CBC Lockout

shoop · September 14, 2005

But I disagree, Mirror, that the CBC is too Liberal. The CBC's problem is that it is too NDP. I am beginning to wonder if the Liberals want this lock-out to last because it helps them in their effort to attract the soft NDP voters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The CPC can only hope that the Liberals would employ such a foolish tactic.

Mothercorp (the CBC) does the Liberals far more good, and attracts them far more votes, with its agenda and reporting against the CPC than it hurts the Liberals with its tilt to the NDs.

Keeping the CBC shut down would be a classic example of the Liberals cutting off their nose to spite their face. Here's hoping that they do it! :lol:

Canuck E Stan · September 14, 2005

CBC board's political contribution

Interesting to note that 82% contributed to the Liberals

15% contributed to the Bloc

3% contributed to the Conseervatives

I tried to verify these numbers from the two sites given but was unable to, so I don"t know if they are valid. But for some reason I'm not surprised by the numbers he has come up with.

mirror · September 14, 2005

CBC board's political contribution
Interesting to note that 82% contributed to the Liberals

15% contributed to the Bloc

3% contributed to the Conseervatives

I tried to verify these numbers from the two sites given but was unable to, so I don"t know if they are valid. But for some reason I'm not surprised by the numbers he has come up with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So much for August's brilliant theories about the CBC, eh! :lol:

Canuck E Stan · September 17, 2005

Interesting note from a Mulhroney senator wishing for an extended lock out....until after the next election.

I wonder if the CBC being grounded will actually affect the outcome of the election.

I guess the true story would be if Martin legislates the CBC back to work,for what reason I don't know, but that would definately indicate the importance of the CBC to the Liberals.

Senator wants CBC lockout to linger

Montgomery Burns · September 17, 2005

Mirror:

I think a lot of the underlying reason that some folks are not supportive of the CBC is because of their slant covering political news. And I think they have a valid criticism, as from my observations the CBC political news area seems to be wedded to the Liberals.

Talk about an understatement. :unsure:

I just pray that the CBC is still on strike when the election happens. Perhaps this country can then have a fair election.

Btw, I taunted the CBC strikers twice this week. I walked right through them (they're picketing downtown in front of their station) and said, "Pravda locked out? Good!"

I got called an asshole by a couple of them (that made my day! ) but none of them had the guts to do anything more than that.

Renegade · September 17, 2005

We inherited the debt our predecessors foolishly incurred. So now that we have the debt, even if we only earn $20,000, we would be wise to continue to pay it down. What is the alternative, wait indefinately until we earn more and continue to pay interest on the debt?
Wait and second here, Renegade. Your predecessors got the benefit of borrowing. If your predecessors didn't leave anything to you, don't blame cybercoma for that. And by the way, the world as a whole is a heck of a lot richer now than it was even 30 years ago. So if you personally feel burdened by debt, then it must be that others of your generation have got even more than you. You should have picked your parents better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

August, yes our prececessors got the benefit of borrowing. They spent money which was not theirs but left a debt for future generations of taxpayers to pay. I am in no way blaming cybercoma for this, and I share his attitude of "living within our means" . Frankly the debts which were incurred in the 70s and 80s were not "investments" which yeilded a return, in fact they were a way of funding a lifestyle which was beyond the means of society.

It is with good reason that the public abhors governmental debt today.

August1991 · September 17, 2005

They spent money which was not theirs but left a debt for future generations of taxpayers to pay.

Left a debt for future generations? Do you mean the past borrowed from us?

On the contrary, it should be clearly obvious to you if you look around that Canada has alot more accumulated wealth now than it did 30 years ago. The present borrows from the past, and the future will borrow from us.

September 17, 2005

What else would you have them do. Monty? They called you by name is that not enough?

Montgomery Burns · September 17, 2005

What else would you have them do. Monty? They called you by name is that not enough?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not a small guy (5'11", 190 lbs), but then again, I am not a huge guy. There was about 15 or 20 of them. I was hoping that they would try something physical (and no, I did not have my gun with me).

Perhaps even the left's favorite tactic; the pie in the face of anyone they disagree with (Ralph Klein, David Horowitz, William Kristol, and Ann Coulter).

Perhaps it was my swagger. Maybe they sensed how much I loathe the CBC news.

And as I posted on this thread earlier, their posts on cbcunlocked.com proved beyond a shadow of a doubt their true colors; their mindset!

I hope they are locked out until after the election. For once we might have a "somewhat fair election".

PocketRocket · September 18, 2005

I just pray that the CBC is still on strike when the election happens. Perhaps this country can then have a fair election.

Yeah. I understand the CBC rigs election results. :rolleyes:

Btw, I taunted the CBC strikers twice this week. I walked right through them (they're picketing downtown in front of their station) and said, "Pravda locked out? Good!"

