Forgive my density, but what has "thirdparty financing laws" to do with any of this? The massive web-hosting fees?
And I suppose Parks and Jamieson just noticed the site now...
What kind of a load of shit is this?????
As far as i can tell, there is NO money exchanging hands, so how does this relate to spending restrictions under the canadian elections act?
This blog (and any others) are merely outlets for people of like minds, and even those of unlike minds and differing opinions, to express themselves and how they feel about the election, candidates, and issues.
I have made up my mind a long time ago as to how I will vote in theis election, so to say these blogs are here to "sway" voters or control their minds how to vote, is pure unrefined bull shit.
I choose to read "bloggingtories" and smalldead animals because they are conservative blogs, like my way of thinking. I will not read liberal or ndp blogs, beacuase they would just piss me off and get my bloodpressure up unnecessarily.
People suffering from cranial-rectal inversion are the ones complaining about this. Leave it alone.
the mad redneck
Robert and Joe:
I think that smell in the air is Liberal fear. The following quote from the link sums up these hacks pretty well:
"Parks passed on his information, which included email exchanges, to Jamieson, a former aide to former Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark. "
What goes around comes around. This is just the beginning.
People with integrity warned you, but you wouldn't listen.
Former PC's like Jamieson, including Brison and other new Liberals, are pissed because Cherniak is the best blogger support they can muster.
Blogging Tories must be given credit for keeping the normally Liberal biased MSM in check, somewhat anyway!
"cranial-rectal inversion" Good one! LOL
I'm nominating that for '06 Phrase of the Year
Hey Dan, then there's the infra-rectal cranioimpaction... known colloquially as "troll".
Posted at 2006-01-18 18:14:49 [PermaLink]I used to sit on the board in Victoria with Eugene before he left. He jumped as we pushed, so to speak. He's definitely from the Carole Jamieson and David Orchard school of "conservatives".
He was definitely one of those disgruntled "PC-4-evah" guys who can't reconcile his old stereotypes of Reformers as a bunch of bigots. After frequently spamming us on a variety of issues, a board member told him vis one of his e-mails that she thought the Indian Act was outdated and contained serious flaws. Eugene promptly accused her of being a racist from the Reform wing of the party extreme far ultra right yadda yadda yadda ... despite the fact that she was a former PC as well.
The guy's obnoxious and looks for attention from whomever will listen to him. I suggest we don't.
Can you say 'sissies'? Not to mention 'hypocrites'?
You guys have MADE this election for me, all of you. I've been laughing my head off while getting information and analysis hours and sometimes days before it comes up on MSM.
What a cheap shot - the Liberals are becoming more pathetic than even I thought possible.
They are whining because they can't do what bloggers do - tell it like it is. That involves talking out of only one side of your face.
Keep up the good work!
I'm confused by this whole thing. I mean, it's not just the tories that have one of this Blog lists. There's "Lib-Logs" and "Green Bloggers" too. Plus, what does it have to do with anything but people expressing opinions over a the internet. That's what it's there for. Sheesh.
The Liberals are going a little nutty I think.
Stephen
[External Link]
Blogging Tories is the result of the teamwork of members of the CPC party.
Stephen Taylor is its Webmaster and Editor. As Taylor self states, the Blogging Tories is his volunteer effort for the CPC. His volunteer Internet efforts went live on January 4th 2005. Later, he openly promoted his site at the first Conservative Party of Canada convention in March 2005 and was endorsed by its MPs, party officials, and members.
Previously, the CPC stated its plain intent to find a content channel to spin news in the coming election mimicking George Bush's campaign war room's use of web logs. After some months of technical frustration, Taylor's site was directly linked electronically to the CPC.
He began receiving unique "news" tips from the CPC pressroom and staff.
His site moved from being a mere box on an American Service Provider to being a truly CPC team effort. Scores of CPC members, including
MPs, Association President, National Council Members, joined the effort. His site became a conscious group effort for the CPC with forethought and intent by both himself and the CPC. Make no mistake about it, this was a CPC team effort - not that of just individuals as Taylor would have us believe.
Now of note recently, the Canada Election Act allows one to contribute to an election in one of three ways. A) as an individual, B.) as a registered third party, or C.) as part of a political party).
As a party of a political party your professional contribution, such as a website, needs to be expensed and declared and the material you distribute on behalf of the party must be identified as coming from the party.
As a registered third party, well, you have to register and work within spending limits. And as an individual, you have to work as an individual and live within personal spending limits.
In the case of blogging Tories, it was not an individual effort and it was done in conscious coordinated effort with the CPC.
Stephen Taylor has stated that is was his volunteer effort for the CPC and the CPC was feeding him. Further, MPs were endorsing him and scores, even hundreds, of CPC members were engaged.
The Blogging Tories was not a legal third party as it was not legally registered.
Lastly, the Blogging Tories did not label its literature's source nor declare itself openly as an agent of the CPC despite the direct connection.
So, the question - where is the integrity here in regards to the Canada Elections Act? Only the Chief Electoral Officer or a judge are qualified to make a judgment.
Most certainly there is enough documentation that the question be answered.
Except when it would cause significant harm, laws should not prevent one from speaking any truth that you are willing to put your name to as your own material nor should you be prosecuted for doing so. Additionally, the law must also protect the integrity of free speech by requiring that authors identify their source, particularly if one is not truly the full source of that speech. Freedom of speech includes the responsibility of authors to own the words they use. Otherwise, free speech can be reduced to propaganda - even reduced to being a lie. When our free speech is part of democratic decision-making, equal weight to each citizen's voice should be given. During elections when sources of partisan information is not disclosed and monetary limits are not evenly respected by all debating parties, then the integrity of our free speech and debate is compromised.
Eugene Parks
Give me a break!
Man they are desperate indeed, ST has explained this very clearly on his site.
There is a pic at [External Link]that was reserved for Ontario lib's, but EP and CJ fit this to a T!