| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
laconic2
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Wonderful World of ESL
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:03 am Post subject: quick |
 |
|
"...quick down to the PC cafe..."
You got to be kidding.
The only thing I'm defending about VP Gore here is his right to comment in this matter.
You pointed out that Gore, an American, had no right to do so.
I want to know why this is the case?
He has to pass your threshold of providing a certain amount of evidence before being permitted to comment on what you feel is a purely Canadian matter?
Why?
Canadians, on the other hand, are permitted to comment at will on all matters US? No need for such an evidentiary threshold?
I sincerely feel your statement above to be one of the most outrageous (why I thought you were trolling) I have ever read here but reflective of an attitude all too often put forth by some of your countrymen and women.
Some of who love to dish it out but find it very hard to be on the receiving end.
Still think I'm trolling? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:15 am Post subject: Re: quick |
|
|
| laconic2 wrote: |
"...quick down to the PC cafe..."
(1) You got to be kidding.
The only thing I'm defending about VP Gore here is his right to comment in this matter.
(2) You pointed out that Gore, an American, had no right to do so.
I want to know why this is the case?
He has to pass your threshold of providing a certain amount of evidence before being permitted to comment on what you feel is a purely Canadian matter?
Why?
(3) Canadians, on the other hand, are permitted to comment at will on all matters US? No need for such an evidentiary threshold?
I sincerely feel your statement above to be one of the most outrageous (why I thought you were trolling) I have ever read here but reflective of an attitude all too often put forth by some of your countrymen and women.
Some of who love to dish it out but find it very hard to be on the receiving end.
(4) Still think I'm trolling? |
(numbers are mine)
1. Well you DID say "What you truly believe I care a lot about." But yeah I was semi-joking
2. Where did I EVER say in this thread that Al Gore has no "right" to comment? I said I would like proof of his claim. Is that too much to ask?
He has every right to comment if he has proof. If he doesn't he is just stirring the pot. If someone made claims like that on this board or other boards without providing a iota of proof, they would be accused of "trolling"
3. Doesn't matter if you are American, Canadian, Korean, or New Guinean. If you are a public figure and you are going to make controversial statements a la Gore you should have at least some proof. Otherwise it looks like (a) you don't know what you are talking about. (b) you are deliberately lying in order to push an agenda. Neither one looks like a good choice for Gore.
4. Initally yes I did. But on reading your later posts I decided you were truly confused about what I was saying. Otherwise I (probably) wouldn't bother to respond.
Once again to make it absolutely clear. Gore (and any others) are completely allowed to comment on what they like. But the moment they start making CLAIMS about what happened, they should be required to provide proof. If Gore claimed Harper was a child molester without providing any proof would you still be saying it was just a comment?
Comments are different from allegations. Gore is entitled to the former but not the latter without proof. Nor is anyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Read the entire article. What he is accusing Harper of is ILLEGAL UNDER CANADIAN ELECTION LAW. That is an allegation not a comment. You do know the difference between the two? This is NOT a Canadian vs American thread. This is about one public figure accusing another of breaking the election regulations without a shred of evidence to back it up.
I would say the same were it a Canadian accusing an American of this
WHERE IS THE PROOF? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Still waiting for you to tell us why it is okay for Al Gore to accuse Stephen Harper of breaking the laws because it is just a "comment". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:50 am Post subject: Re: Gore says oil industry backed Harper |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
http://tinyurl.com/8top5
| Quote: |
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.
Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.
"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.
"And the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests."
|
|
And Gore (who is an American) should worry about his own country's politics and keep his nose out of Canadian affairs. This is just the kind of thing that raises Canadian tempers and hurts international relationships. Isn't Gore tired of looking like a idiot everytime he opens his yap?
Notice he doesn't show a single shred of evidence to support his claim that Alberta (despite having one of the lowest populations of the provinces) somehow swung the election in Harper's favour. Why weren't they able to do so before then? Harper won, because enough voters were tired of Liberal corruption and lies. Interestingly enough Harper favours a pro U.S stance and Gore still whines about it?
Gore is an idiot with a big mouth pure and simple. |
I welcome Al Gore's input anytime. He's the former VP of Canada's closest ally, so he's more than entitled to voice his opinion on Canadian politics.
So, you really think Harper isn't backed by Alberta oil? Who else would back someone from Alberta ("one of the lowest populations of the provinces")? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:55 am Post subject: Re: Gore says oil industry backed Harper |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
http://tinyurl.com/8top5
| Quote: |
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.
Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.
"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.
"And the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests."
|
|
And Gore (who is an American) should worry about his own country's politics and keep his nose out of Canadian affairs. This is just the kind of thing that raises Canadian tempers and hurts international relationships. Isn't Gore tired of looking like a idiot everytime he opens his yap?
Notice he doesn't show a single shred of evidence to support his claim that Alberta (despite having one of the lowest populations of the provinces) somehow swung the election in Harper's favour. Why weren't they able to do so before then? Harper won, because enough voters were tired of Liberal corruption and lies. Interestingly enough Harper favours a pro U.S stance and Gore still whines about it?
