Merged: Canadian politics: the Justin Trudeau years

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Quote:

His SJW nonsense is getting tired fast....

What sort of "nonsense" are you thinking about?

Wasn't the topic of Trudeau's SJW tendencies discussed in the first page or so of this thread?

I seem to remember at the time the main criticism was his statements about certain types of video games, music and pornography harming women.

Other things that he's done that might be considered SJW-ish
- when he complained about a government publication that described female circumcision as 'barbaric'.
- Picking a cabinet that is half-female. Yes, it might make some sense that, since half the population is female, half the cabinet should be as well. But, only 27% of the Liberal MPs are female. That means that women are now over-represented in cabinet, and assuming the same distribution of competencies, in some cases they didn't pick the 'best' person for all the cabinet posts

[Blue Mountain]

What a way to blow a lot of goodwill, Mr. Trudeau.

So far I've liked what I've seen from his policies, especially with regard to unmuzzling scientists and improving relations with Aboriginal people. Yesterday he made a formal apology in the House of Commons to the Sikh community for the 1914 Komagata Maru incident, in which Canada (a member of the British Empire) refused to let a group of Sikhs from India (also a member of the British Empire) entry into Canada.

Then that very same day he goes and does something impetuous like this: Canadian Prime Minister manhandles opposition MP in the House, elbows another in the chest.

Impatient at the slow speed of entry of a group of MPs into the House for a vote, Mr. Trudeau left his seat and "with anger fierce in his eyes" approached the group. What transpired was a physical altercation between the Prime Minister and a fellow Member of the Parliament, with another MP getting an elbow in the chest from the PM. Then followed a heated verbal exchange between Trudeau and the leader of one of the opposition parties.

Such physical altercations in the House are extremely rare, and I've never heard of any other involving the Prime Minister. Not in Canda, nor the UK, nor Australia or New Zealand. In many other workplaces this would be considered an assault. In a large company it would likely lead to a reprimand or even termination. In a small business there would probably be meetings between the perpetrators and management, and a great deal of concern over the person's conduct.

I am decidedly unimpressed with Justin Trudeau's conduct.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Then that very same day he goes and does something impetuous like this: Canadian Prime Minister manhandles opposition MP in the House, elbows another in the chest.

You're prime minister, and new WWE heavyweight champion of the world!

I'm willing to assume the elbowing was a mistake. Was quite strange though that he felt the need to get involved in helping people to their seats.

Overall, I don't think its a major issue. What I do have an issue with was that it was during a vote on assisted suicide. The Liberals (at one point before backing off) decided to force all MPs to vote for the legislation (rather than letting individual MPs decide, as the NDP and conservatives did). And the Liberals voted to limit debate on the bill, which was criticized by the conservatives, NDP and greens.

Now, I don't think the conservatives are squeaky clean... under Harper they limited debate dozens of times, and Harper was accused of being a dictator who ran everything out of the PMO. Yet here are the Liberals, painted as the "good guys" by so many, doing the same sort of things the conservatives were criticized for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05...n_9843314.html

Quote:

Such physical altercations in the House are extremely rare..

Actually I've never heard of actual violence occurring.

Closest I remember was when Darrel Stinson (reform MP) challenged another MP to a fight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrel...Political_life

[Joey McGee]

Oh my God they were trying to stall the vote process by not sitting down and he sent a message, sit the **** down and stop being such bitches and do your *********** job! Accidentally bumping into someone isn't assaulting someone by elbowing them in the chest... holy ****... Even pushing the guy towards his seat being called "manhandling" is some overly sensitive crap... I agree he shouldn't have done it, clearly lost his temper, but I agree with the intent. This is the guy who yelled "YOU PIECE OF ******" in parliament when Kent was spewing ignorance about climate change while attacking the liberals... people are shocked? When I heard it on the radio they made it sound like he intentionally threw his elbow... what a *********** joke! He apologized in a sincere way, few people care.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Now, I don't think the conservatives are squeaky clean... under Harper they limited debate dozens of times, and Harper was accused of being a dictator who ran everything out of the PMO. Yet here are the Liberals, painted as the "good guys" by so many, doing the same sort of things the conservatives were criticized for.

There's an old saying which covers the bolded: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Since my opinion of Trudeau was low to begin with, this little affair didn't do much to reduce it. But, perhaps, it will wake a bit more of the general population up to the fact that Trudeau is an apparently talentless empty suit who only has what he has because of his daddy's name.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Now, I don't think the conservatives are squeaky clean... under Harper they limited debate dozens of times, and Harper was accused of being a dictator who ran everything out of the PMO. Yet here are the Liberals, painted as the "good guys" by so many, doing the same sort of things the conservatives were criticized for.

I think that's the first time I've ever used the laughing dog! That's like a heroin and crack addict saying someone does the same things as them because they have a couple of beers once in a while. Did you read the judge's opinions on the PMO at the end of the Duffy trial? Priceless.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I think that's the first time I've ever used the laughing dog! That's like a heroin and crack addict saying someone does the same things as them because they have a couple of beers once in a while. Did you read the judge's opinions on the PMO at the end of the Duffy trial? Priceless.

Two words: sponsorship scandal.

It was a pretty big deal when that came to light, and caused the Liberals no small amount of headaches. To try and pretend any of the major political parties don't or won't have plenty of skeleton scandals in their closet is someone engaged in fanciful wishful thinking.

[Joey McGee]

lol, the sponsorship scandal is from a decade ago. A clear claim was made about the behavior of the current government compared to the previous government, and the best you've got is to bring up a scandal from a decade ago? Priceless... It's like you imagine they are the same people. Did you forget that Chretien and his chief of staff were cleared of responsibility by a Federal court? So much for backing up the claim that the current PMO are acting just just like Harper's PMO... oh well, par for the course discussing political reputations.

[Fitter]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Two words: sponsorship scandal.

It was a pretty big deal when that came to light, and caused the Liberals no small amount of headaches. To try and pretend any of the major political parties don't or won't have plenty of skeleton scandals in their closet is someone engaged in fanciful wishful thinking.

