Mediaboss Marketing

Burnabys NDP-affiliated mayor is taking shots at the Liberal Party of B.C. for ads he says are misleading people about councils stance on marijuana sales but the Liberals arent backing down.

In a press release issued Thursday morning, in the final days of the election campaign, Mayor Derek Corrigan criticized Chinese-language ads placed by the Liberals. The ads in question mention two Burnaby city councillors, Anne Kang and James Wang, who are both running for the NDP in this election Kang in Burnaby-Deer Lake and Wang in Vancouver-Langara.

The Chinese-language ad says that Burnaby city councillors, James Wang and Anne Kang, voted for distributing non-medical marijuana in liquor stores before the federal government has legalized marijuana and that this information is taken from Dec. 5, 2016 Burnaby city council meeting minutes, Corrigan said in the release. This is not true.

The minutes read, in part, that the City of Burnaby wants to ensure that should marijuana be legalized, it is distributed in a responsible manner and does not fall into the hands of minors.

The council discussion arose in connection with a motion to support the Responsible Marijuana Retail Alliance of B.C. a joint partnership of the B.C. Government Employees Union and the B.C. Private Liquor Store Association which proposed retail sales of non-medical marijuana should be allowed only in licensed public and private liquor stores.

Councillors voted unanimously in favour of the motion.

Corrigan noted the minutes of the meeting very clearly indicated the discussion took place in anticipation of new legislation from the federal government in the spring of 2017.

It is clear that there is no level to which the current provincial Liberal party will not stoop in its bid for re-election, but the City of Burnaby will not accept this misrepresentation of the facts about Burnaby city council decisions, Corrigan said. It would be a disservice to our citizens to do so.

Corrigan called on the Liberal Party of B.C. to pull the ads and to apologize to Burnaby city council.

The Liberal Party of B.C., however, has no intention of doing so.

We stand by our advertisement. The minutes show the motion to support the sale of non-medical marijuana in government liquor stores was unanimously approved, says a statement emailed by the Liberal communications team.

Andrew Wilkinson, Liberal candidate in Vancouver-Quilchena, told the NOW in an interview that the issue is not about the wording of the ad but about the fact the NDP candidates did come out in support of marijuana sales in liquor stores something he said Liberal leader Christy Clark has opposed but NDP leader John Horgan has supported.

I think the key question is, are they prepared to disagree with their leader? he said. Its incumbent upon the NDP candidates to make clear their position.

He said the advertisement leads directly to the question of where the candidates stand on the issue.

Not mentioned in Corrigans press release which was sent on letterhead from the City of Burnaby, Office of the Mayor is the fact that Burnaby city council is entirely made up of members of the Burnaby Citizens Association, an NDP affiliate.

Mayor Corrigan has a long history of disagreeing with the Liberals on just about anything, Wilkinson said.

The NOW questioned Wilkinson on where the disputed ad had in fact run, but Wilkinson did not have that information. He said he would call back when he tracked it down but, as of deadline, had not returned the call.

Read the original post:
Burnaby mayor picks a fight with BC Liberals - Burnaby Now

The women of The View tore Ivanka Trump up duringThursdays airing of The View especially the shows more liberal panelists such as Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar.

Trumps latest book, Women Who Work: Rewriting the Rules for Success, has been panned by progressive critics, includingGoldberg, who labeledit tone deaf and vapid.

While were on the subject of people who just really dont get whats going on in the real world, Ivanka Trumps new book Women Who Work is not working for a lot of women right now, Goldberg said as she kicked off the segment. Some are calling it tone deaf, vapid and in one particularly regrettable passage, she uses a Toni Morrison quote about the devastating impacts of black slavery. To start a chapter called Working Smarter that asks, Are you a slave to your time, or the master of it?

Goldberg offered a heavy sigh before she trailed off, which gaveBehar an opportunity to weigh in on the matter.

