Yea, maybe the community can chip in with that. Kinda like a contest. Ill see if I can mix something up.
That could be easily done. There are some known musicians in this forum.
1 Like
Yeah as someone who dislikes both candidates I am aware.
In regards to this I guess I hold Wendell, and now Ryan, to a higher standard than most people. It might be silly but I (unrealistically maybe) expect them to find flaws in all four presidential candidates. Surely a good news show should ideally take a central, nonpartisan stance and call out either side for their mistakes (I've come to expect this from Wendell hence the original question).
That being said, of course they will have their own personal views but I'd prefer if they don't take sides when reporting the news.
That is a stance I can get behind. Sadly it seems that accountability for politicians and government agencies is becoming a thing of the past in the Five Eyes countries.
Yeah at the moment only the tablet is on sale. I am quite sure a new batch is planned but not yet. I suspect the delay for Unity 8 on the desktop has somehtingto do with it as they were supposed to unify the phone and dekstop OS at some point. But the new devices should come out at some point.
Canadian here.. can confirm shady practices with respects to surveillance practices here.
First off.. I love the new.. well everything! Long time lurker from TS but Logan is dead to me now... I love the new news video as well but I have to take issue with your comments regarding the level of surveillance here.. our legal system is a lot shadier than people think. Most people don't even know what CSIS (it's our cia/nsa wrapped in one creepy package) is if you asked them.
There have been news reports about our "big three" telecommunication companies/ISPs being a little too cozy with law enforcement.
Recently a reporter in our capitol Montreal, was being spied on by the police department.. he was doing a story about corruption in the police force. (as you pointed out)
People also forget that our judges are also appointed for life..not just 8 of them.. ALL of them. Until death or the age of 75 if you are a federal judge and 70 for the others. So yeah.. kind of a big deal.
One of the main problems here is the governments control over our media outlets.. notably (until 2015 I believe) our government would not let meteorologists or our climate scientists on our news to discuss their work or their findings.
So yes we are nice .. but I think that has a lot to do with some bliss in our ignorance.
Edit: Formatting and addition of frustration haha
1 Like
@wendell (I am not sure what Ryan's handle is on the forums)
Canada does indeed have similar laws for the press with the exception that it is actually ILLEGAL to lie on the news, or otherwise represent facts in a biased or skewed way. (Contact the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission for more info). This law really serves us well.
You guys really should get on a constitutional amendment to make this a exception to the first amendment. Freedom of speech can't properly be enjoyed if we do not have correct information to base our opinions off of.
I tried that, but didn't think someone with basic access and joined 3 days ago was likely him :P
Not his original account, but that is his admin account.
lol well it says "basic". Honestly if he PMed me claiming to be an administrator I would be more likely to report him than believe him :P
Anyway humour aside, him and Wendell might want to "pollish" up his account appearance ;)
Basic because I'm a man of the people. Also disagree 1000% that free speech should have caveats. Bureaucrats in charge of deciding what is the truth? No thank you. Freedom comes with the responsibility to not depend on a government to do anything for you especially screen your facts.
You would not be able to survive a single week without people making decisions for you, preparing products for your and maintaining infrastructure for you.
The high level politicians are representatives, basically the advertisement departure of "name of your chunk of dirt enterprises". The hardworking people to keep the roads delt with need to be hired by some politcian aswell.
Equating roads with free speech is a strawman. I'll give up my freedom to drive 150 MPH and chug a six pack, I'll even submit to the taxation and police revenue generation tactics because, yes, roads are a huge improvement. People did survive quite well without them for a fair amount of history so I'm not very convinced by your 'dead in a week argument', but some freedoms should never be traded for convenience or safety and speech is one of them.
I said 'freedom comes with' not 'freedom is'. The point is that people like you are willing to spend your freedom far too cheaply.
Neither do I know you as you don not know me.
Convenience is coming in second or third place for me. For example, I do not want a smartphone becuase of the data these devices collect.
I wanted to say that politics is more than just making laws. Administration is also part of politics.
Take the middle ages, arround 1300. Highspeed transport as we know it today was not in place making some goods we consider vital today unavailable for everyone but the richest. Average life expectancy was considerably lower than it is today.
I don't recall defining the roles of government at any point, but I'll concede these points to you. Luckily you already have a source of government screened news and information in any of the major news networks. Enjoy.
Think about who would benefit from "designing" the news.
As far as I am concerned, the only one to benefit from that is the news network itself. Maybe other companies aswell as the news could direct attention away from major issues in the surroundings of everyone, but that is a different topic.
Then there is another issue with your statement. The news shows that point out failings in the government and economy. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? In the capitalist world, that makes no sense.
I'm not sure this debate has any structure at this point, so don't be offended by my lack of willingness to continue on with it. If you don't believe there is collusion between government and media I would encourage you to peruse the podesta emails from wikileaks. You will find them most illuminating.
It isn't bureaucrats deciding what is true, it would be the courts. Evidence provided and what is factual and what isn't is broken down through the natural rules of law.
Anyway up here freedom of speech is preserved. If you decide to label yourself as someone or organization who is providing facts, then you agree to abide by the rule that you can't lie. One can have a satire 'news' show, or other such things, as long as it is apparent that it is such a show.
Currently the media in the US is usurping the freedom of speech of basically every American to use for their own purposes, and this is one of the main problems down there right now. It is similar to a bot net, in that one person or a small group of individuals insidiously convert something or someone to do their bidding, without them being aware of the truth of the behaviour..
This behaviour is 'allowed', since it technically isn't unconstitutional (or illegal), even though it is probably one of the worst things to undermine democracy. To me the proof is in the pudding because from how I understand it, there were such rules, but they were challenged and found to be "unconstitutional". Now without them, the media has run amok.
I would disagree. Freedom comes when one is free from exploitation and can exploit others without limit. Take a pure anarchy for example: Those with true freedom are the ones with the most power where they can both prevent others stealing from them or otherwise bending them to their will, and able to do what they wish to others. This is where government comes in. Government is the vehicle in which a collective of people (we could say weaker people) come to an agreement of mutual cooperation to prevent anyone from exploiting them.
The concept of government naturally has suffered from entropy in some cases, where Government has been used to oppress . However this is not a reason to abandon the idea of having government prevent people from exploiting others. America needs to have a discussion on free speech and what is acceptable or not, and if it needs protection and how. Personally I can say that having it be illegal for the news to lie and behave in certain ways really does serve us well here in Canada.
Well said.