts (that the NDP wants to take away) have helped Canada's corporations remain competitive.
The last round of tax cuts, announced last November, were particularly well timed to help stimulate a flagging economy.
Garth goes onto to lay out another whopper out when he claims that "Income taxes have not come down a dime since Harper came to power. In fact, he raised them in his first budget.".
You sir, are deliberately lying.
This government has lowered the income tax paid to the government for all Canadians, in the 2007 fall fiscal update income tax reductions have occurred or were scheduled:
- An increase in the basic personal amount exemption to $9,600 from $8,929, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007;
- Two years later, on Jan. 1, 2009, the basic personal amount exemption will be increased to $10,100;
- The lowest personal income tax rate moves to 15 per cent from 15.5 per cent, effective Jan. 1 2007, undoing a change made in the first Conservative budget.
Lowering personal income taxes for all taxpayers, which, together with the GST reduction, provides almost $20 billion in tax relief to individuals over the next two years. It will do this through:
- A new Canada Employment Credit—a tax credit on employment income up to $500 effective July 1, 2006. The credit amount will double to $1,000, effective January 1, 2007.
- Increases in the basic personal amount—the amount all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax—so that it grows each year and remains above currently legislated levels for 2005, 2006 and 2007.
So Garth, can we expect an apology from you regarding your misleading and outright lies contained in your blog post?
We're better off with Harper.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Liberal bloggers can't read
James Curran is on a rampage today, attacking Conservatives for their religious beliefs while conveniently ignoring Liberals with the same beliefs.
It doesn't end there, James Curran is now attempting "mislead" his readers by making false statements about existing laws.
PM Harper and Justice guy Rob Nicholson put forth a Bill raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. In other words, 14 year olds and 15 year olds are not mature enough to determine whether or not they should be able to have sex. So an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old could be charged with rape.
Mr. Curran, did you even read the article you linked to about the law before writing your claptrap? Or are you betting on that most readers won't click the link and will just take your word for it?
From YOUR link:
The Criminal Code contains a "close-in-age" exemption of less than five years, added so that teens who engage in sex are not breaking the law. For instance, a 19-year-old could have relations with a 15-year-old without being criminally charged, provided the older partner is not is a position of trust or authority over the younger teen and the relationship is not exploitive.
This law brings us into line with many other western countries. This is not to criminalize teenage sex, it is to provide protection from those who prey on the young.
Indeed, what do you know?
I see. So, 14 year olds don't have the mental capacity to have sex, but they have the mental capacity to determine the scale of crimes they commit? And these same 14 year old criminals will be named for these crimes to act as a further deterrent to future crimes they may or may not commit (depending on whether or not they been sodomized to death in a general population of adults in one of the new penitentiaries Mr. Harper will have to build to accommodate all these new criminals).
Are you equating sex with adults to murdering someone? Teens can still have sex as long as it is not with an adult.
The is a distinct difference, when you murder someone you KNOW there will be a consequence. With sex, there MAY be a consequence, like pregnancy, or a STD. When you commit a violent crime the youth knows there IS a consequence. With sex, they HOPE there isn't.
Oh, and nice disgusting reference to sodomy, and it is just wrong to boot.
It doesn't end there, James Curran is now attempting "mislead" his readers by making false statements about existing laws.
PM Harper and Justice guy Rob Nicholson put forth a Bill raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. In other words, 14 year olds and 15 year olds are not mature enough to determine whether or not they should be able to have sex. So an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old could be charged with rape.
Mr. Curran, did you even read the article you linked to about the law before writing your claptrap? Or are you betting on that most readers won't click the link and will just take your word for it?
From YOUR link:
The Criminal Code contains a "close-in-age" exemption of less than five years, added so that teens who engage in sex are not breaking the law. For instance, a 19-year-old could have relations with a 15-year-old without being criminally charged, provided the older partner is not is a position of trust or authority over the younger teen and the relationship is not exploitive.
This law brings us into line with many other western countries. This is not to criminalize teenage sex, it is to provide protection from those who prey on the young.
Indeed, what do you know?
