Why am I forced to pay for this social liberalism agenda?

scribblet · February 24, 2006

Reasonable post shoop. I have seen some decent programs on there, and wouldn't want to see it cut back alltogether, but it does need to be more politically representative and not so biased.

What about a review aimed at creating a much more targetted apporach for what the CBC provides?
A short-term increase in funding, with the clear understanding that it was short-term only, would be welcomed if that came as a part of returning the CBC to its role as a true public broadcaster. Vastly reducing the scope of MotherCorps operations would be welcomed all around.

Get rid of sports? Hmmm, possible but that would have to go hand in hand with necesary cuts to News and programming.

.

wellandboy · February 24, 2006

Could not disagree more. Plus who actually has brought us the Olympic coverage for decades now? The CBC. Right field must be short of oxygen these days.

So what? The CBC dedicates huge amounts of it's broadcasting time for two weeks on it's two networks to the Olympics. They can make that decision because they have so little to offer in the way of alternative programming the other 50 weeks of the year. Considering that amounts to 2 weeks each for the summer and winter Olympics every four years is hardly stellar programming.

The CBC has some extremely good programing, but perhaps those who bash it out of hand never watch it to see?

The operative word in your statement is "some". Programming has been covered extensively in this thread, demonstrating clear differences of opinion about CBC.

Spike22 · February 24, 2006

Could not disagree more. Plus who actually has brought us the Olympic coverage for decades now? The CBC. Right field must be short of oxygen these days.

So what? The CBC dedicates huge amounts of it's broadcasting time for two weeks on it's two networks to the Olympics. They can make that decision because they have so little to offer in the way of alternative programming the other 50 weeks of the year. Considering that amounts to 2 weeks each for the summer and winter Olympics every four years is hardly stellar programming.

The CBC has some extremely good programing, but perhaps those who bash it out of hand never watch it to see?

You smoke crack right? Good programming? I say dump the fruits that run their entertainment division the shows they produce suck.

The news and documentary division as well as HNIC are well done the rest ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

August1991 · February 24, 2006

People don't pay to subscribe to the CBC now.
Quit broadcasting it over the open air. Provide it over cable only.

Then people have to pay to subscribe. No free-riders. It would be amazing how many fewer people would *, support* the CBC with their chequebooks.

To be more precise, regardless of technology, it costs nothing to the CBC to broadcast to one more subscriber. Hence, it should cost almost nothing for a new subscriber to sign up. Anything more costly will mean that the CBC loses potential profits and a potential subscriber loses the benefit of the CBC.

Let me consider another example, that may drive the idea home.

No one would consider Internet access as a "necessary" service. Yet it would make sense for a city to install a wi-fi system and offer the service to everyone.

My key point is that the cost of this service to a user should be zero because that is the cost of having one more person added to the network. In the future, I hope that that is how Internet (and cellular phone) will be provided.

The CBC is like a wi-fi system.

IMV, the Left (and Right) really should learn what government should do and what the government should not do. This is what I mean by being clueless.

----

I agree with most of the remarks about CBC programming, its management and its freedom from political interference. But the CBC is hardly the only institution that has been politicized in Canada. The Supreme Court is arguably an off-shoot of a particular wing of the federal Liberal Party and no one is arguing that the Supreme Court should be privatized or abolished.

shoop · February 24, 2006

You are coming from the assumption that CBC *has* to continue to broadcast over the airwaves.

Why are you making that assumption?

There would be long-term cost savings associated with making the CBC only available on cable.

So instead of continuing to post point after point based on this assumption why not deal with the broader argument? Defend your assumption.

I am saying that the government should not be providing this service if the costs outweigh the benefits. People aren't clueless if they disagree with you, as long as they can logically support their argument.

My key point is that the cost of this service to a user should be zero because that is the cost of having one more person added to the network. In the future, I hope that that is how Internet (and cellular phone) will be provided.
The CBC is like a wi-fi system.

IMV, the Left (and Right) really should learn what government should do and what the government should not do. This is what I mean by being clueless.

August1991 · February 24, 2006

You are coming from the assumption that CBC *has* to continue to broadcast over the airwaves.
Why are you making that assumption?

