Conservative War On Science

[Evening Star]

You may think you have addressed it, but you did with an equal amount of nonsense.

I asked Saipan when the CBC has done the specific things he or she suggested it had done (endorsing and funding candidates, organizing rallies, etc). Instead of answering the question and providing examples, Saipan replied by saying that 'liberals' disagree with him or her, which explains everything clear as day. He or she then added the non sequitur "Why don't we have taxpayer-funded National Post TV???" How is it equally nonsensical for Nicky to point out that the National Post has a clear editorial slant and ask for examples of a similar slant in the CBC?

I'm not a Liberal, by the way.

[M.Dancer]

How is it equally nonsensical for Nicky to point out that the National Post has a clear editorial slant and ask for examples of a similar slant in the CBC?

I'm not a Liberal, by the way.

Because it is incorrect. The NP is as centrist as the G&M.

[Evening Star]

Heh, I wonder what the National Post editorial board would think of the suggestion that their paper should be nationalized and turned into a taxpayer-funded Crown corporation!

(I'm guessing your definition of "centrist" differs from mine, M. Dancer.)

[M.Dancer]

Heh, I wonder what the National Post editorial board would think of the suggestion that their paper should be nationalized and turned into a taxpayer-funded Crown corporation!

(I'm guessing your definition of "centrist" differs from mine, M. Dancer.)

I would imagine they would have the same response as any company...

[nicky10013]

Because it is incorrect. The NP is as centrist as the G&M.

Now, I'd actually like you to be honest when answering this. When typing out this response, were you laughing or straight faced?

[Saipan]

How about you name a Liberal on the CBC?

All except MAYBE Rex Murphy.

Saying Liberals disagree with you isn't proof.

Yes it is.

[nicky10013]

All except MAYBE Rex Murphy.

Who specifically, and why?

Yes it is.

No it isn't then again with the level of discourse you've displayed, I suppose we shouldn't trust you with understanding anything more than simple patterns and geometric shapes.

[Saipan]

I asked Saipan when the CBC has done the specific things he or she suggested it had done (endorsing and funding candidates, organizing rallies, etc).

Post my words of that "suggestion". It's ONLY in your post.

I'm not a Liberal, by the way.

You're not a Liberal, you're liberal.

[Saipan]

Who specifically, and why?

Specifically all, except maybe Rex Murphy.

No it isn't

Yes, it is.

I suppose we shouldn't trust you

Relax, it's mutual. We don't trust you either.

[Evening Star]

Post my words of that "suggestion". It's ONLY in your post.

In post 255, dre said

The problem with Fox isnt that they have right wing content its that they are political machine. They directly endorse and fund candidates, organize political rallies, and essentially serve as the propoganda wing of a specific political party.

Id rather not have news outlets in Canada that do that stuff.

Then in post 256, you quoted dre's last sentence:

Id rather not have news outlets in Canada that do that stuff.

which clearly referred to the actions listed in his or her previous sentence, and you replied

Same here, but how do we get rid of CBC? Starve it of cash?

I can only assume that you were suggesting that the CBC is guilty of those same actions. How else can that post be interpreted?

[Saipan]

I can only assume that you were suggesting that the CBC is guilty of those same actions. How else can that post be interpreted?

You assume too much. My brush is not that wide. CBC is left wing mouthpiece, so we need right wing mouthpiece - also supported by our taxes..

You have problem with that?

[Evening Star]

And earlier I thought you were arguing against taxpayer funding for politically slanted media outlets. Now you want two of them? Why stop there, as though political views can be so easily slotted into two categories? Surely we should at least have a taxpayer-funded social democratic network and a Quebec separatist network, and perhaps also an environmentalist network, a Marxist-Leninist network, an anarcho-syndicalist network, a libertarian network, ...

[RNG]

You assume too much. My brush is not that wide. CBC is left wing mouthpiece, so we need right wing mouthpiece - also supported by our taxes..

