segnosaur

Great suggestion... maybe one day the Conservatives will form government... oh wait... I think they did recently, didn't they? You're right... the conservatives did fail to privatize the CBC. I really wish they would have. Its part of our political system... sometimes you have to pic a party with policies that are closest to your own, even if they don't exactly match. The Conservatives did not privatize the CBC, nor is it part of their current platform. They did however cut funding (whereas the Liberals increased it). Since I can't get what I truly want (a privatized CBC), I'd prefer having at least something that's second best (cut funding). The fact that no major party wants to privatize the CBC doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good policy, nor does it mean its not a valid point to discuss. Trying to tie it to the conservatives just seems to be an attempt to cloud the issue without bringing anything to the table. (If the NDP came out and said "privatize the CBC" I'd support them in that issue.)

Here's a suggestion... maybe the government should get out of the Television and Radio business. That way, any comedian can offend anyone they choose, and it will be up to the viewer/listener to decide whether to continue listening and/or funding the performer.

the fact that you might like what appears on CBC Radio or Newsworld does not mean that it is necessarily any better than what appears on other broadcasts, nor does it mean it "contributes considerably to Canada".

If we don't like what an MP says (i.e. if they make an inappropriate joke or comment), they may continue working for the next couple of years, but eventually voters will have the ability to vote them out of office. In effect, we can fire them. We do not have that same control over individual performers working for the CBC.

Keep in mind that one complaint that people have is that Critch was employed by the CBC, which is a broadcaster which is supported through taxes. So, in effect people are seeing their money go to mock someone that they may have supported politically. Calling it "censorship" might be a bit of a mislabeling. I don't know if it should be considered 'censorship' if you're saying "Don't let MY tax money go towards supporting him". Many people wouldn't be complaining if he were working for (for example) CTV, or Global, or a private Youtube channel. If the CBC were privately owned/funded, then it would be less of an issue. People could complain about Critch's humor, but at the end of the day whether he remained employed would depend mostly on his popularity. Some comedians can be "edgy", controversial or politcal and still be successful... Steven Colbert, Jon Stewart, or even McLean and Mclean. Those acts did well even though the humor might have turned off large numbers of people. But the quality of their performances still brought in enough fans to keep them viable. Nobody knows if Critch would find similar success, but as long as the CBC continues to receive public funding we will never know.

Not really. There was another thread regarding Hillary's health... I'll say the same thing here that I did there.... There is no real issue with Clinton's health. Whatever medications she is taking and the tests results that were provided show no indication that her ability to be president will be impaired. The only ones showing 'concern' about her health are Trump supporters, who are desperately trying to throw everything against Clinton in the hope that something will stick. The claims about Clinton being sick are ridiculous. When confronted with such an idiotic claim, sometimes the best way to address it is to use humor, in hope that others will see how silly the issue is.

By "partisan hacks", I assume you are referring to "people who don't want Trump to be president". The only ones who think the email "pay to play' scandal has "left the door open" are Trump supporters who are hoping for a hail Mary. Even they though can't really produce any sort of evidence, or anything more solid than "Boo hillary! Investigate her!" That the Clintons are wealthy is not in doubt. How they got that way is well publicized.... speaking fees, book royalties, etc. The tax returns show that they do not draw a salary from the Clinton Foundation. If the Clintons were engaging in "pay for play" in order to enrich their bank accounts, they certainly weren't doing a very good job at it. I think it is very telling that Trump supporters are making a big deal of this... The Clinton foundation has a good reputation as a charity... they've been rated as one of the most efficient, and have helped with a wide range of global problems... hurricane relief, HIV treatments, etc. It has also gotten bipartisan support, with the involvement or support of many Republicans. Yet Trump supporters see such a charity as a negative. (Not to mention the charitable reputation of their own nominee is less than stellar, even to the point of him LYING about having made contributions.) Well, of course there is a question about whether if Trump contributed to NAMBLA that it would be considered a 'charitable contribution'. I don't believe that he did, but people are talking about it. Good people. Smart people.

If you don't mind, I think we'll dump that particular opinion into the bin of "pro-Trump fantasy". That seems to be a common theme... claim that "Hillary is done". Then, when everything is properly analyzed, it is found that there was nothing serious. For example: - Clinton caused the deaths of people in Benghazi! Multiple republican inquiries later, nothing was found. - Clinton is going to be arrested for having her own email server! One FBI investigation (involving, I might add, a Republican), and what do we have? Nothing criminal. She didn't do things right, but not anything arrestible. I suspect the whole "pay to play" thing will go the same way... "Clinton is done! She'll be arrested for influence peddling!" (Several months and investigations later) Ok, that didn't work... what else can we try to pin on her?

