Ricki Bobbi

Harper does like and respect women, but you'd never hear that from the other side. Ambrose definitely gets Intergovernmental Relations. Prentice to Environment and Van Loan to Indian Affairs. While I wish you were right Harper has to worry about the number of Albertans (or Calgarians at least) in Cabinet. If he adds somebody from Calgary it's definitley Ablonczy. Maybe she is in for International Trade and James Moore gets bumped up to Secretary of State for the Olympics. Buh bye Emerson...

Wow 1/2 a million for a half hour show. Unfreakin believe able. Ball park out of that 1/2 million per episode for LMotP how much would the CBC be kicking in?

I just took what was posted on the main page of each site. i.e. what people would be able to read if they didn't click on the link. Plus this explanation.

Ahhh, that old schoolyard gem. "I know you are but what am I." The irony that every one of your posts on this thread about excessive partisanship has invovled a personal attack on me is beautiful.

Thanks for that. It's in Greg's hands now.

He called me pathetic, accused me of 'crying' and said "wah wah" to one of my posts. How could somebody think that is being civil?

It is a standard of journalism that you write in a funnell. The most important part of the story, *as judged by the editor*, goes into the lead. That is the point the editor wants to stress. This is a journalistic standard because they further down a story a piece of information is the less likely somebody is to read it. Be it newspaper, magazine or the internet. In this case the CBC editor wanted to stress that Rona Ambrose was embattled. In this case the CTV editor wanted to stress that the shuffle was much-anticipated. The CBC editor chose to stress a part of the story that was more negative than the CTV editor chose. Ergo the CBC prefers to present more negative stories about the Conservatives than does the CTV. Do explain what wouldn't be a random sample. You even admitted there was some bias to my argument. If I can find five more examples would that be enough to prove a pattern? Ten? 20? 50?

So this is something you are carrying over from another thread. Of course you would ban me from the board. You would ban everyone who doesn't concur with your Harper-hating anti-Conservative view of the world. I have been civil on this thread, but you haven't. Yet, I'm the one that should be banned?

Good post. Do you have a rough guess as to what an episode would cost to produce? I heard something about $100k for a single episode of a Canadian produced sitcom. I don't have anything to *prove* that but I believe it is approximately correct. Just a guess though...

I am the worst of a bad lot? Look at your posts. My attempts to debate are met by mocking and insults. If you really want to change the tone here on the board why not point to a time where you have praised the Conservaties? Or maybe you don't want to change the tone of the board and are just here to attack...

Lived in Toronto for 2 1/2 years. Met dozens of people who fit the stereotype and had the condescending attitutde towards westerners.

It is a criticism of the CPC. Maybe not strong, but you asked to see it and I showed it to you. Better than any praise you have given the Conservatives. Do explain why I'm the worst of a bad lot while you are calling me pathetic?

How is that statement alleviating the tone of partisanship on the board?

It's a homegrown Western creation because the writer and producer is a Muslim woman who lives in Regina?

If you go to the main page of both sites that is all you see and all you can read. You have to click on the link and read both stories to read the adjective in both. For those people who do not go to the story they leave the respective Web sites with a more negative impression of the CPC after leaving the CBC Web site. Surely not the strongest argument, but I found that one on a whim. How many of those weak examples would it take to build a case for systemic bias on the part of the CBC? seriously

I thank you for that. But I hope you see how I pointed out my issues with Black Dog. Never said I wasn't partisan. Just said I didn't start threads just aimed at baiting the other side. Which I haven't...

He has in many posts. I don't think i've seen the liberal supporters ever once critisize the liberal agenda once. Thank you. WDW says I'm the worst of a bad lot and asks me to show a post where I criticized the CPC. I do it and not a word .... very interesting.

If seeing it is soooo important to you pay for the transcript. How's this for an example if you aren't just trying to pull my chain. Here is a quickie five minute content analysis of the CBC and CTV Web sites. Both have links to stories about the potential cabinet shuffle. Look at the lead, i.e. the first sentence of the story. Which is more negative to the Government? vs. Look at the adjectives used in both leads. Clearly embattled is more negative than widely-anticipated. Guess which one is from the CBC web site... Yes, I know it is only one case, but this is an example you can engage.

Was posturing? The part in italics was definitely posturing. The part in bold wasn't posturing at all. I never complained about posturing. I said that the op complained about posturing.

The raison d'etre for this thread comes from the OP. He is sick of posturing. Without supporting your statment then stating you are *under no obligation* you are just posturing. Just being partisan. Are you trying to be ironic with your posts? Why black dog? (Remember this is a thread presumably started to talk about the bad aspects to partisanship.) Here's one: Here's another: And this gem mocking the legitimate issue people have with paying for the CBC and its agenda. And this one contributed to civilized debate how?

The anti-Conservative piece is from that episode, not in the clip. Never said it was. To repeat, the entire episode isn't in the clip.... Just wanted to show bk59 what date the episode aired on. If he wasn't just pulling my chain...

It has to be a muslim form of prayer because?

Please do support statement.

The episode aired on January 16th. Here is the link to a short interview with Andrew Coyne from that episode. link Your search online must have been pretty general. Took me about two minutes to find it. The entire show isn't in the link. But this is the episode I was referring to. If seeing a transcript is that important go ahead and order one.

The purpose of this thread was to talk about an untendered contract. Why highjack it to compare the President Bush and Prime Minister Harper?