You have problem with that?

You and me, braying into the wilderness. Or perhaps the unknowing void.

[Saipan]

And earlier I thought you were arguing against taxpayer funding for politically slanted media outlets. Now you want two of them?

Both or non. Fine with me either way.

[bloodyminded]

You assume too much. My brush is not that wide. CBC is left wing mouthpiece, so we need right wing mouthpiece - also supported by our taxes..

You have problem with that?

The CBC is not a left-wing mouthpiece.

However, it is possible that you, Saipan, are a radical lefty, trying very diligently to make the political Right look like incurious knuckledraggers.

And while you're arguably doing a halfway decent job, ultimately it won't work. We know most conservatives don't think like you.

[Molly]

You and me, braying into the wilderness. Or perhaps the unknowing void.

No no. That would be 'baying at the moon'.

[Pliny]

Pliny... trust the google... save yourself additional embarrassment next time. Of course, that $9B figure originates from a Parliamentary Budget Office report that intended to quantify the implications of Bill C-25, the Conservatives "Truth in Sentencing Act". Of course, the PBO (Kevin Page) became involved as the Harper Conservatives have steadfastly refused to provide projected costs... Pliny... if you don't like the $9 Billion figure being bandied about by the media/Opposition, please, please... lobby your favoured Harper Conservatives to release projected costs - hey?

Still spin, Waldo. Really, save yourself some embarrassment.

Waldo: Oh my - just how will Harper Conservatives spin the 6% unreported violent crime and 93% personal safety satisfaction figures... spin, in order to substantiate the $9 Billion new prison costs?

From the PBO report:

The federal component of this expenditure was $2.2 billion, or 51%, whereas the provincial share was about $2.15 billion, or 49%. The total funding requirement for correctional departments in Canada is thus projected to rise to $9.5 billion by FY2015-16, a factor of 2.15 increase over the FY2009-10 expenditures of $4.4 billion.

$9B new funding costs?? The federal component is $2.2B. Part of that is of course inflation.

You see how political bias seeps into science. You do notice you have a political bias don't you? Or do you think of yourself as fair and balanced?

It seems your political interests supersede your scientific interests.

[Pliny]

The CBC is not a left-wing mouthpiece.

You miss the innuendo.

The CBC cannot openly state it is a Liberal supporter of left wing ideology. It is publicly funded.

Because Liberals think a public TV network should exist in the competitive market moreso than Conservatives the CBC has a vested interest in supporting the Liberal view - and it does.

However, it is possible that you, Saipan, are a radical lefty, trying very diligently to make the political Right look like incurious knuckledraggers.

And while you're arguably doing a halfway decent job, ultimately it won't work. We know most conservatives don't think like you.

Amazingly similar to the CBC's use of innuendo.

[bloodyminded]

You miss the innuendo.

The CBC cannot openly state it is a Liberal supporter of left wing ideology. It is publicly funded.

Because Liberals think a public TV network should exist in the competitive market moreso than Conservatives the CBC has a vested interest in supporting the Liberal view - and it does.

Amazingly similar to the CBC's use of innuendo.

I think you should be more specific, and show us examples of the evidently obvious left-wing bias.

Instead, you are saying (yet again) that because I hold left-wing views, I cannot see the forest for the trees here.

I understand the sentiment.

What I don't understand is how and why the exact same charge cannot be laid at the feet of the political right, including yourself, on this selfsame subject.

[Saipan]

The CBC is not a left-wing mouthpiece.

The CBC is liberal mouthpiece.

We know most conservatives don't think like you.

We know you don't speak for conservatives.

[Pliny]

I think you should be more specific, and show us examples of the evidently obvious left-wing bias.

Saipan said it most succinctly, Conservatives agree it is biased.

Instead, you are saying (yet again) that because I hold left-wing views, I cannot see the forest for the trees here.

I understand the sentiment.