You see, the problem is that most of the "talk" around Hillary Clinton involves rather idiotic comments, backed up by bizarre conspiracy theories, put forward by religious nuts and followers of neo-Nazis and other racists. Even if there are valid issues to discuss around Clinton, any valid issues will get drowned out by the stupidity. The Signal to Noise ration is rather low. Errr... not really. I'm not denying she made mistakes in handling the situation. But the only ones who seem to be making a big issue out of it are Trump supporters. And its hard to get worked up over the issue of her emails when her opponent is a man who seems to have no grasp on how the government works. Yes, there is a lot of polarization. Personally, I blame the Republicans... for years, they've encouraged people like the Tea Party and the religious right. Then they go and obstruct Obama as much as they can (for example, saying they won't accept any Supreme court nominations to replace Scalia), thus enforcing the belief that "government doesn't work". That set the stage for the rise of Trump. And now that they have the Orange Goblin as their nominee, those running the Republican party are in panic mode, asking themselves "How did this happen?" Actually, I think the bigger risk comes from those on the political right. Remember, Trump has been the one setting the stage, talking about "rigged elections", warning people that Hillary will "take their guns". It seems like a recipe for disaster. Well, the U.S. GDP grew at a rate of 1.1%. Slightly less than predicted, but the economy is still growing. Jobs growth and consumer spending are also fairly strong. So, I don't think the U.S. economy is in any danger of collapsing any time soon. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/08/26/economy-grew-feeble-11-second-quarter/89362994/ Yes they are. And given that fact, I would rather have Hillary Clinton in charge, who has experience as secretary of state. I would not like to have Trump as president, given that he: - May have Financial ties to Russia (at the very least he's praised Putin). I'd rather have a leader who can deal with Russia without such baggage (Yes, I recognize that the clinton foundation accepted contributions from foreign governments, but that pales in comparison to a president who's entire financial empire could collapse should foreign investors call in loans) - Has shown a lack of knowledge regarding history and geopolitics (His "pigs-blood bullets" claim, his "Russians in Ukraine" mistakes, etc.) - Has been wildly inconsistent and outright deceptive... non-interventionalist, yet wants to bomb Libya and ISIS. Claims he was against invading Iraq even though he was on record as supporting the invasion before it happened. And I'm not talking about someone's opinions changing over years; we're talking about him holding these contrary views during this very election

Sweet zombie jesus... that's a rather disturbing set of sources you use. Russia Today... financed by the Russian government (which is headed by Putin). Some people might find it hypocritical for you to condemn Hillary because of support from Goldman Sachs, yet you are giving a free pass to Trump, who's getting support from a foreign government (one that he would have to deal with should he become president.) Ah yes, a site that never met a conspiracy that it didn't like. Did some googling of them. According to Wikipedia, their statement of principles includes the following: - America would not be as prosperous, ruggedly individualistic, and a land of opportunity if the founding stock were not Europeans. - We wish to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races. Furthermore, one of their early guest hosts was Bill Rollen, who is involved in the white separatist movement. Sounds like a bunch of racists. And you are considering them to be a valid source of information. You know what, I'm going to stop right there. The Institute for Historical Review (which I am assuming you meant by IHR) is a neo-Nazi group. Their "research" has been condemned as inaccurate by pretty much every real historian. Their writers include David Irving and Ernest Zundel (both noted holocaust deniers). If you listen to what neo-Nazis say, and you say "This is a good source of information", then you should take a good long look at what exactly your political beliefs are.

