shoop

People don't pay to subscribe to the CBC now. Quit broadcasting it over the open air. Provide it over cable only. Then people have to pay to subscribe. No free-riders. It would be amazing how many fewer people would *support* the CBC with their chequebooks.

Hmmm, nothing mentioned in any of those articles about order-in-council. The Kyoto and Gun Registry issues will definitely face Parliament. If that is the scarriest (or scariest) thing Harper does than it just shows how sad the cries of scary, scary, scary have become. So far, so good PM Harper!

I don't quite understand if you are trying to baffle me. How does your streetlight analogy apply to the CBC. With modern technology it would be very easy to provide the CBC service only to those people willing to pay for it. Sure it would have to be trimmed down, but that wouldn't be the worst thing ever. I think you are proving the Left is far more clueless with your ridiculous analogies that don't shed any light on the question at hand.

Are you saying that was chanted at the Wellstone funeral? (Proof if you are?) Or the Wellstone funeral shouldn't have been part of the OP?

You never did make the case that MacKay's original statement was unhelpful. That he showed the class to ease the parents concerns that might have come from this misunderstanding is far from providing an *obvious truth*. The misunderstanding being the newness of information to which he was referring. See you don't get it, because the Liberals never act with class. Or explain their attacks. They just go into a second round when the prols don't take their pronouncements from the mount as gospel truth.

OK, subscriber advertiser and sponsor. The CBC goes and gets the money or it goes out of business. That's how! Hmmm, clueless for making you look bad with your stupid potato/streelight analogy? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Streelights are a public good because you cannot stop me from benefitting from it, even if I choose not to pay my share. A television channel isn't. You make it only available through cable. Boom no more free riders. Or maybe your stupid joke was a tacit admission how weak your original argument was.

Hmmm, water and sewer. Everyone agrees that water and sewer should be provided for two reasons. Every body has the right to the necessities of life and public health concerns. Not everyone agrees about roads. 407 in Ontario and the Coquihalia in BC come to mind. Are you saying that the CBC is a *necessity* and/or public health would be endangered if it wasn't funded by the government.

Paradoxically that would give us the reverse of the political scene after 1993. The united left would leave the centre open to the CPC. Add that to the CPCs newfound support in Quebec, plus the NDPs utter electoral failure in Quebec and you would probably guarantee two or three CPC majorities with a united left. Go for it guys.

Do explain your weak rant to me? The CBC could be totally subscriber funded. (More akin to potatoes.) Yet the classic free riders are insisting the government pay for it to lower the burden to themselves. See there aren't really anything you could buy privately to replace a street light. But there are a lot of options as far as tv goes...

You grossly misrepresented that first stat. Only 29% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement about the CBC providing value for taxpayers money. You conveniently lumped in the 48% who somewhat agreed? Nice, work. As the old saying goes about lies, damned lies and statistics. Good working attacking the evil conservatives with your second point. If only we had gotten support from all 71% of the population who don't strongly feel we are getting value for taxpayer dollars from the CBC.

It is only worrisome because it is a public broadcaster. Stop the flow of public money and let them be. Please drop the facade of representing all Canadians...

Yeah, ok. Still none of these arguments make a convincing case for not doing it. It's a minor thing, but one little piece of the history of achievements for the 2007 election.

If the CBC embrasses an unbiased view than I am for continuing the subsidy. It doesn't and the evidence is huge. On CBC's Politics and Economy page there are profiles of thirteen Canadians who are primarily identified with a given political party. Here is how the profiles breakdown along partisan lines. Liberals 8 - 62% Turner (What?) Trudeau (Of Course!) Chretien Pearson Mackenzie King Roberta Bourassa Sauve John F. Kennedy (The Kennedy myth is the Liberals wet dream for a candidate.) Conservatives 3 - 23% Diefenbaker Macdonald Mulroney NDP 2 - 15% Douglas Broadbent What is going on??? The left gets 77% of the airtime? That isn't even attempting to be balanced. We got 36% of the vote, but only 23% of CBCs *representative* view of Canada?