My feelings exactly. As a veteran I am very happy to be shot of Harper and his minions but I also understood it was only a matter of time until Trudeau, or one of his ministers, stepped on his dick.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

lol, the sponsorship scandal is from a decade ago.

Did you miss the point entirely? It would seem so. I respectfully suggest parking your ideology car and starting up your facts/evidence/reason car.

[Joey McGee]

Yes. I can't understand what your point is.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Oh my God they were trying to stall the vote process by not sitting down...

Yes they were trying to stall the vote. After the government moved to restrict debate on it.

Are you in favor of restricting debate on significant issues like assisted suicide? Many people think its something that should be fully discussed.

And lets face it... how much do you really think they could have stalled the vote? 30 seconds? 1 minute? 5 minutes? Was there a particular reason Trudeau was in such a rush?

Quote:

...and he sent a message, sit the **** down and stop being such bitches and do your *********** job!

The job of all MPs is to represent the people in their riding to the best of their ability. Perhaps they thought that rushing through debate on a bill was not in the best interest of their constituents.

Quote:

This is the guy who yelled "YOU PIECE OF ******" in parliament when Kent was spewing ignorance about climate change while attacking the liberals... people are shocked?

You're right... perhaps we shouldn't be shocked when someone who resorts to swearing on the house of commons would engage in other inappropriate actions in the house.

Quote:

He apologized in a sincere way, few people care.

He actually apologized several times. Whether it was sincere or not is debatable. (His first attempt didn't seem to be very sincere; unfortunately I can't seem to find the text for that one.)

Quote:

I think that's the first time I've ever used the laughing dog!

Congratulations. Do you want a medal?

Quote:

That's like a heroin and crack addict saying someone does the same things as them because they have a couple of beers once in a while.

No, its more like a crack addict saying another crack addict does the same thing.

The conservatives were in power ~9 years. The Liberals have been in power less than 1. Yes, the conservatives are going to have more scandals in that time.

When the conservatives were in power, they: used omnibus bills (bad conservatives!), Prorogued parliament (bad!), appointed unsuitable people to the senate (bad!) and limited debate (bad!)

When Chretien was in power, they: prorogued parliament (bad!), rescheduled opposition days (bad!), appointed their own people to the senate (bad!), and called snap elections (which costs the taxpayers money) simply to take advantage of a split between reformers and PCs (bad!)

Now that Trudeau is in power, they are: Limiting debate on bills (bad!) and forcing MPs to follow party rules on issues that would normally be considered free votes (and trudeau made those declarations unilaterally.)

So, the Trudeau government is well on the way to having the same sort of record that the previous conservative and liberal governments did... they just need time to catch up.

Quote:

Did you read the judge's opinions on the PMO at the end of the Duffy trial? Priceless.

Never claimed that Harper was honest. Only that he appears to be no less honest than the Liberals before and, nor the current Liberal party.

Quote:

lol, the sponsorship scandal is from a decade ago.

Yes it was.

The Liberals have also been out of power for much of the time since then. Claiming they're clean because they haven't had a major scandal since ad-scam is a little like claiming Charles Manson is a good guy because he hasn't committed any crimes lately. Kind of hard for the Liberals to get into trouble when they were on the opposition benches.

Quote:

A clear claim was made about the behavior of the current government compared to the previous government, and the best you've got is to bring up a scandal from a decade ago? Priceless... It's like you imagine they are the same people.

You're right... there is absolutely no ties between the current Liberal government and the previous Chretien government that engaged in the sponsorship scandal.

Well, except for Dion, who was in both Chretien's and Truedau's cabinet. Oh, and Ralph Goodale. And Lawrence MacAulay. And John McCallum. And then there is Bennett and Leblanc, who weren't members of Chretien's cabinet, but they were in his caucus.

Now, its likely none of those people were directly involved in the sponsorship scandal. But, they were still Liberal members at the time, and their actions (through votes in the house of commons, etc.) certainly aided Chretien's efforts.

Quote:

Did you forget that Chretien and his chief of staff were cleared of responsibility by a Federal court? So much for backing up the claim that the current PMO are acting just just like Harper's PMO... oh well, par for the course discussing political reputations.

The fact that Chretien was cleared does not mean he doesn't deserve some responsibility. Even if he wasn't personally directing where the funds should go, he did (or at least as PM he approved) of setting up the sponsorship fund in the first place, as well as taking actions to try to minimize things (including cancelling a commons committee investigating the issue.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Quote:

Yet here are the Liberals, painted as the "good guys" by so many, doing the same sort of things the conservatives were criticized for.

There's an old saying which covers the bolded: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

That's why I usually pay more attention to policy than I do to various scandals.

There were certainly valid reasons to vote against the conservatives last election... (Their drug policy for one, perhaps bill C51, etc.) But all the complaints about them being undemocratic because of things like proroguing parliament seemed more like partisanship trying to find an issue to latch on to.

Quote:

Since my opinion of Trudeau was low to begin with, this little affair didn't do much to reduce it. But, perhaps, it will wake a bit more of the general population up to the fact that Trudeau is an apparently talentless empty suit who only has what he has because of his daddy's name.

That's not fair... he's more than just an empty suit. He also has his hair.

Overall, I probably wouldn't care that much about this particular incident. But after months of puff-pieces in the news (Trudeau in a fashion magazine, trudeau hugging pandas at a zoo, etc.) its nice to see the pendulum swing the other way for a bit. Hopefully it will end up somewhere in the middle... avoiding the fluff, but also being fair in its criticisms.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Yes they were trying to stall the vote. After the government moved to restrict debate on it.

Are you in favor of restricting debate on significant issues like assisted suicide? Many people think its something that should be fully discussed.

This is posturing, this is nonsense. 2 and a half days of debate wasn't enough? There are only so many working days... millions of hours of debate and research are sitting there, what's a good amount of time to debate? 5 days? Threre's no good answer to this question. The fact that they voted to move on was what they pounced on so they could morally posture. You have to admit this... right?

Quote:

And lets face it... how much do you really think they could have stalled the vote? 30 seconds? 1 minute? 5 minutes? Was there a particular reason Trudeau was in such a rush?