Does that include Trump? After all, he: - Was a registered Democrat for much of the past few decades - Has praised Hillary Clinton, AND donated money to her campaigns in the past - Has campaigned against various free trade deals and talked about "bringing jobs back"... traditionally it has been the conservative side that pushes for free trade while it is the left wing that demands protectionist policies. - Has taken an isolationist stance, again which differs from recent conservative presidents (Of course, Trump is probably lying about his isolationism... after all, he supported the Iraq invasion - But lies when he claims he didn't. He Supported air strikes in Libya. And he wants to take on ISIS militarily.) Ah yes, the "alternative media"... the same source of information that tells us Elvis is alive and that UFOs and bigfoot exist. You were challenged before to provide a list of these "alternative" sources that you seem to be listening to. Strangely, you did not. You are of course assuming that what appears in those "alternative" sources is actually correct. Given the rather shoddy error checking, its likely that those sources are wrong about most of the criticisms they post about Clinton. And supposedly Trump donated money to NAMBLA. I don't believe it, but people are talking about it. Smart people. The best people. Yet you seem to. Its been pointed to you that Trump has lied more often than Clinton. Yet you are absolving Trump of all his lies. Lets see... - Trump claimed that he opposed the Iraq war from the start, but we have audio tape of him appearing on a radio program from before the war saying he supports it. - We have trump claiming the U.S. used bullets dipped in pigs blood to stop a muslim rebellion. But that never happened - We have trump claming he saw people dancing on the streets in NY after 9/11... which didn't happen - We have Trump claiming he didn't know who David Duke was, even though just a few years previous he had called Duke a racist - We have Trump claiming an unemployment rate >40%, even though the only way that would be valid is if they counted retirees and students as 'unemployed'. Can we use the same excuse for Clinton Foundation and their acceptance of money from questionable sources? The Clinton foundation helped saved thousands of lives and helped thousands more rebuild their lives aver natural disasters. Sure, they accepted money from places like Saudi Arabia, but they needed the cash to help the needy. And "sometimes one has to deal with the devil to get things done". Oh, and by the way, keep in mind that many of Trumps "shady dealings" were not a case of him dealing with the devil. The people who got scammed by Trump University, or those who got burned in some of Trump's condo fraud were not evil people. They were ordinary everyday folks. Yet Trump sought to take their money. I see. Could you do me a favor? Every time you make a post, could you also post a reminder to people of your belief in a 9/11 "conspiracy theory"? You see, the vast majority of people recognize that 9/11 occurred when a small group of terrorists hijacked several planes. Eye witness accounts support it. Science and Engineering supports it. More importantly, Occam's razor supports it. Anyone thinking that there was some sort of inside job really isn't engaging with much logic or reasoning. I think it would be good to link "Trump supporter=Fringe conspiracy theory nut". Trump certainly has built an interesting coalition... Conspiracy nuts, Religious nuts, and overt racists.

Yes they are. So is "sending black people back to Africa", killing doctors who have performed abortions, and treating gay people as second class citizens. You will find many voters who believe in those things; fortunately, the majority view them as wrong. The fact that some people want the U.S. to engage in war crimes does not necessarily make it right, either from a moral position, or from a tactical position. Another thing is that the U.S. military, by rule of law, may actually be forbidden from carrying out orders that would be considered war crimes. Trump claimed they would anyways "because he'd tell them to". The fact that Trump would think his orders would carry more weight than the rule of law was really quite revealing. (At best it shows ignorance on his part, at worst it shows an autoritarian attitude which is quite dangerous.)

Trump says a lot of things that obviously will never happen. Ah yes, that rather bizarre logical disconnect that Trump supporters seem to have in their brains. Trump is honest/tells it like it is, but when presented with a policy that they disagree with or doesn't make sense, its OK because "It won't happen". (Some might consider making policy proclamations that "won't happen" is a form of lying or deception.) Yes they did. Of course, such cancellation/restoration meant several years of delays. (Granted, the B1-B does improve on the B1-A.) Do you really want the government to shelve the F35 project for 4 or 8 years should Trump somehow become president? What would that do to America's armed forces? Remember, the U.S. makes a lot of aircraft purchases. Having Trump in for a term would mean 4 more years of the U.S. buying 4th generation aircraft (meaning a larger fleet of legacy fighters that will be around a lot longer.)

Trump will shut that down like Obama has shut GITMO .... You think the POTUS runs the nation? It is true that the president does not have complete authority, and must often work with congress, sometimes compromising policies to come to an agreement. But, the president does have a significant amount of influence, both by being able to get congressmen on his side (Trump may call on republican congress critters to "follow his lead"), or by threatening to veto any budget bills that contain F35 funding. Even if he can't out-right kill the F35, he can (through various budget negotiations) starve the program of funds, etc. And even if the F35 isn't in danger of being cancelled by Trump, it should make you wonder... Trump's arguments against the F35 come from the long debunked argument that "the F35 can't dogfight". Do you really want a president who makes policy decisions based on things he heard, without actually gaining all the facts?