Behar asked, Why do they constantly use slave analogies? Slavery was a unique system of oppression. Its like using the Holocaust to describe things. Using it haphazardly like that, its offensive.

Goldberg went sofar as tostate that she didnt believe that Trump realized slavery was a real thing.

I dont think she understands that slavery actually was real.

Co-hostSunny Hostin didnt have many positive things to say about Trump or her book either.

Theres a tone deafness that I think goes on with the Trump family, and Ivanka is proof of that, Hostin said, noting that one passage in Trumps book read nothing is ever handed to you.

Hostin mocked, Except your daddy handed to you millions and millions of dollars so you could start your business.

Conservative co-host Jedediah Bila argued that the book didnt bother her but said that she felt Trump should perhaps stay in her own lane despite having a good story to tell.

The book doesnt bother me, Bila said, but I think she would be better to speak to her own experience acknowledge the fact that she is a privileged person. She is a smart businesswoman. Shes done a lot with her life in that theres a lot of people who are handed a lot of money and they do nothing with it.

Bila continued and defended Trump to the other hosts.

She was handed a lot of money and she did a lot of great stuff with it, she said, and she can speak to her experience, but then people would be able to look at her as a serious person.

Original post:
'The View' liberals don't think Ivanka Trump knows what black slavery was - TheBlaze.com

What the hell is The New York Times doing employing a climate-denying goon?

Last week, The New York Times ran the debut of columnist Bret Stephens, whose skepticism of Donald Trump was apparently enough for him to qualify as One of the Good Conservatives that the Times loves to showcase on their op-ed page. Anyway, Stephens is also a skeptic of global warming, and his opening salvo was filled with the kind of junk science and No one can really predict the future! claptrap that climate deniers love to deploy when smoothing out a worldview that is undeniably wrong. He even used Hillary Clintons election loss as an example of the fallacy of relying on science because well, because no right-wing argument is complete without sticking a shiv into Hillarys corpse.

This column was met with a great deal of negativity, and for good reason. Here we have august New York Times, positing themselves as defenders of truth in a post-truth political era, but deciding to give prominent space to a fancy imbecile. The blowback was so strong that the Timess public editor, Liz Spayd, weighed in today. Now, the obvious lesson that Spayd should have taken from this whole episode was DONT HIRE A FUCKING CLIMATE DENIER. But no. Spayds takeaway was that perhaps liberals were too harsh on Stephens. Maybe we were all too harsh on each other, guys!

Readers, on the other hand, face the serious test of whether they can show tolerance for views they dont like, even those they fear are dangerous.

Read that again and tell me it makes a lick of sense. Im supposed to be tolerant of dangerous views? Is that really as big of a problem as the dangerous view itself? Readers, on the other hand, face a SERIOUS TEST of whether or not they can be open to the idea of destroying the moon. This whole episode is a perfect example of The New York Timess steadfast dedication to the Some people say X, while others say Y! form of analysis, and its a grim reminder that the Times exists not to make readers smarter, but to make readers FEEL like theyre smarter, and that goes for liberal and conservative readers alike.

This is how they end up trotting out a prudish bozo like Ross Douthat to be like, Hey, the French lady who wants to ban yarmulkes might have some good ideas, maybe? And its how they trot out another bozo like Stephens presenting a view on climate change that isnt a view at all, but rather a categorical untruth, and then allow him to buff and shine that view until it satisfies whatever niche audience wants their awful worldview to be legitimized by the paper of record. The Times wants to report the news, but they also want to be polite, and fair, which means indulging those who do not deserve to be indulged. This is especially true of Stephens.

Did all this negative criticism teach Stephens that he was, you know, wrong? Of course not. No, what Stephens learned was that liberals can begasp!nasty!

