# California company for Harper ads??!!!



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Electioneering in the guise of a poll and via a California company. Yuck.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Electioneering in the guise of a poll and via a California company. Yuck.



This is exactly why I started the thread...

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=41231

If ehMac.ca is a completely private venture then we have no say over advertising. However is this is a community, then yeah we should have a say.

And I say that given the political nature of many of the discussions here we don't need to have Harper's face planted in a banner ad for all to see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Da-Jonesy--GET........A.........GRIP!!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I love how some people believe that "as a community" they feel they should have complete control over how it's run. Ultimately, it's controlled by one person. The ads generate revenue to keep the site running... so unless you want to start paying a premium to come here (which nobody wants to do)... put up with it.

There's no such thing as a free site.

Don't like the political ads? Don't talk politics. It's that simple. GoogleAds will change on a page by page basis depending on the topic at hand.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Da-Jonesy--GET........A.........GRIP!!


Yeah Yeah, whatever.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So, MannyP: are you essentially saying that the more threads are created by AS and Spec to criticize Mr. Harper, the more often we will see Mr. Harper in the banners above those postings?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF - this is the "everything else" - Gay vote is a topical subject. You don't like it? Go to the Shang....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I love how some people believe that "as a community" they feel they should have complete control over how it's run. Ultimately, it's controlled by one person. The ads generate revenue to keep the site running... so unless you want to start paying a premium to come here (which nobody wants to do)... put up with it.
> 
> There's no such thing as a free site.
> 
> Don't like the political ads? Don't talk politics. It's that simple. GoogleAds will change on a page by page basis depending on the topic at hand.


Then that says something doesn't it? I choose not to read the National Post for specific reasons related to their point of view.

How would you feel if the banner ads were for the Liberal Party? or lets say the banner ads were for ACLU or NAACP? or on the other end of the spectrum the ads were for Kellog Root and Brown or Haliburton?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy, you could take the polls and enter bogus information (you'll see they are very predictable and simple). By doing that you will falsify data and give ehmac revenue at the same time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Da-Jonesy--I just accept the ads as part of receiving a free service. Unless they violated some sort of law, I couldn't care less what's on them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think it's pretty dodgy for the Prime Minister to use googleWords in the guise of a poll to electioneer and use a California company to do it - likely to avoid election rules.
It reeks.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If it's funded by government, then I would agree. If it's the party then it seems ok (I prefer it to Ipsos calling me in the evening...of course that won't happen  ). I'm not sure about the election rules, but this would seem to be standard polling, and I'm not sure if it's covered under expense rules, regardless of which country the firm is in.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Have you done the poll Beej? 
Some questions are very specific (like when we should hold a new election).

Do you approve or disapprove of the job that Stephen Harper is doing as Prime Minister of Canada?

Do you think Canada is headed in the right direction or off on the wrong track?

In Canada's new budget, there are 28 separate tax cuts. As a whole, do you support or oppose the tax cut proposals?

Would you support or oppose calling new Federal elections within the next 18 months?

In which province or territory do you live?

If a federal election were held today, which party would you most likely vote for in your Riding?

Prime Minister Harper campaigned on 5 promises. Which one do you think is MOST IMPORTANT?

Which of Harper's 5 promises are LEAST IMPORTANT to you?

Turning to provincial matters, thinking about Ontario, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Dalton McGuinty is doing as Premier?

Thinking about Ontario, which party do you think can best handle ECONOMIC issues?

Thinking about Ontario again, which party do you think can best handle EDUCATION issues?

What do you think is the most important issue facing Canada today?

Compared to twelve months ago, do you think Canada's standing in the world is going up, going down, or staying the same?

Compared to twelve months ago, do you think Canada's economy is getting better, getting worse, or statying the same?

Which of the the following things have you done WITHIN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS?

etc...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That sure has the look of electioneering about it.










*Vote now and let your voice be heard*.....c'mon election slogan in drag as a poll. It's an AD not a bloody poll.
Since when do polling companies advertise for responses.?? And he can't find a Canadian firm to undertake it. Stinks, reeks.....more emperor Harper crap.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Have you done the poll Beej?
> Some questions are very specific (like when we should hold a new election).


No, I'm not giving click credits for that banner. I recommend that no one click on it. Sorry ehMax.

I've seen polls clearly designed to 'edumacate' on a point of view. Like I said, I don't know the election rules, but party-paid advertising outside an official election may be ok. I'm ok with it if it follows the rules and is paid for by the party; I don't find the country of the firm relevant unless, as MacDoc mentioned, it's a way to get around the rules. Do you have a problem with it if my criteria are met?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I've seen polls clearly designed to 'edumacate' on a point of view.


Don't you like edumacation? 
Am I allowed to be cynical on this one or will I feel the wrath of the Beej?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I can't possibly see any other reason for going outside the country. Adwords is very straight forward and this poll is hardly rocket science. You could do it up here on ehMac with little effort.
Something stinks it sounds either like a neoCon cross border effort or an electioneering rule dodge.
If the former - it's clearly interference.
If the latter - illegal if it's affliated officially with the Gov.
Are even the parties allowed broadbased political advertising outside election period?

Depends on who is writing the checks ( sic).

•••

Reading here sure casts this in a doubtful light.

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=thi/que&lang=e&textonly=false

If you wish to make a comment on this 
*[email protected]*
Here you go.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I clicked it. I completed the poll. Some people get bent out of shape over the smallest things.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Don't you like edumacation?
> Am I allowed to be cynical on this one or will I feel the wrath of the Beej?


The wrath is reserved for AS_Spec, and you know it. He's been hanging around a lot lately. Maybe I need to edumacate you on the fine points of cynicism and bellyaching.  Cheers AS, this discussion is going quite well, although, with that post up my a**, I could be convinced to change mind. On the other hand...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks for digging MD.
....
. What is "election advertising"?

"Election advertising" is defined in section 319 of the Canada Elections Act. "Election advertising" may be interpreted as a message that is:

transmitted by any means during an election

transmitted to any person or persons with whom the originator of the message does not have some common cause or connection, and

intended to influence how an elector might vote, by promoting or opposing a registered party or the election of a candidate, including a message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated

However, the above should be interpreted as a general guide. The actual definition of "election advertising" should be reviewed in order to determine if any particular message would constitute election advertising for the purposes of the Canada Elections Act.
....

As a casual definition, it appears to have an 'and' clause (unclear because it's casual I assume). Therefore the 'during an election' clause is not met. Still, if MD would dig up the actual act for us....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GT do you understand that there are strict laws governing election spending and advertising??
By using a California firm and disguising it as a poll those laws are being flouted.

This is VERY broadbased advertising and by the frequency it's expensive.

Beej are there not limits on contributions to parties as well? What a convenient way to get around those.
I sent a note of protest to Elections Canada.

here is interesting stuff



> *Every candidate who incurs pre-election expenses* and election expenses that cumulatively exceed $30 000 is guilty of an offence.


http://www.elections.ca/loi/com2002/Enforcement/enf09_e.html

anyone feel like charging Harper


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

FWIW, if you go to other sites the ads will appear asking about that country's leader (eg. GW Bush, Tony Blair among others). At least that is where I first saw these hellish ads 3 weeks ago and asking how people liked George Bush.

This isn't election advertising, but a overtly annoying ad by a polling company trying to make money off internet polling.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej are there not limits on contributions to parties as well? What a convenient way to get around those.


Yes there are, but if this is how they choose to spend their money, that's their choice. If this is a third-party work-around (reach-around?), that's something else. Note, the Libs did this sort of thing with gov't funds to test ideas. The Cons, if using gov't funds or getting around something should be hoisted for it, but this is not some special 'neocon' thing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Che how is the company making money - adwords cost.
It looks far more like "outside the rules" electioneering.

Yep the Liberals played taffy with them as well but Harper is supposed to fix all that.....yeah right.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So, MannyP: are you essentially saying that the more threads are created by AS and Spec to criticize Mr. Harper, the more often we will see Mr. Harper in the banners above those postings?


