Media coverage

A temporary forum for discussion about the upcoming election.
User avatar
grammafreddy
Chief Sh*t Disturber
Posts: 28548
Joined: Mar 17th, 2007, 10:52 am

Re: Media coverage

Post by grammafreddy »

On Shaw Ch 517 I get something that does not seem to be SunTV ... help?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
We are a generation of idiots - smart phones and dumb people.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
User avatar
Urbane
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 22698
Joined: Jul 8th, 2007, 7:41 pm

Re: Media coverage

Post by Urbane »

    grammafreddy wrote:On Shaw Ch 517 I get something that does not seem to be SunTV ... help?
Try 177.
User avatar
grammafreddy
Chief Sh*t Disturber
Posts: 28548
Joined: Mar 17th, 2007, 10:52 am

Re: Media coverage

Post by grammafreddy »

Urbane wrote:
    grammafreddy wrote:On Shaw Ch 517 I get something that does not seem to be SunTV ... help?
Try 177.


That did it - thanks!
__________________________________________________________________________________________
We are a generation of idiots - smart phones and dumb people.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 60310
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Media coverage

Post by The Green Barbarian »

grammafreddy wrote:
Urbane wrote:
    grammafreddy wrote:On Shaw Ch 517 I get something that does not seem to be SunTV ... help?
Try 177.


That did it - thanks!


Anyone watch Sun TV yet? I have to say, I am impressed with their choice of female broadcasters. There'll be no Chantal Hebert-type gender confusion issues at least. :)

Image

Image

Image

Image
LET'S GO BRANDON!

Justin Trudeau is a blight on our once great country.
User avatar
Urbane
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 22698
Joined: Jul 8th, 2007, 7:41 pm

Re: Media coverage

Post by Urbane »

Gorgeous! I'll be tuning in later to have a closer look at 177.

I was just watching Peter Mansbridge interviewing Ignatieff and I have to give Mansbridge credit. Ignatieff was asked what would happen if the Conservatives form a minority and immediately don't have the confidence of the House. At first Ignatieff didn't want to answer - "We'll cross that bridge . . ." was his response but when told what Layton had said and reminded that Canadians wanted to know what he would do he said he would follow the rules. It would all go to the Governor General and he would sort it out. Ignatieff - surprise surprise - it turns out would be willing to form a government with the support of other parties in the House. It wouldn't be a coalition, of course, but would be a government like a . . . what's the right word here? . . . .coalition. That's it. So I come back to my prediction that we're likely to have either a Conservative majority or a very short-lived Conservative minority followed by a Liberal minority coalition (whatever you want to call it) government.
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19172
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Media coverage

Post by steven lloyd »

Urbane wrote: So I come back to my prediction that we're likely to have either a Conservative majority or a very short-lived Conservative minority followed by a Liberal minority coalition (whatever you want to call it) government.

What a freaking disaster that last possibility would be. We should be scared. We should be very scared.
NAB
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 22985
Joined: Apr 19th, 2006, 1:33 pm

Re: Media coverage

Post by NAB »

I'm assuming this article is based on the Mansbridge interview on CBC. FINALLY Ignatieff has been led into saying exactly what he would do in the event of another Conservative minority government, and considers it a perfectly legitimate approach to TRY to assume power without an election, ......while Harper seems to consider it an illegitimate approach now that the shoe may end up being on the other foot once more.

Funny position by Ignatieff though, in that it is not unlike the position Harper took back in the 2004 joint letter with the NDP and the Bloc to the then Governor General over the potential fall of the Martin Liberal minority government, and that so many try to interpret as a formal coalition attempt.. I guess when Harper does it it is a "coalition", but when Ignatieff says he would do the same thing it is NOT a "coalition".

Damn, ya really gotta love the language of modern politics LOL. Just like the Liberals and "Marriage". If the normal and historical defintion of a word and its application doesn't fit your political objectives, ....then simply legislate a change in the definition of the word. Problem solved. Ya gotta wonder if perhaps there is a whole 'nother dictionary and language out there that only politicians use, and which may be the reason they and the electorate have so much difficulty understanding one another : - )

If there ever was a singular good reason for the electorate to grant the Conservatives a majority government in order to get some stability in this country, this is it.

