Stoker

Ok, but what does that have to do with Fox news coming to Canada?

As IMR pointed out, O'Reilly yelling and screaming is (from what I've seen over the course of about three weeks) is few and far between. I think since I've seen the show, he's blown-up once on a reporter from the a St. Louis newspaper, who was just grandstanding as opposed to debating. Again, it portrays O'Reilly in a unfair light..........and I even have to admit, O'Reilly is alot more mellow then I expected him to be from all the "negative hype" I've seen about him in the past. Ahh, but there is a difference between Marsden/O'Reilly and Clinton........you see Marsden and O'Reilly didn't lie under oath to a grand jury, added to the fact that niether represents and leads their country. Also, I don't know that any "mainstream media" didn't report the "Clinton sex scandel", so I fail to see the problem with Fox reporting on it.

If he does nothing, he will look like a hypocrite for his editorail piece on PM PM......Would Jack kick her out of caucus? Do morals mean anything to the NDP and Jack Layton?

In a Micheal Moorish fashion. They cut and obviously spliced video tape of Bill O'Rielly to show him in an infavroable light, well showing Al Franken as a victim of the harsh ways of the right...........The piece with Al Franken crying was dreadfull, and unfortanlty, most CBC viewers will likley eat it up. Added to the Fact that the CBC film makers interviewed Rachel Mardsen for over an hour on the topic of Fox News, yet only showed the part of the interview when she was asked about "past personnal scandels". What do potential past personnal mistakes that she might have made when she was younger, have to do with Fox News and it's introduction to Canada? I'd also wonder if the same tactics were used on Coulter and the former CBS employee.......... They didn't seem to mind giving face time to both Al Franken and Phil Donahue. Come to think about it, I don't think they intervied a single person from Fox News in the entire piece.......But in my view portrayed Coulter and Mardsen (in a Moorish fashion) as such.

As pointed out by August in another thread: Same-sex marriage law to be introduced So what are you going to do about this Mr Layton? You do nothing, and you words in the Toronto news paper mean nothing! NDP=Liberal Lite?

Isn't the NY times the paper that had the reporter making bogus stories up? Didn't the Washington post have a editor that admitied to being racially biased (Milloy something)? WRT the LA times {see} Terri Schindler-Schiavo . And you call into question the reliablity of Fox News

Freedom of expression........as long as he's not hurting anybody, go nuts. I'd feel the same way about the SSM debate in this country if I had solid proof that this won't impact my religious beliefs........I don't give two shits about what gays do or don't, I just don't trust the Liberals to protect my rights.

Care to elaborate? As an aside, I wonder what the prosepcts of an election happing are if Gomery resigns? Could Harper and Duceppe find some ammo out of this to allow their respective parties to gain seat in any potential election? Though Canadians seem opposed to an election over SSM, would they be opposed to an election, in what could be ( or at the very least, spun) seen as Liberal obstruction of justice?

Though it pains me to say it, I agree, Layton did put forth a well thought out point.........I guess to put it bluntly, he's telling Martin to piss or get off the pot..... I like!!! Though I tend to disagree with Layton on the entire topic itself, I do agree with him in the sense that in this kind of debate, politics shouldn't be played. I also like Jack's point because it puts Martin into quite the catch-22. Force 20-40 members of his party to go against their personnal beliefs or risk the loss of a vote on a Human rights issue that he used to vilify Harper with (and possably won the election on). Sadly, probably not a great deal of people will pay attention to this piece, because of the fact that it's Layton saying it.......

Majority (71%) of Canadians Believe Election Call On Same-Sex Issue Not Justified I have to say, I'm not suprised with the results....... What I do find intresting, is that how it appears the NDP would lose seats to the Liberals.......

What was the voter turnout in our last federal election? Millions Cast Ballots Despite Violence

So you have evidence to suggest that once the Iraqis elect a government, the United States will refuse to turn over total control of Iraq to the Iraqis? Or is this just a "hunch"?