Gotta love Newton's third law. :lmao:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> GT do you understand that there are strict laws governing election spending and advertising??
> By using a California firm and disguising it as a poll those laws are being flouted.
> 
> This is VERY broadbased advertising and by the frequency it's expensive.


I'm sorry, I missed a part of this thread. What evidence do we have that Harper is paying for this?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MacDoc - I don't buy it. Given what else the company does I'd be more willing to believe the company would try and sell it afterwards but that they weren't contracted to do this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GuyToronto: 

MacDoc thinks Prime Minister Harper is paying to put those lame-o banners on the site. 

The missing part is a connection between the ads and Mr.Harper.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It really doesn't matter who is paying for it - it's political advertising and there are rules regarding how much can be spent.
It clearly looks like a dodge around those rules.










Volpe was on very thing ground accepting donations from kids all of whom happened to have parents with strong corporate positions. Another dodge to get around the spending limits.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Volpe was on very thing ground accepting donations from kids all of whom happened to have parents with strong corporate positions. Another dodge to get around the spending limits.


You don't think those kids honestly had $5400 and wanted to donate it to a leadership contender? I believe children are the future and that it's great to see them getting involved in...ok, I can't even finish that. :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I dropped a note about these banners to a few of the newspapers and their associated political bloggers ( who should understand the issue well ).

Got an Ottawa Press Gallery contact?...might be a few denizens there looking for a story to chew on


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Got an Ottawa Press Gallery contact?


No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express...

This will be interesting to watch. If there's wrong-doing or Volpesque sad-doing, ehmac may be in the news again. Great, more lurkers.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

interesting that www.pollingpoint.com/politics doesn't exist
let's see if i can get the ad to pop up

how is harper doing?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You wonder just exactly what is being accumulated on the click through. 

And Che spare me - the "this isn't sponsored or paid for" nonsense.
Prospective Clients:* [email protected]*

Question is - who is the client and how does this fit into political advertising caps.



> Data Services
> 
> Any political campaign - whether registering individuals, persuading voters, or getting out the vote - can be only as successful as the information it uses. At Polimetrix, we have built a system that represents a generational leap in microtargeting and improving the efficiency of voter registration and contact programs.
> Our internal database, The Voter Matrix, contains over 100 million records of voters spread across over 30 states. More than just a traditional voter file vendor, however, we offer a wide array of data enhancement services that innovate substantially over what currently exists.
> ...


http://www.polimetrix.com/services_data.html

•••

Someone else annoyed and more to this than meets the eye.

http://duddle.blogspot.com/2006/05/stephen-harper-is-stalking-my-hotmail.html



> Saturday, May 20, 2006
> 
> Stephen Harper Is Stalking My Hotmail!!
> 
> ...


Some very interesting results in searching google. *harper pollingpoint*


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This has to be the ultimate irony - a Lib blogger with a link to donate suffers a grinning harpo banner










http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2006/05/harpers-war-on-liberalism.html

This is not small change somebody is spending.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> ...This is not small change somebody is spending.


And I don't think it's Harper or any Canadian entity, governmental or private, doing the spending. It's Harper's good ol' think-tank buddies in the U.S.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suspect you are right and there are provisions for that in the various acts as well tho there must be some CanCon hand in the process.
I note the caveat that despite being "nonpartisan" - the company can choose not to reveal the poll sponsors.

This looks very much like a conduit to spending political moneys outside the regulated channels and it applies to US rules as well. What better way than to get a big corp to sponsor a purported "poll".

I notice there was a lot of California "polls" involving Arnie. Pretty grey area.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

looks like the cdn. cons have been taking lessons from their american counterparts

after all, karl rove and abramoff need to still make money for their defence funds


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's nothing to do with liking the ads and everything to do with the supposedly "honest transparent" government following the rules regarding political campaigning and advertising.
Using a California company for this is just an added insult and raises questions about how such expenditures can be tracked as they are supposed to be.

Remember this is the same Harper on Martin's case over Adscam. A little heat over his own questionable activities would do him no harm at all.


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

There are these banners on many sites. Depending on where you're identified from based on your IP, they will pop up. British people will get one on Tony Blair, US people will get one on George Bush and so on.

I've seen Chretien and Martin ones before as well. It's some completely independent company, probably just looking at making some cash off polling somehow.

Gotta love the conspiracy theories.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now I'm pissed - hardly contextual.










This kind of coverage and size is not cheap - I wanna knows who's paying the bills.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Now I'm pissed - hardly contextual.
> 
> 
> This kind of coverage and size is not cheap - I wanna knows who's paying the bills.


Why? Because Martin and gang did not think of it first?

Legal and legitimate. Sour grapes comes to mind here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: If you think it's the Conservatives, just click on that banner and vote away, telling them you don't like it--no sir, not at all.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Legal and legitimate. Sour grapes comes to mind here.


I'm glad that you have appointed yourself "legal authority". I'm sure that your opinion on this has about the same validity as all your other ones...


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Now I'm pissed - hardly contextual.
> 
> 
> This kind of coverage and size is not cheap - I wanna knows who's paying the bills.


I am finding it increasingly difficult to navigate to any far from politically oriented web page without Stephen’s face plastered all over it.
North Korea comes to mind…


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I think the board recognizes SINC's legal authority...and your lefty authority...and MacSpectrum's tinfoil authority...

(leaves ellipsis for obligatory AS comeback)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's just picking up your IP address. The other day I was told by a web site that I couldn't compare mortgage rates between Canada and the U.S. because the site detected a non-U.S. resident.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: I think the board recognizes SINC's legal authority...and your lefty authority...and MacSpectrum's tinfoil authority...


Like everything else MF, you like to paint with a rather distorted view.
Care to elaborate on "lefty authority"? Or is this another blind attack where you'll never back up your statements? You kind of like to shoot excrement around and after awhile some will stick but it's really based on a monkey having nothing better to do...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Care to elaborate on "lefty authority"?


This isn't as funny a response as I expected. 

The statement refers to your likelihood to skew "left" on many issues on which you claim to be libertarian--e.g., the libertarian would argue that the government has no right to spend your money on the charity of its choice. You, on the other hand, balk when these programs are cut.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, there you go again mixing up and skewing (or should I say imposing your views) onto what I think. Libertarians don't really fall into the "right/left" diatribe of the political spectrum - something that you know. If I remember correctly, the Nolan chart hinted that Libertarians are akin to Liberals when it comes to social issues but closer to true Cons when it comes to economic issues. 

There is too much government involvement in society. Individual freedoms is what I really care about. As long as your are not "hurting" an individual or society, then your The first thing I would like cut is business welfare. Cons talk about "free economy", yet are the first in line handouts. There are no needs for those. 

I don't want the government telling me what is moral and what is not. Hence my support for SSM. 

I oppose many government controls that hurt the individuals and the we individuals are free to choose our own path as long as we don't hurt others.

The government should not be in the charity business and I was not happy when it announced it's plans with regards to donation matching after the tsunami. 

The government should never be monitoring my phone calls, e-mails, surfing habits under any circumstances.

What program have I balked at being cut except for childcare one? I've explained that society benefits much more from it. Furthermore, it's not an obligation to sent your children there. The Con program is a con - it's not choice in childcare, it's an child care supplement. 

If the government does get involved in certain fields, I think it should do it well. A for-profit company does have the concern of individuals first. 

Maybe my response was not funny because it was insulting.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Maybe libertarian is somewhat different. In instances, you want government out. Fine, welcome to the vast middle-earth that most people reside in. Calling it libertarian or libertarian-leaning is just saying that you'd like to make decisions for yourself except...

Your stance is pretty standard stuff and does not warrant the label 'libertarian' or 'libertarian' leaning. It just fits into the vast and sometimes quite complex area of conventional views that don't fit labels related to hard-and-fast ideologies.

