Hudson Jones

Here is what Canadians think of the CBC, as according to a poll by Nanos Research. Mar 23, 2012 Executive Summary Canadians are generally satisfied with the programs and content provided by the CBC. They are more likely to support maintaining current funding compared to a cut or increase and believe that possible cuts would likely have a negative impact in terms of Canadian content, local news and national news. These are the key findings of a study conducted by Nanos Research for the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. Link

The CBC has a mandate that other stations do not. Here is the mandate: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains; ...the programming provided by the Corporation should: be predominantly and distinctively Canadian, reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions, actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression, be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities, strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French, contribute to shared national consciousness and identity, be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada. They do a good job of achieving the mandate and majority of Canadians are in favour of the CBC continuing the way it is.

What don't you believe? Russia's anger towards Obama's protection over the seed giant or the decreasing bee population and their importance over our food?

It takes leadership to steal from the taxpayers and then return it when you get caught. The Harper government is praising Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy for showing "leadership" in the Senate expenses scandal. Link

This at a time when we have Senators literally starving during their Florida vacations, unable to expense meals.

During the 17 months which he was in power, former dictator, Efraín Ríos Montt killed over 1700 people in the Maya region. This is just a tiny part of the horrific civil war that killed around 200,000 people. He was found guilty today in a historic trial. The 86 year old was sentenced for 80 years in prison for genocide and crimes against humanity. He is one of many former dictators in the Americas who was directly backed by the U.S., but only the first to make it past all the obstacles and stood trial for some of the crimes committed. It is a bittersweet day, knowing that justice has found a voice, but that this trial and verdict has only scratched the surface of all the injustices around the world. Link Video Link

So it's all good? The Conservatives have done nothing wrong and they have not mismanaged this whole thing? Kind of like the F35's?

How can it be taken out of context when the whole speech was recorded?

Eh?

If you are talking about Einstein, he was no fan of the type of zionism that started to develop in the 40's and what we see today. He supported a Jewish homeland but opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine preferring a bi-national state. If he were alive today, he would also be boycotting Israel. He even wrote a few letters condemning Zionist Fascism in Israel. Here is part of one of the letters which was published in the NYT: Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future. Attack on Arab Village A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants 240 men, women, and children - and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem.

Just in case you missed it:

Google is international.

Good for Hawking. The momentum has picked up. It's only a matter of time before world pressure will be too much for Israel to continue its numerous violations of international law. It doesn't matter how much influence the Israeli lobby has over Canada and U.S., the rest of the world can no longer sit idle.

Maybe Iran should attack Israel to prevent attacks from occurring. North Korea should do the same thing.

You want to be taken seriously, right? You do realize that Al Qaeda didn't come to be until the late 80's, right?

Do tell. The Syrian government said that Israeli air strikes against military targets around Damascus amounted to a "declaration of war" and threatened retaliation, in the latest sign that the fighting is spilling across the Syrian border and risks sparking a wider regional conflict. Link Speculations. What are you talking about? The former Bush official has said the evidence that Syria used chemical weapons is weak and this could very well be a false flag operation by Israel. It's an accusation made by the former Bush official. Israel has a history of using false flag operations, so it is quite possible. How about the Lavon Affair? What about the USS Liberty? There are many more to list.

Israel is an authoritarian regime that does restrict human rights when it comes to the occupied territories. They also violate international law by attacking sovereign countries, like they have done in Syria and Lebanon.

"The UN said" Rarely do you use the UN to back yourself up. Why? We've gone over what many different organizations have said and we've also gone over the Palmer report. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it, the Israeli army boarded a ship in international waters. That's attacking. Then they killed people. Some, as it was later revealed by autopsy, were executed. Israel apologized for its roll in the deaths. You should also, for defending it.

I don't think saddam was innocent, before or after his bff status in the middle east. What I am saying is that it U.S. policy has supported murderous dictators, including Saddam. So Saddam's removal has nothing to do with moral standards. So stop playing that card to try to excuse what U.S. has done.

The flotilla was invaded by the Israeli army when the Israeli army boarded the ship without permission. By boarding a private boat in international waters, that's attacking.

Yes. The people on the flotilla attacked first by getting the Israeli army board their ship and then getting themselves in the way of the bullets. They planned to kill the soldiers but they didn't, but still we're going to say they planned to kill them because whatever illogical and irrational crap that I feel like typing, as long as it defends Israel, is okay.

Some people try to minimize Google decision, but Israeli politicians are taking it seriously. Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin wrote to Google CEO Larry Page on Sunday urging the company to rescind its decision to refer to the Palestinian territories as “Palestine” on all its products. Elkin claimed this decision was liable to have a negative impact on efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. “By so doing,” Elkin wrote, “Google is in essence recognizing the existence of a Palestinian state. Such a decision, is in my opinion, not only mistaken but could also negatively impinge on the efforts of my government to bring about direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. “ … I would be grateful were you to reconsider this decision since it entrenches the Palestinians in their view that they can further their political aims through one-side actions rather than through negotiating and mutual agreement.” Link So let me see if I understand – recognizing an independent Palestine, which is purely symbolic anyway since Israel still controls the West Bank in its entirety, obstructs efforts to achieve a two-state solution, the product of which is supposed to be an independent Palestinian state? And the reason he gives? Because it’s unilateral. Like the establishment of settlements by Israel? Like Israel’s decision to open or close a checkpoint? Like Israel’s Prawer Plan for Bedouin citizens of Israel? Like every law Israel passes or decision it makes that affect Palestinians?

I understand what you're saying but the difference is that the West Bank and Gaza are not considered part of Israel.

I am not able to carry a conversation with you, as your level of knowledge, understanding and logic about the conflict is limited and superficial. It's important that you understand at least a little about the situation, instead of your aim being to regurgitate catchy Zionist phrases.