I said he shouldn't have done it, that I agreed with the intent. It accomplished nothing. What's next? Chaining themselves together? You lost this debate over generations.... Everyone knows you have no chance of stopping it, you missed your chance to change everyone's minds, try winning the public debate and the election next time...

Quote:

You're right... perhaps we shouldn't be shocked when someone who resorts to swearing on the house of commons would engage in other inappropriate actions in the house.

Peter Kent was being a piece of **** though... right?

All I see is people saying oh get off your high horse, Liberals, you're just as bad! Stop trying to gloat... You're doing so in the most asinine manner and it's all a good laugh for me. Harper embarrassed all human beings with his climate change crap and said that pot was "infinitely worse" than tobacco. I expect you to bring up the fact that Mackenzie King tried to talk to his dead mother with a crystal ball.

Seems like political posturing to me! Sorry I tried to play.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

All I see is people saying oh get off your high horse, Liberals, you're just as bad!

That is the essential truth. And if the NDP got to run things, I've little doubt scandals would be present in their administration as well. (I'm sure one can find provincial-level examples.)

Which is why Segnosaur is right when what matters most is policy. Scandals will always be around, and voting for or against a government based solely on that seems to be far too trusting of politicians.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Quote:

Yes they were trying to stall the vote. After the government moved to restrict debate on it.

Are you in favor of restricting debate on significant issues like assisted suicide? Many people think its something that should be fully discussed.

This is posturing, this is nonsense. 2 and a half days of debate wasn't enough?

Well obviously the other parties (which had a significant number of seats and voter support in the last election) didn't think so.

And if your argument is "its OK to cut debate" then perhaps you should go find all the people who complained when the conservatives pulled similar stunts and tell them they were wrong to complain.

Quote:

Quote:

And lets face it... how much do you really think they could have stalled the vote? 30 seconds? 1 minute? 5 minutes? Was there a particular reason Trudeau was in such a rush?

I said he shouldn't have done it...

Yet you also turned around and attempted to justify it. Reminds me of the guy who says "I'm not racist, but...."

Quote:

Everyone knows you have no chance of stopping it, you missed your chance to change everyone's minds, try winning the public debate and the election next time...

So, does that mean that any time we have a majority government, we should just close up the house of commons? After all, anything the government proposes should have no problem going through. No point in debating anything. Save it all for the election.

Quote:

Peter Kent was being a piece of **** though... right?

Irrelevant. There are rules in the house of commons. All parties must follow them. Trudeau for some reason felt he was above the rules.

Quote:

All I see is people saying oh get off your high horse, Liberals, you're just as bad!

Yup... that's pretty much what I'm saying.

Do a google search for "canadian conservative dictatorship or undemocratic or fascist" and you will find a ton of sites slamming the conservatives. So far, people have overlooked the same sort of tendencies in the Liberal party.

Either actions like limiting debates, proroguing parliament, and the like are bad (in which case conservatives and liberals should be criticized equally) or they are acceptable (in which case Harper should not have received the criticism that he does.)

Quote:

Harper embarrassed all human beings with his climate change crap and said that pot was "infinitely worse" than tobacco. I expect you to bring up the fact that Mackenzie King tried to talk to his dead mother with a crystal ball.

Never claimed I liked the conservatives stance on drugs, etc.. On the other hand, I can point out things that the Liberals have done that are also foolhardy.... Their "$10 billion deficit" pledge that has magically bloomed to $30 billion, their "tax bracket changes will be revenue neutral" (which, some simple math showed would not be the case...), the "rebuild the navy with savings from buying cheap fighter jets" (which fails in all sorts of ways). And you know what? I didn't have to go back to Mackenzie king.

All parties do dumb things. All parties make policy plans that are foolish, or impractical, that don't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, or are outright lies.

Quote:

Seems like political posturing to me! Sorry I tried to play.

You know, here's what I find ironic...

I admit that the conservatives were flawed. Heck, I even point out things they did wrong that even you didn't mention.

On the other hand, when it comes to the Liberals, you use the "trudeau was wrong to get physically involved, BUT..." tactic. And then you turn around and heap even more abuse on the conservatives (Hey, look at all the other stuff they did wrong!) while dismissing or ignoring the Liberal problems.

And then you complain that I'M the one that's engaging in "political posturing".

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

That is the essential truth.

Poppycock. Comparing the two PMOs, Seg had to resort to saying that we need a larger sample size, it's early yet. Tell yourselves whatever you want to hear. Liberals have more class than was shown in previous PMO. Made a guy sit down, wow, that's the big scandal? What a *********** joke...

This is classic cognitive dissonance, tell yourself a story just don't try selling it to me unless you have some substance. I'm allergic to rationalizations...

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Well obviously the other parties (which had a significant number of seats and voter support in the last election) didn't think so.

They should try winning more seats instead of whining that they don't have any power to take up time with a worthless exercise. Debate in this case means making you listen to my arguments.

Quote:

And if your argument is "its OK to cut debate" then perhaps you should go find all the people who complained when the conservatives pulled similar stunts and tell them they were wrong to complain.

Oh come on. I read the paper every day and I can't even remember outcry. The cons did it all the time, then Kenny said well this is different because it's life and death. Everything is *********** life and death.

Quote:

Yet you also turned around and attempted to justify it. Reminds me of the guy who says "I'm not racist, but...."

That's your imagination. If he'd gone over there and said "sit the **** down and do your *********** job and stop wasting everyone's time" I'd be down with it...

Quote:

So, does that mean that any time we have a majority government, we should just close up the house of commons? After all, anything the government proposes should have no problem going through. No point in debating anything. Save it all for the election.

You have to realize you're talking out of your ass here. 2.5 days of valuable time debating and that's not enough? This has been debated for generations, there are thousands of reports and scientific studies all sitting there. How many days is enough? What aruments didn't make it in those 2 days that weren't just going to be repeated as a filibuster? You don't have an answer, I know you don't, just give up and save face.

Quote:

Irrelevant. There are rules in the house of commons. All parties must follow them. Trudeau for some reason felt he was above the rules.

Have you tuned into parliament recently? A lot stupider heckling from the cons who are basically having meltdowns. Heckles that make no sense. Kent was being a piece of ****, we both know that. He shouldn't have done that, but, I agreed with the sentiment.