No big deal, the vast majority of voters are there too, even if on individual issues their opinions vary. But, using 'libertarian' in isolated instances really just means that on some issues you want to do what you want without government interference. That's not libertarian, that's human. Alternatively, everyone is libertarian or libertarian-leaning.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, could be but there are instances where the Con mould (sic) fits certain individuals, where you know how they will react and think on certain subjects. Ditto Libs. 

If we go by wiki, the definition of Libertarian is rather vague also. Of course, a contrarian like yourself seems to prefer objecting and finding differences in whatever I write without elucidation. I'll give you kudos this time for trying to add a certain vagueness to what I have written and I'm sure that if we pushed your logic far enough a communist would be equivalent to neo-con...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Of course, a contrarian like yourself seems to prefer objecting and finding differences in whatever I write without elucidation. I'll give you kudos this time for trying to add a certain vagueness to what I have written and I'm sure that if we pushed your logic far enough a communist would be equivalent to neo-con...


Ok AS, whatever you say. Don't self-examine, just attack.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Ok AS, whatever you say. Don't self-examine, just attack.


If you actually had a counterpoint, I'd give it more introspection - but given the your method lately has only been contrarian - meh


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> If you actually had a counterpoint, I'd give it more introspection - but given the your method lately has only been contrarian - meh


AS the point was made, you avoided it and then proceeded with the obligatory attack. Deflect, attack, label as 'contrarian' or 'spin' or 'neocon'...the list keeps growing for what you can't discuss -- namely what you don't agree with. Just be honest and say you don't feel like discussing it. How hard is that to admit?

Feel free to keep thinking you're 'libertarian'. Expect people to point out that it is not so. Somehow, things will keep moving along. Differences are interesting, but don't substitute anger for perception.

Cheers and happy Sunday.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, there comes a point where any "discussion" with you is futile. I'll say "nice blue sky" and you will say 'no it's azure" or the more common from you "no it's not". 
It does not matter in what context or in what situation something is being said (it this case it was something by MF). 
So Beej, tell me in what respect I should not label myself "libertarian"? You keep on asking for "substance", show me what you got!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, there comes a point where any "discussion" with you is futile. I'll say "nice blue sky" and you will say 'no it's azure" or the more common from you "no it's not".
> It does not matter in what context or in what situation something is being said (it this case it was something by MF).
> So Beej, tell me in what respect I should not label myself "libertarian"? You keep on asking for "substance", show me what you got!


Sigh. You consider contrarian what questions your presets.

Substance? There is very little, if anything, to distinguish your posts from a standard complex centrist. You can call that libertarian or socialist or whatever you want, because it draws from all ideologies or, more accurately, those extreme ideologies draw from specific ideas that normal people have. You're normal; try not to label yourself with no basis. I don't know why you are so combatitave about this. Get over it and enjoy your day. Maybe that is Contentist. Who knows.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS is libertarian and Beej is marxist. Anything to the contrary is contrarian. beejacon


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

:yawn: 
Really would of been nice if you had surprised me this time. Instead I get some more vagueness from the Beej. Maybe to make the afternoon complete, you can say a few disparaging words about MS and call it a day.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> :yawn:
> Really would of been nice if you had surprised me this time. Instead I get some more vagueness from the Beej. Maybe to make the afternoon complete, you can say a few disparaging words about MS and call it a day.


a day without slagging MS is like a day without sunshine


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Beej is correct. The libertarian would say that nobody has the right to take one person's money to provide childcare for another person. 

That you believe "it works" is enough justification for you, but not a libertarian who does not care how well it works, if money must be coerced from them to pay for it. Many are more than happy to take other people's money to fund projects because they believe their ideas work--public health care, energy policy, equalization payments. It's not enough to say you want the government out of your business--your salary is also your business if you're a libertarian.

Essentially, if you don't want to be a leftist, I can brand you a "statist." In this case someone who wishes the state to take his money--and everyone elses's--to fund a program because he believes "it works."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> a day without slagging MS is like a day without sunshine


MacSpec, don't be a GOOF!

"Here comes the sun..."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MacSpec, don't be a GOOF!
> 
> "Here comes the sun..."


you have the market pretty much cornered on that commodity


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Essentially, if you don't want to be a leftist, I can brand you a "statist." In this case someone who wishes the state to take his money--and everyone elses's--to fund a program because he believes "it works."


Please - :yawn: 
If you must label, you can do better than that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ahh, the feeble AS/MacSpec one-two punch. 

1) Spec, I thought you'd find that innocuous post funny. If you didn't get the minor humour I apologize.

2) AS: I don't see much need to create a better label. You can't be a libertarian and support government welfare programs at the same time.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Please - :yawn:
> If you must label, you can do better than that.


Much yawning, little evidence or response to points made. Diversion, but why? Is it some point of pride to hold on to that label? 

So how are you libertarian, in light of points made and social programs supported? I support some social programs, but am not socialist. I support a good deal of individual freedoms, but am not libertarian. Too vague for you? That's because those labels describe very few people; people are more complex than that. 

You had this post, after which you decided to divert and attack instead of discuss:
........
There is too much government involvement in society. Individual freedoms is what I really care about. As long as your are not "hurting" an individual or society, then your The first thing I would like cut is business welfare. Cons talk about "free economy", yet are the first in line handouts. There are no needs for those. 

I don't want the government telling me what is moral and what is not. Hence my support for SSM. 

I oppose many government controls that hurt the individuals and the we individuals are free to choose our own path as long as we don't hurt others.

The government should not be in the charity business and I was not happy when it announced it's plans with regards to donation matching after the tsunami. 

The government should never be monitoring my phone calls, e-mails, surfing habits under any circumstances.

What program have I balked at being cut except for childcare one? I've explained that society benefits much more from it. Furthermore, it's not an obligation to sent your children there. The Con program is a con - it's not choice in childcare, it's an child care supplement. 

If the government does get involved in certain fields, I think it should do it well. A for-profit company does have the concern of individuals first. 
......

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

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

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


Maybe you should start over to make your point instead of being angry that people disagree with you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> A for-profit company does have the concern of individuals first.


No they have the concern of the shareholders first ( rightly so ) and the concern of the customers is a necessary evil.

Not for profit and NGOs may have the customers best interests at heart and this category is often doing a better job than gov in dealing with difficult categories issues like homeless shelters etc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Not for profit and NGOs may have the customers best interests at heart and this category is often doing a better job than gov in dealing with difficult categories issues like homeless shelters etc.


The problem with the approach of NGOs and government responses to social problems is that they have no interest in seeing their "client base" eroded. Instead of having responsibility to shareholders and boards of directors, their allegiance switches to promulgation of a particular ministry or social program--and the employment of its members. Favoured solutions are often those that require continuous input.

We rarely see a group or ministry eliminated once a problem has been licked. A rare example is one of the acid rain groups.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Ahh, the feeble AS/MacSpec one-two punch.
> 
> 1) Spec, I thought you'd find that innocuous post funny. If you didn't get the minor humour I apologize.
> 
> 2) AS: I don't see much need to create a better label. You can't be a libertarian and support government welfare programs at the same time.



no need to apologize
stupid is as stupid does

in my Canada you can pretty much say what you want, but my Canada is dying so I don't know how much longer you, or more likely I, will be able to do that

[commas brought to you courtesy of Sprite - the soothing drink]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> no need to apologize
> stupid is as stupid does


Ay chihuahua, Spec! You've got to be more careful with the repartee--that comment could be taken as a backfire.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> It's some completely independent company, probably just looking at making some cash off polling somehow.


golfballs come to mind.......

after all the Adscam furor this has the potential to be just as slimy. And do the oh so squeaky clean high and might Con supporters care.....nahh - why am I NOT surprised.

There are a couple of news types now sniffing about....we'll see what comes of it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: Though I don't think the ad violates any laws, how did Elections Canada respond?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I took a screen print to my MP's (Peggy Nash) constituancy office. They are looking into it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well the first admissions of truth - it's an AD not a poll. :clap:

Elections Canada does not respond when investigating a complaint.....ergo no news is good news.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Well the first admissions of truth - it's an AD not a poll. :clap:
> 
> Elections Canada does not respond when investigating a complaint.....ergo no news is good news.