You are correct. Times have changed. But I think the U.S. is proving on the environment that a more market-based approach is the way to go. Which country has reduced the rate of growth of their CO2 admissions approach since Kyoto was signed. The U.S. and they aren't even using that ridiculous buying credits from countries that won't comply. What has Rick Mercer's *One Tonne Challenge* done for us? Not as much as good old financial incentives. Maybe instead of always complaining about the Americans and feeling self-righteous we might actually want to work with them in an area they are doing better than we are in.

The ways in which the CBC helps create power for the Liberals is insidious. Always working to perpetuate the idea of the Liberals as the "Natural Governing Party" of Canada. Right now people should be informed about what the new Conservative goverment is doing. At CBC right now there is one story about the Conservatives buried bottom of the fold. *Directly below* it is a fluff piece about the Political Rise of John Turner. Why no coverage of Joe Clark or Kim Campbell??? The CBC can never, ever let the Canadian public forget about the *importance* of the Liberal Party of Canada in Canadian society. Sickening. :angry:

Your concern is a valid one. I think MPs will tread lightly in this area. Even if they don't, the justices really should pursue the *non-answers* to which you refer. The best case for these hearings is to help the public understand the approach justices will take when making their decisions. There is nothing to really stop justices from pursuing a different style from their past decisions one appointed to the high court. Best case scenario, this process will let the public have a better idea where the justice is coming from *now*, rather than where they were coming from 10 years ago. Wouldn't this be considered taking positive steps towards reducing the democratic deficit? Seems like more than Martin every tried to do.

I think Lord must be kicking himself now. He would have had a very good shot at winning the CPC leadership had he jumped into the race. Now he faces losing a minority vote. tsk tsk tsk Guess we'll have to see if he can resurrect himself. btw, McKenna started NB on the road to success, but Lord does deserve credit for keeping things moving in the right direction.

Vehicle choice isn't *that* biased. You could probably get away with driving a Japanese sports car. If you drove a North American made sports car people would just think you are crazy. Seriously though, you do see a lot more pickups in Alberta but nobody really cares what you drive.

What are you saying? Because you see advertising it is *difficult* not to buy the products advertised??? How is this in any way shape or form related to "taxation without representation"? Maybe I don't want to lower my income to the level where I don't pay taxes simply so part of my taxes don't go to the CBC. Maybe it would be better if my taxes didn't go to the CBC period.

Resources are valuable commodities, but they are commodities. Canada's *main* economic advantage is its natural resources. That is what we must use to succeed. We fairly pay our workers too much to have a viable manufacturing sector in many fields. We do not have a domestic market large enough to pursue isolationist trade policies. Canada *needs* to trade in order for our economy to survive/prosper. Not necessarliy with the Americans but with somebody. Your argument points to isolationism that is simply not feasible. What exactly are we giving our kids by reducing our status to that of a *second world* economy? (A choice you would prefer for some reason.)

You really don't understand much, do you? What is the *corruption*? Involved here. What inquiry proved the CPC *only* stole $3.8 million of taxpayer dollars? Wilson will look out for the best interest of Canada as Ambassador. Not just attack the U.S. to score points for domestic purposes back home.

Yet again, thanks for the insightful comment Rita. Why not just cut and paste "I hate Harper." You add no more thought than that to any of your posts and aren't really contributing anything else to the discussion. btw - I think you meant *toady*.

There wasn't a poll for this question. Read the legend at the bottom of the federal politics board that explains how the threads work and what the little coloured folders stand for.

Thanks for the blanket, unsupported insult Rita. You'll fit right in with the loonie left. On the opposition sidelines! CTV, Global etc... would definitely bid to carry the Olympics. Might actually be successful if they weren't *competing* with a network subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

I think that waste is another false objection. What is the extra money involved? The room they use on parliament hill probably sits open a lot of the time, doing stuff like this is the job of parliamentarians. What time? The day or so of prep on the part of the MPs staff plus three hours questioning? These are all minimal expenses and worth it on that *small* chance that the justice makes an error that justifies not confirming them for the position. (In the eyes of the PM.) The masses? wtf is up with that...