Quote:

Yup... that's pretty much what I'm saying.

To yourself... What I know and you appear not to is that this is what you are telling yourself, for a reason.

Quote:

Do a google search for "canadian conservative dictatorship or undemocratic or fascist" and you will find a ton of sites slamming the conservatives. So far, people have overlooked the same sort of tendencies in the Liberal party.

Crackhead vs wine-sipper, your examples so far are non-existant or laughable. Even if you had substance, lots of idiots on both sides of the house, what's your point? I don't have to excuse every blowhard in the country to be right.

Quote:

Never claimed I liked the conservatives stance on drugs, etc.. On the other hand, I can point out things that the Liberals have done that are also foolhardy.... Their "$10 billion deficit" pledge that has magically bloomed to $30 billion, their "tax bracket changes will be revenue neutral" (which, some simple math showed would not be the case...), the "rebuild the navy with savings from buying cheap fighter jets" (which fails in all sorts of ways). And you know what? I didn't have to go back to Mackenzie king.

Not commenting on any of that, none of those things even compares to saying pot is "infinitely worse" than tobacco. There are actual arguments as to why those things are explainable, you probably know what they are unless you're a Sun guy as opposed to the Post. The pot thing is *********** braindead.

Quote:

You know, here's what I find ironic...

I admit that the conservatives were flawed. Heck, I even point out things they did wrong that even you didn't mention.

On the other hand, when it comes to the Liberals, you use the "trudeau was wrong to get physically involved, BUT..." tactic. And then you turn around and heap even more abuse on the conservatives (Hey, look at all the other stuff they did wrong!) while dismissing or ignoring the Liberal problems.

And then you complain that I'M the one that's engaging in "political posturing".

The BUT thing is just more posturing. I'm supposed to be unable to separate the action from the intent as if I secretly agree with the action or support it? That's immature. This is a one issue debate. Can't get juice from a rind buddy, wait until I actually make excuses for the Liberals that are stupid before you get all preachy about how just as bad I am, until then, you'll have to deal with having nothing to pin me down on.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

This is classic cognitive dissonance ...

Yes, it is. You should stop doing that.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I'm allergic to rationalizations...

Yes, you apparently are.

(You should take at provincial-level politics. Plenty of scandals there amongst all the parties. Certainly the Liberal government here in Ontario has had its share. Perhaps you can explain why federal-level governments of whatever political stripe are somehow immune to scandals. 'Cause history is against the idea.)

[Joey McGee]

No substance... I'm not claiming that the party I voted for has never had any scandals, doesn't make mistakes, and is immune to bias, or any of these things for myself. Though I can see how telling that story to yourself would make you feel better. What I am saying is that the idea that this government is just as bad as, or worse than, the last government on these things isn't borne out by a rational argument, it's all posturing and point scoring. Where's the beef? We have to bring up scandals from years ago that are so convoluted few people actually know the truth about them other than they were a big point-scorer politically, it's the old trustworthy tool you're pulling out... sad.

The opposition rejected plans to have unlimited debate late at night, right because lots of Canadians tune into the live debates... isn't everything posted online, or can be? There is a deadline set by the Supreme Court. You lost. What is going to be solved by more droning speeches? The bill has no chance of failure. 235-75 have already voted to support the bill in principle. Is there going to be some new argument that no one has ever heard before? Where is this threat to democracy? Trudeau accidentally bumped into someone with his elbow, he didn't elbow someone in the chest. And they want to limit debate for practical reasons, the idea that they are somehow preventing people from expressing themselves or providing evidence of why the bill would be bad is frankly ridiculous. How am I wrong? There are pros and cons to every strategy in this arcane, semi-ancient system of government.

You want to talk about a lack of democracy? Then let's talk about the obvious example, the Conservatives moving to block changes that most Canadians supported, like legalizaing pot, assisted dying and strong action on climate change. That's why they were destroyed in the election, because they moved so many times federally and in the unelected Senate to stop these changes from happening. Again, not doing their jobs, which is to represent the country, the only sad thing is that we have to wait so long to kick them out when this gets truly appalling. So how are the Liberals going against the will of most Canadians right now? Come on, one good example, please.

Anyway here's John Oliver making fun of this "scandal"

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[catsmate]

And the teacup storm appears to have blown over.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by catsmate

And the teacup storm appears to have blown over.

It was political theatre.

Now, perhaps, more important matters can be focused upon.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Quote:

So, does that mean that any time we have a majority government, we should just close up the house of commons? After all, anything the government proposes should have no problem going through. No point in debating anything. Save it all for the election.

You have to realize you're talking out of your ass here.

Hey, you're the one who claimed that if they want power they should "win more seats".

Quote:

2.5 days of valuable time debating and that's not enough? This has been debated for generations

And other issues have been debated for years outside the house of commons too.

Quote:

Quote:

There are rules in the house of commons. All parties must follow them. Trudeau for some reason felt he was above the rules.

Have you tuned into parliament recently? A lot stupider heckling from the cons who are basically having meltdowns.

First of all, keep in mind that heckling has always gone on. When Mulroney was in power, the liberals hat the "rat pack", which elevated heckling to a high art.

Again, its the rules of the commons... some things (e.g. heckling) are allowed, some things (e.g. physical contact) are not. You may not agree with the rules, but they exist and have for a while. Trudeau thought he was above the rules.

Lastly, I think its rather revealing that you are referring to the conservative party as the 'cons'. I find in certain forums that it illustrates how intellectually vacant someone's position is when they have to use nick names to portray a party in a negative light.

Oh, and by the way, remember that its not just the conservatives here... its also the NDP, who are quite happy to engage in various commons tricks (heckling, complaining about debates cut short, etc.)

Quote:

Quote:

Never claimed I liked the conservatives stance on drugs, etc.. On the other hand, I can point out things that the Liberals have done that are also foolhardy.... Their "$10 billion deficit" pledge that has magically bloomed to $30 billion, their "tax bracket changes will be revenue neutral" (which, some simple math showed would not be the case...), the "rebuild the navy with savings from buying cheap fighter jets" (which fails in all sorts of ways). And you know what? I didn't have to go back to Mackenzie king.

