• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

all through the last election cycle, the hopeychangers' favourite trick was to gin up outlandish and improbable spending numbers for full blown wars in iraq and afghanistan that weren't even happening anymore. that even W was winding out of. any talk of finding trillions of "savings" after 2009 out of iraq and afghanistan "war savings", like they tried to do and like that article is trying to do, is profoundly stupid. doing that in 2013 is stupid. doing that for any calculations that reach out of 2075 is even stupider. actually, its not STUPID, it's just cynical and sneaky.

as to his statist schemes, go back and look at his first state of the union address, and then his most recent one. they reveal the true extent of his schemes. i submit those speeches are what he would dearly love to do. all those "investments" in infrastructure, "green energy", health care, free university, etc. etc. etc. the only reason he can't do it is because he can't. he can't even garner enough support for token gun restrictions. he is so poor at working in a bipartisan manner that he can't even find enough goodwill to get a very minor gun control bill done after sandy hook.

now, you'll put the blame solely on the GOP, and they own some of that, but the bigger chunk of the blame falls on this president who in any and every major legislative negotiation has shown himself to be a mean-spirited, hyper-partisan, smug, immovable prick. his statist schemes (thank god) won't go anywhere because his first (and most important) statist scheme, harpycare, so angered americans that they elected republicans in droves to congress to block him.
 
Last edited:
all through the last election cycle, the hopeychangers' favourite trick was to gin up outlandish and improbable spending numbers for full blown wars in iraq and afghanistan that weren't even happening anymore. that even W was winding out of. any talk of finding trillions of "savings" after 2009 out of iraq and afghanistan "war savings", like they tried to do and like that article is trying to do, is profoundly stupid. doing that it 2013 is stupid. doing that for any calculations that reach out of 2075 is even stupider. actually, its not STUPID, it's just cynical and sneaky.
Click to expand...

amazing how you accuse others of being 'sneaky' in a paragraph filled with lies and untruths.

nobody has said there would be 'trillions in savings' by winding down the wars.

you are being totally dishonest here. fact. wars are expensive. fact. deployment costs money. fact. paying for their medical expenses and benefits costs money. fact. arming them costs money. fact. reconnaissance and mission planning costs money. fact. not doing these things, or reducing how much you do them, saves money.

as to his statist schemes, go back and look at first state of the union address, and then his most recent one. they reveal the true extent of his schemes.
Click to expand...

you're a joke

i submit those speeches are what he would dearly love to do. all those "investments" in infrastructure,
Click to expand...

you are clueless. investments in quotations?

bridge needs to be repaired + here's the money to do it = investment.

it creates jobs. it ensures proper functioning of transport networks. etc. etc. etc.

fact is, road repair, bridge repair, highway building is all necessary. it is necessary for standard of living. it is necessary for commerce,

"green energy",
Click to expand...

do you understand how subsidies work?

i don't think that you do.

i guess we should also criticize republican administrations for their complicity in granting subsidies and tax breaks to farmers, oil producers, energy companies, etc.

health care,
Click to expand...

oh, god forbid.

what next kurtz... emboldened teacher's unions???

THE HORROR

free university,
Click to expand...

yes obama wants 100% state funded post secondary education. front and centre on his agenda.

etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

etc etc etc undeed

the only reason he can't do it is because he can't. he can't even garner enough support for a token gun restrictions. he is so poor at working in a bipartisan manner that he can't even find enough goodwill to get a very minor gun control bill done after sandy hook.
Click to expand...

yeah, all obama's fault.

now, you'll put the blame solely on the GOP, and they own some of that, but the bigger chunk of the blame falls on this president who in any and every major legislative negotiation has shown himself to be a mean-spirited, hyper-partisan, smug, immovable prick. his statist schemes (thank god) won't go anywhere because his first (and most important) statist scheme, harpycare, so angered americans that they elected republicans in droves to congress to block him.
Click to expand...

listen to yourself. you're crazy.

'he won't do waht i want.. so he's a ****in *******'.

meanwhile, the republican party has now spent 15% of its time (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/u...vote-again-on-repealing-health-care.html?_r=0) conducting 37 meaningless, symbolic votes... at $1.5 mn a pop (http://www.medicaldaily.com/article...urance-premiums-lower-expected-two-states.htm)... to repeal obamacare.

and you're upset with obama and his wasteful statist schemes
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

If the allegations against Rob Ford are accurate - ideologically the right should want Ford to be put in prison for 10plus years (tough on crime and tough on drugs). The Left should want him to admit he has a substance abuse issue and seek the help he needs to kick the habit before it harms him and his family.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

I wondered, if the video isn't real, why isn't Ford screaming from the rooftops that he will sue Pravda, err the Star.......well, it looks like it's a one way street.