I see. So, 14 year olds don't have the mental capacity to have sex, but they have the mental capacity to determine the scale of crimes they commit? And these same 14 year old criminals will be named for these crimes to act as a further deterrent to future crimes they may or may not commit (depending on whether or not they been sodomized to death in a general population of adults in one of the new penitentiaries Mr. Harper will have to build to accommodate all these new criminals).
Are you equating sex with adults to murdering someone? Teens can still have sex as long as it is not with an adult.
The is a distinct difference, when you murder someone you KNOW there will be a consequence. With sex, there MAY be a consequence, like pregnancy, or a STD. When you commit a violent crime the youth knows there IS a consequence. With sex, they HOPE there isn't.
Oh, and nice disgusting reference to sodomy, and it is just wrong to boot.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Some peoples kids
NobeltonClear found some article in the Toronto Star predicting a deficit in FY 09. Wow, considering no budget has been released yet, that seems to smack of some serous conjecture.
NobeltonClear editorializes on this article:
No wonder the Conservatives cancelled the new supply ships our military needs to get the supplies to Afghanistan and cancelled the Coast Guard new equipment putting our national security at risk
Perhaps someone should tell him the ships can't get to Afghanistan, as they would have taken years to build, and the fact that Afghanistan is a landlocked country.
Oh, and the money is still there, they are just going back to the drawing board. The Conservative government unlike its predecessors will not spend money to just spend money.
We're better off with Harper.
NobeltonClear editorializes on this article:
No wonder the Conservatives cancelled the new supply ships our military needs to get the supplies to Afghanistan and cancelled the Coast Guard new equipment putting our national security at risk
Perhaps someone should tell him the ships can't get to Afghanistan, as they would have taken years to build, and the fact that Afghanistan is a landlocked country.
Oh, and the money is still there, they are just going back to the drawing board. The Conservative government unlike its predecessors will not spend money to just spend money.
We're better off with Harper.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Enough with the Lies about the Afghanistan Mission
Perhaps I was trolled, but I responded to Liblogger CastorRouge's blog post "By The Numbers: Afghanistan" .
I started to respond as a comment and soon realized it had ballooned out way to big, so I shall respond with my own blog post.
The point of my comment was to highlight the your ability to use statistics to make the Conservatives look bad and ignore reality.
It is Liberal propaganda that the mission was changed by the Conservatives. No one forced the Conservatives to send them there, they were already there!
Paul Martin's government sent them to the south. Bill Graham the then Defence Minister went on his "Pre-body tag tour".
FACT: Paul Martin's Liberals sent the CF to the south. Check the dates, do you really think the Conservatives were able to change the mission and deploy thousands of troops in region within weeks of being elected? Crap, they were not sworn in until 6 Feb 06.
FACT: Parliament voted to extend the mission in 2006. Even after it was quote/unquote changed to be more aggressive.
FACT: The Liberals supported the second extension.
FACT: The Conservatives purchased additional RG-31s to protect our troops.
FACT: The Conservatives sent Leopard tanks in region to help protect our troops.
FACT: The Conservatives leased additional Leopards to protect our our troops and fix a deficiency.
FACT: The Conservatives have purchased C-17s to move our equipment and people around. Oh, and to help deliver humanitarian aid.
I think I destroyed your point about the Government sitting on their hands about troop safety. And I think I countered your points on the allegation of the Conservative Government "changing the honourable peacekeeping mission the Liberals had in mind".
Don't support the mission if you don't want to, its your right. Just don't bury you hand in the sand.
I started to respond as a comment and soon realized it had ballooned out way to big, so I shall respond with my own blog post.
The point of my comment was to highlight the your ability to use statistics to make the Conservatives look bad and ignore reality.
It is Liberal propaganda that the mission was changed by the Conservatives. No one forced the Conservatives to send them there, they were already there!
Paul Martin's government sent them to the south. Bill Graham the then Defence Minister went on his "Pre-body tag tour".
FACT: Paul Martin's Liberals sent the CF to the south. Check the dates, do you really think the Conservatives were able to change the mission and deploy thousands of troops in region within weeks of being elected? Crap, they were not sworn in until 6 Feb 06.