I agree, WRT the importance of the terms that the Americans leave on........so you don't doubt that when asked, they will infact leave? And whats to suggest that any remaining American forces in Iraq, after the election of a Iraqi government, can't be on the same sort of terms? IOW, do you doubt the likelihood that a sovereign Iraq may also seek the same type of arangment with the United States, that the Japanese have? IMHO, this is where your argument (and that of Black Dogs and company) delves into Tin-Hat territory..... I'm of the adage that one is innocent until proven guilty, as I'm sure most other posters of this site are. With that said, I even admit, that from time to time, I (like others here and in society) don't live-up to these moral standards and in turn, are quick to lay guilt on one that hasn't had the chance on proving his or her innocence. Nobodies perfect. But where your argument turns (IMHO) into complete and utter lunacy is when you start to place guilt on a person (in this case the United States) well not only disallowing them the benifit of the doubt, but when you charge them guilty of a crime that has not even occured.........

I did about two pages ago.......... Why is it not much of an issue? Do you suspect some sort of " scorched-earth policy" when the Americans leave? And/Or to do expect that even when the Americans do leave, they will still maintain control of the Iraqi economy reguardless? Define left...........They still have a Division of Marines and one of the world's largest naval bases in Japan........But they remain at the request of the Japenese Diet.......you see, there are benifits to having a friendly, large American military presence in ones nation. (The same can be said with Germany also) So do you have some sort of evidence that would suggest that the Americans won't give up "control" to the Iraqis via their soon to be elected government?

August, by chance, do you have a link to any site that posts Canadian political polls? I always hear talk of polls........I wanna see them damnit

I thought the show was decent all in all. Bill had on as guest for the Canadian segment a Professor from the University of the Okanagan and Rachel Marsden. What was covered was the inherit bias of the CBC on making a program about bias in the American media......ohhhhhh the irony.......which was illustrated with clips from the 5th estate program, namely how the American right was portrayed as the bully with clip[s of Bill yelling and screaming and how the left was the victim with clips of Al Franken blubbering. Also, the Canadian Prof brought up how the CBC is starting to run scared with the arrival of Fox News due to it's popularity and the CBC's falling ratings. (No suprise) The Canadian Prof explained how the CBC's audience needs to be reasured that we (as in Canadians) are better then Americans constantly and how we are genrealy more polite as a people (this is done by constent American bashing). The Canadian prof explained that he thought there wasn't much of a difference between Americans and Canadians and Bill's "retort" was that he was 100% sure that all Canadians are more polite then he. To be honest, nothing a Canadian that is following the mater would already know, the segment was more of an explanation to the American people that the CBC is an agit prop machine, but thankfully most Canadians don't pay attention to it........... I though it was well done.

So based on his past policies and "motivations", you believe that sometime in the future, if the Iraqi government asked the Americans to leave, they wouldn't? Am I close?

So you now claim to have evidence that proves the guilt of the Bush administration in a crime that has not been committed?

I've a question Black Dog, who do you turn to for your news?

So you don't have any evidence that suggests the Bush adminisration would stay in Iraq even if a democratically elected Iraqi government asked them to leave?

Here's an itresting story on the conflict brewing between the CBC and Fox News: Bringing on the Fox News Canadian Bureau I feel this part sums up my views of Fox News:

The Americans have already stated numerous times (Bush said it rather bluntly, on Larry King) that when the sovereign Iraqi government wants the United States to leave, that they will. I believe this stance because I've yet to see any evidence to prove otherwise. Now with that being said, due to the current instablity in the "Sunni Triangle", I highly doubt the Iraqi's will ask the Americans to leave anytime soon.

Ahh, it's all a big conspiracy........I see, should I strap on my tin-foil hat? Is there anything to suggest that once an elected Iraqi government is in place that they can't change their constitution? The Japanese have been able to change their constitution, right?

Here's the show info: Canadian TV takes aim at O'Reilly I'll be sure to Newf. The good, the bad and the ugly

I'm sure if that was the case, you might see a sudden wave of the Flu hit the Tories and the Bloc parties on budget day