Good Opinion Report

[Montgomery Burns]

September 3, 2004

IT'S enlightening to see just what the hard left's message is in this election. In two words: "Shut up."

**Post Removed due to copyright infringment.**

Please read the rules and guidelines before posting entire articles.

Edited September 15, 2004 by Greg

[August1991]

Burns, please just place a good quote and not the whole article. You are infringing copyright. Also, what is your opinion of the piece? Why did you post it here?

[The Terrible Sweal]

... one would be hard pressed to explain how "Fox News off the air!" (another of the chants) is an acceptable message to anyone with even a modicum of respect for opposing viewpoints.

Hard pressed? No, that's easy. "Fox News off the air!" is a perfectly legitimate message if you are seeking to recruit others to boycott Faux out of existence through individual choice.

[Montgomery Burns]

August 1991: It is not infringing copyright by posting an article on the Internet. It is done all the time, plus I did give the link.

Now, I called it a GOOD opinion report, so what do you think my opinion of it is? What do YOU think of the piece? I posted it here for discussion, both pro and con.

The Terrible Sweal: Chanting "Fox News off the air" is not trying to start a boycott; it is a deliberate attempt to stifle free speech. Do you, by chance, work for the CRTC?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Terrible Sweal: Chanting "Fox News off the air" is not trying to start a boycott; it is a deliberate attempt to stifle free speech.

On the contrary, it is exercise of free expression.

Since the phrase chanted contains no indication whatsoever that these people intend to impose this measure in violation of anyone's rights, it is not for you, their enemy to baldfacedly impute a nefarious motive to them. At least, not unchallenged.

[Black Dog]

Passionate defence of free speech? Or simply one Rupert Murdoch outlet (the NY Post) rallying behind another (FoxNews).

"Shut up," needless to say, is a childish message. It's the message of angry children, raging at a world they can't control.

Someone better tell Bill O'Reilly. The demonstrators use of "shut up" is a jab at the free-speech friendly approach of FoxNews's flagship Bill O'Reilly. A while back, O'Reilly had Jeremy Glick, whose father was killed on 9-11, on the show. Here's what happened:

O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?

GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved.

O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

GLICK: As an individual.

O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

*snip*

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

Free speech: FoxNews style.

[takeanumber]

If FOX had any decency, it would drop the word 'News' from that channel.

It's not 'news' by any stretch of the imagination, it should really be called FOX Opinion or FOX Editorial,

or better yet, FOX Al-Jazeera, because it is alot like Al-Jazeera in it's hateful, spiteful tone.

[Montgomery Burns]

The Terrible Sweal Posted on Sep 7 2004, 10:56 AM

On the contrary, it is exercise of free expression.

Since the phrase chanted contains no indication whatsoever that these people intend to impose this measure in violation of anyone's rights, it is not for you, their enemy to baldfacedly impute a nefarious motive to them. At least, not unchallenged.

On the contrary, it is a deliberate attempt to stifle conservative views, just like Moveon.org is trying to do by suing Fox. However, I did agree with one thing Moveon.org when they were trying to rally the Donks.

They said, "Let's take back OUR media".

Truer words were never spoken.

Then we had the 16 Democrats in the House of Representatives who demanded a meeting with Rupert Murdoch because they had "concerns" about Fox News' content. They threatened legislation if he refused to meet with them.

And, of course, Fox News is banned in Canada by the non-elected liberal hacks who run the CRTC. But the anti-semitic and anti-American Al Jazeera is welcomed with open arms to Canada.

CRTC logic:

Fox News gives conservatives a voice - bad.

Anti-semitic and anti-American Al Jazeera - good.

Extreme leftwing staterun CBC - good

Leftwing CTV - good.

Leftwing Global - good.

takeanumber Posted on Sep 9 2004, 03:24 AM

It's not 'news' by any stretch of the imagination, it should really be called FOX Opinion or FOX Editorial,

No, it is news. How can you claim that Brit Hume does not report the news? Oh, right...he is conservative. That's BAD.

Bill O'Reilly gives opinion.

Hannity (a conservative) and Colmes (a liberal) duke it out on The Hannity and Colmes Show. To the Left, that is just not fair! :angry:

I'm sure enjoying watching the liberal CBS and Dan Rather implode with those forged documents. It's like watching the Kerry campaign implosion. Or Howard Dean's implosion.

They're in full panic mode.

[caesar]

If black dogs post of a sample of Fox news is the type of material covered by this station; no wonder it is not accepted in Canada. That was a disgusting attack on a citizen.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Terrible Sweal Posted on Sep 7 2004, 10:56 AM

On the contrary, it is exercise of free expression.