And, true to any standard Professional Right Wing Yakker, he displays a perverse pride in upsetting readers who have ample reason to be upset. Every feather ruffled is a prize to be treasured:

The idea that liberals are intolerant of dissenting opinion has been a hobbyhorse of the right for decades. Every time conservatives are faced with rational blowback, they go, OH WOW, LOOK HOW HYSTERICAL THESE LIBERALS ARE! YOU GUYS ARE COMING OFF A LITTLE HOSTILE HERE! Rush Limbaugh brings up liberal anger on the hour every hour, and its a funny complaint coming from the kind of people who just won an election riding on the back of Nazi Frog Twitter, and who tend to react with outrage at, for example, the sight of two black people hosting SportsCenter together. I really dont need their criticism of liberal manners validated by the Times when its so old and tired.

More important, I have every right to be a complete dick about all this. I have every right to lay into Stephens for being a preening asshat and promoting ideasand I hate even calling his bullshit an ideathat will literally destroy the planet. I have every right to be intolerant and strident toward people who are wrong, and toward people like Spayd who coddle the Bret Stephens of the world and think they can politely stammer their way through American democracy committing suicide. Her whole response to this fiasco is Lets all just agree to disagree and go have ice cream! and its disgraceful coming from that papers public editor.

How has being nice helped liberals thus far, anyway? Conservatives just took over every branch of government with one of the most hateful men on Earth as their standard-bearer. Republicans have already legalized river pollution, allowed Internet companies to violate your privacy, and are hell-bent on taking your grandmas penicillin away from her. And yet, over and over again, its liberals who are the intolerant ones, and its liberals who are supposed to play nice and reach out to the white voters who will HAPPILY reject them so long as Republicans are offering a platform of guilt-free racism as an alternative.

Fuck all that. I want you to watch something that youve probably seen already: Its the video of Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings going off on Oregon Rep. Greg Walden:

I dont have to be nice for nobody when youre being nasty to poor people. See now, theres a man who gets it. Theres a man who understands that the proper and logical response to the Republican agendawith all its climate denial and repression and open corruptionis FUCCCCCKKKKK YOUUUUUUUU. It is not, Hey, lets hear out this fella who wants to rob us blind! Did we not just come out of an election season that highlighted the dangers of softening the edges of dangerous people? Did it not take the Times AGES to finally point out that the presidentwho is a liaris a liar? The Stephens episode shows that they still havent really learned their lesson. Above all, it shows that meekness is not a boon to liberalism, especially when shitbags like Stephens are demanding it.

MORE STORIES LIKE THIS ONE

More here:
Bret Stephens Is Why Liberals Have Every Right to Be Dicks - GQ Magazine

There were registered lobbyists who signed up and paid to attend a fundraiser featuring Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Montreal, but the Liberal party says they have since been removed from the guest list.

"Individuals who were registered to lobby the special guest were informed they would not be able to attend this event, in line with the party's commitment regarding such checks in advance of ticketed fundraising events," spokesman Braeden Caley wrote in an email Thursday.

Trudeau promised political donors would not get preferential access to his government, and now the Liberals are trying to show they mean it as they revive their high-profile fundraising efforts, including an appearance by Trudeau at the Museum of Fine Arts in Montreal for Thursday's party fundraiser.

Anyone can go, so long as they have up to $250 to spare for a ticket, want to give that money to the Liberal Party of Canada, and are not registered to lobby the Prime Minister's Office.

Caley confirmed fewer than five individuals who were registered to lobby the PMO had bought tickets.

It is a chance for Liberal supporters to get a word or a selfie with the party leader, but it will also be a time when the Liberals can once again rely on their surest bet for topping up the party war chest as they prepare for the next election.

The Liberals brought in a moratorium on fundraising events featuring Trudeau and other ministers earlier this year as they worked to develop new rules in the wake of accusations they were providing preferential access to the prime minister and his cabinet in exchange for dollars from wealthy donors in private homes.

"There was a pause on national fundraising events throughout the first quarter while stronger standards for open and transparent fundraising events were being prepared," Caley said.