Edit to add: We also know that Ignatieff signed on to the last Liberal coalition attempt under Dion, and that was a formal coalition agreement with Layton and the NDP (Duceppe and the Bloc were not part of that agreement). But the Liberals and the NDP in coalition did not have enough seats to out vote the Conservatives anyway, so it was all just a waste of time IMO, But it provoked an election which cost the Liberals dearly, and of course cost Dion his job.

Nab

Excerpts from:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/19 ... ignatieff/

OTTAWA — Canadian voters on Tuesday were provided the clearest sign yet that if they don’t elect a Conservative majority on May 2, the result could be an attempt by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to form a government without going back to the polls.

In a televised interview Tuesday, Mr. Ignatieff provided for the first time, detailed answers to questions about what might occur in that postelection scenario.
He acknowledged that he would try to form a government — without going back to Canadian voters — if a Conservative minority is elected but subsequently defeated in the House of Commons. Moreover, Mr. Ignatieff made no apologies for that possibility — saying that this is exactly what would normally happen in a parliamentary democracy.

“If Mr. Harper wins most seats, forms a government but does not secure the confidence of the House — and I’m assuming Parliament comes back — then it goes to the Governor General. That’s what happens. That’s how the rules work.”

“And then, if the Governor General wants to call on other parties — myself for example — to try to form a government, then we try to form a government. That’s exactly how the rules work. And what I’m trying to say to Canadians is, I understand the rules, I respect the rules, I’ll follow them to the letter and I’m not going to form a coalition.”

Still, while stressing that a “coalition” is not in the cards, Mr. Ignatieff clearly said he is prepared to work with the other parties to seek their support for a minority Liberal government.

“What I’m prepared to do is talk to Mr. Layton or Mr. Duceppe or even Mr. Harper and say, ‘Look, we’ve got an issue here, how do we solve it? Here’s the plan I want to put before Parliament, this is the budget I would bring in, and then we take it from there.’”

Mr. Ignatieff’s comments on the issue follow similar views expressed by NDP leader Jack Layton in a CBC interview one day earlier.

If the Conservatives or any other first-place party is defeated, Mr. Layton told Mr. Mansbridge on Monday night, “some other party gets a shot at it. We shouldn’t immediately go back to an election — that would be ridiculous.”

Mr. Layton added: “In the parliamentary tradition, what they call a Westminster tradition, the Governor General, in our case, would turn to another party, and say, ‘Can you form a government? Can you form a workable government that would have support of the House?’”
"He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still." - Lao-Tzu
Al Czervic
Guru
Posts: 7805
Joined: Nov 29th, 2004, 10:30 pm

Re: Media coverage

Post by Al Czervic »

The Green Barbarian wrote:
grammafreddy wrote:
Urbane wrote:
    grammafreddy wrote:On Shaw Ch 517 I get something that does not seem to be SunTV ... help?
Try 177.


That did it - thanks!


Anyone watch Sun TV yet? I have to say, I am impressed with their choice of female broadcasters. There'll be no Chantal Hebert-type gender confusion issues at least. :)

Image

Image

Image

Image



They needed someone to compete with the CBC's Amanda Lang...

Image
Back with a vengeance
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 60310
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Media coverage

Post by The Green Barbarian »

Image

Al - they found her! :) At the CBC! :200:
LET'S GO BRANDON!

Justin Trudeau is a blight on our once great country.
User avatar
normaM
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 27785
Joined: Sep 18th, 2007, 7:28 am

Re: Media coverage

Post by normaM »

G & M called Iggy the No Where Man front page this morning.
Where are all the eye candy male reporters???
You can try and dirty my name, but I'll wear your hate like war paint
Al Czervic
Guru
Posts: 7805
Joined: Nov 29th, 2004, 10:30 pm

Re: Media coverage

Post by Al Czervic »

normaM wrote:Where are all the eye candy male reporters???



You mean to tell me that Rex Murphy doesn't do it for you ?
Back with a vengeance
User avatar
daria
Guru
Posts: 7041
Joined: Mar 29th, 2010, 4:26 pm

Re: Media coverage

Post by daria »

Al Czervic wrote:
normaM wrote:Where are all the eye candy male reporters???



You mean to tell me that Rex Murphy doesn't do it for you ?