Since the phrase chanted contains no indication whatsoever that these people intend to impose this measure in violation of anyone's rights, it is not for you, their enemy to baldfacedly impute a nefarious motive to them. At least, not unchallenged.

On the contrary, it is a deliberate attempt to stifle conservative views, just like Moveon.org is trying to do by suing Fox.

"Stifle" legally is completely different that 'stifle' illegally. You are now sliding between the two. When you have you position clear, it may be possible to see whether it is sensible or not. Let me know.

[Black Dog]

On the contrary, it is a deliberate attempt to stifle conservative views, just like Moveon.org is trying to do by suing Fox.

Unfair and Unbalanced

How is it "stifling" poor, billionaire Rupert Murdoch to drop the obviously false "Fair and Balanced"

And, of course, Fox News is banned in Canada by the non-elected liberal hacks who run the CRTC. But the anti-semitic and anti-American Al Jazeera is welcomed with open arms to Canada

Fox News isn't "banned". It's applications was rejected based on the fact that they don't offer naything we don't already have. Al Jazeera's approval, meanwhile, was laden with conditions that are so onerous that no cable or satellite operator will be able to meet them.

Get the facts straight.

Which is why, when that producer called me to debate on Fox, I did jump — but not before urging her to phone the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to confirm that the channel was not "banned'' in Canada, not even close.

Indeed, the way it works is, cable and/or satellite companies that wish to carry foreign signals here must apply to do so — and, at that point, none had applied to import Fox News.

What's more, as of November 2000, CanWest Global has held the licence for Fox News Canada. That would be a digital hybrid along the lines of the Rogers and Shaw Cable-owned MSNBC here, which carries mostly U.S. content with some recycled CPAC programming in the off-hours.

Why Global hasn't launched Fox News Canada is a mystery. Last week, company spokesperson Geoffrey Elliott said he was "not in a position to comment'' on the matter. My guess, and it's pure speculation, is that CanWest has too much debt to deal with such an endeavour. That said, last week it did announce it will launch CoolTV, a digi-net devoted to jazz.

But those of you who want Fox — and aren't willing to risk going the illegal satellite dish route — need not despair. That's because, in June, the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) applied to the CRTC to add Fox News to the list of non-Canadian channels eligible for digital carriage here. The CCTA also wants to import HBO, Showtime and other popular U.S. cable services, mostly to hang on to customers who are hooking up to those black market dishes.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), whose members include CanWest Global, is fighting the CCTA application because it cuts into its business. (For example, why go to Chum's Bravo for Sex And The City when you can get it off HBO directly?)

No, it is news. How can you claim that Brit Hume does not report the news? Oh, right...he is conservative. That's BAD.

No: slanted views, portrayed (falsely) as "fair and balanced" is the issue. If Fox were to brand themselves: "America's number one source for partisan conservative rhetoric", I'd have less of a problem with them. At least they'd be honest.

Hannity (a conservative) and Colmes (a liberal) duke it out on The Hannity and Colmes Show. To the Left, that is just not fair

Yeah, because Colmes is a feeble, useless sop. Give us a good, fearless leftist rep and we'll see how things go. I'd love to see Chomsky rip Hannity a new one.

You know, I don't mind conservatives, as long as they are able to use facts to debate. Unfortunately that includes, FOXNews, O'reilly Hannity and, yes, you too Mr. Burns.

[maplesyrup]

One of the biggest chuckles I get is when I see right wing Christians professing support for Israel or Jews.

Since when did the Christian right give a shit about Jews or the Jewish community? Is it because the Jews beat up on people they hate even more, the Arabs.

This is absolutely hilarious!

[Slavik44]

One of the biggest chuckles I get is when I see right wing Christians professing support for Israel or Jews.

Since when did the Christian right give a shit about Jews or the Jewish community? Is it because the Jews beat up on people they hate even more, the Arabs.

This is absolutely hilarious!

M.S Generalizations get you know where, I think the true christian politicians simply realise that jewish and christian beliefs share common ancestry. they also view the arabs as descendents from Ishmael (that can't be 100% validated) and recognize that god also made promises to him. That being Said you i thinkyou have confused the Christian right and Christian Left, for the Jewish influenced buisness right, and the milltary nut case right. although all 4 may try to put on the christian show, it is not hard to spot the coyote in sheeps clothing if you simply look.

[The Terrible Sweal]

One of the biggest chuckles I get is when I see right wing Christians professing support for Israel or Jews.

Since when did the Christian right give a shit about Jews or the Jewish community? Is it because the Jews beat up on people they hate even more, the Arabs.

This is absolutely hilarious!