If true, I'm sure that the 'Poll" will quickly disappear from circulation now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: I didn't expect they would offer up an opinion, just curious on the protocol. Some government agencies eventually report to the complainant on the status of the case file.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Well the first admissions of truth - it's an AD not a poll. :clap:



Please tell me where you got this info from.
thanks,


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Right here - this little unconscious slip by MF just serves to confirm my contention - these are ADS not polls.

MF wrote



> Though I don't think the *ad* violates any laws


It's political advertising with very suspect provenance.
This kind of pervasive but ephemeral advertising is very tricky to track and with the origins in the US........
Who's paying the bill??.....this is NOT cheap.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Right here - this little unconscious slip by MF just serves to confirm my contention - these are ADS not polls.
> .........
> It's political advertising with very suspect provenance.
> This kind of pervasive but ephemeral advertising is very tricky to track and with the origins in the US........
> Who's paying the bill??.....this is NOT cheap.


You think he has inside info? Otherwise 'unconscious slip' doesn't mean much.
.........
If a polling company manages to run its polls while advertising its services effectively, that's a pretty low-cost business model. Advertising + polling budget = 0 + polling budget. 

It could be an ad/poll for the polling company. I think this was mentioned way back in the thread. Essentially trolling for contracts while running their polls (of a difficult to pin-down audience).

Finally, if there is unseemly goings on, hang em' high. beejacon


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

C'mon Beej - read the company info- they are in the biz to make money from political entities. 
I'm sure their pseudo polls are an excellent work around for any number of election laws in any number of countries.

Also the click through payment scheme provides an interesting "source" for donations which are now heavily restricted.
Positioning/frequency of adwords has to be bid for.
Follow the money....there are many wrinkles in this for potential shenanigans.

What would happen if that type of banner ad was in every magazine and newspaper on a daily basis?? You don't think there would be some questions raised?

But because it's targetted via AdWords it's hard to see the scope.
I'm only familiar as I use Adwords in a minor way.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

All relevant and good points (the 'unconscious' one wasn't). This will then make the news (and be double-double around here). Either way, enjoy the public beating then move on. Maybe politicians are not what they try to convince us of.  

Gomery exposed much filth that needed to be exposed, but the time and effort related to political spinning and maneouvering took away from real public policy work. When the mob gets going, it's hard to convince them to plan their dinner.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The interesting aspect is that if done in a clean manner - ie being up front that it's an ad then it's actually cost effective for a poltical party to target discussions etc with their message.
And that is something any Canadian ad agency could do for a Canadian political party.
Then the spending could be audited as is required. Ad Words are very targetted and cost effective.

It's the 
pseudo ad
California company

that's got my slime radar on high for being a dodge on the political advertising rules.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The interesting aspect is that if done in a clean manner - ie being up front that it's an ad then it's actually cost effective for a poltical party to target discussions etc with their message.
> And that is something any Canadian ad agency could do for a Canadian political party.
> Then the spending could be audited as is required. Ad Words are very targetted and cost effective.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I don't know the $ comparisons, but boomers and older are more numerous and have higher voter turnout. They're the base. 

However, if you can pick up 1% or 2% from the internet crowd (a little overlap with boomers+, but certainly not a 'random' sample of the public) then that makes a big difference in the current situation. Interesting times for political marketers. The majority of voting hasn't changed but that ever-so-important margin may have. Or it could just be an entrenched bunch of looneys.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Boomers are on the Internet all the time - live there - and remember the ad popped up when I was reading a Mac site - no politics at all.
The internet use for Canadians is extremely high



> The average family spends more than 1,600 hours online per year


and just under 70% of Canadians used the internet.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/ca.htm

That's an enormous exposure window compared to say newspaper or magazine.
With the huge growth in blogging - exposure numbers are skyrocketing and it's targetted, very little production costs and can be tweaked almost effortlessly.

and OF COURSE......it's only a poll.......yeah right


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sniff, sniff.......hmmmm



> Tory ethics bill could cripple Grit leadership convention
> JOAN BRYDEN
> Canadian Press
> Ottawa — Prime Minister Stephen Harper's vaunted ethics legislation could make it illegal for anyone who's donated more than $5 to the Liberals this year to attend the party's leadership convention in December.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060615.wgritty0615/BNStory/National/home

one wonders how the dots connect.

from the same story



> Mr. MacKinnon said the Tories seem intent on harassing the Liberals and disrupting their leadership race. And he said it's particularly petty given that the Tories timed their 2004 leadership race, which Mr. Harper won, to avoid new rules banning corporate donations and limiting individual contributions to $5,400.
> 
> The previous Liberal government passed those changes in the fall of 2003. But the Liberal legislation specified that the new rules would not apply to any leadership contest that was under way by Jan. 1, 2004, when the law went into force.
> 
> ...


so now we have an internet savvy way of avoiding all those nasty rules, and to who is going to count the clicks on the ad each of which can be dollars in the sponsors pocket.
Sponsor is hidden - it's just a poll after all.









getting a bit stinky.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

By "ad" I mean purchased space. Even a public service announcement is and ad.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

By the way, was it ever determined that there are spending rules outside of an election period? There are permanent funding rules and spending rules inside an election period but, if a party wants to spend its money outside of an election, what are the rules?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

From what I could see the total was $30,000 per candidate period.

So ironic this



> Clean up government polling and advertising
> The Liberal government commissions some $25 million per year in polling and public opinion research. Much of this polling is conducted by Liberal-connected polling firms. The Auditor General revealed that Paul Martin’s Finance department commissioned polling for which there were “only verbal reports? – nothing was written down so there was no paper trail. Yet the Martin government prevented the Gomery Commission from investigating this part of the Auditor General’s report.
> 
> And while the Liberal-friendly ad firms involved in the sponsorship program are under investigation, tens of millions of dollars have been awarded to Liberal-connected advertising firms in other contracts not related to sponsorship. Earnscliffe, the lobbying and polling company closely connected to Paul Martin, has received over $10 million from the federal government since 1993.
> ...


http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2275/28971


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Yes, to me the question is if this is paid for by the government or another entity. I'm not sure it matter if it's the party, but would like to know what the rules are. 

Finally checked the Elections Act:
.......
Spending limit 350. 
(1) A third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $150,000 during an election period in relation to a general election. 
.......
407. 
(1) An election expense includes any cost incurred, or non-monetary contribution received, by a registered party or a candidate, to the extent that the property or service for which the cost was incurred, or the nonmonetary contribution received, is used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period.
.......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think that act only covers the election period.
Clearly there are other laws ( ie the fund raising aspect ) that are 24/7/365 that restrict party and candidate spending between elections.
I agree it's hard to get a clear picture of what the limits are but it's also clear there is much "game playing" in trying to cripple the opposition. Chret did it to Martin and Harper is trying to do it to the Libs.

That's why this "offshore" and pseudo ad style plus using "pay by click" makes me very suspicious that it's being used as a work around.
and damn ....who's paying for it??
Maybe time for a note to the Auditor General......she's done a good job snifing out the con games.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I think that act only covers the election period.
> Clearly there are other laws ( ie the fund raising aspect ) that are 24/7/365 that restrict party and candidate spending between elections.
> .....
> but it's also clear there is much "game playing" in trying to cripple the opposition.
> ...


The Elections Act covers nominations, leadership contests and includes the rules on donations. I'm not sure there are other provisions (outside of income tax deductions). Are there any other rules outside the elections act of the sort that you're talking about?

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&dir=re3&document=index&lang=e&textonly=false

.....
$1000 cap including leadership contest delegate fees.  
.....
Work around what? I haven't seen what, if not paid for by government, this gets around. 
....
Bingo.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Ensure that *all government public opinion research is automatically published within six months of the completion of the project, and prohibit verbal-only reports.*
> Ensure that an independent review is conducted of government public opinion research practices discussed in Chapter 5 of the Auditor General’s November, 2003 report


So where are the reports arising from these online polls?? Who paid for them.
Where is the independent review?