You must be proud. Such a productive feat. Such a display of courage.

Maybe you'll get the Governor General's Award or something.

I got called an asshole by a couple of them (that made my day! ) but none of them had the guts to do anything more than that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well there's this law called "assault and battery", which they may be informed enough to be aware of.

Then again, they might be those pesky sort of people who prefer to work out their differences in a non-violent fashion.

Damn them !!!

PocketRocket · September 18, 2005

I'm not a small guy (5'11", 190 lbs), but then again, I am not a huge guy. There was about 15 or 20 of them. I was hoping that they would try something physical (and no, I did not have my gun with me).

And if the 15 or 20 of them had given you a drubbing, I just KNOW you wouldn't have sued them all (see post above re Assault and Battery), no, you would have taken it like a man.

Uh-huh.

Internet. The courage of anonymity.

You can paint yourself to be whatever you want.

Perhaps even the left's favorite tactic; the pie in the face of anyone they disagree with (Ralph Klein, David Horowitz, William Kristol, and Ann Coulter).

The Left's favorite tactic. Again, uh-huh.

There's what, like 3 people in North America who do the pie thing???

You make it sound like every Liberal on the continent throws pies.

But you're right. Assassination would be much better as a tool of protest.

Let's all go shoot some abortion doctors.

Perhaps it was my swagger. Maybe they sensed how much I loathe the CBC news.

Perhaps they didn't have anything to clean their hands with afterward.

And as I posted on this thread earlier, their posts on cbcunlocked.com proved beyond a shadow of a doubt their true colors; their mindset!

BTW, thanks for the link. I noticed how "biased" the paper is. Even posting a story about how journalists around the world are taking a day off to protest the CBC's actions in the lockout.

Even spanking PMPM.

And damn and double-damn the CBC for praising Terry Fox yet again.

I hope they are locked out until after the election. For once we might have a "somewhat fair election".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you prefer CTV??? At least the CBC acknowledges the fact that there's a labor dispute.

Not once did CTV ever mention the 4-month BELL workers strike this summer.

But CTV is owned by BELL.

That wouldn't be media bias now, would it???

Renegade · September 18, 2005

They spent money which was not theirs but left a debt for future generations of taxpayers to pay.
Left a debt for future generations? Do you mean the past borrowed from us?
On the contrary, it should be clearly obvious to you if you look around that Canada has alot more accumulated wealth now than it did 30 years ago. The present borrows from the past, and the future will borrow from us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I mean borrowed for the taxpaying generation of today and the future. It is obvious that when a govenment incurs a deficit and those yearly deficits accumlate into debt, that a government is not living within their means. The vast majority of taxpayers today, have for all of their working lives have paid interest toward the debt. It will be the fate of future generations to continue to pay the carrying charges for the debt for the forseeable future. The funds which are being used to service the debt could otherwise be used to fund benefits and services for the population.

Your correct that the wealth of the Canada has grown but this has been despite the debt which was incurred by previous governments. There are countries which have incurred no debt yet they too have increased their wealth.

I would agree that there are times where it make sense for a government to run a deficit and incur debt. These should be restricted to short term situation. Because some governments have abused that privilige and incurred yearly deficits and long term debt, the taxpaying population has become distrustful of government incurring ANY deficit.

Since the 90s the Canadian fedral government has shown fiscal responsibility by breaking the habit of running deficit, and slowly paying down the debt. This is both prudent and nessary for our long term viability.

PocketRocket · September 18, 2005

Since the 90s the Canadian fedral government has shown fiscal responsibility by breaking the habit of running deficit, and slowly paying down the debt. This is both prudent and nessary for our long term viability.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most sensible thing I've read in these forums in a while.

August1991 · September 18, 2005

Since the 90s the Canadian fedral government has shown fiscal responsibility by breaking the habit of running deficit, and slowly paying down the debt. This is both prudent and nessary for our long term viability.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most sensible thing I've read in these forums in a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is not sensible at all.

A government's fiscal position (whether in deficit or surplus) is no measure of the fiscal responsibility of a government. The correct measure of a government's fiscal responsibility is how much it spends, and what it buys.

A government is not like a family. Living debt-free may be good advice for a family but it is utterly meaningless for a government.

Families must work to earn the money used to pay for purchases or to pay back debt. Governments can take money whenever they want it because they spend other people's money - and they never have to pay back tax money raised.

----

The Canadian government currently borrows at about 3.8% for a ten year term. Nobody in Canada can borrow at that low interest rate. Yet, to pay off the government's debt, I'll bet some Canadians are borrowing now at higher interest rates to do exactly that. Does it make sense to retire low-interest rate debt first and leave your high-interest rate debt for later repayment?

