Elites, Right Wing ones especially, want unemployment

Page 6 of 6 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Dec 2010, 2:22 am

xenon13 wrote:
The Globe and Mail is a Toronto newspaper, was for a long time the self-proclaimed Canada's National Newspaper with heavy business emphasis. It is the paper of "serious people".


:roll:

Considering you actually don't have Free Speech rights and if I remember correctly they are also controlled by the Government of your country, why would anyone consider them remotely credible? Media is supposed to be a watchdog for the people, it is kinda hard for them to do that if they are the lapdog of the Government they are supposed to keep an eye on.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

16 Dec 2010, 2:25 am

The Globe and Mail is not state-owned. They call themselves the national newspaper in order to sell more copies outside Toronto. The National Post, which was established later, also calls itself a natinonal newspaper and sells in all the cities.

CTV by the way ran the story also and CTV is conservative. They have people there who boast at having got Harper and Mulroney elected.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Dec 2010, 2:48 am

xenon13 wrote:
The Globe and Mail is not state-owned. They call themselves the national newspaper in order to sell more copies outside Toronto. The National Post, which was established later, also calls itself a natinonal newspaper and sells in all the cities.

CTV by the way ran the story also and CTV is conservative. They have people there who boast at having got Harper and Mulroney elected.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Globe_and_Mail

Only started endorsing "Conservatives" in 2006 and 2008, however it has a long history of being a left-wing paper.

However your government is involved in the media more than it should be among other things.


Although Canadian private broadcasters regularly espouse the virtues of a free market and a lack of regulation, they often turn to government for assistance in protecting their private spheres. Foreigners cannot own or control through proxy any Canadian broadcast media. On numerous occasions, the federal government has attempted to protect the Canadian magazine industry through tax protection or outright subsidy. Foreign booksellers are not allowed to set up competing shops in Canada. The Borders Books and Music chain was forbidden entry into the country to compete with a similar Canadian chain called Chapters. Eventually the person who attempted to bring Borders to Canada opted to begin her own chain, called Indigo. When Chapters fell on hard times, she merged the Indigo operation with Chapters. When Canadian press baron Conrad Black attempted to accept a seat in the British House of Lords, the Canadian government reminded him that he would have to relinquish his Canadian citizenship and consequently his newspaper chain. Black did for the most part cut ties to Canada, selling his principle holdings to broadcaster Can West Global.

http://www.pressreference.com/Be-Co/Canada.html

Fact is you only have the right to say something in Canada if the government is okay with it.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

16 Dec 2010, 3:10 am

The Canadian government does not broadcast the existence of NAIRU and neither does the mass-consumption media. Such mentions are only for specialised business audiences who tend to be sympathetic. The person in the street aren't supposed to know that the government creates unemployment! The Canadian government doesn't want people to know, that's for sure.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Dec 2010, 11:36 pm

xenon13 wrote:
The Canadian government does not broadcast the existence of NAIRU and neither does the mass-consumption media. Such mentions are only for specialised business audiences who tend to be sympathetic. The person in the street aren't supposed to know that the government creates unemployment! The Canadian government doesn't want people to know, that's for sure.


If the Canadian Government didn't approve of what that paper was saying, it would have been closed down by the Canadian Government.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

17 Dec 2010, 2:09 am

The Canadian government does not shut down newspapers.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

17 Dec 2010, 2:26 am

Inuyasha wrote:
@ Master_Pedant

So I suppose people getting fired because they are Christian isn't persecution... :roll: Seriously, if I can think of several incidents off the top of my head involving atheists participating in religious persecution within the last 5 years here in the states.


The problem isn't that fundie employees are being fired because they're Christians, the problem is that they insist on wearing buttons displaying Christian nationalist themes.

Inuyasha wrote:
So explain to me how voter intimidation not being prosecuted because the victims were white is not a cause for concern... :roll:

I guess it doesn't count in your mind when the victims are conservative and/or white.


Most of those claims tend to be grossly exaggerate if not outright lies by the Con Artists.

Inuyasha wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how you are proving people like Glenn Beck right. You are suggesting we forcibly take away people's property, money, etc. that they worked hard to get, and give it to people that don't work at all. Income redistribution like that is really a polite way of saying you're stealing from someone.

You call people like Sean Hannity evil and greedy rich people that don't deserve the money they make.

Did you know Sean Hannity actually started from a rather humble background, and has pulled himself up to where he is today? He is pretty much a self-made man, he didn't steal from anyone. I quite frankly don't care that you don't like what he says and while liberals like yourself would like to do away with the 1st Amendment, it's not going to happen without another civil war in this country and I don't think the military will side with the liberals and violate their oath to perserve and protect this country and the Constitution.