Here's a summary of Bill C -24

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c24&source=library_prb&Parl=37&Ses=2

It's not just the Elections Act but also the Income Tax Act which have provisions for donations and fund raising and restrictions.

I find it ironic that while Harper is restricting access by the press this kind of pervasive "public opinion" manipulation is going on via targetted internet activity.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> So where are the reports arising from these online polls?? Who paid for them. Where is the independent review?


If they were government polls--nobody has a shred of proof of this yet--then they would publish within six months of completion. As I continue to see these poll questions, the poll has not yet been completed.

If privately funded by the Conservative Party, then there are no such requirements.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Exactly MF, but there are at least two more options.

Given the rules we know of, there don't seem to be any restrictions on party spending outside of elections (there are rules regarding by-elections, nominations, leadership contests). No information provided has demonstrated such rules.

Therefore,

1) Government paid, in which case this is quite slimy given the clear personal advertising and past criticism of such polling;

2) Conservatives paid, in which case it does not matter. If they want to blow their money outside of an election, good for them;

3) A third party paid, in which case this may be seen as a donation in-kind, even if the results are not handed over to the party (or government) -- this isn't allowed by foreign companies and must be valued and reported by Canadian companies/groups. Note it doesn't seem to matter where the polling company is based, it is about who paid (if no one, then it can be argued that a U.S. company provided in-kind advertising);

4) We don't know some important rules that raise other options.

But it is certain that we have too much time on our hands.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> But it is certain that we have too much time on our hands.


This reminds me of a gag on _Get Smart_ in which famed detective Harry Hoo and Agent 86 are analyzing a crime scene where two burning cigarettes are found in an ash tray. The pair surmise that the room had been occupied by two smokers, though they extrapolate--over the next five minutes--that the room could have ben occupied by two smokers AND two non-smokers. In fact, the room could have been occupied by two smokers and more than 100 non-smokers. 

After Smart and Hoo congratulate themselves, two police detectives grab the cigarettes and walk off.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!" 

Of course, technically, this includes FSM-based theories.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Federated State of Micronesia has some pretty bright boys operating there!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Electioneering in the guise of a poll and via a California company. Yuck.


The ads are more blatant as Conservative now - 
I guess since the story is not getting any traction....


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)




----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So do you find it okay for Taxpayer money to be misappropriated for partisan purposes?









Compare the "ad" with the above banner.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Reds, blues, may-pull leaves--yeeeeeee-hawwww! We got us a full-fledged scandal on our hands!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Glad you see it that way Macfury - 
One - Same maple leaf flag
Two - Same image of Harper
Three - Same image of Parlement
Four - Same Background.

Next time I need to write some text mind if I borrow what you have written? Mind you, I will not be paying you or giving you credit....


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So do you find it okay for Taxpayer money to be misappropriated for partisan purposes?


Have you provided any proof at all to support your accusations? There is an old saying:

S**t or get off the pot.

Until you are ready to do either, here's another old saying:

STFU & GBTW.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Using the same exact images is a start. 
Both posted here.

Of course copyright issues don't seem to affect someone who admits to d/l movies and other copyrighted material....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Any still doubt there is a "get around the funding/advertising limitations" effort afoot by the Cons??

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2006/07/03/1665628-sun.html

That fit's with the pseudo polling Adwords.



> "We recognize the fact that the media environment is changing and we want to find ways to communicate directly with Canadians," said a PMO official.
> 
> The Conservative government has been anything but conservative when it comes to the Internet. One of its first tasks in power was a complete, and controversial, overhaul of the government and PMO website.


from the same article note how specific the PMO office is about "no cost"



> The Prime Minister's Office told Sun Media they do not spend a dime on the podcasts, which are simply computer files of the speeches. The PMO records all the speeches for the archives and simply "flip" a copy to iTunes, said a PMO official.


I wonder if ALL the parties get "equal time" and exposure and why is the PMO's office concerned if it's "just archival material".

"just golfballs" I guess


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Funny, I haven't read anywhere that the Liberals or any other party couldn't do the same thing. I didn't realize the Cons had a monopoly on podcasts on iTunes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No they don't but why is the PMO commenting on cost??

The PMO office is not the Con party just as it shouldn't have been but was the Liberal party voice.

Harper campaigned on this aspect so his toes are rightfully held over the fire.

What will we see next?- a "poll" with link to Harper's speeches. Y'know go direct n all.

The Canadian Government and it's resources and media presence are NOT the property of political party in power. They want to blather on their Con website go for it.

Many say - "Yep Harper has the same sleaze as all the rest when he gets in power".........so far ...they are absolutely correct in that assessment.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What will we see next? Hopefully something more meaningful than these trumped up accusations...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> What will we see next? Hopefully something more meaningful than these trumped up accusations...


why my my - you sound just about like Chretien.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The podcast are officially from the government of Canada - they should not be used by the Conservative party on their web site. Given that Stephan Harper has blurred beyond any recognition propaganda and information and this is another abuse (albeit small, but frequent) of power. 
MF, you can spare me the sanctimonious garbage....
The reviews are mostly right: this is one way spin as shows what a control freak he is. 
What a waste of my tax dollars.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I just think the latest bit from the PMO adds credence to the "get around the rules" effort.
Harpers got gov resources to exploit now so he'll do his best to cripple the opposition for polticial funding.
Just like Chretien did to Martin....same sleaze ..more concerned with power than governance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If one stops to consider that his podcast in number one on iTunes, getting that many Canadians to actually listen to a speech by any PM is a real accomplishment. Being savvy enough to use new technology might mean the cloud has a silver lining?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> If one stops to consider that his podcast in number one on iTunes, getting that many Canadians to actually listen to a speech by any PM is a real accomplishment.


Ratings say otherwise


SINC said:


> Being savvy enough to use new technology might mean the cloud has a silver lining?


If it were being used in a non-partisan way, then yes. This is propaganda and abuse.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Is there anything to stop the other parties from posting the podcast on their website?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Is there anything to stop the other parties from posting the podcast on their website?


No. 
But this is besides the point, no?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Many government speeches around the world are available in MP3, in Quicktime, etc. I'd rather they just do that than waste expensive airtime. Better they should commandeer the CBC than put out a podcast? Sheesh!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Sheesh!


No problem with speeches being available.
Problem with tax money being for Con propaganda.
Nice try Herr MF....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think Jobs and Harper have a side-deal. Watch for the Macification of the civil service. Of course, the government still won't 'Just work', but my real worry is that if civil servant stress levels drop, many psychiatrists will be put out of work. They will then displace legitimate beggars due to their superior ability to manipulate people. Our world has changed forever. Oh boy am I bored tonight.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I consider most government speeches propaganda--the better speeches make it less obvious.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Oh boy am I bored tonight.


You could comment on the lumber deal that will be announced when Harpo meets Bush


> It's all part of a carefully choreographed campaign by both governments to create the impression that a deal is unstoppable. With enough momentum, they are apparently convinced that opposition will melt away.
> 
> The deal would create free trade in lumber as long as prices remain high (above $355 U.S. for 1,000 board feet) and provide an 80-per-cent refund of the $5-billion in duties paid by Canadian companies since 2002. An export tax of up to 15 per cent and quotas would kick in if prices fall or exports surge.
> 
> But there is a major catch. Under the agreement, the lumber-exporting provinces and the industry must also abandon all litigation against the United States and give up their claim to the entire $5-billion. In effect, there is no deal unless 95 per cent of the Canadian industry says there is a deal.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060703.wsoftwoodd0703/BNStory/Business/home

The $15-billion purchasing spree on military "stuff". 

The way Harper and fiends lied about the homecoming ceremonies for the dead soldiers. That was a rather blatant manipulation by the Bush emulating Harpo...