Whenever I hear somebody griping that the national debt is too high, I nod in apparent agreement and point out that the problem is more general than that. "Not only is the debt out of control," I say, "but so is my front lawn. The grass is ridiculously high. When will the politicians finally face reality and force me to mow it?"
This usually has one of two desirable effects. Either the griper moves to the far end of the room, or he asks, "Why not just mow the lawn? Why would you need the government to force you?" In that case, I reply: "Well, why not just buy a bond and eliminate your share of the national debt? Why would you need the government to raise your taxes?" I don't mean to say that everyone should buy Treasury bonds. I'm saying only that everyone who complains about the debt should buy Treasury bonds--and then stop complaining.

In dismissing bogus concerns about the national debt, I do not mean to dismiss legitimate concerns about government spending. Your share of government spending is something you can't opt out of, short of emigrating or resorting to felonious tax evasion. That makes government spending a fair target for your indignation.

Read this, please

Montgomery Burns · September 18, 2005

PocketRocket:

Yeah. I understand the CBC rigs election results.

Oh, of course not. They're always fair and balanced. :rolleyes:

Just ask the chairman of the board who recently resigned to run for the BC Liberal Party.

You must be proud. Such a productive feat. Such a display of courage.
Maybe you'll get the Governor General's Award or something.

Thank you. But I think I will pass on the CBC's Governor General Award.

Well there's this law called "assault and battery", which they may be informed enough to be aware of.
Then again, they might be those pesky sort of people who prefer to work out their differences in a non-violent fashion.

Damn them !!!

Ahh, yes. Those socialists and their noted "non-violence". :rolleyes:

The Left's favorite tactic. Again, uh-huh.
There's what, like 3 people in North America who do the pie thing???

I name 4 people off the top of my head and it adds up to 3 people in your mind. Let me guess. Math isn't your strong suit. :huh:

You make it sound like every Liberal on the continent throws pies.

I believe Freud called this projection.

But you're right. Assassination would be much better as a tool of protest.
Let's all go shoot some abortion doctors.

Those poor innocent abortion doctors bravely murdering innocent babies...

Perhaps they didn't have anything to clean their hands with afterward.

Or perhaps they were just chicken. Oh, if only they could go back to their cocoon and not have to face the real world and consequences for your actions.

BTW, thanks for the link. I noticed how "biased" the paper is.

Apparently the "I'm not really left" Pocket Rocket considers this honest journalism:

Striking CBC workers show their commitment to honest journalism at cbcunclocked web site

Btw, I have a doctor's appointment downtown tomorrow. I think I will go visit the CBC strikers again.

Montgomery Burns · September 18, 2005

CBC board's political contribution
Interesting to note that 82% contributed to the Liberals

15% contributed to the Bloc

3% contributed to the Conseervatives

I tried to verify these numbers from the two sites given but was unable to, so I don"t know if they are valid. But for some reason I'm not surprised by the numbers he has come up with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not surprised. The recent chairman of the CBC board resigned to go run for the Liberal Party in BC, and the Liberal Party goes to the CBC when they need a new Governor General.

I Miss Trudeau · September 18, 2005

Btw, I have a doctor's appointment downtown tomorrow. I think I will go visit the CBC strikers again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I hear about a redneck being beaten by locked out CBC workers, I'll be sure to forward this thread for consideration as an extenuating circumstance for the sentencing hearings.

After I'm done lmao, anyway.

Renegade · September 19, 2005

This is not sensible at all.
A government's fiscal position (whether in deficit or surplus) is no measure of the fiscal responsibility of a government. The correct measure of a government's fiscal responsibility is how much it spends, and what it buys.

You say that the correct measure of a government's fiscal responsibility is "how much it spends". What is a deficit or surplus if not a measure of how much the government spends on a yearly basis (above what it collects)? Of course it is also important what a goernment buys, but clearly it would bring ruin on the country by overspending, no matter what it purchased.

A government is not like a family. Living debt-free may be good advice for a family but it is utterly meaningless for a government.
Families must work to earn the money used to pay for purchases or to pay back debt. Governments can take money whenever they want it because they spend other people's money - and they never have to pay back tax money raised.

"they never have to pay back tax money raised"? The don't unless the spend more than they collect then they have to pay it back with interest. That is exactly what a Government Bond is. It is a loan from the public to the government, for which the government pays interest. In that sense it is exactly like a family. Taxes raised is analogous to earned income of a family. A family only has to pay back what they spend beyond their earned income.

The Canadian government currently borrows at about 3.8% for a ten year term. Nobody in Canada can borrow at that low interest rate. Yet, to pay off the government's debt, I'll bet some Canadians are borrowing now at higher interest rates to do exactly that. Does it make sense to retire low-interest rate debt first and leave your high-interest rate debt for later repayment?