You're forgetting one more thing ... the Thumpers' newfound concern for the Jews is predicated on their hopes that Israel will become the centre of a cataclysmic war.

With friends like these ...

[takeanumber]

takeanumber Posted on Sep 9 2004, 03:24 AM

QUOTE

It's not 'news' by any stretch of the imagination, it should really be called FOX Opinion or FOX Editorial,

No, it is news. How can you claim that Brit Hume does not report the news? Oh, right...he is conservative. That's BAD.

Bill O'Reilly gives opinion.

Hannity (a conservative) and Colmes (a liberal) duke it out on The Hannity and Colmes Show. To the Left, that is just not fair! mad.gif

I'm sure enjoying watching the liberal CBS and Dan Rather implode with those forged documents. It's like watching the Kerry campaign implosion. Or Howard Dean's implosion. biggrin.gif

They're in full panic mode. laugh.gif

I'm not justifying anything that anybody does.

The news should be about fact reporting and balance.

Hence, it shouldn't be called FOX NEWS, it should be called FOX Opinion.

I don't enjoy BBC News too much when they report on Palestine, because they're really quite anti-jewish. And they always tend to downplay the bus bombings.

I don't enjoy Global News too much because they always seem to downplay the pogroms against the Palestinians.

From what I've seen of Al-Jazerra (un-filtered, I visited them myself) they are downright anti-jewish.

I think it's fair to say that nobody really does a good job at balancing their coverage, that I've encountered so far.

I must admit though, to get a different perspective once in awhile, I like to read People's Daily, the CCP rag. They're view on many world events is really non-Euro Centric (anti-semitic) and non-american (anti-arab), but more like...cold concern.

[Montgomery Burns]

The Terrible Sweal Posted on Sep 13 2004, 11:28 AM

"Stifle" legally is completely different that 'stifle' illegally. You are now sliding between the two. When you have you position clear, it may be possible to see whether it is sensible or not. Let me know.

I was not talking about a court of law, although one could think that, what with the 16 Dems in the House of Representatives threatening legislation against Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.

When you want to debate the Left's attempts to censor other views, eg. the Dems threatening TV stations with legal action for running the Swift Boat ads and threatening bookstores with legal action for stocking Unfit For Command, let me know.

caesar Posted on Sep 12 2004, 09:55 PM

If black dogs post of a sample of Fox news is the type of material covered by this station; no wonder it is not accepted in Canada. That was a disgusting attack on a citizen.

First, Bill O'Reilly does not report the news. He is an opinionist as he has said many many times. Second, I share your outrage, just as I am sure you share my outrage when Chris Matthews (on Hardball) refused to let John O'Neill finish any of his sentences and also when Chris Matthews threw the beautiful and talented Michelle Malkin off his show.

Right?

And then there was James Carville's disgraceful performance on CNN's Crossfire, when he pounded his fist on the desk while screaming at John O'Neill, and then turned his back on him for the rest of the "interview".

Btw, CNN's Carville and Belaga have been hired by the floundering Kerry campaign as advisors, but are still on CNN's Crossfire as political commentators.

Conflict of interest? Of course not! The Left has been silent.

But if 2 political commentators from Fox News were hired by the Bush campaign and still were allowed to stay on Fox News providing political commentary, the Left would be screaming bloody murder!

Black Dog Posted on Sep 13 2004, 12:23 PM

How is it "stifling" poor, billionaire Rupert Murdoch to drop the obviously false "Fair and Balanced"

Well, when you put ads on your website comparing Bush to Hitler, it is difficult to take your concerns about Fox News seriously. However I got a chuckle when I read Moveon.org's call to their supporters and read this: "Let's take back OUR media".

Truer words were never spoken.

Btw, I got a good laugh at this sentence from that Bush-bashing site you linked to:

"So why did AlterNet go out on this limb? Mainly, because we were angry. Really angry"

That pretty well sums up the Left; anger.

Fox News isn't "banned". It's applications was rejected based on the fact that they don't offer naything we don't already have. Al Jazeera's approval, meanwhile, was laden with conditions that are so onerous that no cable or satellite operator will be able to meet them.

Good grief. Get your facts straight. Fox News IS banned in Canada.

Fox News Channel is banned in Canada by the leftwing zealots and Liberal government appointees who regulate what Canadians are allowed to watch using one of their favorite political tools, the state-run CRTC. The CRTC is stacked with liberals. Most of the Canadian political institutions that control Canadian lives - what they see, how they think, how they're taught - are stacked by liberals.

It may come as a surprise to Canadians that the TV they watch is only what the CRTC decides they will watch. It is not a free market. It is a fully state-regulated market. Unelected Canadian government bureaucrats decide what the people will see on TV, and what they will not be allowed to see.