> Senior military officials opposed the Conservative government's controversial ban on media coverage of homecoming ceremonies for soldiers killed in Afghanistan, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act suggest.
> 
> Military officials found other ways to express their displeasure: they cleared equipment from the airport tarmac so the news media outside the base could have an unobstructed view of the ceremony.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060702.wsoldiers0702/BNStory/Front/home

Or you could talk about how you saved $1000 in GST on that new BWM you just purchased beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Look, Beej: someone is more bored than you are!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Still bored AS.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Nice try Herr MF


AS is now treating me with a degree of deference, so there is order in the universe.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> AS is now treating me with a degree of deference, so there is order in the universe.


Godwin would be proud.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The way Harper and fiends


Just noticed. If a typo, funny, if not, witty. It makes up for using one Harpo. 

I'll chalk the other one up to holiday immaturity.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Not a typo - on both.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I like Godwin's corollary--anyone who stupidly invokes Hitler, Fascism or Naziism loses the argument immediately. However, this would make AS and Spec the loser of most arguments on EhMac, so they're unlikely to go for it.

Well, back to the Reichstag...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MF: If a case cannot be made, surely smearing alternatives and opponents is ok. It's one of life's 'easy' buttons that politicians are very adept at constantly pressing. I don't know if Godwin considered the energy saved by using that easy button instead of everyone working to make a case. 

Now all I need is a 'not bored' button.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And I was using Herr with a degree of deference....

Beej: What to you call making a case and using "smearing" (as you call it)?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS: Both simultaneously? I've rarely seen it, although I think posters *think* they're making a case by smearing. So, hypothetically, maybe it could be called "deductive smearing" or "reason with a side dish" or "icing" or "unnecessary, but fun". Any other suggestions?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I like Godwin's corollary--anyone who stupidly invokes Hitler, Fascism or Naziism loses the argument immediately. However, this would make AS and Spec the loser of most arguments on EhMac, so they're unlikely to go for it.
> 
> Well, back to the Reichstag...


14 characteristics of fascism


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Spec: That list you linked to is one of the sloppiest pieces of academia I've seen in quite some time. The 14 points could refer to any country on Earth, and apply to many dictatorships that don't practice Fascism. 

Apparently, however, a Nazi-like culture has sprung up on the planet Ekos, at the edge of the Federation. You might want to look into this.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> > Originally Posted by Mugatu
> > Is there anything to stop the other parties from posting the podcast on their website?
> 
> 
> ...


Not really. The other parties have the right to post the podcast and then point out everything that they do not agree with. I'm just missing how the posting of a podcast on the Conservative website is propoganda if the opposition parties have just as much right to the material as the Conservatives do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mugatu: It's because the Conservatives are doing it. If anyone else were involved it would go quietly unnoticed.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Not really. The other parties have the right to post the podcast and then point out everything that they do not agree with. I'm just missing how the posting of a podcast on the Conservative website is propoganda if the opposition parties have just as much right to the material as the Conservatives do.


The issue is government resources being used and abused by the Cons. 
Think of it as the CBC producing your home movies....

MF being the blathering apologist for the Cons aside - this would still be an issue no matter what party does it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS: I'm not sure what resources went into it. Is the problem the free-riding off of the fact that PM's speeches are recorded anyway, therefore the Cons can access that? Again, opposition can (hopefully) also access said government speeches and criticise them. Also, I believe Question Period and much committee work is recorded too, giving the opposition the opportunity to podcast. 

The fact that they aren't government does limit them but the governing party using already recorded government media doesn't seem like an issue, especially if one party can use them as positive promotion while others can use the same material for negative promotion. Basically, the Cons can positively spin already recorded government media while the opposition can negatively spin it. I'm not familiar with the technology or process though, so what else is in play?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> AS: I'm not sure what resources went into it. Is the problem the free-riding off of the fact that PM's speeches are recorded anyway, therefore the Cons can access that? Again, opposition can (hopefully) also access said government speeches and criticise them. Also, I believe Question Period and much committee work is recorded too, giving the opposition the opportunity to podcast.
> 
> The fact that they aren't government does limit them but the governing party using already recorded government media doesn't seem like an issue, especially if one party can use them as positive promotion while others can use the same material for negative promotion. Basically, the Cons can positively spin already recorded government media while the opposition can negatively spin it. I'm not familiar with the technology or process though, so what else is in play?


For my two cents, being able to criticize someone else's words is not the same as being able to spread your own. Yes, the opposition parties could have their own speeches podcasted (is that real English now?), but my guess would be that that would have to be paid for by the Party budget, while Harper's boring droning is covered by the Government budget. I may be wrong about that, but I don't think so. And that would be a fundamental imbalance from my point of view.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> And that would be a fundamental imbalance from my point of view.


Ok, that's the free-riding issue, which I understand but don't consider significant, unless I'm missing some real cost issues.

For example, there is a built-in free ride because government speeches will generally get more coverage than opposition speeches and what government does will get more attention that what the opposition says is wrong or should have happened, in most cases. I consider it part of the inherent advantage of incumbency while the inherent advantage of opposition is having criticism being covered without nearly as much pressure on delivering alternatives. In other words, scandal-mongering is very easy in opposition. 

I'm not happy with either one (idealist Beej makes an appearance) but it doesn't seem unusually unbalanced.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The difference between having speeches available and using the government as a propaganda machine. It's not only the speeches but the speeches in combination with the images, text and other material produced by and for the citizens of Canada being used for clearly partisan motives. This material ends up on the Con website. 

What was once an informative amalgam of websites (the gov of Canada ones), is turning quickly into a Con cheer leading information centre. 

There are clear copyright issues that have been violated by the Cons - glossing over them (in a society where Limewire is accepted this is easy to do) does not make it "right". 

From the "polling points" taking their creatives to this - it's all marketing that does influence. In the vacuum of journalism caused by Harper's disdain of the media, this becomes propaganda.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS: aside from the possibility of clear copyright infringements, we don't agree on the conclusion. No surprise, we are different people. At least I'm fairly certain of that. 

The copyright thing is for another discussion (wasn't there one? was copyright infringement proven instead of stated?) but, for the rest, we either disagree on the evidence, significance or 'newness' or the underlying principle (as different from the technology-specific activity). Still, some interesting points being made around here.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

I always thought that government annoucement, speaches or whatnot are concidered public domain. If they are not maybe they should be.

A podcast is propoganda? Is the State of the Union propoganda (ya ya, Ameri(c)(k)an example. )? Are speaches made my party members in the House of Commons that are then shown on C-PAC propoganda? Are all of these copyrighted? I guessing no. If it was, I'm sure some lawyer would start raising a stink about it.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Mugatu said:


> I always thought that government annoucement, speaches or whatnot are concidered public domain. If they are not maybe they should be.
> 
> A podcast is propoganda? Is the State of the Union propoganda (ya ya, Ameri(c)(k)an example. )? Are speaches made my party members in the House of Commons that are then shown on C-PAC propoganda? Are all of these copyrighted? I guessing no. If it was, I'm sure some lawyer would start raising a stink about it.


In my mind, it is propoganda if it serves the intrests of the party/politician as a first priority, and not if it serves to inform as first priority. Some of the Harper podcasts are probably more info than propaganda. The podcast of his call to Lol Green, on the other hand...

Beej, the costs I was referring to are the costs to distribute the podcast. I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe you all have solved all of this, but there must be some cost there.

Although, given the number of indie 'casters, it can't be much. So maybe it's not a big deal.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

"Making a mountain out of a mole hill" is all that comes to mind given the contents of this thread. It is just such a non issue.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Beej, the costs I was referring to are the costs to distribute the podcast. I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe you all have solved all of this, but there must be some cost there.


I was thinking of the cost of the digital recording in the first place and the free-ride in converting to podcast from a pre-paid initial digital media. 

That transition, if it takes labour, should be charged to the party unless all government media is podcast as government media. This will be minor, but it could be one of those 'one hour of staffer time' things. About as significant as a pack of gum. 