There would be long-term cost savings associated with making the CBC only available on cable.

This is what I mean by being clueless.

Cable or broadcast, it is still true that it costs nothing to provide the service to one more customer. The CBC, wi-fi, streetlights and uncongested roadways all share this feature - along with many other services.

The government is best placed to offer such services, and in general it means that we have too few of them now.

fellowtraveller · February 24, 2006

The CBC has some extremely good programing, but perhaps those who bash it out of hand never watch it to see?

For the last time, the quality of programming is not relevant to the discussion. If you like it so much, why then are you unwilling to pay directly for it? Why do so few Canadians tune in? Hmmmm???

The CBC is like a wi-fi system.

No it isn't , other than the wires, studios, transmitters are like a wi-fi. The physical network of CBC radio and TV is in no way unique and hasn't been in Canada for decades.

IMV, the Left (and Right) really should learn what government should do and what the government should not do. This is what I mean by being clueless.
I agree with most of the remarks about CBC programming, its management and its freedom from political interference. But the CBC is hardly the only institution that has been politicized in Canada. The Supreme Court is arguably an off-shoot of a particular wing of the federal Liberal Party and no one is arguing that the Supreme Court should be privatized or abolished.

I agree that we urgently need to define the role of government at every level, and apply that to the CBC.

The only way that the CBC may somehow magically be free from political interference is to also be free of government funding. Then the only political interference it will have to concern itself with will come from its own Board of Directors.

The comparison to the SC is flat out silly. The CBC provides news and entertainment, easily available from hundreds of sources. It no longer serves to unite Canadians huddled in their sod huts on the Prairies, listening to Foster Hewitt through the raging blizzard outside. How can you equate a news/entertainment provider with the role of the SC?

It seems we are somewhat stuck with that nemesis of productivity , the inclination to hang onto things that the world has passed by, that are no longer required. How many times have we seen that in government organization charts, or in very large corporations for that matter.

We simply do not need the CBC as an 'institution' any more. It serves to drive us apart now, not bring us together.

Time for a change.

August1991 · February 25, 2006

No it isn't , other than the wires, studios, transmitters are like a wi-fi. The physical network of CBC radio and TV is in no way unique and hasn't been in Canada for decades.
...

The comparison to the SC is flat out silly. The CBC provides news and entertainment, easily available from hundreds of sources. It no longer serves to unite Canadians huddled in their sod huts on the Prairies, listening to Foster Hewitt through the raging blizzard outside. How can you equate a news/entertainment provider with the role of the SC?

FT, you seem to think that the government should get involved when something is unique, or when it is somehow critical to the country.

[To be cynical, I would prefer that an institution as dysfunctional as government should be kept as far away as possible from anything critical to society.]

More seriously, whether a service is unique or critical should not be the criteria for government involvement. Spouses are in theory unique but the government is not involved in helping us find one. Food is critical for life and yet the government does not provide it for us.

Politicians (and teachers), for self-interested reasons I suspect, have given us the impression that governments will take care of us. Maybe this is the source of the misconception.

----

To return to the thread's topic, I am merely saying that government is the ideal institution to finance broadcasting (or wi-fi networks). Government is a sensible and cheap way to provide this particular service. Why? Because this service is either/or. It is common in Montreal for people to log on to a neighbour's LAN, and get truly free Internet access. The extra user costs society nothing.

Montgomery Burns · February 25, 2006

August 1991, the taxpayers should not be funding artists. If their art is so good, they should be able to make it on their own.

I would not appreciate funding "art" like Piss Christ and the Madonna smeared with elephant dung farce...and I am not even religious.

If artists think that crap like that will sell, they should have no problem making it on their own. Right?

Montgomery Burns · February 25, 2006

You grossly misrepresented that first stat.
Only 29% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement about the CBC providing value for taxpayers money. You conveniently lumped in the 48% who somewhat agreed? Nice, work. As the old saying goes about lies, damned lies and statistics.

Good working attacking the evil conservatives with your second point. If only we had gotten support from all 71% of the population who don't strongly feel we are getting value for taxpayer dollars from the CBC.

I don't see your point. When asked 77% of people felt they got value for their tax money from the CBC. In a more recent online poll on G&M, 65% said Canada needs the CBC.