In response to their customers' demands, cable operators in Canada have tried unsuccessfully to be "allowed" to offer Fox News to subscribers for a fee. But they have been refused. Cable companies cannot satisfy their customers' demand even by offering it to them for a fee.

Fox News is seen by the leftwing liberals in the CRTC as "rightwing", and therefore a threat to the hitherto successful Liberal Party commercial otherwise known as the state-run taxpayer-funded media giant CBC, which regularly churns out pro-liberal, anti-American rhetoric, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. The hacks and Liberal Party supporters in the CRTC and the CBC feel threatened by conservative-thinking Canadians because they feel their jobs would be on the line if Canadians voted with common sense for a party that didn't believe quite so much in social engineering.

CNN, founded by Ted Turner who was formerly married to Jane Fonda the militant feminist and extreme leftwing liberal heroine, is decidedly not rightwing but is perfectly acceptable, as is BBC news, which is decidedly not rightwing to put it mildly. The CBC is leftwing to put it even more mildly. To put it less mildly, it is a leftwing joke. But because Fox News is rightwing to their way of thinking, Fox News is banned in Canada.

In a free market where Americans can switch to any channel they please including CNN and the BBC, Fox News is America's most popular 24-hour news channel nation-wide. It gets higher ratings than CNN (53% higher than CNN). Far more popular than the BBC. Let me reiterate: More Americans watch Fox News Channel than CNN and MSNBC combined in America. So why don't the social engineers in Canada allow Fox News in Canada despite Canadians demanding it?

It's no wonder Canadians are so liberal politically. Canadians have been bathed in leftwing liberal rhetoric daily, to the point where they see it as normal. Ask a fish "how's the water?" and the fish will say "what water?"

Liberal-speak is churned out by the state-run media giant CBC on TV in many languages (8 aboriginal languages, French, and English) and on many channels, all for free even without cable (well, "free" inasmuch as it is taxpayer funded to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars); and all over the radio, and the internet. The dangerous so-called "rightwing views" as expressed by Fox News are banned. So what do you think Canadians will become over time, but leftwing liberal voters?

Most Canadians naturally now see Fox News as rightwing - or even "extreme" rightwing (code for "not liberal"), and so many don't care that Fox News isn't allowed in Canada. Yet they care a great deal when you dare speak up about being anti-abortion, or in favor of sending troops to Iraq, or, God help you, in favor of George Bush or "making a profit".

To their credit, the liberal machine has been extremely effective. Of course, to their credit goes a good portion of my income, in order for them to brainwash me and forbid me to watch Fox News Channel. Unfortunately for them, conservatives have common sense. And word leaks out through private, unregulated (at least thus far) internet web sites such as this. Oh and also it's obvious.

And it's embarrassing for Canadians.

Fox news had an old application approved in 2000 on the basis that it would be supplemented by Canadian content and called "Fox News Channel Canada" - a bid they entered into together with Global Television - but Fox News walked away from that quite wisely, since they weren't about to be manhandled by government bureaucrats from another nation deciding what content is acceptable (it had to have 35% Canadian content, but CNN has no such restrictions) and what isn't, particularly when it's at least partially a "breaking news" channel in a world which pays very little attention to what unelected Canadian government bureaucrats think and how culturally inept they feel Canada is.

In the case of MSNBC Canada, viewers complained frequently about the ridiculous manually injected Canadian content into what is an American broadcast news, information, and commentary channel about American things from an American perspective! Shows would be pre-empted and Canadian junk would be inputted in order to meet the CRTC's stupid Canadian content regulations.

How ridiculous and provincial. And Soviet.

The owner of that MSNBC-Canada license, Rogers, also complained that it was too expensive to operate it that way and would ultimately cease its operation unless it could just broadcast MSNBC straight-up.

Also, it is difficult to take you seriously when you link to Indymedia sites. These are the people who "advise" their anarchists on how to cause civil disturbances, and "advise" their readers on how to conduct DOS (Denial of Service) attacks on conservative websites - to shut them down.

How tolerant.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog posted:

Fox News isn't "banned". It's applications was rejected based on the fact that they don't offer naything we don't already have. Al Jazeera's approval, meanwhile, was laden with conditions that are so onerous that no cable or satellite operator will be able to meet them.

Oh? You're telling me that there is a TV News Channel in Canada that does offer a conservative view? It must be a sooper sekrit channel, as I have never seen it.

As for your comment about Al Jazeera, I can understand your dismay that Al Jazeera won't be able to easily promote their well-known anti-Jewish views - and that angers many on the Left. It is well known that the Left hates Israel - the only democratic country in the Middle East, and gleefully takes the side of the death cult of displaced Arabs from the Palestine region.