Nathan Cullen uses unparliamentary language1:08

The new system involves holding fundraisers featuring Trudeau or ministers only in public places, announcing them in advance, allowing the media to attend and disclosing the guest list within the following 45 days.

Those measures are new, but the process of vetting fundraising lists to ensure no one registered to lobby the department of the "special guest" at the events is not.

Last November, as the stories about cash-for-access fundraising practices were piling up, Christina Topp, who was then interim national director of the party, detailed what the Liberal party avoids the perception it is giving preferential access to cabinet ministers, or placing them in a conflict of interest.

In a letter to cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries obtained by The Canadian Press, Topp said the Liberal party vets guest lists for fundraising events to "determine if any individuals are registered lobbyists with active files associated with the relevant department and, if necessary, take steps so that the individual does not attend the event."

The Liberals are calling on the opposition parties to bring in their own transparency measures.

"No other party has made a similar commitment and we challenge them to do so," said Caley.

Soon, they might not have a choice.

The Liberal government promised legislation that would require similar disclosure for events involving party leaders and leadership candidates.

"It's always possible to raise the bar and we will continue to work hard to make the government more transparent," Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould said Thursday during question period.

John O'Leary, her spokesman, said the government aims to introduce the legislation this spring.

One Liberal source said the legislation will be essentially the same as the measures the party brought in, which would prevent the party having to once again change the way they are doing things.

One significant difference, according to two Liberal sources, will likely be the lack of a requirement to open the events up to the media.

The Conservatives and New Democrats say they do not plan on taking any lessons from the Liberals.

"The reality is they weren't able to follow their own set of rules the first time," said Conservative MP Blaine Calkins.

New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen said his skepticism stems from the fact the Liberals deserted their promise to change how Canadians vote. "I have very, very low trust with this government when it comes to democratic reform."

Some Liberals are pointing to that as one reason for lacklustre fundraising figures in the first three months of this year, when the Conservatives raised nearly twice as much money from a larger pool of contributors, even though they are in the midst of a leadership race that ought to be siphoning would-be donations to the party.

"There's a small connection," Caley said when asked whether the lower profile played a role.

See more here:
Liberals removed lobbyists who signed up for Montreal fundraiser with Justin Trudeau - CBC.ca

Franklinton, N.C. A sign in a Granville County yard urging people to "kill liberals" is the latest in a string of fiery political messages posted by the homeowner, according to people in the area, who say they mostly ignore the rhetoric and the man behind it.

The sign, at the corner of Bruce Garner Road and Pocomoke Drive 2 in the southeast corner of the county reads "Civil War 'Now' Kill Liberals." The man who posted it wasn't home Wednesday when a WRAL News crew stopped by.

"This is quite offensive, and before the election, he had other offensive signs, too," said Ravinder Bindra, who runs a country store about a quarter-mile away on Bruce Garner Road. "I dont pay, most of the time, any attention."

Bindra said the sign's owner stops by his store almost daily, but the Sikh immigrant from India said the man never bothers him.

"He has not been any trouble to me so far," he said. "I dont know what his name is. See, nobody cares about him."

Some neighbors said the man, who also flies a Confederate flag, a "Don't Tread On Me" flag and a U.S. flag with only 13 stars, causes no trouble other than firing off guns in his yard and lighting bonfires with his buddies.

"That mans posted all types of (stuff) out there in his yard," said Ronnie Keith, who lives up the road from the sign's owner. "Its probably just for entertainment."

Keith said most people have an attitude similar to Bindra's when it comes to the man and his signs.

"They dont care. Its their opinion, and they know they have the right to say it," he said. "Me, myself, personally, I dont really do politics."

Bindra said the signs don't signal local sentiment.

"(If it) was of a majority of the people, then Id be worried, but a single person like him, Im not worried about any mishappening or anything," he said.

View post:
Granville neighbors call man's 'kill liberals' sign hyperbole - WRAL.com