CBC has a lot of public support - enough to justify its gov't funding. I realize that there is a segment of conservative thinkers in this country have convinced themselves that nobody cares about the CBC however I don't believe the facts support that conclusion.

Actually, it is quite common to lump "strongly agreed" and "somewhat agreed" together. However it is just a survey.

And why are you wasting yor time replying to August1991's ridiculous "20 pounds of potatoes" analogy for the CBC?

Pffft.

Montgomery Burns · February 25, 2006

Sparhawk:

Different people watch/listen to different shows at different times. The total number of people who watch some CBC programming some of the time is much larger than the number of people who watch a single show at a single time.

Oh fer cripes sake, Sparhawk. Week after week, month after month, and year after year the CBC's ratings are poor, but you are trying to push the results of some poll 2 years ago as a justification for having a state-run taxpayer-funded TV station.

Why won't you be honest? Come out and admit it.

You want conservative Canadians to continue to fund a hard-left anti-conservative propaganda news station because you are frightened of losing control of (dis)information for the Canadian public.

geoffrey · February 25, 2006

Sparhawk:
Different people watch/listen to different shows at different times. The total number of people who watch some CBC programming some of the time is much larger than the number of people who watch a single show at a single time.

Oh fer cripes sake, Sparhawk. Week after week, month after month, and year after year the CBC's ratings are poor, but you are trying to push the results of some poll 2 years ago as a justification for having a state-run taxpayer-funded TV station.

Why won't you be honest? Come out and admit it.

You want conservative Canadians to continue to fund a hard-left anti-conservative propaganda news station because you are frightened of losing control of (dis)information for the Canadian public.

Whoa! Hang on a second.

Apparent bias (which does exist) is no excuse to remove the CBC. I have no problem with them speaking their views and personally, though conservative, I enjoy watching the CBC as a perspective of those different than I in politics. When we start axing media for bias I'm seriously concerned for our future in a democracy.

However, state ownership of media is a valid reason to remove the CBC, and it can be argued across these lines fairly. It troubles me that a media outlet is funded by those that should be their primary target of criticism. Something is wrong with that concept, no?

Montgomery Burns · February 25, 2006

Sparhawk:

Different people watch/listen to different shows at different times. The total number of people who watch some CBC programming some of the time is much larger than the number of people who watch a single show at a single time.

Oh fer cripes sake, Sparhawk. Week after week, month after month, and year after year the CBC's ratings are poor, but you are trying to push the results of some poll 2 years ago as a justification for having a state-run taxpayer-funded TV station.

Why won't you be honest? Come out and admit it.

You want conservative Canadians to continue to fund a hard-left anti-conservative propaganda news station because you are frightened of losing control of (dis)information for the Canadian public.

Whoa! Hang on a second.

Apparent bias (which does exist) is no excuse to remove the CBC. I have no problem with them speaking their views and personally, though conservative, I enjoy watching the CBC as a perspective of those different than I in politics. When we start axing media for bias I'm seriously concerned for our future in a democracy.

However, state ownership of media is a valid reason to remove the CBC, and it can be argued across these lines fairly. It troubles me that a media outlet is funded by those that should be their primary target of criticism. Something is wrong with that concept, no?

Whoa nothing. I resent being forced to pay for a channel that repeatedly mocks conservatives--a channel that repeatedly mocks me and my values. If they were private, they can do whatever the hell they want.

Watch the video in my next post and ask yourself why you are forced to pay for this--this that is mocking you and your values?

Can you recall the state-run CBC mocking Layton and Martin in this fashion?

This is a democracy? A station that is very wary of mocking liberals? Of course they are leery? Would you mock liberals if you knew that it might cost you your chance at getting the cushy Governor Generalship of Canada?

geoffrey · February 25, 2006

Sparhawk:

Different people watch/listen to different shows at different times. The total number of people who watch some CBC programming some of the time is much larger than the number of people who watch a single show at a single time.

Oh fer cripes sake, Sparhawk. Week after week, month after month, and year after year the CBC's ratings are poor, but you are trying to push the results of some poll 2 years ago as a justification for having a state-run taxpayer-funded TV station.