Just as there are some people paying higher interest rates than 3.8%, there are plenty of people with cash sitting in the bank earning 0%, or even losing money in the stock market. Using your justification I can turn the question around to you and ask " Does it not make sense to retire debt first which is charging interest instead of having money earning no interest?

Whenever I hear somebody griping that the national debt is too high, I nod in apparent agreement and point out that the problem is more general than that. "Not only is the debt out of control," I say, "but so is my front lawn. The grass is ridiculously high. When will the politicians finally face reality and force me to mow it?"
This usually has one of two desirable effects. Either the griper moves to the far end of the room, or he asks, "Why not just mow the lawn? Why would you need the government to force you?" In that case, I reply: "Well, why not just buy a bond and eliminate your share of the national debt? Why would you need the government to raise your taxes?" I don't mean to say that everyone should buy Treasury bonds. I'm saying only that everyone who complains about the debt should buy Treasury bonds--and then stop complaining.

In dismissing bogus concerns about the national debt, I do not mean to dismiss legitimate concerns about government spending. Your share of government spending is something you can't opt out of, short of emigrating or resorting to felonious tax evasion. That makes government spending a fair target for your indignation.

Read this, please

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This author's suggestion that buying a bond as an equivalent to eliminating the debt is ludicrous. For the reasons below:

1. There is no good way of knowing how much any one person's share of the debt is. Simply taking the total debt and deviding by the population is nonsense. Not all of the population contributes to the debt, and even the taxpaying population pays at different rates and it will be the middle-class and the wealthy who will bear the brunt of paying down the debt.

2. Even if you knew how much your share of the debt was and bought a bond to offset it. Your bond would be taxed yearly on its interest payment, so yearly you would still be paying toward the debt via the taxes you pay on the bond.

Montgomery Burns · September 19, 2005

Btw, I have a doctor's appointment downtown tomorrow. I think I will go visit the CBC strikers again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I hear about a redneck being beaten by locked out CBC workers, I'll be sure to forward this thread for consideration as an extenuating circumstance for the sentencing hearings.

After I'm done lmao, anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It looks like the 3rd time is the lucky charm. After taunting the strikers by calling them Pravda, I was called a fascist, a neocon, and a Zionist by those CBC leeches who are dedicated to "honest journalism". :lol:

Made my day.

One striker looked very angry but he still didn't make a move towards me. Perhaps it was because some bystanders shouted "Hell Yeah". Socialist weenies. Too chicken to enforce international law and too chicken to even be human shields for their beloved Islamofascist dicktator - Saddam Hussein.

August1991 · October 2, 2005

CBC deal was struck.

What does this mean?

Both sides faced sudden, mounting pressure from Ottawa in recent days with parliament now back in session. The general consensus among political observers and hopeful CBC staff is that a deal would be struck by the end of this week, possibly sooner.
The Liberal caucus and various opposition critics have focused strongly on ending the lockout of the more than 5,000 members of the Canadian Media Guild, while the Heritage Committee last week has demanded that the CBC's top executives meet with the committee once a deal is struck.

G & M

fellowtraveller · October 3, 2005

What does the end to the strike mean, and the threat to the CBC Board?

It means the Liberals were anxious to get their publicly funded propaganda tool back on the air, and they are going to make sure the Board understands their role in enabling this..

shoop · October 3, 2005

What does the end to the strike mean, and the threat to the CBC Board?
It means the Liberals were anxious to get their publicly funded propaganda tool back on the air, and they are going to make sure the Board understands their role in enabling this..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What it means is the Liberals really saw the writing on the wall.

The regular guys who kick back every Saturday night, drink some beer and listen to Harry Neale's terrible commentating while watching Hockey Night in Canada and the bad play of the Leafs. These Ontarians are the voters who ideologically should support the Conservatives but vote Liberal due to inertia and scare tactics.

A Saturday night without Ron Maclean and Don Cherry would be enough to turn these guys against the Liberal party and drive them to their ideological home ... for good.

fellowtraveller · October 4, 2005

Not really shoop, hockey is kind of important, but far, far more games are carried on Sportsnet than on CBC.

With an election coming soon, who is going to carry the Liberal propaganda to your home if the CBC is not available as usual?

shoop · October 5, 2005

Not really shoop, hockey is kind of important, but far, far more games are carried on Sportsnet than on CBC.
With an election coming soon, who is going to carry the Liberal propaganda to your home if the CBC is not available as usual?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You clearly don't 'get' the importance of Hockey Night in Canada within Canadian culture. It is REPEATEDLY the hightest ranking telecast on the airwaves in this country. Fans would have been outraged if they hadn't made the deal. Sure you can watch other games on other channels, but it is a tradition for many, many Canadians.

Anybody want to bet that the game on Saturday night gets the highest ratings of any TV program in Canada this year?