Why Canada's liberals are terrified of Fox News

[Stoker]

How is any of this relevant to whether Canadians should be able to watch FOX News and whether the CBC was right to air a programme critical of FOX?

Exactly and for that mater, any other left or right wing American media........It's at best, tabloid journalism.

[Black Dog]

Exactly and for that mater, any other left or right wing American media........It's at best, tabloid journalism.

So media issues are to be considered off-limits to mainstream media outlets, then? Shall Canadian programs like the Fifth Estate, like its American newsmagazine counterparts, concern themselves soley with celeberity reporting, sensational trials and superficial political analysis? If media are the watchdogs of society, who's supposed to be watching them?

[I miss Reagan]

Look at Rush Limbaugh: railed against drugs and drug users, yet was an addict himself.

Evidence and citations with dates please Black Dog.

[August1991]

Shall Canadian programs like the Fifth Estate, like its American newsmagazine counterparts, concern themselves soley with celeberity reporting, sensational trials and superficial political analysis?

CBC is filled with programmes that few people watch. CBC radio frequently has news reports on arcane international issues that few Canadians know or care about. Is that better? Is Canadian democracy healthier than America's?

Frankly, BD, I don`t think a political party in the US could get away with what the federal Liberals did.

When you look down on American media and refer to "celeberity reporting, sensational trials and superficial political analysis`, you are engaging in the old English-Canadian sinful pleasure of `smugness`.

[Black Dog]

Look at Rush Limbaugh: railed against drugs and drug users, yet was an addict himself.

Evidence and citations with dates please Black Dog.

Ask and ye shall recieve:

We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy and then all of us who accept the responsibilities of life and don't destroy our lives on drugs, we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"If (Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

(Source: Conspiracy Planet)

Limbaugh admits pill addiction

CBC is filled with programmes that few people watch. CBC radio frequently has news reports on arcane international issues that few Canadians know or care about. Is that better? Is Canadian democracy healthier than America's?

That's not the issue, though.

The issue is this: the CBC, a mainstream Canadian news outlet, did a story on the American media and, tangentially, about Fox News, an American mainstream media outlet. If the question is "can the media report on the media", the answer is "why not?"

You'll note that Fox, in turn, took a swipe at the CBC. Fair play.

Again: what's the problem?

When you look down on American media and refer to "celeberity reporting, sensational trials and superficial political analysis`, you are engaging in the old English-Canadian sinful pleasure of `smugness`.

Guilty as charged.

[I miss Reagan]

Thankyou Black Dog. But the dates of the comments are back in the 90's. Before he was addicted to pain killers. It's also important to note that he became inadvertantly addicted to highly addictive oxycontin after a back operation. It's not like he was out snorting coke and looking for a party.

[Black Dog]

Thankyou Black Dog. But the dates of the comments are back in the 90's. Before he was addicted to pain killers. It's also important to note that he became inadvertantly addicted to highly addictive oxycontin after a back operation. It's not like he was out snorting coke and looking for a party.

Unlike you, Limbaugh did not equivocate when it came to drugs.

There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

Now he doesn't make a distinction between perscruption drugs like oxycontin ("hillbilly heroin") and street drugs, nor does he seem to care how someone got addicted. In other words, Limbaugh is a big fat hypocrite. And you are a dupe.

Rush Limbaugh reportedly involved in pill investigation

Talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh is being investigated for allegedly buying thousands of addictive painkillers from a black-market drug ring.

[I miss Reagan]

In other words, Limbaugh is a big fat hypocrite. And you are a dupe.

I find this funny coming from one of Chomsky's sheep .

I'm personally not a huge fan of Limbaugh. But I do give him credit for publicly coming clean. And as with everyone, I do not expect perfection from him. I think it's reasonable to give him a little leeway considering he became addicted because of severe back pain. But it appears that his comments were right, drugs do destroy lives. It isn't surprising that his enemies saw this as the perfect opportunity to lynch him.

[Black Dog]

I find this funny coming from one of Chomsky's sheep.

You are a dupe. You have exhibited a steadfast refusal to question your orthodoxies (and please if you can produce any evidence to discredit Chomsky or his views, please do so: you'd be the first) and now are showing a clear double standard when it comes to issues of media bias.

I'm personally not a huge fan of Limbaugh. But I do give him credit for publicly coming clean. And as with everyone, I do not expect perfection from him. I think it's reasonable to give him a little leeway considering he became addicted because of severe back pain. But it appears that his comments were right, drugs do destroy lives. It isn't surprising that his enemies saw this as the perfect opportunity to lynch him.