FACT: Parliament voted to extend the mission in 2006. Even after it was quote/unquote changed to be more aggressive.
FACT: The Liberals supported the second extension.
FACT: The Conservatives purchased additional RG-31s to protect our troops.
FACT: The Conservatives sent Leopard tanks in region to help protect our troops.
FACT: The Conservatives leased additional Leopards to protect our our troops and fix a deficiency.
FACT: The Conservatives have purchased C-17s to move our equipment and people around. Oh, and to help deliver humanitarian aid.
I think I destroyed your point about the Government sitting on their hands about troop safety. And I think I countered your points on the allegation of the Conservative Government "changing the honourable peacekeeping mission the Liberals had in mind".
Don't support the mission if you don't want to, its your right. Just don't bury you hand in the sand.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Left versus Common Sense
I know, I know, no contest :)
I am continually amazed at the sheer "out to lunchness" coming from the so called enlightened Left.
Liberal blogger Liberal 4evr has a wonderful post about South Ossetia. Wonderful because it is so easy to dissect. It makes a nice light break from real work :)
It is amazing out there in media land, all are making their best to make the Russians the bad guys, Georgia invades a U.N. protected area, kill Russian peacekeepers, bomb civilians in the capital, over 3000 dead in south ossetian and they make the president of georgia the hero?
Wait? South Ossetia is a UN protected safe area? That is BS, it is not. Show me a link anywhere credible that backs that up? 3000 dead? Human Rights Watch alleged that the Russian death toll figure of 2,000 was unfounded and presumed it to be due to the result of an alleged "massive Russia propaganda machine which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the scale of casualties." Russian peacekeepers? Originally, it was 500 Russians, 500 South Ossetians, 500 North Ossestians, and 500 Georgians under an OSCE mandate. Of course, the Russians armed the South Ossetians. UN peacekeepers don't tend to arm one of the sides. And let's not forget that the Georgians and the South Ossetians (maybe the Russians too) have been skirmishing over that area for years. Dozens killed over the years.
We see a few thousand people listening to sakashvili in the georgian capital, the media talks about the victims in geogia, under 50 people killed so far, but if we want to know what is really going on we have to watch the online Russia today to see georgians in their capital actually blaming sakashvili for all their pain, he is in a lot of trouble, geogians are already stating to blame him in great numbers but it is nowhere to be seen in our "independent media", the refugees of the war he started are not getting any help and lost everything because of his stupid decision to take on Russia, he must of had a go ahead from someone, he can't be that dumb.
Liberal 4evr you seem to have lost your period :) Oh wait, I found it at the very end. Wait a minute, are you taking the word of the Russian media over the likes of CNN, BBC, and Sky News? Seriously? Really? The same Russian media where if you are critical of Putin or the establishment you get poisoned or otherwise murdered? Of course I wouldn't blame the Georgians from being a might ticked off at their President over this fiasco.
I hate propaganda, it is, by far the most dangerous form of information that could cause a wider war. And as for the american politicians, I say this, Kosovo, Bosnia, seperated from Yugoslavia, and you said they had the right, and Serbia had no right to try to get them back with military violence, georgia tried to do the same thing Milosevic did, so whats the difference here???
I agree, propaganda is bad. However, your analogy is flawed, Yugoslavia basically disintegrated once Tito died. Croatia, Bosnia etc fought for their independence against Serbia who was trying to hold the failed state together. The UN put thousands of peacekeepers they to monitor the peace and disarm the combatants. There were war crimes committed by all the different sides, and there were a lot of sides. NATO intervened in Kosovo due to the prolonged, systematic ethnic cleansing that was occurring. They didn't intervene when civilians died during the course of "normal" fighting. Russia would have a lot more moral high ground if they hadn't invaded, and continue to occupy swaths of Georgia countryside.
If he was wrong then is not sakashvili wrong also? Should he not end up at the Hague? And another word "Iraq". So you have no high ground here, none what so ever. War is wrong on both sides, but one has to know the truth of how it started....