Not commenting on any of that, none of those things even compares to saying pot is "infinitely worse" than tobacco.

Wow, you're really got that stuck in your craw, don't you. Makes me think that there are chemical reasons for your particular mentality.

And as dumb as the pot thing is, its impact on my pocket book is minimal (at least compared to the thousands I will probably spend over my lifetime paying for the recent Liberal deficits.)

Quote:

There are actual arguments as to why those things are explainable

Yes, the actual explanation is "Liberals wanted to win, liberals lied".

Time and time again, the Liberal promises were easily known to be false prior to the election. I've explained why some were so easily seen to be problematic prior to the election.

Quote:

you probably know what they are unless you're a Sun guy as opposed to the Post.

I think its very revealing that, when confronted with someone with different political views, you automatically jump to "Oh they must be a Sun guy". I'm surprised that you didn't break out words like "sheeple".

I do not have a subscription to the Sun. I have not purchased a subscription (either the printed version or on line). I have referenced articles found through google, but I have also referenced articles found on the CBC, Globe and Mail, and National Post web sites. Claiming that I'm a 'Sun' guy is no more accurate than saying your a "Toronto Star" guy because of your particular views.

[quote]On the other hand, when it comes to the Liberals, you use the "trudeau was wrong to get physically involved, BUT..." tactic. And then you turn around and heap even more abuse on the conservatives (Hey, look at all the other stuff they did wrong!) while dismissing or ignoring the Liberal problems.

Quote:

Quote:

And then you complain that I'M the one that's engaging in "political posturing".

The BUT thing is just more posturing. I'm supposed to be unable to separate the action from the intent as if I secretly agree with the action or support it? That's immature. This is a one issue debate.

Actually no, its not just a 1 issue debate... it actually covers a wide range of issues:
- The inability of Trudeau to follow commons rules
- The hypocritical nature of the liberals, who complained about conservatives cutting debate short and using Omnibus bills, but are engaging in the same sort of practices themselves
- Other "dictatorial" practices by the liberals, such as whipping party votes in areas that have been traditionally free votes
- The bias of various Liberal (and NDP) supporters who are doing everything they can to minimize the flaws in their own parties, even when such flaws are often just as significant as with the conservatives.

Quote:

No substance... I'm not claiming that the party I voted for has never had any scandals, doesn't make mistakes, and is immune to bias, or any of these things for myself.

Yet your response has been to harp on the conservatives to no end.

Quote:

What I am saying is that the idea that this government is just as bad as, or worse than, the last government on these things isn't borne out by a rational argument...

Actually it is. You're just so biased against the conservatives that, as the old saying goes, if Harper was able to walk on water you'd complain that he couldn't swim.

Quote:

We have to bring up scandals from years ago that are so convoluted few people actually know the truth about them

First of all, as I pointed out, the reason we point out Liberal scandals from years ago is because they haven't been in power for years (and thus able to generate all new scandals). (And, I should add, some of the people around during the scandals back then are still in the Liberal party.)

Secondly, the issues of the Liberals limiting debate, whipping party votes and using Omnibus bills is happening now. Not a decade ago... now. As in recently. As in if you went to the house of commons since Justin Trudeau was elected, you would see it happening.

Quote:

You want to talk about a lack of democracy? Then let's talk about the obvious example, the Conservatives moving to block changes that most Canadians supported, like legalizaing pot, assisted dying and strong action on climate change.

Ummm... you do realize that we use a system of representational democracy rather than direct democracy.

A party campaigning or holding views that are not in the majority does not mean a lack of democracy. Every party develops its own set of plans and priorities... sometimes its policies will side with the majority, sometimes they will not. The fact that you would condemn the conservatives for holding minority positions but not the Liberals indicates bias on your part.

In fact, trying to do things according to public opinion for each and every issue would be a huge mistake, as people often hold opinions that are often self-contradictory. (For example, I'm sure Canadians want climate change addressed, but they often rank environmental issues below economic issues.)

Quote:

So how are the Liberals going against the will of most Canadians right now? Come on, one good example, please.

70% of Canadians were against the Liberal target of 25,000 syrian refugees.

Most Canadians (63%) wanted Canada to continue bombing missions against ISIL. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...poll-1.3437288

OOps, sorry that was 2 examples.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Lastly, I think its rather revealing that you are referring to the conservative party as the 'cons'. I find in certain forums that it illustrates how intellectually vacant someone's position is when they have to use nick names to portray a party in a negative light.

Oh, I've had enough... people say libs and cons on the internet, pick a shorter name...

Quote:

Makes me think that there are chemical reasons for your particular mentality.

Guy starts lecturing me on saying "cons" because that's offensive, and then turns around and says I have mental problems. That's priceless...

Quote:

70% of Canadians were against the Liberal target of 25,000 syrian refugees.

Most Canadians (63%) wanted Canada to continue bombing missions against ISIL. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...poll-1.3437288

My examples were issues that were about generational issues that showed a long term trend. You gave two issues that were about current events, and Canadians turned around and ended up accepting the government's side and now support them on those decisions...

Quote:

According to numbers from Abacus Data, released Wednesday, 70 per cent of Canadians accept, support, or strongly support the plan announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his key ministers last month. Less than one-third oppose Canada's changing role in the effort to eradicate ISIS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03...n_9367620.html

Once it was explained that the coalition didn't actually have a need for those bombers that wouldn't be replaced, and there was a strong upgrade to the training mission, when people actually understood what the policy was about, then they agreed to it.

So, that's really not a good example, or an example at all.

I don't feel that responding to other than that after this will be in anyone's interest.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by catsmate

And the teacup storm appears to have blown over.

And the issue has been dropped by the commons committee looking into this issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trud...ttee-1.3609147

Probably a good thing. (As I said before, the main reason why I think it was significant is because it comes after so much fluff has been written about the PM.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Quote:

Makes me think that there are chemical reasons for your particular mentality.

Guy starts lecturing me on saying "cons" because that's offensive, and then turns around and says I have mental problems.

Uhhh... no.

Dictionary definition of "mentality"... the characteristic attitude of mind or way of thinking of a person or group.

