The latest threat...making a return appearance...LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!
Allow me to summarize their complaints: "BOOO HOOOO HOOOO HOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO!!!!!!"
Assclowns, the lot of them.
BONUS STUPIDITY: I don't pretend to compete with Canadian Cynic when it comes to exposing BT dumbassitude, but if you want to read one of the world's dumbest attempts at fisking, check this out. I love the fact that Sandy proudly blogs under the banner "Crux of the Matter" while managing to miss the point of her own post by a country mile.
13 comments:
When kleenex goes on sale in the New Year perhaps we should pool our resources and send them each a box.
What crybabies, really they are.
Gee, it wouldn't be that Harper set the liberal bias in their minds would it? He sure has played them - they fall for it.
Ruralsandi - The footsoldiers are easily played by the likes of Harper, Janke, Taylor etc etc. The funny thing is that Harper is the one who has restricted media access to the government, yet makes every government announcement a carefully scripted media event with propagandist backdrops and big hoopla. But when things don't go his way, he (and the CPC in general) lashes out at the media for not giving him a fair shake. What a maroon.
The whole "media bias" rant is as old as the hills anyways. Sure there are biased pieces on all sides of any debate (and the types of bias are innumerable). But when the wingnuts get on their conspiracy theory bandwagon, it all gets so tedious...
BTW, I'd be happy to chip in to the CPC Kleenex fund!
I have yet to see anyone asking the most important question, and apparently you folks don't care. Did a Liberal member of Parliment trade his right and perogative to question witnesses at a committee for consideration? Did he expect favourable treatment from the CBC for himself or his party? Did he get any assurances the CBC would help the Liberals trash Mulroney or the current Conservative government? For those who think this is just a small thing. Please think about this - a member of Parliment allowed an outside media group to interfer in the conduct and direction of a Parlimentary committee investigation - secretly and behind the scenes. WHY?
Wow Ron, you can now go back to CPC headquarters and tell them you have done you duty...
The best trashing of Muldoon came from Andrew Coyne - a Connie bum boy if any, so now please fuck off....
You are pathetic....
Ron - Why are those "the most important questions"? Because you say so?
Are they any more or less important than...say...
Why did a former PM accept cash in envelopes for "business" he can't prove he ever did?
Why did he lie under oath about his dealings with a German sheister?
Did he meet with or arrange meetings with the current gov't with respect to wireless communications?
Does he wear boxers or briefs?
Is he a liar, a thief, or both?
As you can see, there are a number of "important questions" that the nation wants answered. If Rodriguez accepted questions verbatim from a CBC reporter, bad on him. Is it part of some vast Canadian/CBC/media conspiracy to "trash Mulroney or the current Conservative government"? Get a grip.
Just watch FOX news, or read the Sun or the Post, or listen to Mike Duffy if you want to content yourself with conservative ass-licking.
The reason I feel they are less important is because all of those things occurred in business dealings between two private individuals. Just because a person is an elected official does not mean that his entire life (before and after) is of major public concern. If there was any illegality the police can investigate (oh wait, they did and found nothing) or the taxman can look into it (oh wait, they did and are satisfied with the results of their dealings)or people as individuals can assume what they will. This very political and public activity is for one purpose - smear Mulroney, link it to Harper and thereby gain a point or two in the polls. IF you have proof Mulroney conducted illegal activities during his term as PM then by all means rip him apart. I'll help you.
Specifically to your points -
Why did a former PM accept cash in envelopes for "business" he can't prove he ever did? - Cash is legal tender and he can accept as much as he wants as a private citizen - If he didn't do the work, let Schriber deal with that in court. If he didn't pay the taxes let the CRA go after him.
Why did he lie under oath about his dealings with a German sheister? - He didn't!!! He was under oath and being questioned about dealings with Schriber during the Airbus matter. During that period he had little or no dealing with him. The dealings started after he stepped down from the PM office. Both Schriber and Mulorney testified to that. Even if you don't believe Mulroney, Schriber testified before the committee that when Mulroney testified he had little dealings with Schriber over Airbus, Mulroney was telling the truth. Check the testimony.
Did he meet with or arrange meetings with the current gov't with respect to wireless communications? - Check the terms of reference for the committee - it deals with Schriber and Mulroney activities. This one was the CBC planted question in an effort to use the committee to tarnish the Harper government.
As you can see, there are a number of "important questions" that the nation wants answered. If Rodriguez accepted questions verbatim from a CBC reporter, bad on him. Is it part of some vast Canadian/CBC/media conspiracy to "trash Mulroney or the current Conservative government"? Get a grip. - The Liberals are still lying about not getting the question from the CBC even though both the CBC and Liberal staff admitted the question was planted by CBC. - As far as the conspiracy angle goes, I don't go in much for conspiracies. I do, however know from many years of watching TV and reading papers that the CBC has never been a center or right of center organization. It, like the Toronto Star actively promotes left wing views. The Toronto Star is a private entity and free to do as it wishes - if the CBC wants to do so, great but stop taking a billion a year to do it from the taxpayer.