Why won't you be honest? Come out and admit it.

You want conservative Canadians to continue to fund a hard-left anti-conservative propaganda news station because you are frightened of losing control of (dis)information for the Canadian public.

Whoa! Hang on a second.

Apparent bias (which does exist) is no excuse to remove the CBC. I have no problem with them speaking their views and personally, though conservative, I enjoy watching the CBC as a perspective of those different than I in politics. When we start axing media for bias I'm seriously concerned for our future in a democracy.

However, state ownership of media is a valid reason to remove the CBC, and it can be argued across these lines fairly. It troubles me that a media outlet is funded by those that should be their primary target of criticism. Something is wrong with that concept, no?

Whoa nothing. I resent being forced to pay for a channel that repeatedly mocks conservatives--a channel that repeatedly mocks me and my values. If they were private, they can do whatever the hell they want.

Watch the video in my next post and ask yourself why you are forced to pay for this--this that is mocking you and your values?

Can you recall the state-run CBC mocking Layton and Martin in this fashion?

This is a democracy? A station that is very wary of mocking liberals? Of course they are leery? Would you mock liberals if you knew that it might cost you your chance at getting the cushy Governor Generalship of Canada?

Monty, monty, monty. I agree with you. It's only the state-ownership that I object to though. If people want to be critical of conservative values, they have every right to, on their own dime.

Your last two paragraphs there are completely in line with my thinking, but honestly if they want to be privately funded and mock conservatives, then they should be allowed to do so freely.

August1991 · February 25, 2006

August 1991, the taxpayers should not be funding artists. If their art is so good, they should be able to make it on their own.
I would not appreciate funding "art" like Piss Christ and the Madonna smeared with elephant dung farce...and I am not even religious.

If artists think that crap like that will sell, they should have no problem making it on their own. Right?

And yet, the idea of an artist such as Isaac Newton is of incalculable benefit for us all. Not only those alive when he figured out his ideas, but also those alive today. How can we repay Newton for his discovery?

We have all benefitted from Newton's ideas and we should encourage more ideas like them. How?

In your scheme MB, artists like Newton should be able to make it on their own, in their own time, according to existing markets and property rights. I'm not so certain a hit-or-miss system is wise. (Newton got absolutely nothing from his discovery of differential calculus. How many ideas in the past died with their author?)

----

Let me repeat again that I dislike the CBC content, but I like the idea of the CBC. Proof? I see a difference between Radio-Canada and the CBC.

Having State-financed, commercial free radio/TV is a good idea. (Announcements could be allowed, if they were interesting.) The question is how to organize this. The CBC is apparently more-or-less a failure. To exagerate, it's a Left-Wing, federal Liberal mouth-piece.

Well, how to make the CBC more fair or accurate or diverse?

Montgomery Burns · February 25, 2006

Video of state-run taxpayer-funded CBC mocking Stephen Harper in a...gay wedding?

Canadian conservative tax dollars at work!

CBC employee Bill Richardson--in drag wearing high heels, panties, and a bustier--licking a cutout of Stephen Harper and saying "today, a brand new sun is rising on Canadian politics". Then the male masseuse lowers the towel exposing Richardson’s rear-end and Richardson asks: "Is that the crack of dawn?"

Hahaha. That's so funny. :rolleyes:

Then they cut to a mock gay wedding between Richardson and his male counterpart (at "Dude Cottage"), who are being married by a woman dressed as a priest holding a mask of Stephen Harper over her face and who, instead of holding a bible, is holding a Stephen Harper biography book. When told they may now kiss, Richardson lifts the veil covering the face of his male partner, and reveals not his partner but a what we are to believe is a devil in the form of Stephen Harper, complete with ominous flashing green eyes.

And there is even more from the CBC's Bill Richardson video: Jesus = Hitler:

The crossdressing Richardson reviews the latest book by famous American author Ann Rice, called “Christ the Lord - Out of Egypt”. In his recipe for this book, he makes the bizarre statement that as a “garnish” for the book, which follows the life of Jesus up to the age of 12, you should also read a book called Young Adolf—about the life of Adolf Hitler up to the age of 12. They then zoom in on the cover of the Young Adolf book.