Not something that should distract from greater issues, but something relevant nonetheless. If a party person does the conversion from whatever raw format the government uses to Con podcast then there doesn't seem to be much going on. If a government staffer does it solely for party use (not a free-ride on government process) then there's a small, albeit relevant, distinction.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> In my mind, it is propoganda if it serves the intrests of the party/politician as a first priority, and not if it serves to inform as first priority.


Coupled the government of Canada websites lately and I find it clearly fall into propaganda. 
Look at the big stink the Cons make with Child Care and yet many have not registered (did they even knowthey had to register...?)


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> "Making a mountain out of a mole hill" is all that comes to mind given the contents of this thread. It is just such a non issue.


Yes and no. And Beej says, small but relevant. As always, the Conservatives have to understand that people actually believed them when they promised to do things differently. If this were the Liberal party doing this, we would acknowledge it as part of their overall pattern of corruption. Because of their campaigning, the Conservatives have to meet a higher bar. Is that fair? Possibly not, but *they* chose it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've accessed tons of Liberal photo ops and speech material directly from the Government of Ontario web site. They offer photos to the press through the web sites. Propaganda!!! Boo-hoo! 

I hope the cost of uploading photos of handshaking Liberals is borne by the provincial Liberal Party.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> Yes and no. And Beej says, small but relevant.


But hardly earth shattering or likely to make anyone think scandal is it? 

(Well anyone who is not vehemently anti Conservative anyway.)


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I've accessed tons of Liberal photo ops and speech material directly from the Government of Ontario web site. They offer photos to the press through the web sites. Propaganda!!! Boo-hoo!
> 
> I hope the cost of uploading photos of handshaking Liberals is borne by the provincial Liberal Party.


Yes, much of it is propaganda, and yes, I also hope it was borne by the party. It probably wasn't, but then, that's what we expect from the Liberals.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> But hardly earth shattering or likely to make anyone think scandal is it?


Well, given that no-one outside of this board seems to care, I would say you are right.

Strangely, a wise man already pointed that out about the Conservatives and Liberals. Something about black and white cats, I believe.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Something about black and white cats, I believe.


Not as wise as you may think. Any obeserver could say the same simply based upon that fact that the majority doesn't agree with them. You're all voting for cats! (in my best Heston ala soylent green revelation). In other words, a rallying cry for anyone crying at the time.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I've accessed tons of Liberal photo ops and speech material directly from the Government of Ontario web site. They offer photos to the press through the web sites. Propaganda!!! Boo-hoo!


But these photos are not used on the provincial Liberal web site - unlike what the Cons are doing...
:yawn:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> Well, given that no-one outside of this board seems to care, I would say you are right.


I would not be so sure about that. There are a few bloggers that have talked about it, as well as a few elected officials. The problem seems what to do about it - or exactly how to go about stopping it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In Ontario we get Dalton McGuinty's "video diary" on the Government of Ontario web site-a wonderful piece of propaganda. Though not a big issue for me.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Not as wise as you may think. Any obeserver could say the same simply based upon that fact that the majority doesn't agree with them. You're all voting for cats! (in my best Heston ala soylent green revelation). In other words, a rallying cry for anyone crying at the time.


Sorry, you lots me on that one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

RM: What beejacon is saying here is that all politicians may look like a big group of cats (or whatever) to a mouse. The degree of disagreement between the observed and observer tends to blur the distinction between truly different types of cats. 

Charlton Heston, on the other hand, was an American actor who starred in a film called Soylent Green. The exciting conclusion revealed that the overpopulated world was dining on Soylent Green crackers composed of the bodies of the deceased, a fact unknown to the general public. Heston calls out at the end of the film: "Soylent Green is peep-ul," and beejacon is drawing a parallel between this and calling out, Heston-style, "You're all voting for cats..."

beejacon, however, knows as well as I do, that one could hardly build up a steady supply of foodstuffs composed of the dead. A small supplement at best, unless the population were in rapid decline--not the case in this film. Although the film has its charms, the book on which it's based, Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison contains no such exciting revelation--Soylent Green is seaweed, and remains an unimportant plot point.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Good explanation MF, thanks. Also, I didn't know that about the film.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Given that politicians have the trust of only 14% of the populace perhaps there is indeed some serious transmogrification going in those elected, or they had quite an effective "mouse clothes" tailoring shop..........for election dressup.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc, the way I see it, the electorate tends to reward certain types of staid behaviour. Even if Cats A and B are essentially quite different, it doesn't pay to upset the mice by making those differences more obvious to them. If Cat A says he will only eat mice on Tuesdays', then Cat B can safely say he will only eat mice on Wednesdays, thus creating an apparent debate over nothing and avoiding mice-upsetting issues. 

If a dog decides to run and says "I never eat mice, but I have nothing in common with cats," it's the mice--not the cats--who get scared. What sort of maniac wants to do things THAT differently?


----------



## MrVermin (Jul 26, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Then that says something doesn't it? I choose not to read the National Post for specific reasons related to their point of view.
> 
> How would you feel if the banner ads were for the Liberal Party? or lets say the banner ads were for ACLU or NAACP? or on the other end of the spectrum the ads were for Kellog Root and Brown or Haliburton?


Personally, I could not care less about the banner ads. I look at them, and if I do not like them I ignore them... It is my mind and I choose what to read and pay attention to or not. 

If someone does not like the banner ads displayed, then they can just scroll down so the ad is no longer on the screen

As for banner ads for the Liberal Party... Why not have one... I am sure that one could be designed asking for a potential candidate for leader. All is fair... right?

MrVermin


----------



## MrVermin (Jul 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> It really doesn't matter who is paying for it - it's political advertising and there are rules regarding how much can be spent.
> It clearly looks like a dodge around those rules.
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/images/thestar/img/060602_corrigan_cartoon.jpg
> ...


So, I guess that if these guys were to put up a poll or an ad question it as against the rules of Political Advertising? Come on, this happens on both sides of the fence all the time and all year round wether there is an election or not. Get over it and grow up..... it is all part of the game. You play it, they play it. Live with it, it is part of the democracy that we all enjoy.

http://www.dumpdalton.org/


MrVermin


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MrVermin said:


> So, I guess that if these guys were to put up a poll or an ad you would be against them?
> 
> http://www.dumpdalton.org/
> 
> MrVermin


oh look who is behind the above website, our old neo con cabal


> Ontarians for Responsible Government does at the provincial level, what the National Citizens Coalition does at the federal level. We use hard-hitting and effective media ad campaigns to oppose and expose the harmful economic polices of the Liberal government. A non-partisan organization, O.R.G. depends solely on the financial contributions of those Ontarians who want better, more responsible government.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your choice of language is hilarious, Spec. A conservative organization becomes a "cabal" because it frightens you? 

Aluminum provides no protection for the power of ideas. By the way, weren't you supposed to be in Ecuador already?


----------



## MrVermin (Jul 26, 2002)

Can anyone here actually give me a true definition of "Liberal"(Grit) and "Tory"?

You may be surprised

MrVermin


----------



## MrVermin (Jul 26, 2002)

Macspectrum, I have seen these guys place adds against the policies of both the Conservatives when Harris was in power and now the Liberals.... So, do not be so quick to judge them as Pro Conservative. AS far as I have seen from their history, they are equal in their attacks on both parties when they are proven to act foolishly.

MrVermin


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MrVermin said:


> Can anyone here actually give me a true definition of "Liberal"(Grit) and "Tory"?
> 
> You may be surprised
> 
> MrVermin


Define "true". True to you? True to their historical origins? True to their modern realities?


I will grant you that the party that once spoke for the mice resembles more and more the old cat view these days. Beginning right around the time when there was a concious choice to be "electable" in the traditional sense. But then, that just supports the genious of the metaphor, doesn't it? The point of the story, remember, was not that one party was better than another, but that until the voting electorate made a mental shift in how they chose who to vote for, they could expect to keep getting screwed by their government.