It wasn't a derail - until just now. Well, given the fact that this is an incredibly stupid thread, created by a Trump supporter to smear Hillary while ignoring both the facts and similar actions by Trump, I don't think its a great loss. As has been pointed out; - The information about "tactics" revealed are generally so vague as to be completely useless to the enemy - ISIS probably would have already figured out what was happening regardless Yet this tread was created with the idea of Bashing Just the Democrats. And earlier you were hypocritical (and just plain wrong) when you claimed Trump is "keeping silent about tactics", even though he's given the same sort of information about how he'd deal with ISIS. (He talks about bombing oil fields, etc.) I've already explained why the "what" is irrelevant... not enough details for the enemy to have any value. Well ,as a voter, I'd like to know how a potential candidate will handle foreign affairs. Will they confront an enemy or be isolationist? Will they use tactics I agree with or not? Early in the election, Trump said he would engage in war crimes. I think that is a valuable piece of information, and if I were an American voter, I would want to know that, should I think the possible military decisions of a president reflects badly on the country as a whole.

If you like the F35, you had better hope that Trump does not get elected president, considering he claims that the plane is not as good as the planes the U.S. was flying before (and he might cancel the program). https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/10/29/trump-wants-fire-f-35/74800906/

And many of the early presidents owned slaves. So what? If any politician today said "lets make black people slaves again" they would rightly be considered racist, regardless of what past presidents did. Societies change.... FDR may have had policies and views that would be frowned upon today. But, he was a product of the time. Its now the 21st century.... the world has changed, and policies that once seemed like a good idea a century ago are often seen as backwards today.

Maybe the letter was written by famed Trump Publicist John Miller. The funniest part about Trump's letter... his doctor claims that his tests were "Positive" for everything. That would mean that he has every disease that it is possible to get. Reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Burns was tested at the Mayo clinic and was found to have every possible disease (even hysterical pregnancy.) The only reason he didn't get sick is because all the diseases balanced each other out. VIDEO LINK

This has already been explained. - The information typically given is generally extremely vague. They are not giving specifics about where/when they will strike. - The enemy isn't dumb enough that they will be totally oblivious to foreign troop movements... if you're sending thousands of soldiers from one location to another, or dropping bombs on a particular type of target, I'm pretty sure ISIS or other groups would figure out what is going on - In many cases, distributing such knowledge is actually necessary... plans need to be coordinated with allies, soldiers need to know where and for how long they'll be deployed, etc. Except no, he's not. For example, against ISIS and other Terrorist groups, Trump said he would: - target ISIS's oil industry. Hmmm... if trump were President ISIS would now know to defend its oil wells - Engage in drone strikes. - Capture high value targets - Use cyber warfare All of these are rather vague (and pretty much what is already being done). But, its still a description of "tactics".

Slight derail.... Actually, the idea that the British were foolishly marching in a straight line while the Americans pick them off using guerilla tactics may actually be a myth. (Mel Gibson movies notwithstanding.) Most battles had both sides using the "Line up and shoot at each other" tactic. They almost had to... weapons available were usually not very accurate, so the only way to ensure at least some of your enemy was killed was to fire a whole lot of guns in the hope that at least a few bullets would hit something. Plus, reload times were rather long... anyone trying to ambush a group of British soldiers would probably 1) miss, and 2) get killed while frantically trying to reload, as the rest of the soldiers either shoot you, or stab you with their bayonets. It is true that there was some use of guerilla tactics, but they were only a minor part of the war, and were employed by both the Americans and the British (not to mention native groups, who were more likely to be pro-Britain.) http://www.cracked.com/article_20306_5-myths-about-revolutionary-war-everyone-believes.html