The Left does not like democracies, and still hates Reagan with a passion these days for committing the unforgivable sin - helping the downfall and breakup of the USSR.

How the left loves its totalitarian dictators (Castro, Saddam, Arafat, etc). Hell, just try and call a Palestinian Arab a terrorist after they blow up a busload of women and children on the CBC forums. The word terrorist will be deleted by the moderators. You have to call them militants, insurgents, hostage-takers or my personal favorite - "activists".

Leftists...so morally bankrupt.

slanted views, portrayed (falsely) as "fair and balanced" is the issue.

And what is the wildly liberal New York Times' slogan?

It is not the "fair and balanced" slogan that bothers you. It is the fact that Fox News acts as a check against the lies of the liberal media. You don't like the fact that they caught The Associated Press making up that story about boos at that Bush rally when Bush wished Clinton luck on his heart surgery. No liberal news station or paper reported that that was a lie, but Fox did. THAT is what bothers you.

I won't even bring up the forged CBS documents as they were so obviously phony, that even the liberal media was forced to question CBS - AFTER conservative bloggers broke the story and it was broadcast on Fox News.

[caesar]

Hell, just try and call a Palestinian Arab a terrorist after they blow up a busload of women and children on the CBC forums

And just what do you call the Israel government when it attacks Palestinian civillians or as the American refer to as "collateral damage"

Because the Israelis do it with sophisticated weaponry from a safe distance; does that make them less terroristic?

I ended that quote at a strange spot. See what happens when snippets are taken out of context. the Arabs have never blown up anyone on the cbc forums.

[Guest eureka]

Monty:

Don't forget to pack your "Assault" rifle when you post that sort of tripe here. You will need stronger ammunition than your words.

I find it difficult to make any sense out of your :ideas" so filled with hatred of the "Left" are you. You really have no idea of what you are writing.

Most Canadian outlets are fairly balanced. They have to be to retain their licenses since we do not allow corporate propaganda - or any propaganda - to control the airwaves, There are a couple, though, that lean to the right as far as they dare. You, of course, would think they were "Lefties" since they do not praise Gengis Khan or Hitler.

[Montgomery Burns]

And just what do you call the Israel government when it attacks Palestinian civillians or as the American refer to as "collateral damage"

If the displaced Arabs from the Palestine region would quit hiding amongst the civilian population, there would be less of this happening. I have seen many many many pictures of this and I have seen a video of these terrorists jumping into an UN ambulance after attacking Israeli soldiers.

There is a BIG difference. The Israelis do NOT deliberately target civilians. Their enemies DO. Their goal is to terrorize.

[Montgomery Burns]

Eureka: I don't need an assault rifle. I have enough ammo. After listening to 4 years of Bush=Hitler tripe for 4 years, I am quite fed up with many on the Left. However, there are some that do debate reasonably.

And what major Canadian outlets lean to the Right? The National Post is the only one I can think of. You seem to be upset about "corporate propaganda", but I mean social issues. These corporations hire people and drive much of the economy. The government does NOT.

I noticed you left yourself an out by saying "most" Canadian outlets are "fairly" balanced. I suspect you were not talking about the state-run CBC as they are very leftwing. I rarely watch their news anymore, so tired of them of their bias. When Clinton was Prez, they weren't bad, but now that there is a conserviative Prez, they just bash bash bash. They are like a Al Jazeera-lite.

I just can't understand why they bash a thriving democracy like the USA - a country that is responsible for 85% of the trade from Canada. I sure as hell wouldn't constantly bash a customer who provided me with 85% of my business.

Well, actually I can understand it...but I won't go there.

Oh, and thanks for bringing up Hitler. He was a lefty; a socialist, just like Mussolini was.

[Montgomery Burns]

Just look at the issues that the Canadian media considered "important" in the federal election, and which issues they considered unimportant.

Smaller govt? Lower taxes? Overhauling the embarrassing inept socialized healthcare system? The unemployment rate being 2% higher than America's? The fact that Al Qaeda has put Canada #5 on their hitlist? The woefully underfunded military? Security for our country? Asking Martin why he called an early election (before the new Conservative Party could mount their platform) before promising to get to the bottom of Adscam - like he promised he would?

Unimportant

Important? Gay marriage and infantcide...or as the media calls it - abortion.

Now maybe it is just me (but I know it isn't), but gay marriage and infantcide/abortion are lower on my list of priorities from a govt than the above issues I listed.

[Guest eureka]

Monty:

Usually I write off anyone who accuses the CBC of being a "Leftist" organization as just another nutcase. It is too foolish and as an "insight" it is evidence of blind prejudice. However, I will humour you.