So typically unprincipled. Rush, after making sweeping, blanket condemnations about drugs, gets hooked on drugs and turns to the illegal market to feed his addiction. Yet he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Tell me, would a junkie from the ghetto get the same treatment? Why is "back pain" a better excuse for drug use than, say, poverty, alienation, lack of education?

You are a perfect example of why neocons are thouroughly unqualified to make judgements on moral matters: you have no principles. Your moral compass shifts wildly depending on the status of the person being judged. Conservatives have sacrificed principles in the service of their blind worship of wealth and power.

[I miss Reagan]

You are a dupe. You have exhibited a steadfast refusal to question your orthodoxies

No you're a dupe! No you're a dupe!... round and round we can go. Regarding the accusation that I refuse to question my beliefs, it just simply isn't true. I think you say this because I don't agree with you, and because I touched on Chomsky who appears to be a sacred cow for you.

Tell me, would a junkie from the ghetto get the same treatment? Why is "back pain" a better excuse for drug use than, say, poverty, alienation, lack of education?

I never said it was, don't put words in my mouth. In fact I think drug law in the US is way to harsh. I think people on drugs need help not jail time. But that doesn't mean I don't think drugs don't ruin lives and are bad for society.

You are a perfect example of why neocons are thouroughly unqualified to make judgements on moral matters: you have no principles. Your moral compass shifts wildly depending on the status of the person being judged. Conservatives have sacrificed principles in the service of their blind worship of wealth and power.

Yadda yadda.

[Black Dog]

I think you say this because I don't agree with you, and because I touched on Chomsky who appears to be a sacred cow for you.

No I say this because you willfully excuse hyopocrisy when ity comes from people on "your" side of the spectrum.

I never said it was, don't put words in my mouth. In fact I think drug law in the US is way to harsh. I think people on drugs need help not jail time. But that doesn't mean I don't think drugs don't ruin lives and are bad for society.

So you disagree with Rush that "if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up"?

[I miss Reagan]

No I say this because you willfully excuse hyopocrisy when ity comes from people on "your" side of the spectrum.

We're always a little more forgiving of those on our side aren't we? The truth is when this story first came out, I was angry at Rush for being hypocritical. But then realized that I couldn't remember ever hearing Rush lecture about drugs. I looked into it and all I found were a couple comments from 12 years ago. I'm not sure what you expect from him. He inadvertently ended up addicted to drugs due to severe back pain. There's no doubt in my mind that conservatives are held to a higher standard than those on the left. It must be because the left doesn't have any standards from which to fall from.

So you disagree with Rush that "if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up"?

Yes, and maybe Rush does as well. That statement was made 10 years ago.

[Black Dog]

Yes, and maybe Rush does as well. That statement was made 10 years ago.

Any evidence that he's recanted?

[I miss Reagan]

No. Just submitting the possibility that Rush might now have some empathy for those who become addicted to pain killers. I think he was pretty dignified.

Limbaugh insisted he is "not making any excuses. "

"You know, over the years athletes and celebrities have emerged from treatment centers to great fanfare and praise for conquering great demons," he said. "They are said to be great role models and examples for others. Well, I am no role model."

He continued: "I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never resort to such escapes. They are the role models. I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem."

[Shakeyhands]

Seems to me he denied and denied and attempted many times to mislead and cast aspersions on others until he couldn't possibly deny it any longer.... Again this is typical.

I doubt he has learned a thing from this.

[Montgomery Burns]

Don't be too hard on Black Dog. He, and much of the Canadian left, have been in a tizzy since the Fox News Channel came to Canada. They are fearful that their dearly beloved hardcore socialist state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC will lose even more ratings. The Communist Broadcasting Corporation has been openly attacking Fox News - once again showing the world that "tolerance" that the left is soooo noted for.

I can see why the Fox News Channel is wildly popular in the US; it is so much better than its competitors. It actually is fair and balanced and *gasp* actually has as many conservatives as liberal.

What a treat it is after listening to the lies and dirty tricks of the liberal media for years and years, from C-BS's phony memos, to CNN covering up Saddam's atrocities so they could keep their Baghdad bureau open. Then CNN's Eason Jordan resigned yesterday amid his outlandish accusations (with no proof!) of US troops targeting journalists for murder and torturing journalists.

And who could ever forget CNN allowing two of John Kerry's advisors (James Carville and Paul Begala) to have their own show and promote the Kerry campaign; a blatant conflict of interest?

After a 5 year ban by Canada's ruling Liberal Party, they were forced to allow the Fox News Channel into Canada after they showed their true intentions (the destgruction of the US as revenge for the fall of the USSR) by allowing Jihad TV (Al Jazeera) to broadcast in Canada. After that move, they no longer could keep Fox News out without openly admitting they were cheering for the Islamofascists to defeat the US.