Again, from my OP, why? Why in the everloving #$@$@# am I forced to pay for this crap?

I'm not even religious and and I find this offensive. I'm no prude--definitely not but I resent being forced to pay for this crap! :angry:

Perhaps I'm just not "progressive".

It is time to privatize the CBC. Only banana republics have a state-run channel run by hedonistic hard-leftists who mock traditional values. What the hell is wrong with Canadians who insist that Canada should have a state-run channel? And don't give me that "Canadian culture" crap? You've all seen the ratings.

If the CBC is so confident that their "Canadian values" resonant with the public, then they should have no probs making it out there in the "real world" without funding of $1 billion annually.

Right?

August1991 · February 25, 2006

Canadian conservative tax dollars at work!
CBC employee Bill Richardson--in drag wearing high heels, panties, and a bustier--licking a cutout of Stephen Harper and saying "today, a brand new sun is rising on Canadian politics". Then the male masseuse lowers the towel exposing Richardson’s rear-end and Richardson asks: "Is that the crack of dawn?"

MB, you paid about $2.50 in February for everything the CBC did, including Bill Richardson in drag. I think that's cheap.

----

Let me be more direct.

You can pay the $2.50 by listening to irritating and repeated advertising jingles that you don't listen to and for products you are not in the market for and have no intention to buy.

Or, you can pay $2.50 through your taxes and avoid the adverts and noisy jingles.

IMHO, I think the tax scheme is a better way to pay.

----

This thread is really about why the CBC is so Liberal-slash-left wing. I think the CBC should hire Anne Coulter as a news commentator. Better, the CBC should hire Mark Steyn to do two hours a day.

MB, if the CBC hired Mark Steyn to broadcast for two hours after Anna-Maria Tremonte, would you be happy, MB? (It'd be all commercial-free.)

Hell, I'd pay $2.50 a month for that.

geoffrey · February 25, 2006

That fact that I can't choose what I pay for its partially my issue. I'm one of those that isn't arguing from content, I could care less whats on TV as long as I can choose not to pay for it. Sadly, I have to support some government bonus service I'm completely opposed to fundamentally. How is that democracy?

This isn't health care or education... this is a needless squandering of tax money. Between CBC and a few thousand doctors, it's not hard where I'd put my $2.50.

theloniusfleabag · February 25, 2006

Dear August1991,

Let me be more direct.
You can pay the $2.50 by listening to irritating and repeated advertising jingles that you don't listen to and for products you are not in the market for and have no intention to buy.

I think you are missing Burns' point. The farther right you go, the more 'state input' (funded by all) is unwelcome (whether it be art or media and especially business), regardless of cost or content.

I like the CBC. I prefer it to the low-brow local commercial radio buffoons playing the flavour of the week ad nauseum., punctuated by fart and breast jokes. CBC radio is fantastic in its diversity, from 'up and coming' metal thrashers on friday and/or saturday nights, to "Quirks and Quarks" and other 'knowledge imparting' programs.

However, I also listen to CKUA in Alberta, a 'voluntarily publicly funded' radio station that I think is equally brilliant. I think Burn's argument is ...why should one media outlet receive monies forcibly taken from you (ala Hugo and his Libertarian stance) when all others, including some similar, be accountable for their own expenses?

Further, what purpose could state-funded media serve (besides itself) that would so outweigh the 'right of choice' of the individual?

speaker · February 25, 2006

I don't think that the CBC inhibits anyones choice in viewing. As anyone whose head isn't on fire can see the CBC does display a varied set of viewpoints depending on who is working on any given show, at any particular time.

The cuts that the CBC has already gone through since the early '80s do have a limiting effect on who those individuals are however. Lloyd Robertson didn't leave CBC because he suddenly wanted a change of scene. He left because the CBC could no longer compete for his services with an organization like CTV. The cuts have done similar damage to the quality and longevity of the CBC staff from one coast to the other and from one medium to the other. For the right to now turn around and complain that their minimal amount of tax dollars are being used to produce poor shows is just a tad.......... , you know I can't think of a word for that kind of mentality, other than self-serving.