From the National Post.....open season with impunity on anyone the media doesn't like.

Q Could he sue for libel? The U.S. website Gawker — which broke the story — has made declarations that appear downright reckless compared to the cautiously phrased news reports in Canada. Which would be the more likely target?

A Suing is risky, perhaps more so in the United States than Canada, as the jurisprudence on libelling public figures is different. In Canada, truth is an absolute defense to libel, so if an accused media can demonstrate the truth of its reporting, it is off the hook. There is also a new standard, recently set by the Supreme Court of Canada, known as responsible communication on matters of public interest, according to which even false allegations can be saved from libel claims, if they were fairly reported with opportunities for rebuttal or denial. But in the United States, ever since a civil rights era case between the New York Times and a Southern police chief, the burden of proof has shifted from the defendant to the public figure, who must prove the falsehood of the allegations. That case enshrined the principle that a public figure must prove the alleged defamation was done with “actual malice,” which means either knowledge it was false or reckless disregard for the possibility. In a nation that made free speech its first constitutional amendment, that is a high bar.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...k-surfaces-the-city-cant-force-him-to-resign/
Click to expand...

Never mind politicians, if a paper digs up what it thinks is dirt on someone and they give them a chance to "rebut/deny" the claim, they are off the hook. Wonderful. How many people will get a job if they are falsely accused of pedophilia? Rape? It's a stain that not matter how false, almost impossible to erase. Politicians accused of whatever? Completely open season.....as long as they are given a chance to rebut/deny the accusations.

When exactly did the media get this kind of enormous, practically unaccountable power?
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

there is no rebuttal/denial element.

[28] In Grant, at para. 126, we hold that the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest applies where:


A. The publication is on a matter of public interest, and

B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to:

(a) the seriousness of the allegation;

(b) the public importance of the matter;

(c) the urgency of the matter;

(d) the status and reliability of the source;

(e) whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported;

(f) whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;

(g) whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”); and

(h) any other relevant circumstances.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc62/2009scc62.html

(3) Summary of the Required Elements

[126] The defence of public interest responsible communication is assessed with reference to the broad thrust of the publication in question. It will apply where:


A. The publication is on a matter of public interest, and

B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to:

(a) the seriousness of the allegation;

(b) the public importance of the matter;

(c) the urgency of the matter;

(d) the status and reliability of the source;

(e) whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported;

(f) whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;

(g) whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”); and

(h) any other relevant circumstances.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc61/2009scc61.html
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

(d) the status and reliability of the source;

Gee, I wonder what sources media can use that still "qualify"? Drug dealers?
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

well that would likely be a consideration against the defendant if this were to proceed to litigation. but at the same time the fact that they are a drug dealer should not automatically disqualify
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

the fact that they are a drug dealer should not automatically disqualify
Click to expand...

Especially considering the nature of allegations....

This isn't just "a" drug dealer claiming he has a video of Rob Ford smoking crack. This is allegedly Rob Ford's drug dealer claiming he has a video (corroborated by 3 media members) of Rob Ford smoking crack.

Would it be "nice" if the allegations were coming from a church going leader of the local boyscout troop...absolutely, but then the question would be: "how the **** did that guy get a video of someone smoking crack".
 
mbow30 said:
amazing how you accuse others of being 'sneaky' in a paragraph filled with lies and untruths.

nobody has said there would be 'trillions in savings' by winding down the wars.
Click to expand...

uh, yeah, he did. he absolutely did. go check out the big slice of his graph labelled "discretionary war cuts".
 
mbow30 said:
meanwhile, the republican party has now spent 15% of its time (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/u...vote-again-on-repealing-health-care.html?_r=0) conducting 37 meaningless, symbolic votes... at $1.5 mn a pop (http://www.medicaldaily.com/article...urance-premiums-lower-expected-two-states.htm)... to repeal obamacare.

and you're upset with obama and his wasteful statist schemes
Click to expand...


are you serious with this? really? you and the NYT are holding up $50mil in what they call "meaningless" votes to counteract trillions of dollars in deficit spending?

you, hopeychange, and your media allies will spare no effort to trivialize the explosion of gov't spending and to try to explain it away. the GOP could hold a thousand of those votes the NYT calls "meaningless", and they wouldnt add up to what hopeychange spends before he's finished his first teleprompter speech of the day.
 
are you for real?

it is entirely, 100%, inherently symbolic. it has a 0% chance of passing, or resulting in any change to the law.

they have conducted this vote nearly FORTY TIMES.

it has failed every single time.

spare no effort to trivialize the explosion of gov't spending
Click to expand...

you're a joke
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

MindzEye said:
Especially considering the nature of allegations....

