CanPOW - Torture Edition

[Asher]

Do you seriously understand how worthless op-ed pieces are? I'm not sure you do.

Op-ed pieces are written primarily by people stupid enough to major in journalism, not smart enough to get a job doing anything productive, but moderately-skilled trolls who know how to get people to quote them and discuss what they say. They're provocative idiots. Whoever reads the Opinion section of a newspaper should not be allowed to vote.

Ever consider thinking for yourself?

[Wezil]

You keep calling the editorial the op-ed. Wrong.

The point is that this issue does matter. I get that you don't give a **** but many people do.

[Wezil]

Ever consider thinking for yourself?

Says the man that regurgitates CPC spin and sound bites.

[Asher]

You keep calling the editorial the op-ed. Wrong.

Op-ed, editorial, it's functionally the same in that it is a piece of paper with some douche's personal opinions on it. It's not a source, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop quoting them as they do not add anything new to the debate.

The point is that this issue does matter. I get that you don't give a **** but many people do.

Are you talking about the prorogation? Obviously it does matter to some people, primarily 18-30 year old Liberals who post on Facebook.

Still, no one cares about the detainee scandal.

[Wezil]

I also posted Ekos for you. Apparently Canadians are upset about their disappointing New Years parties and are taking it out on the CPC.

[Asher]

Says the man that regurgitates CPC spin and sound bites.

I didn't even vote CPC. I don't go to their website, I don't watch TV news, I don't listen to whatever they say.

I form my opinions based on what I see going on in the government. I haven't seen **** all about what the government has been able to do lately, but I have seen stories mentioning that the Liberal-majority in the senate is stalling as many bills as possible. Judging by how many they've passed (just two?), that sounds right to me.

The fact that this aligns with the opinion of the Prime Minister is inconsequential. I don't even like the guy -- he's creepy. I just hate him less than Ignatieff and Layton because he's not on a mission to destroy Alberta's economy.

[Asher]

I also posted Ekos for you. Apparently Canadians are upset about their disappointing New Years parties and are taking it out on the CPC.

Yes, and you'll notice I didn't complain about that article. It's relevant and interesting. It seems Canadians are buying into the hysteria in the paper about the end of the world. It's unfortunate but not unexpected. People are sheep, after all.

[Wezil]

So you'll concede the sheep do care?

[Wezil]

btw, Are you saying you don't post opinion pieces in support of your arguments? Would it be worth my time to call you on that?

[Asher]

So you'll concede the sheep do care?

Are you intentionally trying to confuse the issues?

What is it, 4-5% of people polled seem to care about the prorogation enough to change their vote.

The poll numbers on the detainee issue haven't moved. People still don't care about that.

People are upset because the way the newspapers keep portraying the situation is the government decided just to take a vacation. People are more upset that politicians are being paid not to work more than anything else. Stop pretending that this implies people care about the detainee nonsense.

[Asher]

btw, Are you saying you don't post opinion pieces in support of your arguments? Would it be worth me time to call you on that?

I think it would be. I'm sure I've quoted some before when they contain something of value (a fact, etc), but I've certainly never, ever posted op-ed pieces saying the same thing repeatedly in the same thread and pretending like it means something.

[Wezil]

in this thread -

the National Post article was a chronology of facts re detainees
the Globe article was facts on a diplomatic protest
a Globe news article on rumours (true as it turns out) the House was to be shut down
Rick Mercer for being our version of Jon Stewart
the Galloway blog had facts on the bills in question
the Globe editorial with facts about the number of Bills before the Senate and the effect of prorogation
the CTV article with facts about the effect on private members bills
Ekos poll
Economist to show 1) a country that knows something about Parliamentary democracy has noticed, and b) they see it for what it is as well

Keep in mind some of these articles were a result of you insisting the "onus" was on me to provide examples. All added to the discussion.

Just because you don't like what a source says doesn't give you the right to exclude it from the discussion. You are arguing a weak position. Deal with it.

[Asher]

in this thread -

the National Post article was a chronology of facts re detainees
the Globe article was facts on a diplomatic protest
a Globe news article on rumours (true as it turns out) the House was to be shut down
Rick Mercer for being our version of Jon Stewart
the Galloway blog had facts on the bills in question
the Globe editorial with facts about the number of Bills before the Senate and the effect of prorogation
the CTV article with facts about the effect on private members bills
Ekos poll
Economist to show 1) a country that knows something about Parliamentary democracy has noticed, and b) they see it for what it is as well

Keep in mind some of these articles were a result of you insisting the "onus" was on me to provide examples. All added to the discussion.

Just because you don't like what a source says doesn't give you the right to exclude it from the discussion. You are arguing a weak position. Deal with it.

Again. It's not that I don't like what the source says, it's that it doesn't add ANYTHING new. The economist article was absolutely, unequivocally worthless because all it demonstrates is that someone in Britain noticed our parliament was prorogued.

It's a terrible strategy to spam a thread with articles that are merely opinions of different people. It doesn't contribute. I don't care who thinks what, I care for facts and I care for substance. If the op-ed contains facts and substance, that's fine. If it's **** like you've just posted, it's not.

Stop pretending like it's a matter of me picking and choosing my sources. The simple fact is you didn't provide a source just now, you provided the unsubstantiated opinion of a Brit. They don't mean anything to the debate.

[Wezil]

Christ almighty **** on a stick!

An editorial, also called a leading article, is a piece of writing intended to promote an opinion or perspective. Editorials are featured in many newspapers and magazines, usually written by the senior editorial staff or publisher of the publication. Additionally, most print publications feature an editorial, or letter from the editor, sometimes followed by a Letters to the Editor section. The American Society of Magazine Editors has developed a list of editorial guidelines, to which a majority of American magazine editors commonly adhere

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

An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page (though often believed to be abbreviated from opinion-editorial), is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed

There's a ****ing difference, particularly when talking about a national publication. I understand your need to understate the source but quite frankly you're worse than Ben.

[Wezil]

For the record, the Economist piece was also an editorial.