See? Nothing there about "mental problems".

Quote:

Quote:

70% of Canadians were against the Liberal target of 25,000 syrian refugees.

Most Canadians (63%) wanted Canada to continue bombing missions against ISIL. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...poll-1.3437288

That's priceless...My examples were issues that were about generational issues that showed a long term trend. You gave two issues that were about current events...

And that folks is the sound of the goal posts being moved.

You want something more significant? Did you know that back when Martin legalized same sex marriage, most Canadians did not support his plans? Canadians were divided 3 ways between no legal recognition at all, allowing "civil unions" (the idea championed by the conservatives at the time) and full marriage equality. (I do think that it was the correct decision to grant marriage equality, but that's not the issue... the issue is "Is the government following the desires of the majority of people". Back then it was not.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadi...gests-1.527494

Oh, and how about the death penalty? Most Canadians actually would like it reinstated. (I'm glad its not, but the argument is not whether you or I agree with the government's actions, but whether it falls in line with what the majority of Canadians want.)

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cana...180253516.html

Quote:

Canadians turned around and ended up accepting the government's side

Irrelevant.

At the time the government passed their laws (regarding refugees and/or the air strikes in Syria), they did not have the support of the majority. The fact that people change their mind after doesn't mean they were following the will of the people at the time.

I wanted to address one additional issue... in an earlier post you stated:

Quote:

The opposition rejected plans to have unlimited debate late at night, right because lots of Canadians tune into the live debates... isn't everything posted online, or can be? There is a deadline set by the Supreme Court. You lost

Parliament resumed in early December 2015. The supreme court set its deadline way back in (I think) January. The current Liberal government had months to discuss this legislation and debate it long before the deadline. Granted, there were things like the Budget (which might have required more discussion), but there were also bills like the one removing transparency for unions. (A reward to the union bosses who supported the Liberals?) Perhaps the Liberals should have given priority to significant issues like Assisted Suicide, and delayed bills like the one making Unions less accountable to their members.

[Segnosaur]

A few developments in parliament...

Fisheries Minister Hunter Tootoo resigned in order to deal with "addiction issues".

Not necessarily blaming Trudeau for that. But hey, given the fact that roughly 1 in 10 Canadians has drug or alcohol issues, maybe they should have kept him in Cabinet. After all, isn't Trudeau's cabinet supposed to reflect Canadian diversity?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ca...-idUSKCN0YN2Y5

And some questionable happenings on our defense front:

There are sources suggesting that the Liberal cabinet has decided to purchase the F18 Super Hornet. (However, they would label it an "interim measure" in order to get around the fact that they haven't had any sort of competition.)

http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/l...5s-sources-say

If that's true, it really really stinks. We need new fighters desperately, but the current CF18s have enough years on them to allow us to run a proper competition. There are so many potential problems if we buy the super Hornet, even as an 'interim' measure... the possibility of lawsuits (since it would be sole source), it might distort any future competition for a fighter, or we would end up with a mixed-fleet (which increases costs.).

Then there is the double standard... Conservatives sole-source F35=bad, Liberals sole-source F18=good.

It should be pointed out that this is not official yet. I suspect its just a "trial balloon", and many in the media who had supported the Liberals could turn on them, which might change their minds.

Lastly, the Liberals missed a payment to stay a member of the F35 partnership. (This allows Canada to bid on various contracts related to the F35 construction.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stea...ment-1.3619469

The check is in the mail!!!!

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

A few developments in parliament...

Fisheries Minister Hunter Tootoo resigned in order to deal with "addiction issues".

Not necessarily blaming Trudeau for that. But hey, given the fact that roughly 1 in 10 Canadians has drug or alcohol issues, maybe they should have kept him in Cabinet. After all, isn't Trudeau's cabinet supposed to reflect Canadian diversity?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ca...-idUSKCN0YN2Y5

Are you "not necessarily blaming" Trudeau for Mr. Tootoo's addiction, or "not necessarily blaming" Trudeau for Mr. Tootoo's resignation? Does "Not necessarily blaming" mean you are not blaming Trudeau? or you may be blaming Trudeau? or you would like to blame Trudeau but can't quite figure out how to? or something else?

Fascinating that you consider Mr. Tootoo's health issue and his efforts to deal with it so trivial as to be the subject of a rather pathetic political joke.

[Joey McGee]

Whether you called me chemically imbalanced, or just obviously on drugs, it was still ********, and an hysterically childish reaction to someone using the term "cons", which most people simply use as shorthand. if I wanted to do something hurtful, I would simply destroy your ideas and watch you try to clean them up.

Most people who accuse others of moving the goal posts are simply blinded by confirmation bias and missing the point. It's simple logic, most people support what the government is doing, therefore bitching and whining about how perfectly legal and transparent tactics that follow rules (democratically agreed upon rules) are somehow anti-democracy, that's just a political posturing maneuver which is all I have said.

The point about the cons is simple too, they weren't representing the public, so the public threw them out. They simply couldn't help themselves so they used every bit of their power to block things they didn't like, and if you ask me, when no laws are being broken, that's the worst thing a government can do. That's why it's good they aren't in power.

The idea that Canadians didn't support the government on gay marriage from one cherry-picked poll and including the quibble about civil unions claiming they supporter Harper's idea that's just totally delusional. Everyone knows it has a long history of support.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marz.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_maro.htm

If it was so unpopular, how did the government not successfully kill the law when it won the election right after that? Ridiculous.

Your claim about the death penalty is even worse, while people might support the death penalty in principle it is still a minority view that they would actually like to see Canada bring it back. This is actually what polls find. Are you sitting there *********** telling me that just as many Canadians want the death penalty back as do legalizing pot?

Between the time they announced that they would end the bombing, and the time that the bombing ended, they were able to convince the public of their argument. That's how government works. Harper had all of those years and was never able to convince people that pot was infinitely worse than tobacco, or that climate change action would kill the nation. Your examples suck, and they are fundamentally the opposite of what I'm talking about, so thanks I guess.

A lot of tough talk about lack of democracy or respect for the institution of democracy is just a bunch of posturing nonsense worth no one's time, but that's life.