Newsflash, Inuyasha, almost all government interventions are in some sense "redistribution". Under your absurd logic, the military is "stealing from civillians" to fight wars (as taxation that goes to the military-industrial complex is by and large a redistribution of wealth away from the civillian sector towards the military sector).

And quite the BS of finding one or two instances of "self-made men" and using them as reasons why the rich shouldn't be taxed. To take a truly hard-working, diligent man's words...

"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

18 Dec 2010, 2:23 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEWcTEfFurA[/youtube]



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Dec 2010, 5:15 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
@ Master_Pedant

So I suppose people getting fired because they are Christian isn't persecution... :roll: Seriously, if I can think of several incidents off the top of my head involving atheists participating in religious persecution within the last 5 years here in the states.


The problem isn't that fundie employees are being fired because they're Christians, the problem is that they insist on wearing buttons displaying Christian nationalist themes.


Then why weren't employees fired for gay pride or pro-Islam buttons? If that had happened your argument would have merit, but they singled out Christians only.

Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
So explain to me how voter intimidation not being prosecuted because the victims were white is not a cause for concern... :roll:

I guess it doesn't count in your mind when the victims are conservative and/or white.


Most of those claims tend to be grossly exaggerate if not outright lies by the Con Artists.


You know, you just proved right the you have a serious bias. Also the incident I'm referring to is caught on tape and they had already won the case. Then Obama's Justice Department dropped the charges.

Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how you are proving people like Glenn Beck right. You are suggesting we forcibly take away people's property, money, etc. that they worked hard to get, and give it to people that don't work at all. Income redistribution like that is really a polite way of saying you're stealing from someone.

You call people like Sean Hannity evil and greedy rich people that don't deserve the money they make.

Did you know Sean Hannity actually started from a rather humble background, and has pulled himself up to where he is today? He is pretty much a self-made man, he didn't steal from anyone. I quite frankly don't care that you don't like what he says and while liberals like yourself would like to do away with the 1st Amendment, it's not going to happen without another civil war in this country and I don't think the military will side with the liberals and violate their oath to perserve and protect this country and the Constitution.


Newsflash, Inuyasha, almost all government interventions are in some sense "redistribution". Under your absurd logic, the military is "stealing from civillians" to fight wars (as taxation that goes to the military-industrial complex is by and large a redistribution of wealth away from the civillian sector towards the military sector).


Uh Government is supposed to protect the country, that means a military which has to be funded. To be frank, the argument for funding the military is in the pre-amble of the United States Constitution. You are using a false equivalency.

Master_Pedant wrote:
And quite the BS of finding one or two instances of "self-made men" and using them as reasons why the rich shouldn't be taxed. To take a truly hard-working, diligent man's words...


Most people whom you consider wealthy got their on their own through hard work, not through inheritence.

Master_Pedant wrote:
"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett


And I care what Warren Buffett says why?



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

19 Dec 2010, 7:34 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how you are proving people like Glenn Beck right. You are suggesting we forcibly take away people's property, money, etc. that they worked hard to get, and give it to people that don't work at all. Income redistribution like that is really a polite way of saying you're stealing from someone.

You call people like Sean Hannity evil and greedy rich people that don't deserve the money they make.

Did you know Sean Hannity actually started from a rather humble background, and has pulled himself up to where he is today? He is pretty much a self-made man, he didn't steal from anyone. I quite frankly don't care that you don't like what he says and while liberals like yourself would like to do away with the 1st Amendment, it's not going to happen without another civil war in this country and I don't think the military will side with the liberals and violate their oath to perserve and protect this country and the Constitution.


Newsflash, Inuyasha, almost all government interventions are in some sense "redistribution". Under your absurd logic, the military is "stealing from civillians" to fight wars (as taxation that goes to the military-industrial complex is by and large a redistribution of wealth away from the civillian sector towards the military sector).
Absurd logic? More like you're putting his logic under an absurd context. A lot of conservatives believe the government's role is protecting its citizens from their rights being violated and from attacks upon them. Taxes being used to fund the military is considered within the government's jurisdiction, as well as taxes used to fund the police departments.

So there's no inconsistency with that logic as far as I can see.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Dec 2010, 7:44 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
The Canadian government does not broadcast the existence of NAIRU and neither does the mass-consumption media. Such mentions are only for specialised business audiences who tend to be sympathetic. The person in the street aren't supposed to know that the government creates unemployment! The Canadian government doesn't want people to know, that's for sure.


If the Canadian Government didn't approve of what that paper was saying, it would have been closed down by the Canadian Government.


Canada has a free press. By custom, the press is not regulated.

ruveyn