Just watch FOX news, or read the Sun or the Post, or listen to Mike Duffy if you want to content yourself with conservative ass-licking. - Unlike you, I actually care to hear all views before I make up my mind. You, by your tone and choice of words have obviously given up thinking and rely on Liberal lies, and name calling to pretend you have a reasonable point of view. Like most of the closed-minded diatribes, it isn't informative, just sad.
Ron - I think you missed the point of my reply. There are a number of questions floating around out there in connection with this committee. Most of them are ennui-inducing as far as I'm concerned, including many of the ones I listed (except for the boxer/brief one).
I personally think that both Mulroney and Schreiber are a couple of lying sacks of shit (and as Allan Gregg said on At Issue last week, so do most Canadians). The whole committee is little more than an exercise in political maneuvering, and nothing substantive will come out of it. The whole "CBC anti-CPC bias" story is just another political volley from the CPC, and you appear to be biting hook, line, and sinker.
As far as the conspiracy angle goes, I don't go in much for conspiracies.
Really? Wasn't it you who asked "Did he expect favourable treatment from the CBC for himself or his party? Did he get any assurances the CBC would help the Liberals trash Mulroney or the current Conservative government?". Sounds awfully conspiratorial to me, bub.
Insisting your political agenda is of greater importance than anyone else's seems hypocritical at best, willfully deceitful at worst.
I actually care to hear all views before I make up my mind
Yes, all views - SDA, Halls of Macademia, Celestial Junk, Dr. Roy, Stephen Taylor, His Majesty Stephen Harper...I bet you hear them all!
You...rely on Liberal lies, and name calling to pretend you have a reasonable point of view.
LOL! Name-calling? Awww, did I hurt your feelings? And I don't pretend to have a reasonable point of view. I have my point of view. And if you don't like it, feel free to shake an angry fist at your computer screen.
Heh. I always suspected that prissy school marm was a nitwit and her latest crusade to expose “anti-conservative bias” has removed all doubt.
If I was still blogging (politically, that is), I’d kick the living crap out of this mewling douchebag.
Loved this comment from that post:
LKO & JDave34– As I have said on other occasions, liberals and progressives are always welcome here — if they are civil. However, while I have written about anti-liberal bias in the past, this fisk and the onging bias challenge is only about anti-conservative bias. You can write about other types of bias on your own blogs.
Bah, ha, ha, ha. What crap. She wrote once about when Paul Jackson called Dion an “utter idiot” (she thought that was “extreme and inflammatory” — tut, tut) and once when some nobody at the Halifax Daily complained that intellectual professors know nothing about politics relative to Ignatieff. And THAT’S IT. Period, full stop. So she can put a sock in that “I’ve written about anti-liberal bias” stuff because it’s complete bullshit.
What a douchebag.
RT - Tell me about it. These Conservative whiners are like a broken record. They go through this entirely fruitless exercise every few months. I remember a while back they were all up in arms about some freeze frame from a video CBC showed about the mission in Afghanistan. When some BT Keyboard Kommando blew up the vidcap to 500% original size, you could see that the soldier in the pic was actually an American in Iraq (or something like that). Of course this was their "smoking gun" that the CBC was actually trying to get us to subconsciously associate Afghanistan with Iraq... The whole thing was laughably stupid, but it did seem to keep them occupied.
I guess I have no choice but to wish people like Sandy the best of luck in their feckless pursuit of capturing the bogeyman of liberal media bias, no matter how dimwitted they may be.
conspiracy theorists will see evidence of bias in anything. I think the CBC gets complained about the most because right wingers don't get the concept of public broadcasting in general...they seem to view it as some sort of socialist propoganda scheme.
Doesn't she get that she's writing about a column for heaven's sake? I mean, it's not supposed to be "objective" journalism, but a personal interpretation.
Gee, I think I'll go and "expose" the "anti-liberal bias" in something Hugh Hewitt wrote. Wow! That'll show 'em.
What a bunch of witless maroons.
RT - You would think such things would be painfully obvious to the BTs...but sadly not.
I was going to "fisk her fisk" (that's a lot less dirty than it sounds), but it was making my head hurt so I didn't.
Riley's column suggested Harper purposely sat on the polling report for 2 months and released it on the day of the Mulroney testimony. Sandy's "fisk" ignored the timing issue altogether:
RESPONSE: How is “releasing” a report an example of a lack of transparency? Is it not actually the reverse?
Atta be, Sandy. Getting right to the "crux" of the matter.
More like the "Crock" of the Matter, if you ask me.
Counterfisking her fisk really isn't worth the effort. Like Joanne, or SUZANNE or any of the rest of them, they'll just shrug and go, "Whatever...." They really don't give two shits what you, me, Cynic or anybody else thinks. They talk to the faithful and preach to the choir. Uncivil dissenters and heathens will not be tolerated.
Regarding what MD was saying about the CBC, I wonder when we'll see something from any of the BTs commending the CBC on the coverage The National has been providing on the soldiers who've died in Afghanistan. In case you haven't seen the piece called "Fallen Soldiers" it profiles of each one based on recollections from their families. Very moving, very respectful...
That was a rhetorical question, of course.
Post a Comment