The right wing media in this country comprises almost all the media as it is in the US. In Canada, though, it is not so far or so blatant as, Canadians being a little more aware, they would not tolerate it. The Aspers may identify themselves as Liberals but they are that only in a classical sense. That puts them some distance to the right of Conservatives.

Smaller government; lower taxes; healthcare that costs only two thirds of the US costs for better results: they were all big issues in the election. But, we had already done the lower tax bit several years earlier - even before Bush. Government began to reduce in the size of its bureaucracy back in 1992 and has a lower number of employees now than it had then. Our politicians acted while yours blustered.

Unemployment 2% higher than America's! It has always been that way and it is a reflection of the different levels of maturity in the economy. It is actually better than america's since we have not gone so far down the road to outsourcing etc. The job performance in Canada is substantially better given the different economies.

No. 5 on Al Quaeda's hitlist: why not? And what does it refer to? Every advanced Western nation is on that hitlist.

Underfunded military depends on what purpose you see the military serving.

Gay marriage and abortion! It seems to me that we have settled those and that they are huge issues in the US not hereCorporate propaganda vs social issues. What is the dofference? Corporation employ people and drive the economy and government does not? From my experience, I would say that corporations employ far more robots than do governments. Both provide the medium of exchange that does drive the economy: government as much as business.

The CBC does not "bash" Bush: it would not be allowed to. It does report and provide analysis. Clinton or Bush has nothing to do with it. Clinton had warts but was well intentioned. Bush asks and needs to be bashed. Would that those capable commentators used by CBC were given carte blanche to really say what Bush is and what a danger to the whole world he is.

Trade: it seems to me that the proportion of trade is pretty important to the USA as well. It also seems to me that there is a higher principle than not upsetting the "corporate" ethic of the USA.

Was there anything else? I will ignore the Hitler/Mussolini interpretations since, it is my firm conviction that whoever believes that they were Leftists is either blissfully ignorant of the world or is insane.

[Montgomery Burns]

Eureka,

You did humor me...with your comment about it being foolish to call CBC TV a leftist organization.

Care to tell us of a conservative commentator on the CBC? Even the liberal CNN has two - Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

Even leftwing newspapers like the NY Times and the Boston Globe each have a token conservative.

Considering that the CBC reaches every part of this country, you would think they might have a few conservative commentators, but they, of course, do not.

Don't you think that it would be far more interesting (and entertaining) to have CBC liberals and conservatives debating the issues of the day - instead of what we are treated to...2, 3, or 4 liberal commentators sitting around a table discussing issues and agreeing with each other.

No wonder only 5% of the country watches CBC!

The right wing media in this country comprises almost all the media as it is in the US.

That's pure unadulterated bull. Canada won't even allow Fox News Channel into the country.

In Canada, though, it is not so far or so blatant as, Canadians being a little more aware, they would not tolerate it.

What dimension do you live in? Cable TV customers are demanding Fox News; they are willing to pay a fee for it. However, I do agree with you that Canadians are more liberal then their American counterparts (Republicans control the presidency, Congress, and the House of Representiaves).

I believe there are 2 reason for this:

1) Canadians are relentlessly indoctrinated to accept liberal views by the CBC - which is "free" and is available in French, English, and 8 aboriginal languages everywhere in Canada;

2) Americans are more independent than Canadians. Canadians are much like the Europeans. They look up to their govt to provide for them and guide them through life.

The Aspers may identify themselves as Liberals but they are that only in a classical sense.

Inasmuch as Global is owned by Liberal Party supporters (Global's founder Izzy Asper was actually a Liberal Party organizer and an official in the Manitoba wing of the party, was leader of the Party in the 1970's, and now his son runs the company), and the Canwest Global empire is comprised of newspapers that take a decidedly liberal approach, with the Vancouver Sun for example telling readers in their editorial before the election to under no uncertain terms vote Liberal, I can't believe you would make such a comment.

Even the BC Liberal Party is hilariously described by the media including Canwest Global's Vancouver Sun as "right-wing" (the party name of "BC Liberal Party" notwithstanding), mostly because the opposition in BC is the socialist NDP. In reality, the BC Liberal Party is simply less socialist than the NDP, much like the federal Liberals.

Izzy Asper spoke of his independence politically, and shrouds his past life as Manitoba Liberal leader by saying "that was a long time ago when Trudeau was the leader". Well, Trudeau was as close to being a socialist as you can get without turning pink. But Asper openly financially supported the Liberal Party, as well as the Conservative Party, and the Alliance Party (many corporations support more than one party just to protect their asses).