And any details involving her hospitalization have been covered, and she has been cleared by doctors to be fit to be president. That's also a fact. That Trump supporters keep assuming that their echo chamber (repeating "Hillary may be sick" and then pointing to the first baseless claim as proof that "hey she must be sick") is evidence that Trump supporters are intellectually and morally bankrupt rather than evidence of some frailty on Clinton's part. Then perhaps you should educate yourself about it. It was first mentioned in another thread (the Donald vs. Hillary thread). The logic and evidence behind it was discussed then and there. Heck, I actually timed it... it took me 30 seconds to go to google, type in "Trump Nambla", and find all the evidence needed. Heck, it was in the very first reference I found! The fact that you sit there and post bunk about Hillary while not even taking 30 seconds to do a little research to find the evidence is a pretty good indication of how intellectually bankrupt a trump supporter can be. There are dozens of sites talking about the Trump/NAMBLA connection. Once you can explain why you are dismissing the connection between Trump and NAMBLA, then you can understand why I am dismissing the connection between Hillary and her supposed health concerns. Uhhh... first of all, that's not the original source of the Trump/NAMBLA connection. Do some research. Secondly, keep in mind that it was Trump that was making a big deal of Hillary having the father of a terrorist in a crowd at a rally. Had he kept his mouth shut, said "hey nobody can control who shows up at these things" then it wouldn't be a big deal. Actually yes they were. Yes, and those rumors are a result of the empty-headed echo chamber spreading nonsense to other similarly ignorant people. One trump supporter telling another trump supporter "hillary is sick" does not make it so. It may be a fact that idiot trump supporters are spreading nonsense, but it doesn't make it a fact that hillary has health problems. No, I think things are debunked because when I hear something, I actually research things to find if there's any validity. In the case of Hillary and her health, the rumors have been debunked. Not really. The proper thing to do (the proper thing to always do) is to address nonsense by providing actual real information. For every lie hillary has told, Trump has told more than 2. That's a fact. Get used to it. Thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly. You see, I'm not a liberal. Last election I voted conservative. If you spent any time at all on this board, you have probably noticed me attacking many of the policies of the NDP and Liberal party. I am also an atheist. Frankly, I find people like you to be extremely problematic for conservatives. Rather than saying "here's a set of policies covering the economy, defense and foreign affairs", you tie conservatism to religion, and dump a bunch of lies on top of it. So not only do conservatives have to defend their policies, they have to deal with accusations that conservatives are knuckle-dragging buffoons because of the presence of bible-thumpers.

You are right... I mean, just take a look at this set of plans to combat ISIS... From: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-lays-out-foreign-policy-plan-including-how-fight-n546056 - Attack oil fields - Concentrate on ISIS rather than Assad I mean, who actually gives away details like that? Oh, wait a second... that was Trump who said those things.. A few things to note: - Every leader (or candidate) gives information about how they will handle foreign affairs, including in this case how to defeat terrorists. This includes Trump, as I have shown above. The fact that you would condemn Obama and Hillary over this while ignoring similar statements by Trump is an example of hypocrisy - In general, statements made leaders and candidates are fairly vague... Its not like anyone is giving specific coordinates about when/where American troops will be at any specific time. - The U.S. is not a dictatorship... Troops cannot be ordered around secretly, and the president does have to deal with Congress-critters. Even simple logistics comes into play. ISIS has a lot of idiots who are supporters, but do you honestly think they are stupid enough to not notice "Hey, the Americans are moving troops"?

Its the same sort of 'fact' that has people talking about Trump and his donations to NAMBLA. Not that I believe it, but people are talking about it. Smart people. Great people. You quoted some article that was filled with bunk. After the article was totally discredited, the proper thing to do would have been to admit that you should have looked for more responsible information. Instead, you double down on the stupidity, and talk about "persisting rumors". This is so typical of Trump and Trump supporters... The same pattern seems to be reused everywhere. - Make some claim, with absolutely no evidence. to back it up - Have other people point to the original faulty claim, and say "look, people are talking about it". - Assume that the fact that "people are talking" means that it must be true, even though the claim has no evidence to back it up Its just one big echo chamber, in the shape of Trump's empty head. We've seen Trump pull the same stunt with other claims before... Obama's birth certificate, the '42% unemployment rate', etc. In other parts of this forum, you have posted plenty of pro-christian nonsense. If christians blatantly pass around lies so easily, what exactly does that say about the integrity of those who claim to be christians?

Yes, there are a lot of former members of the Bush administration on the letter. (Although if I remember correctly, some are former members of Regan's administration.) That's one of the reasons why many people consider it significant... if people who supported republicans are pointing out the flaws in the current republican nominee, it means he might have really gone off the rails. (After all, had the letter been composed of former advisors to Carter, or Bill Clinton, it could be dismissed as "liberals dissing republicans". Keep in mind that at times, Trump has actually called for an expansion of the U.S. military. From: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-military-spending-flip-flop-226705 I’m going to make our military so big, so powerful, so strong, that nobody — absolutely nobody — is going to mess with us,” Trump says in a 23-second video stating his position on “the military” on his campaign website. And while he makes comments about how he might withdraw from NATO, and isn't interested in "nation builiding", he also favored the Iraq invasion and the bombing in Libya, and claims that he'll somehow destroy ISIS. For many people, the incoherence of the message is one of the reasons we are wary of having Trump anywhere near the White House.

Why don't you ask what's so important about tax returns to every GOP nominee for the last 40 some odd years? Or better yet, build a time machine, and go back to 2012 and ask Trump himself. After all, back in 2012, Trump was pressuring Romney to release his tax forms. Or go back to 2014, when Trump himself said "If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-tax-returns_us_5733b130e4b077d4d6f21a20