[Fitter]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

<snip>
Oh, and how about the death penalty? Most Canadians actually would like it reinstated. (I'm glad its not, but the argument is not whether you or I agree with the government's actions, but whether it falls in line with what the majority of Canadians want.)

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cana...180253516.html
<snip>

No, they don't. Not when presented the option of life imprisonment with no parole. Unless things have changed since 2013, have they?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Fitter

Quote:

Oh, and how about the death penalty? Most Canadians actually would like it reinstated.

No, they don't. Not when presented the option of life imprisonment with no parole. Unless things have changed since 2013, have they?

It is true that the option of life imprisonment decreases the support for capital punishment.

But that doesn't really help the argument of Joey McGee, since the Liberals aren't offering that as an option either. (His argument was "Look! The liberals are doing what Canadians want", but in this case they aren't, because they aren't offering the death penalty or life without parole.)

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

It is true that the option of life imprisonment decreases the support for capital punishment.

But that doesn't really help the argument of Joey McGee, since the Liberals aren't offering that as an option either. (His argument was "Look! The liberals are doing what Canadians want", but in this case they aren't, because they aren't offering the death penalty or life without parole.)

I appears that you completely missed the fact that most Canadians support killing the worst monsters in theory but they don't actually want to see Canada bring back those laws, a perfectly rational and lucid state of opinion. That's actually how I feel about it. I support it in theory. But in practice I think life in jail works better as a system for Canada for now.

Everybody knows that there is life without release for the worst killers, in practice.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Steve

Quote:

Fisheries Minister Hunter Tootoo resigned in order to deal with "addiction issues".

Not necessarily blaming Trudeau for that. But hey, given the fact that roughly 1 in 10 Canadians has drug or alcohol issues, maybe they should have kept him in Cabinet. After all, isn't Trudeau's cabinet supposed to reflect Canadian diversity?

Are you "not necessarily blaming" Trudeau for Mr. Tootoo's addiction, or "not necessarily blaming" Trudeau for Mr. Tootoo's resignation? Does "Not necessarily blaming" mean you are not blaming Trudeau?

I think you are reading too much into the phrase "not necessarily". I stuck it in there because I have been critical of trudeau in the past, even though I do not think he is at fault here.

I do not blame him for Tootoo's addiction. I do not blame him for his resignation. Its possible for someone to argue that he might be at fault for not vetting his cabinet members properly, but I do realize that many addicts are highly functional and can easily hide their problems, so I'm giving Trudeau the benefit of the doubt that he gave all his cabinet appointees a competent screening, even if it missed a problem such as this.

Quote:

Fascinating that you consider Mr. Tootoo's health issue and his efforts to deal with it so trivial as to be the subject of a rather pathetic political joke.

While I do certainly hope Mr. Tootoo does resolve his issues, my sympathy is lessened somewhat by the nature of his problems. I do recognize that there at least some biological reasons for addictions to form in some people and not others, it was still his decision to initially use whatever substance he was abusing. At the very least, he should have realized before he was appointed that "I have a problem... maybe I shouldn't take a job that has that much responsibility".

As for the "political joke", the problems of Trudeau's efforts to "make cabinet reflect Canadians" has been discussed previously here... while it might seem like a noble goal, it leaves the possibility of having a less qualified person appointed to cabinet "just because" they match a certain demographic. Pointing out that problem (even if its through a dumb joke) should be considered fair game.

[Joey McGee]

Quote:

On reinstating capital punishment, Harper said simply: “I don't see the country as wanting to do that.”

Yet, the Liberals are going against people's wishes with the death penalty. Hilarious nonsense.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...h_penalty.html

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Most people who accuse others of moving the goal posts are simply blinded by confirmation bias and missing the point.

Unless of course you actually did move the goal posts. Which you did. Your exact statement was "So how are the Liberals going against the will of most Canadians right now?". Admittedly one example (gay marriage) was from the past, but the case of Syrian refugees was recent.

You never gave any criteria or restrictions in your demand for areas where the Liberals are going against the will of Canadians. Until after I gave examples.

Quote:

It's simple logic, most people support what the government is doing, therefore bitching and whining about how perfectly legal and transparent tactics that follow rules (democratically agreed upon rules) are somehow anti-democracy, that's just a political posturing maneuver which is all I have said.

Fine.. the liberals are 100% doing everything perfectly according to democracy and have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

In that case, the conservatives under harper were likewise doing everything perfectly and democratically. Because both parties are using similar or identical tactics, and you can't condemn one party and not the other without being a massive hypocrite.

Quote:

The point about the cons is simple too, they weren't representing the public...

And there were times when the Liberals haven't represented the public either.

Quote:

They simply couldn't help themselves so they used every bit of their power to block things they didn't like...

And the liberals likewise used every bit of power to obstruct the things they didn't like.

Someone who's not a biased fanboy might actually recognize that.

Quote:

The idea that Canadians didn't support the government on gay marriage from one cherry-picked poll and including the quibble about civil unions claiming they supporter Harper's idea that's just totally delusional. Everyone knows it has a long history of support.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marz.htm

Any polls that showed support for gay marriage with a majority, and/or roughly tied with opposition for gay marriage skewed the result. The issue was not binary since there were more than 2 possibilities.

Quote:

Your claim about the death penalty is even worse, while people might support the death penalty in principle it is still a minority view that they would actually like to see Canada bring it back.

The references I gave actually uses "re-instatement".

Re-instatement pretty much implies that they actually want to see it brought back and/or used in some way.

Quote:

This is actually what polls find. Are you sitting there *********** telling me that just as many Canadians want the death penalty back as do legalizing pot?

The poll that I was referring to had 63% who wanted the death penalty reinstated. That's a pretty darn clear majority.

Quote:

That's how government works. Harper had all of those years and was never able to convince people that pot was infinitely worse than tobacco

Your infatuation with pot use and how it seems to override any other issues is really quite bizarre.

Trudeau messes up payments for the F35 consortium, thus putting thousands of jobs at risk and/or potentially incurring massive penalties? Who cares! Harper overestimated the risk of pot!