Smaller government; lower taxes;

I must have missed that. All I ever heard and read was "Harper was hounded about his positions on gay marriage and abortion today" from the media during the election. If you read the articles, you would note that the people who were "hounding" him were the reporters.

healthcare that costs only two thirds of the US costs for better results

Please warn me next time you write something so uproariously funny. You made me spew my coffee all over my monitor when I read the above.

Healthcare that costs only two-thirds of the US costs? Huh? Canada's Tax Freedom Day was June 28 this year - ironically the same day as the federal election. The USA's Tax Freedom Day this year was April 11 - over 2.5 months earlier than Canada's. Canadians pay a fortune for their healthcare. Why? Because it is controlled by the govt and govt is rarely, if ever, as efficient as private business.

Consider this: At a salary of $40,000/yr, an American will pay $11,333/yr in taxes (40,000 divided by 12 mths X 3.4 mths). A Canadian will pay $20,000 in taxes. In a 6 year period, that works out to a $52,000 saving ($8667 X 6) for the American - a big pile of money to spend on healthcare.

Better results? Good grief. Canada's healthcare is in a serious crisis. Go to any doctor's office south of the BC border and half the waiting room is full of Canadians. My aunt recently got a call from the hospital announcing that they were ready to take her father in to have his operation. Too bad that he died 5 months before their phone call.

There are 27 countries in the world that have universal healthcare. The World Health Organisation ranked Canada's Health care system 30th best in the world in terms of efficiency in delivering health care to its citizens.

The best research available to date reports that Canada, while spending more on health care than any other universal-access, industrialized country in the OECD, ranks 14th in the percentage of total life expectancy that will be lived disability-free, ranks 16th in infant mortality and 12th in perinatal mortality, ranks 8th in mortality amenable to health care, ranks 9th in potential years of life lost due to disease, and ranks 6th in the incidence of breast cancer mortality.

How many Americans come to Canada to be healed?

How many Canadians go to the USA to be healed?

'Nuff said!

Government began to reduce in the size of its bureaucracy back in 1992 and has a lower number of employees now than it had then.

Wrong!

From the Vancouver Sun, July 13/04: Snip...

Proponents of big government have long been worried that the public sector is shrinking, but once you get beyond the fear mongering, the statistics reveal a different story. While the headlines blared that Canada added 25,000 new jobs in June, a far more accurate snapshot of the Canadian economy is provided when you consider that the private sector actually lost jobs, while the public sector added 32,000.

In May, the headlines told us that Canada added 56,100 jobs. Once again, the lion's share was in the public sector, with 43,000 new positions added. Looking at numbers that would make Fidel Castro smile, the Royal Bank's John Anania points out that 9 out of 10 new jobs since the beginning of the year are in government. But even that may not do justice to the degree to which our job creation has become so lopsided.

Of the remaining 10%, we have no idea how many jobs are the direct result of government contracts or subsidies. As the heart-wrenching plight of Bombardier - so well detailed by both Paul Martin and Gilles Duceppe during the recent election campaign - makes clear, the jobs created at some of Canada's largest companies are the direct result of government money. From the film industry in BC to auto manufacturers in Ontario to the fishing industry in the Maritimes, new jobs are recorded as private sector, but in reality they are reliant on government financial favours.

Since 2000, the proportion of new public-sector jobs compared to private-sector ones has been gaining momentum.

Eureka, don't you think a country should actually create wealth, before distributing it?

Unemployment 2% higher than America's! It has always been that way and it is a reflection of the different levels of maturity in the economy.

What an ambiguous statement. You been taking lessons from John Kerry on "nuance?"

It is actually better than america's since we have not gone so far down the road to outsourcing etc. The job performance in Canada is substantially better given the different economies.

Actually the US has gained 100,000 jobs from outsourcing/insourcing. They've outsourced 300,000 and insourced 400,000 for a net gain of 100,000. You are fearmongering; the same thing that Kerry is doing.

Your claim that the job performance in Canada is better than the USA's is too ludicrous for me to even waste my time replying.

Underfunded military depends on what purpose you see the military serving.

I think most people know what a military is for.

Consider this: Tonga supplied the Coalition of the Willing with 45 troops. A small number, right? However, Tonga has a population of 100,000. For Canada to reach that percentage of troops per its population, they would have to have 13,500 troops. Can Canada come up with 13,500 troops for a mission?

Corporation employ people and drive the economy and government does not?

Yes. Corporations (and small business) drive the economy and the government does not.

Since 1971, the US has created 57 million jobs. Western Europe, with a slightly larger population created 5 million in that time - and most were government jobs.