Repeat after me, Milosevic engaged in systematic state sponsored ethnic cleansing. So far there is little evidence that the same occurred in South Ossetia. Oh wait, the Russians claim this.
I have to give the BBC credit, they have started to talk about both sides, more about the georgian side, but also the other in a smaller tone.
I see, the BBC isn't a total loss then. Media bias indeed. You know, I must have missed the memo where all the media suddenly turned into stark raving mad and war waging bumpkins.
I am continually amazed at the sheer "out to lunchness" coming from the so called enlightened Left.
Liberal blogger Liberal 4evr has a wonderful post about South Ossetia. Wonderful because it is so easy to dissect. It makes a nice light break from real work :)
It is amazing out there in media land, all are making their best to make the Russians the bad guys, Georgia invades a U.N. protected area, kill Russian peacekeepers, bomb civilians in the capital, over 3000 dead in south ossetian and they make the president of georgia the hero?
Wait? South Ossetia is a UN protected safe area? That is BS, it is not. Show me a link anywhere credible that backs that up? 3000 dead? Human Rights Watch alleged that the Russian death toll figure of 2,000 was unfounded and presumed it to be due to the result of an alleged "massive Russia propaganda machine which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the scale of casualties." Russian peacekeepers? Originally, it was 500 Russians, 500 South Ossetians, 500 North Ossestians, and 500 Georgians under an OSCE mandate. Of course, the Russians armed the South Ossetians. UN peacekeepers don't tend to arm one of the sides. And let's not forget that the Georgians and the South Ossetians (maybe the Russians too) have been skirmishing over that area for years. Dozens killed over the years.
We see a few thousand people listening to sakashvili in the georgian capital, the media talks about the victims in geogia, under 50 people killed so far, but if we want to know what is really going on we have to watch the online Russia today to see georgians in their capital actually blaming sakashvili for all their pain, he is in a lot of trouble, geogians are already stating to blame him in great numbers but it is nowhere to be seen in our "independent media", the refugees of the war he started are not getting any help and lost everything because of his stupid decision to take on Russia, he must of had a go ahead from someone, he can't be that dumb.
Liberal 4evr you seem to have lost your period :) Oh wait, I found it at the very end. Wait a minute, are you taking the word of the Russian media over the likes of CNN, BBC, and Sky News? Seriously? Really? The same Russian media where if you are critical of Putin or the establishment you get poisoned or otherwise murdered? Of course I wouldn't blame the Georgians from being a might ticked off at their President over this fiasco.
I hate propaganda, it is, by far the most dangerous form of information that could cause a wider war. And as for the american politicians, I say this, Kosovo, Bosnia, seperated from Yugoslavia, and you said they had the right, and Serbia had no right to try to get them back with military violence, georgia tried to do the same thing Milosevic did, so whats the difference here???
I agree, propaganda is bad. However, your analogy is flawed, Yugoslavia basically disintegrated once Tito died. Croatia, Bosnia etc fought for their independence against Serbia who was trying to hold the failed state together. The UN put thousands of peacekeepers they to monitor the peace and disarm the combatants. There were war crimes committed by all the different sides, and there were a lot of sides. NATO intervened in Kosovo due to the prolonged, systematic ethnic cleansing that was occurring. They didn't intervene when civilians died during the course of "normal" fighting. Russia would have a lot more moral high ground if they hadn't invaded, and continue to occupy swaths of Georgia countryside.
If he was wrong then is not sakashvili wrong also? Should he not end up at the Hague? And another word "Iraq". So you have no high ground here, none what so ever. War is wrong on both sides, but one has to know the truth of how it started....
Repeat after me, Milosevic engaged in systematic state sponsored ethnic cleansing. So far there is little evidence that the same occurred in South Ossetia. Oh wait, the Russians claim this.
I have to give the BBC credit, they have started to talk about both sides, more about the georgian side, but also the other in a smaller tone.
I see, the BBC isn't a total loss then. Media bias indeed. You know, I must have missed the memo where all the media suddenly turned into stark raving mad and war waging bumpkins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)