Trudeau triples his targeted budget deficit, potentially adding hundreds of billions to the debt load, and possibly taking hundreds if not thousands of dollars out of the pocket of the average taxpayer? Who cares! Harper overestimated the risk of pot!

And all this is over the right to inhale burning hydrocarbons into your lungs. You do realize that while the risks of pot are often overstated, it is not a harmless activity. It has been linked to memory problems, it may affect driving ability, and in a certain percentage of the population, it is addictive. (I do think it should be legalized, but I don't think its this wonderful magic thing that is 100% perfect and good in every way.)

Quote:

...or that climate change action would kill the nation.

Canadian's opinions on the environment are all over the place.. polls show we really want to stop climate change and protect the environment, yet environmental concerns are one of their lowest priorities (falling behind health care, unemployment, taxes, poverty, corruption, and a bunch of other things.)

http://globalnews.ca/news/2366032/cl...anadians-poll/

Quote:

A lot of tough talk about lack of democracy or respect for the institution of democracy is just a bunch of posturing nonsense worth no one's time, but that's life.

Did that also apply when the conservatives were in power, and the Liberals and their supporters were likewise complaining about the conservatives and their "lack of democracy"? Was that just posturing nonsense too?

Or is it only "posturing nonsense" when a non-liberal fanboy points it out?

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Unless of course you actually did move the goal posts. Which you did. Your exact statement was "So how are the Liberals going against the will of most Canadians right now?". Admittedly one example (gay marriage) was from the past, but the case of Syrian refugees was recent.

You never gave any criteria or restrictions in your demand for areas where the Liberals are going against the will of Canadians. Until after I gave examples.

You're wrong. They were able to convince people that giving up the bombing mission was a good thing, they weren't able to convince Canadians that climate change action would hurt them, so your example sucks. And one happened in a matter of weeks and the other lasted for a decade. So instead of moving the goalposts, I'm making you understand what my point is better, but you refuse to listen to plain English and make up your own interpretations, boring.

Quote:

Fine.. the liberals are 100% doing everything perfectly according to democracy and have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

That's pretty childish.

Quote:

In that case, the conservatives under harper were likewise doing everything perfectly and democratically. Because both parties are using similar or identical tactics, and you can't condemn one party and not the other without being a massive hypocrite.

Baable. The conservatives blocked debate, this time it's different because it's "life and death" (meaningless) that's being a hypocrite.

Quote:

And there were times when the Liberals haven't represented the public either.

I never claimed otherwise, just that your examples suck, and that we are comparing the last two governments, not having a brainless battle over moral authority between historical parties, have fun with that.

Quote:

And the liberals likewise used every bit of power to obstruct the things they didn't like.

Someone who's not a biased fanboy might actually recognize that.

You're burying yourself slowly with all of this nonsense.

Quote:

Any polls that showed support for gay marriage with a majority, and/or roughly tied with opposition for gay marriage skewed the result. The issue was not binary since there were more than 2 possibilities.

That's so delusional... So Canadians wanted civil unions? That's just hilarious.

Quote:

The references I gave actually uses "re-instatement".

Re-instatement pretty much implies that they actually want to see it brought back and/or used in some way.

The poll that I was referring to had 63% who wanted the death penalty reinstated. That's a pretty darn clear majority.

Quote:

“We ask the question in two ways — do you support or oppose the death penalty — and in that context people really do support it,” he said. But when the option of life imprisonment is introduced as an option for those convicted of murder, “50 per cent actually say they would prefer life in prison.”

Quote:

Over the weekend, Ottawa's Abacus Data found that 66% of Canadians agree with Harper and support the death penalty "in certain circumstances," but only 41% want the feds to bring back it back a punishment for murder.

That, and even Harper recognized that Canadians didn't want it back when he personally wanted it back. Your claim is busted. Why do you keep repeating it?

Quote:

Your infatuation with pot use and how it seems to override any other issues is really quite bizarre.

If you can't get the little things right, you suck. Legalization is important because of a credibility issue. It's glaring, most people have wanted it changed for years and nothing happened because they kept electing authoritarians. This is another personal attack which I find hilarious, you're not a very good debating partner.

Quote:

And all this is over the right to inhale burning hydrocarbons into your lungs. You do realize that while the risks of pot are often overstated, it is not a harmless activity. It has been linked to memory problems, it may affect driving ability, and in a certain percentage of the population, it is addictive. (I do think it should be legalized, but I don't think its this wonderful magic thing that is 100% perfect and good in every way.)

More nonsense. I never made any claims on it's lack of negative effects. Alcohol is legal and kills many thousands of people every year. Conversation over.

Quote:

Canadian's opinions on the environment are all over the place.. polls show we really want to stop climate change and protect the environment, yet environmental concerns are one of their lowest priorities (falling behind health care, unemployment, taxes, poverty, corruption, and a bunch of other things.)

Your interpretations of polls are very suspect and tend to support whatever you personally want to say instead of what the polls say.

I regret the time I have wasted.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Yet, the Liberals are going against people's wishes with the death penalty. Hilarious nonsense.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...h_penalty.html

The Toronto Star? Not exactly a neutral source.

[Joey McGee]

LMAO

First of all the paper just reports the poll, you're attacking the wrong entity.

Secondly

Quote:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad.../17031541.html

“We ask the question in two ways — do you support or oppose the death penalty — and in that context people really do support it,” he said. But when the option of life imprisonment is introduced as an option for those convicted of murder, “50 per cent actually say they would prefer life in prison.”

The Sun said it, your argument is invalid.

Have a pleasant evening.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

LMAO

First of all the paper just reports the poll, you're attacking the wrong entity.

My comment stands. The Star is not a neutral source. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is organizationally biased, but certainly on the level of individual 'journalists' there is often bias. (Of course, I would say the same is true of many media outlets. Too many 'journalists' today seem much more interested in pushing agendas and their personal politics than in neutral and properly researched and fact-checked reporting.)

[Joey McGee]

Wait are you saying humans are imperfect and biased and I haven't admitted that? Again. I can say for a fact that I am the top promoter of modern science of bias. How many times have YOU written about Thinking Fast and Slow in the last 6 months? So, don't tell me I don't understand bias. I noticed you avoided touching the factual claims here.