Enter the original topic of this thread, not to mention the recent lumber deal. (and so on, and so on....)


----------



## MrVermin (Jul 26, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> Define "true". True to you? True to their historical origins? True to their modern realities?
> 
> 
> I will grant you that the party that once spoke for the mice resembles more and more the old cat view these days. Beginning right around the time when there was a concious choice to be "electable" in the traditional sense. But then, that just supports the genious of the metaphor, doesn't it? The point of the story, remember, was not that one party was better than another, but that until the voting electorate made a mental shift in how they chose who to vote for, they could expect to keep getting screwed by their government.
> ...


This may bring on the old saying "The more things change, the more they remain the same"

The thing may be that once an individual is elected to a position on power, they inveriably feel the pressure to possibly reward those that helped them attain that power. Then once this elected official gets a taste of power, they tend to do anything they can to maintain that power. Most loose sight of the fact that they are beholdant to the constituants that elected them to that seat of power. Have you ever seen one Member of Parlament actually bring something to the floor of the House of Commons that had any bearing on what ails their particular constituants?

MrVermin


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MrVermin said:


> This may bring on the old saying "The more things change, the more they remain the same"
> 
> The thing may be that once an individual is elected to a position on power, they inveriably feel the pressure to possibly reward those that helped them attain that power. Then once this elected official gets a taste of power, they tend to do anything they can to maintain that power. Most loose sight of the fact that they are beholdant to the constituants that elected them to that seat of power. Have you ever seen one Member of Parlament actually bring something to the floor of the House of Commons that had any bearing on what ails their particular constituants?
> 
> MrVermin


Sure, it happens. But not often, and not when the issue is contentious. But there is more to the job than bringing motions to the floor. An MP(P) can also do a lot by way of intervening on a constituent's behalf. Svend Robinson, whatever else may be true of him, was excellent and intervening for his constituents, and doing so personally. We had personal experience with that in our time in his riding, and we had no connection at all, we were simply people off the street. So there are individuals who still act appropriately. But parties and power structures? Virtually never.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> I will grant you that the party that once spoke for the mice resembles more and more the old cat view these days.


I suggest no one ever spoke for 'mice' because 'mice' aren't a homogenous group. That was a basic flaw in the story and a clear signal of the presumed politics behind how a reader was supposed to think as a righteous mouse (solidarity, brother). A notion fundamentally opposed to the concept of individuals having different politics for good reason instead of just a failure to see it THE way (ie. strict ideologues' way). The old irrelevant, "If we all got along" assumption. 

We can see this around here. Although we don't like the 'cats', and we can agree we'd prefer that they don't steal, we don't agree on the $200 billion question (everything the federal government does). Mice that don't steal would be nice, but if they eff up the $200 billion (as determined by each person's different perspective) that is much worse.

It doesn't help that many mice are easily manipulatable, but that's another failure of Mouseland. It and the CCF/NDP have played the manipulation game just like all the other parties from day one. And, just like the other parties, they may truly think their rhetoric is not manipulation because they are helping people see THE way.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MrVermin said:


> Macspectrum, I have seen these guys place adds against the policies of both the Conservatives when Harris was in power and now the Liberals.... So, do not be so quick to judge them as Pro Conservative. AS far as I have seen from their history, they are equal in their attacks on both parties when they are proven to act foolishly.
> 
> MrVermin


that's akin to the National Pest pretending to chastize the cons in an "editorial" (approved by the Asper communcations bunker in an undisclosed location) as opposed to when they really go after "Fiberals"

I wasn't born yesterday


----------



## MrVermin (Jul 26, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> Sure, it happens. But not often, and not when the issue is contentious. But there is more to the job than bringing motions to the floor. An MP(P) can also do a lot by way of intervening on a constituent's behalf. Svend Robinson, whatever else may be true of him, was excellent and intervening for his constituents, and doing so personally. We had personal experience with that in our time in his riding, and we had no connection at all, we were simply people off the street. So there are individuals who still act appropriately. But parties and power structures? Virtually never.


I agree with what you say in that there are too few individual MPPs that take their job at representing their constituants to heart, and that Sven Robinson (leaving his other failings out of it) was just one such man. I am finding that it is harder and harder to put that label on the new current crop of MPs from all sides of the house. Their current pre-occupation seems to be bitching about the current ruling party's failings while hiding their own.

To be honest about it, my current feelings about the state of politics in Canada is that we have elected a bunch of Kindergarten school children who can't agree to play nice in the sandbox together while on their 4year recess.

MrVermin


----------



## MrVermin (Jul 26, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> that's akin to the National Pest pretending to chastize the cons in an "editorial" (approved by the Asper communcations bunker in an undisclosed location) as opposed to when they really go after "Fiberals"
> 
> I wasn't born yesterday


Bringing parers into this opens up another point of contention, with the Toronto Star leaning heavilly towards the Liberals (editorally speaking), then the Post for the Conservatives. Each paper has their own political bent on things when it comes to their editorial staff, so this is an argument that has no end.

MrVermin


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> that's akin to the National Pest pretending to chastize the cons in an "editorial" (approved by the Asper communcations bunker in an undisclosed location) as opposed to when they really go after "Fiberals"
> 
> I wasn't born yesterday


The Aspers have strong connections to the Liberals.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The Aspers have strong connections to the Liberals.


That maybe so....

The Aspers have a strong style of newpaper ownership. Centralized op-ed pages that reflect their personal views, giving the news "direction" (as opposed to just being news), pushing their agenda....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> That maybe so....
> 
> The Aspers have a strong style of newpaper ownership. Centralized op-ed pages that reflect their personal views, giving the news "direction" (as opposed to just being news), pushing their agenda....


Sort of. The National Post agenda started out conservative and stayed that way, with some moderate changes that seem quite reasonable given the lack of initial success. 

So what is the Asper agenda and is it that influencial over the paper's politics? Where does the TorStar's agenda come from? Do you really think they don't do this:
giving the news "direction" (as opposed to just being news)

Is TorStar's "direction" better (morally) than the Posts'? 

Or more, importantly, why can't people just stop buying either rag and make room for a real alternative to the G&M?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree with Beej (as we received out talking points this morning from "the boss"). The whole notion that there's some simple plan that we could easily unite "the people" under if we only had a mind to, and:

_create lots of great union jobs with big fat social safety nets and stick it to the Americans while appealing to Quebec and have universal health care for all procedures and be fair to Native people, and disband the military, and print money and have CBC hockey with no commercials and make the corporations pay_

is a sad fallacy. 

There is no one "mouse" opinion, and no workable "mouse plan." It's a facinating myth that helps distract people from affecting more thoughtful change.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MouseCon: I speak the truth, you are wrong and will go to hell for it.

MouseDip: I speak the truth, you are selfish if you don't agree.

MouseLib: I will promise to do what you want. I don't speak the truth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MouseBloq: I speak the French. I will take whatever bribes you offer me while I look for a suitable exit.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well they are back

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,1204208,00.html

and even on youtube as well.



















Figured it might good fodder for Rick Mercer 

anyone care to add their voice..:clap:

Hold the Cons up to the light....watch em squirm

email Rick here [email protected]



> http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2275/28971
> 
> Clean up government polling and advertising
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Have you gotten any closer to finding out about them, Doc?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nope but the information has been circulating - I'm hoping Mercer takes it on.










latest


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

methinks with the economy in the U.S. on the verge of a big downturn, Liberals still without a leader and Bloc support firming up, the cons are itching for an election as they are worried their numbers be worse come spring

not to mention how poorly Bush is doing in the U.S., the GOP involved in a child sex scandal, Iraq war support waning

canadians understand that the cons have hitched their wagon to the U.S. bad things in the U.S. mean bad things for the cons

if con numbers get any worse, they won't have any shot at a majority

tick tock, harpo, tick tock...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> tick tock, harpo, tick tock...


Your post emanates the stink of your own fear.


----------