Implying...??? Excellent use of innuendo leading to your following question.

What I don't understand is how and why the exact same charge cannot be laid at the feet of the political right, including yourself, on this selfsame subject.

Conservatives can be laid with the exact same charge - as you often do. I am not politically a conservative though - Because I am definitely not a Liberal or liberal does not make me a conservative by default. I have my disagreements with Conservatives, although admittedly fewer, as well as Liberals, admittedly greater.

A publicly funded television network will defend it's funding and it's support for funding comes mostly from Liberals. Is it hard to understand that it would be biased? Try as it might to be fair and balanced it is not going to cut it's own throat.

Suggest it's funding be cut and I'll bet nine out of ten opponents to that vote Liberal.

Mention privatization and the CBC sets up the pedestal for any voice protecting this valuable "public" institution and promoting the absurdity of anyone wishing to privatize it - or privatize anything for that matter.

It's human nature to defend the source of one's sustainability or viability and I don't understand why that's difficult to see. Any organization, individual, agency, business tries to sustain itself in whatever way it perceives is necessary - an obvious point. The CBC cannot be blamed for protecting it's source or level of funding. Coupled with the fact that the left traditionally supports it more strongly than the right and it is logical deductive reasoning to conclude it would hold a bias towards the left but, as a public entity, precludes it from openly stating any political favour. There is no threat to it's existence as a public entity from the left.

If the CBC were not dependent upon public funding it might present a different view....maybe becoming....even..."fair and balanced".

[Saipan]

I think you should be more specific, and show us examples of the evidently obvious left-wing bias.

If you don't hear it day in day out you're a left-winger.

What I don't understand is how and why the exact same charge cannot be laid at the feet of the political right

True, you don't understand that.

It's possible after we get righ wing public television. And we will.

[bloodyminded]

The CBC is liberal mouthpiece.

Nope.

We know you don't speak for conservatives.

Neither do you.

Edited October 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Implying...??? Excellent use of innuendo leading to your following question.

Conservatives can be laid with the exact same charge - as you often do. I am not politically a conservative though - Because I am definitely not a Liberal or liberal does not make me a conservative by default. I have my disagreements with Conservatives, although admittedly fewer, as well as Liberals, admittedly greater.

A publicly funded television network will defend it's funding and it's support for funding comes mostly from Liberals. Is it hard to understand that it would be biased? Try as it might to be fair and balanced it is not going to cut it's own throat.

Suggest it's funding be cut and I'll bet nine out of ten opponents to that vote Liberal.

Mention privatization and the CBC sets up the pedestal for any voice protecting this valuable "public" institution and promoting the absurdity of anyone wishing to privatize it - or privatize anything for that matter.

It's human nature to defend the source of one's sustainability or viability and I don't understand why that's difficult to see. Any organization, individual, agency, business tries to sustain itself in whatever way it perceives is necessary - an obvious point. The CBC cannot be blamed for protecting it's source or level of funding. Coupled with the fact that the left traditionally supports it more strongly than the right and it is logical deductive reasoning to conclude it would hold a bias towards the left but, as a public entity, precludes it from openly stating any political favour. There is no threat to it's existence as a public entity from the left.

If the CBC were not dependent upon public funding it might present a different view....maybe becoming....even..."fair and balanced".

You have explained your hypothesis of why the CBC might have a liberal bias.

But you assume that proposing an hypothesis constitutes convincing proof. In fact, it doesn't even attempt irritating trivialities like evidence.

As I've frequently said--to no avail--I'm waiting for some evidence of the leftist bias.

Otherwise you're merely repeating Saipan's sober premise: "it is because I say so."

[bloodyminded]

If you don't hear it day in day out you're a left-winger.

So you are unable to provide any evidence, despite that it would be easy to do so...since it's "day in day out."

This stands as a concession on your part, that you don't know what you're talking about. I appreciate that.

Edited October 6, 2010 by bloodyminded