Who has the better economy? The US or Europe? It's not even close. Europe has glacial, if any, economic growth, while the USA's GDP numbers in the last year have been the best in 20 years. The Big 3 (France, Germany, and Italy) in Europe have double digit unemployment rates; the US has a 5.4% rate.

The CBC does not "bash" Bush: it would not be allowed to.

You're right. Bash was too strong a word. Let's just say they are very biased against him. After all, he is a conservative and that is a no-no to the CBC.

It does report and provide analysis.

Only from a liberal viewpoint.

Clinton or Bush has nothing to do with it.

Oh, it has a lot to do with it. The CBC's views on Clinton and Bush could best be described as thus:

Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad.

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad.

Clinton allows UN weapons inspectors to be kicked out of Iraq - good... Bush does not allow UN weapons inspectors to search Iraq for eternity - bad.

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad.

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad.

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad.

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good.... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad.

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad.

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good... Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad.

No mass graves found in Serbia - good... Not all Iraq's WMDs found - bad.

George Tenet 's CIA screws up for 8 years of Clinton administration - good... George Tenet dismissed after screwing up under Bush - bad.

Milosevic in custody (but not convicted of anything years later) - good... Saddam in custody - bad.

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Clinton recession continues after 9/11 during Bush administration - bad.

Clinton refuses Sudan's 3 offers to take custody of Bin Laden - good... Bush fails to capture Bin Laden instantly while searching the twisted labyrinth of underground caves in the no-mans land of Afghanistan - bad.

Clinton bombs an empty tent in Afghanistan - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad.

Clinton had warts but was well intentioned.

Quite the statement to make, considering his administration is considered to be one of the most corrupt in American history.

He also committed a felony while in office by lying under oath, had sex with his interns, and had a past accusation of rape (Juanita Brodderick) hanging over his head.

Bush asks and needs to be bashed. Would that those capable commentators used by CBC were given carte blanche to really say what Bush is and what a danger to the whole world he is.

Yep. Liberating over 50 million people from tyranny is cause to be bashed. Meanwhile, how many people have been liberated by whining, appeasing leftists?

They said that Ronald Reagan was a danger to the world. Ask the 500 million liberated people in the former Soviet satellite states what a danger to the world he was.

I will ignore the Hitler/Mussolini interpretations since, it is my firm conviction that whoever believes that they were Leftists is either blissfully ignorant of the world or is insane.

The only ignorant (or insane) person is you.

Your homework assignment for the day is 1) find out the name of the Nazi Party, and 2) read about Mussolini and Hitler's policies - before and after they became leaders.

Then look up the word Socialist.

[Black Dog]

Good grief. Get your facts straight. Fox News IS banned in Canada.

I've already shown that is a lie.

Indeed, the way it works is, cable and/or satellite companies that wish to carry foreign signals here must apply to do so — and, at that point, none had applied to import Fox News.

What's more, as of November 2000, CanWest Global has held the licence for Fox News Canada. That would be a digital hybrid along the lines of the Rogers and Shaw Cable-owned MSNBC here, which carries mostly U.S. content with some recycled CPAC programming in the off-hours.

But again, the facts aren't going to stop right-wing nuts like you and Peter Worthington from spewing your baseless drivel. I mean really: the Sun as a credible, unbiased source? Pathetic.

Oh? You're telling me that there is a TV News Channel in Canada that does offer a conservative view? It must be a sooper sekrit channel, as I have never seen it.

Well, stupid, we have American network content. We have Canadian stations that carry American content. It's not a question of political ideology, but of how much U.S. content is on our airwaves.

As for your comment about Al Jazeera, I can understand your dismay that Al Jazeera won't be able to easily promote their well-known anti-Jewish views - and that angers many on the Left. It is well known that the Left hates Israel - the only democratic country in the Middle East, and gleefully takes the side of the death cult of displaced Arabs from the Palestine region.

[rightwinglogic]Well, it's easy for you given that right wingers love skull-fucking dead Arab babies and wants to put all brown non-Christian people into concentration camps.[/rightwinglogic]

Gee, why argue with facts when I can use straw men and ad hominem distortions. Thanks Mr. Burns!

Oh, and thanks for bringing up Hitler. He was a lefty; a socialist, just like Mussolini was

Yeah, which is why he sent trade unionists, Communists and other socialists to the gas chambers. Indeed, fascism was a wildly popular ideaology in the 30's due to the threat of socialism to the existing capitalist order. That's why industrialists like Hnery Ford were such ardent supporters of Hitler.

You are a complete idiot if you think Hitler and Mussolini were socialists. Mussolini himself defined fascism as corporatism: the merging of state and corporate power.