shoop

Please answer my question. Please explain how the nuanced difference between "looking for balance in his life" (my words) and "seeking to avoid imbalancing his life" (your words) illustrates how I am proffering political BS? I am guessing you don't claim to be proferring BS yourself. PS, any information on who runs this site you keep referring to?

See, I can quote your posts before you think better of them and decide to edit them too!

How?

That is an expectation that shouldn't necessarily exist. Look at Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys. The top two Canadian sitcoms on the air that came into being without the guiding hand of MotherCorp.

For the fifth time, how does this difference explain how I am *just wanting to insult the man?* IF you keep avoiding the question then yes you are being a pedantic little pain.

How does this difference explain how I am *just wanting to insult the man?*

Gerry, once more I am asking. For the third time, here is a question you might want to answer. Please explain how the nuanced difference between "looking for balance in his life" and "seeking to avoid imbalancing his life" illustrates how I am *just wanting to insult the man.* Man, if you want to get into some flame war at least provide some sort of target that would be interesting to engage. Your feeble attempt above is just making me sleepy.

Please explain how the nuanced difference between "looking for balance in his life" (my words) and "seeking to avoid imbalancing his life" (your words) illustrates how I am proffering political BS? I am guessing you don't claim to be proferring BS yourself.

Wow you are a pedantic little pain. Yet again, here is a question you might want to answer. Please explain how the nuanced difference between "looking for balance in his life" and "seeking to avoid imbalancing his life" illustrates how I am *just wanting to insult the man.* Man, if you want to get into some flame war at least provide some sort of target that would be interesting to engage. Your feeble attempt above is just making me sleepy.

Spar, You almost make a lucid argument here. But not quite. Yes, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both fundamental freedoms. But freedom of speech covers what citizens have the right to say. Not what they have the right to watch on television. I completely agree with you about the place for a non-commercial broadcaster in Canada. I just think such a broadcaster can survive with far less money from the government. Look at all the PBS pledge drives. How much money could CBC rake in with one of those every quarter or so?

Here is a direct quote from McKenna himself dealing with the balance issue.

Hmmm, you said "After this election I'm a little tired of BS. Can we not all just be honest for a little while?" And my talking about you saying "Telling people to *cut the BS*" was a false accusation? Tinfoilhat wearer heal thy self.

I probably am tired, but picking *churches* was a bad choice on your part. You could have picked hundreds of other programs without going after a "fundamental freedom". Yes, the government does have to make choices, but for you to frivolously say that tax deductions for religious institutions would be equally as supported as the CBC is just plain wrong.

How about proffering some *not strange* reasons for McKenna's decision not to run, or explain why reasons are strange. And can you do it without threating to kill anything or anyone?

Hey gerryhatrick. Posts from different posters come from different people. I said looking for balance as the way I summed up what McKenna said in the press conference. P.S. thanks tml12

Gerrry has only been around for three posts but they are three great ones. 1. Telling people to *cut the B.S.*. 2. Accusing people who think the CBC has a bias as being tinfoilhatish? 3. A post to a random Web site with no *about* page or any other information on those running the page as evidence of daming and incredible media bias.

You are off to quite the start their gerry. Your third post before you get tough and start threatening physical violence. Way to keep up the decorum on the board.

Actually looking for a little balance in his life was the *big* reason he did give in his statement. Do you have anything constructive to add to the site? Why start with a post like this? How was I not being honest....

newbie, Are you that blinded by ideology that your only contribution to the thread is to attack geoffrey because of his signature? Great way to play your part!

Absolutely right I am sensitive. In your snotty way simply refusing to deal with me is sadly, arrogant. But get the point, you can sit and pontificate all you want from behind your keyboard. Whatever party you support did not form government. Ohh, you called CPC supporters neo-cons. Wow are you smart. You are *almost* as smart as the braniacs in the Liberal war room. Your anti-religious rant is just plain ignorant. Do you have *any* support for your claim about tax deductions for religious institutions vs. cuts to the CBC. (Oh I forgot you did say churches. Is your contempt only reserved for Christians or are any Canadians who donate to the religious institution they have the freedom to support beneath you?) Ohhh, you forgot how many people would not want to make that choice. That is right, there are somepeople who believe in organized religion and watch the CBC. Are these people *smart and hip* because they support the CBC or worthy of your contempt because religion plays a role in their lives? Still waiting on this figures re: funding for CBC vs. PBS/NPR. Oh that's right you pulled your numbers outta your butt, that's why you never provide any support for your posts.

So by going to the hospital he is not being *honest and forthright*? Will anybody, please anybody, notice that the CBC is the news outlet that sent a reporter to ask Harper questions about this trip? Can anyone explain how a chest cold is so very different from an asthma attack so as to paint Harper as *dishonest and not forthright*?

The Canadian taxpayers pay *twice* as much of the CBCs budget as the U.S. taxpayers do of NPR/PBS and this isn't a big difference? Why you gotta use hatefully terminology like neo-con? Does it make you feel better constantly *attack* *attack* *attack*? Is *scary* *scary* *scary* really starting this early for election 2008? Seriously, how does that further the debate at all? Or do you just feel better throwing in the attacks? If as you say "there are enough people in the country that believe a public/non-commercial broadcaster is good thing." Then there should be enough financial support for it to survive.

Hmmm, let's look at this. (According to Elections Canada reports.) The Liberals were $34 Million in debt at the end of 2004. They raised about $1.5 Million in the first quarter of 2005. So in the last 9 months where do we think the Liberals fortunes have gone. Nine months ago they were in the hole *at least* $32 Million, In the interim they ran a losing, expensive, *national* campaign. Based on that alone I am more likely to believe the actual debt figure is closer to $20 Million than $5 Million. Then again if you have any *proof* to support your claim August. Yeah, what are the odds ...

There is a *huge* difference between the CBC, which is funded by taxpayer dollars and PBS/NPR which receive public funds. The Government of Canada pays a higher percentage of total operating expenses than the U.S. Feds do for either PBS or NPR. There would be cost savings if the government deemed it necessary. CBC *might* be able to build up an endowment on its own. If not then it would have to cut services. Whatever made you think that the government would pay to create an endowment for CBC?

Then go with the PBS/TVO model. PBS (and it's kindred spirit NPR) provide a great balancing force in the U.S. Allow CBC to split into radio and television wings. IF people are willing to support them than they will survive.