Ow! My eyes! My eyes!! :runforlife:
Don't take my silence to mean I've agreed with you; I easily could've just lost interest in explaining how wrong you are.
Al Czervic
Guru
Posts: 7805
Joined: Nov 29th, 2004, 10:30 pm

Re: Media coverage

Post by Al Czervic »

I have to admit it was rather refreshing watching the CBC News last evening. As the CBC is clearly one of the MOST terrified of a Harper majority (perhaps with cause) and now that it looks somewhat possible that the recent NDP surge in some polls (all at the Federal Liberals expense of course) has made it more possible for a Conservative majority. As a result last night the CBC went out of their way, even going so far as brining in business reported Amanda Lange, to basically expose the NDP platform for being the fiscal fantast that it is.

Now what is interesting is that this NDP “Platform” has been a pile of rubbish, BS and nonsense ever since the first day it was introduced. However ONLY when the NDP suddenly has a surge in the polls does the CBC FINALLY decide to expose the NDP platform for the fiscal fraud that it really is. Clearly the Federal Liberals are in SERIOUS trouble right now and even the CBC has taken the gloves off to try and help prop up Iggy who right now needs ALL of the help he can get
Back with a vengeance
User avatar
Bagotricks
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4516
Joined: Oct 15th, 2006, 1:19 pm

Re: Media coverage

Post by Bagotricks »

Al Czervic wrote:I have to admit it was rather refreshing watching the CBC News last evening. As the CBC is clearly one of the MOST terrified of a Harper majority (perhaps with cause) and now that it looks somewhat possible that the recent NDP surge in some polls (all at the Federal Liberals expense of course) has made it more possible for a Conservative majority. As a result last night the CBC went out of their way, even going so far as brining in business reported Amanda Lange, to basically expose the NDP platform for being the fiscal fantast that it is.

Now what is interesting is that this NDP “Platform” has been a pile of rubbish, BS and nonsense ever since the first day it was introduced. However ONLY when the NDP suddenly has a surge in the polls does the CBC FINALLY decide to expose the NDP platform for the fiscal fraud that it really is. Clearly the Federal Liberals are in SERIOUS trouble right now and even the CBC has taken the gloves off to try and help prop up Iggy who right now needs ALL of the help he can get


You still think the CBC is biased? *yawn*.

Is it CBC that fears a Harper majority or just about 60 something percent of Canada that didn't vote for him? Hmmm

CBC, especially their "at issue" panel has been pretty supportive of Harper. Patting his back after the debates etc - getting pretty old, this CBC lefty sentiment.

Could it be perhaps that a Con majority is "generally" feared - given the amount of people that didnt vote for him?

Naw - its CBC. *eye roll*
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 60310
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Media coverage

Post by The Green Barbarian »

Bagotricks wrote:You still think the CBC is biased? *yawn*.

Is it CBC that fears a Harper majority or just about 60 something percent of Canada that didn't vote for him? Hmmm

CBC, especially their "at issue" panel has been pretty supportive of Harper. Patting his back after the debates etc - getting pretty old, this CBC lefty sentiment.

Could it be perhaps that a Con majority is "generally" feared - given the amount of people that didnt vote for him?

Naw - its CBC. *eye roll*


65% of Canadians didn't vote for Chretien either. This is the system we have in place. Is it flawed? Yes. Is proportional representation, like the "enlightened" Europeans do, the answer? Hell no. Do I want some hippy person Green Party yutz representing my riding even though the Conservatives received over 50% of the vote in the riding? That's just stupid. Truly this whole "60%" of Canadians didn't vote for him argument is the ultimate "YAWN".

Good catch on the CBC Al. Everyone knows the NDP "platform" is a complete joke. They were benefiting from the ABC vote going their way once Iggy faltered, but as always the NDP peaked too early and when their true colors are exposed Braying-Jackass can never survive scrutiny, he's just too far off in fantasy-land. The Liberals did a good job exposing his "cap and trade" disaster that he wants to wreak on Canadians - even if Jack-ass was able to get control of the government, he'd never get that multi-billion dollar disaster through the senate. He'd be turfed just as fast as the Aussies turfed Layton's twin Kevin Rudd when he tried to to implement the same stupidity Down Under. "No thanks Mate!!"
LET'S GO BRANDON!

Justin Trudeau is a blight on our once great country.

Return to “Federal Election 2011”