They could even call it Foxy News. Their female anchors are droolsville.

[WageSlave]

Don't be too hard on Black Dog. He, and much of the Canadian left, have been in a tizzy since the Fox News Channel came to Canada. They are fearful that their dearly beloved hardcore socialist state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC will lose even more ratings. The Communist Broadcasting Corporation has been openly attacking Fox News - once again showing the world that "tolerance" that the left is soooo noted for.

I can see why the Fox News Channel is wildly popular in the US; it is so much better than its competitors. It actually is fair and balanced and *gasp* actually has as many conservatives as liberal.

What a treat it is after listening to the lies and dirty tricks of the liberal media for years and years, from C-BS's phony memos, to CNN covering up Saddam's atrocities so they could keep their Baghdad bureau open. Then CNN's Eason Jordan resigned yesterday amid his outlandish accusations (with no proof!) of US troops targeting journalists for murder and torturing journalists.

And who could ever forget CNN allowing two of John Kerry's advisors (James Carville and Paul Begala) to have their own show and promote the Kerry campaign; a blatant conflict of interest?

After a 5 year ban by Canada's ruling Liberal Party, they were forced to allow the Fox News Channel into Canada after they showed their true intentions (the destgruction of the US as revenge for the fall of the USSR) by allowing Jihad TV (Al Jazeera) to broadcast in Canada. After that move, they no longer could keep Fox News out without openly admitting they were cheering for the Islamofascists to defeat the US.

They could even call it Foxy News. Their female anchors are droolsville.

^^^

Actually, Fox new's utter dishonesty is quite similar to that of a Soviet broadcast.

[Montgomery Burns]

Actually, Fox new's utter dishonesty is quite similar to that of a Soviet broadcast.

Well? Don't leave us hanging. Explain...or can't you?

[Black Dog]

Don't be too hard on Black Dog. He, and much of the Canadian left, have been in a tizzy since the Fox News Channel came to Canada. They are fearful that their dearly beloved hardcore socialist state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC will lose even more ratings. The Communist Broadcasting Corporation has been openly attacking Fox News - once again showing the world that "tolerance" that the left is soooo noted for.

Oh yeah: we're in a tizzy all right. Why if I got any more excited about this I'd...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Whoops. Sorry. Dozed off there.

After a 5 year ban by Canada's ruling Liberal Party, they were forced to allow the Fox News Channel into Canada after they showed their true intentions (the destgruction of the US as revenge for the fall of the USSR) by allowing Jihad TV (Al Jazeera) to broadcast in Canada. After that move, they no longer could keep Fox News out without openly admitting they were cheering for the Islamofascists to defeat the US.

Are you a compulsive liar? Must be all the exposure to FoxNews.

But hey, keep it coming, you're doing wonders for my insomnia.

[Montgomery Burns]

Are you a compulsive liar? Must be all the exposure to FoxNews.

But hey, keep it coming, you're doing wonders for my insomnia.

The truth hurts, huh? And for your insomnia, may I suggest the state-run taxpayer-funded Soviet style Communist Broadcasting Corporation?

I found a great gift for you.

http://foxblocker.com/: For the leftist who is incapable of keeping its remote control off the Fox News Channel.

Now you too can show the tolerance that the left is noted for - by blocking the Evil Fox News Channel.

[Shakeyhands]

Hey Burns...

Where can we get a CBC or a C-BS Blocker?

Oh wait... you say that no one has ever made one? Oh my...

I wonder why not? Perhaps because they are the one who are actually Fair and Balanced?

Hmmmmmm.....

[Black Dog]

The truth hurts, huh? And for your insomnia, may I suggest the state-run taxpayer-funded Soviet style Communist Broadcasting Corporation?

Not when I have you around to repeat lies like "Fox News was banned!"

Now you too can show the tolerance that the left is noted for - by blocking the Evil Fox News Channel.

Naw, I just won't watch it. I mean why would I when I have definitive proof that long-term exposure to Fox news melts your brain: wanna see?

Behold: A Case Study.

[I miss Reagan]

Not when I have you around to repeat lies like "Fox News was banned!"

It was banned. You're being obtuse again.

[Shakeyhands]

Banned infers that it was on then taken off, in this case, they were as welcome to apply for broadcast like everyone else.

[Black Dog]

Not when I have you around to repeat lies like "Fox News was banned!"

It was banned. You're being obtuse again.

No. Banned means "To prohibit, especially by official decree".

If you'd read over the thread instead of barking like a trained seal, you'd see that was not the case.

Fox was never banned and it was also never denied a start up license. The CRTC gave approval for "Fox News Canada" but Fox News chose not to work with Global TV to offer that service.