This isn't just "a" drug dealer claiming he has a video of Rob Ford smoking crack. This is allegedly Rob Ford's drug dealer claiming he has a video (corroborated by 3 media members) of Rob Ford smoking crack.

Would it be "nice" if the allegations were coming from a church going leader of the local boyscout troop...absolutely, but then the question would be: "how the **** did that guy get a video of someone smoking crack".
Click to expand...

Yep, the "status and reliability of the source" in this case includes the video. Notice the Star didn't report on the allegations the first time they were contacted saying that these guys had a video of Ford smoking crack. They waited until two reporters had seen the video, then went public with it. Pretty hard for Ford to impugn the reliability of a video that shows him inhaling from a crack pipe, unless it turns out to be a very obvious forgery.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

HabsAddict said:
I wondered, if the video isn't real, why isn't Ford screaming from the rooftops that he will sue Pravda, err the Star.......well, it looks like it's a one way street.

From the National Post.....open season with impunity on anyone the media doesn't like.

Never mind politicians, if a paper digs up what it thinks is dirt on someone and they give them a chance to "rebut/deny" the claim, they are off the hook. Wonderful. How many people will get a job if they are falsely accused of pedophilia? Rape? It's a stain that not matter how false, almost impossible to erase. Politicians accused of whatever? Completely open season.....as long as they are given a chance to rebut/deny the accusations.

When exactly did the media get this kind of enormous, practically unaccountable power?
Click to expand...

the star could most certainly be sued if the video doesn't exist.

Ford's silence speaks volumes.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Waiting for @TOMayorFord pic.twitter.com/zKC0GNjjFh

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Cllr Mammolitti asks assembled media throng in front of Mayor's office.."Anybody got a pipe?"

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Mayor heads up to council, in corner of elevator blocked by staff. His press secrtry appeared to indicate an avail would be happening. #sl

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Mayor Ford up in the chamber talking to his budget chief.#sl pic.twitter.com/0RZC2p3YgX

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Speaking to Mayor's Press Secretary: I don't know where 11 presser came from. Plans today are "fluid".#sl

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Mayor will rise and speak in council on casino issue.#sl

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Turns out Mayor Ford did speak at 11...on the casino issue. Mayor saying again he doesn't want casino. Placed blame at feet of Premier.#sl

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Speaking to Mayor's staff, there is no clear sense of whether or not Ford will address allegations today.#sl

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Mayor Ford and his brother Cllr Doug Ford come back together into council chamber.#sl pic.twitter.com/nqFYs8jMqv

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
So after more than a year, the casino debate has been dribbled down to decisive no. That was fun.#sl

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
You know things are wild a city hall, when the "zany FM radio guy" joins scrums.

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Mayor Ford elbows his way through reporters. Still no comment.#sl

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Mayor Ford has left his office.

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Mayor Ford has left city hall. He rolled his window up as I approached his car.#sl
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Jamie Strashin @StrashinCBC
Turns out Mayor Ford did speak at 11...on the casino issue. Mayor saying again he doesn't want casino. Placed blame at feet of Premier.#sl
Click to expand...

That's pretty typical for him....
 
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/where-are-the-deficit-celebrations/?smid=re-share

Where Are The Deficit Celebrations?

For three years and more Beltway politics has been all about the deficit. Urgent action was needed to avert crisis. A Grand Bargain absolutely had to be reached. Fix the Debt, now now now!

So where are the celebrations now that the debt issue looks, if not solved, at least greatly mitigated? And it’s not just recovering revenues: health costs, the biggest driver of long-run spending, have slowed dramatically.

What we’re getting from the deficit scolds, however, are at best grudging admissions that things may look a bit less dire — if not expressions of regret that the public seems insufficiently alarmed.

Jamelle Bouie gets at a large part of it by noting what was obvious all along: for many deficit scolds, it was never really about the debt, it was about using deficits as a way to attack the social safety net. Deficits may have come down, but not the way they were supposed to — hey, we were supposed to be kicking 65 and 66 year-olds off Medicare, not doing something so goody-goody as managing costs better.

There is, however, a secondary factor: think about the personal career incentives of the professional deficit scolds. You’re Bowles/Simpson, with a lucrative and ego-satisfying business of going around the country delivering ominous talks about The Deficit; you’re an employee of one of the many Pete Peterson front groups; and now, all of a sudden, the deficit is receding, and you had nothing to do with it. It’s a disaster!

And so the deficit progress must be minimized and bad-mouthed
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top