Gore is an idiot with a big mouth pure and simple. |
I welcome Al Gore's input anytime. He's the former VP of Canada's closest ally, so he's more than entitled to voice his opinion on Canadian politics.
|
There is a difference between voicing your opinion and accusing someone of breaking the laws. One is a comment, the other is an allegation.
Gore is accusing Harper of violating the Federal Elections Act (the specific offense of which Mr. Harper is being accused of usually carries a 1-5 year jail sentence. ) Read the entire article.
For someone to accuse another of a crime(although Gore may not have realized this) without providing any proof is slander. Which is actionable in a court of law.
Gore should hope that Harper doesn't decide to sue him.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:24 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:58 am Post subject: Re: Gore says oil industry backed Harper |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| [So, you really think Harper isn't backed by Alberta oil? Who else would back someone from Alberta ("one of the lowest populations of the provinces")? |
Harper won 124 seats. Most of those seats were not from Alberta. So your comment about "who else would back someone from Alberta" is easily answered. The majority of Canadian voters that's who. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Gore says oil industry backed Harper |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| [So, you really think Harper isn't backed by Alberta oil? Who else would back someone from Alberta ("one of the lowest populations of the provinces")? |
Harper won 124 seats. Most of those seats were not from Alberta. So your comment about "who else would back someone from Alberta" is easily answered. The majority of Canadian voters that's who. |
But, you forget that to get far in politics, you first need local support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So your comment about "who else would back someone from Alberta" is easily answered. The majority of Canadian voters that's who. |
More precisely, the largest plurality of Canadian voters. Harper won about 36% of the vote.
But point taken overall. The idea that no one but Big Oil would support an Albertan for PM is not very credible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it would be most correct to say that Harper was backed by oil and fed (elected) by ignorance....... He can sue me if he wishes.......
Those who are defending Harper don't know the half of how election (party) financing works......it takes $$$$ to get elected. Gore knows that, Harper knows that (and how well their party finances were cleaned up!!!) and people should know that. The biggest obstacle besides ignornace and intolerance (lack of education NOT schooling) to democracy is a fat, self interested cheque book......
One good reason to avoid returning to my home and native land.....I'm sure many immigrants will be also returning home or not coming at all....Canada will become the hick country it always secretly wished unless new winds start ablowin'
I'll scream from afar!
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't read the thread, just sort of skimmed it so apologies if this has already been said, but it would be sort of surprising if oil companies didn't back Harper. He's pro big business, he comes from Alberta ("the Texas of Canada") and he has worked in the oil industry.
Gore's probably right but were any laws broken? I doubt it, but if so it sure would be nice to find some hard evidence.
I don't much like the Conservatives and I didn't vote for them, but I don't buy into the "they are the devil, our country is doomed" hysteria that's been pushed lately... and besides, let's not forget it is after all a minority government.
And I think (informed) commentary and constructive criticism (or even the other kind) on Canadian politics is great, regardless of nationality.
My being Canadian certainly hasn't stopped me from commenting on just about every other country under the sun... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
I think it would be most correct to say that Harper was backed by oil and fed (elected) by ignorance.......(1) He can sue me if he wishes.......
(2) Those who are defending Harper don't know the half of how election (party) financing works......it takes $$$$ to get elected. Gore knows that, Harper knows that (and how well their party finances were cleaned up!!!) and people should know that. The biggest obstacle besides ignornace and intolerance (lack of education NOT schooling) to democracy is a fat, self interested cheque book......
One good reason to avoid returning to my home and native land.....I'm sure many immigrants will be also returning home or not coming at all....Canada will become the hick country it always secretly wished unless new winds start ablowin'
I'll scream from afar!
DD |
1. Pretty brave behind a computer screen aren't you?
2. People who say Harper was backed by oil are showing their ignorance. The Federal Elections Act clearly prohibits companies from giving more than $1000 . If there were any truth to these allegations the Liberals and NDP would be baying for new elections. The fact that they have kept silence speaks volumes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
I didn't read the thread, just sort of skimmed it so apologies if this has already been said, but it would be sort of surprising if oil companies didn't back Harper. He's pro big business, he comes from Alberta ("the Texas of Canada") and he has worked in the oil industry.
(1) Gore's probably right but were any laws broken? I doubt it, but if so it sure would be nice to find some hard evidence.
I don't much like the Conservatives and I didn't vote for them, but I don't buy into the "they are the devil, our country is doomed" hysteria that's been pushed lately... and besides, let's not forget it is after all a minority government.
And I think (informed) commentary and constructive criticism (or even the other kind) on Canadian politics is great, regardless of nationality.
My being Canadian certainly hasn't stopped me from commenting on just about every other country under the sun... |
If Gore is right then laws WERE broken. Period. The Federal Elections act limits companies campaign financing to $1000 per company. Most of Harper's money came from individual voters donating money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
I
And I think (informed) commentary and constructive criticism (or even the other kind) on Canadian politics is great, regardless of nationality.
... |
I think so too. I just wish people would understand the difference between expressing an opinion and making an allegation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Most of Harper's money came from individual voters donating money.
|
Would those "individual voters" include, for example, the CEO of Imperial Oil going up to Harper at a fundraiser, shaking his hand with a big smile, and dropping a hefty check(drawn from his own personal account of course) in Harper's front pocket? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