It is however an indication that we are paying more for private broadcasting than we are for public. I for one am fed up to here with it because frankly I don't see it as being as good.

Other countries don't have publicly paid for broadcasting? The US pays for it's armed forces media. I think I saw that it has ten different services completely blanketing the world. A pretty penny I expect is paid for by American Taxpayers. The CBC also provides this service as well as giving us some humour that mature minds can take or leave.

Montgomery Burns · February 25, 2006

Canadian conservative tax dollars at work!

CBC employee Bill Richardson--in drag wearing high heels, panties, and a bustier--licking a cutout of Stephen Harper and saying "today, a brand new sun is rising on Canadian politics". Then the male masseuse lowers the towel exposing Richardson’s rear-end and Richardson asks: "Is that the crack of dawn?"

MB, you paid about $2.50 in February for everything the CBC did, including Bill Richardson in drag. I think that's cheap.

----

Let me be more direct.

You can pay the $2.50 by listening to irritating and repeated advertising jingles that you don't listen to and for products you are not in the market for and have no intention to buy.

Or, you can pay $2.50 through your taxes and avoid the adverts and noisy jingles.

IMHO, I think the tax scheme is a better way to pay.

----

This thread is really about why the CBC is so Liberal-slash-left wing. I think the CBC should hire Anne Coulter as a news commentator. Better, the CBC should hire Mark Steyn to do two hours a day.

MB, if the CBC hired Mark Steyn to broadcast for two hours after Anna-Maria Tremonte, would you be happy, MB? (It'd be all commercial-free.)

Hell, I'd pay $2.50 a month for that.

I'd rather take that $2.50/mth ($30/yr) and take Kelly out for supper....or invest that $30....or buy a pair of pants for myself....or buy Kelly a naughty/nice piece of lingerie...or have us go to a movie.

Would I wish that Ann Coulter or Mark Steyn had equal time on the CBC to rebut their social liberalism? Of course! But you and I know that would never happen. I would prefer Steyn (who I believe is one of today's the most important social and political commentators) over Coulter, but you are going off topic.

Again, I repeat, I see no reason why the state should be competing against its private citizens.

The "state" had a 5 year ban on the wildly successful private Fox News Channel; a news source that offers more open debate than any channel in Canada--even more than Global.

Again, why am I forced to pay for a channel that mocks me and my values? I'm just a regular joe--like the 36.5% of Canadians who voted conservative. I'm not a bad guy and I do not deserve to be mocked--with my own tax dollars.

You are missing my point.

I do not think that Stephen Harper is the devil.

I do not think that the CBC should be targetting teens for ball waxing,

meathooks in their back and swinging across the ceiling,

promoting vandalism,

having a guy dressed up in high heels, panties, and a bustier licking a cutout drawing of Harper,

comparing a book about Jesus to Adolf Hitler,

comparing the guy I voted for as the devil,

videos of 2 men sticking their tongues down each others throats,

drunk/stoned teen girls fantasizing about "doing" the fuzzy boom microphone,

teens declaring "I hate clothes" and streaking thru a parking lot full of ppl--and likely children,

an American expat who goes into a long tirade about how America (a country I admire) sucks--and concludes that "George Bush is a monkey",

and cartoons showing a guy getting a "boner" in class.

I'd rather spend that $30 buying Kelly a dozen roses and putting her in a great mood which will.....well, ya know.

Again, for the 3rd or 4th time, why am I forced to pay for something I disagree with?

Choice. Does anyone know what this means?

Places like Cuba, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq, and Europe have state-run TV. Why does Canda want to emulate these failed societies?

Again, why am I forced to pay for something I disagree with? It's a TV channel, not a life and death situation for some sick person.

They can't even compete with Canada's 2 private stations. Why am I forced to prop up a channel that refuses to divulge their expenses for their trip to Lousiana for a Katrina fundraiser? I am paying for that trip and they damn well should divulge their expenses to Louisiana!

August1991 · February 25, 2006

Again, for the 3rd or 4th time, why am I forced to pay for something I disagree with?

MB, you pay for paving roads on which trucks drive to deliver newspapers/magazines you disagree with. Is that wrong?

Civilized society organizes itself to achieve its goals in the easiest, least cost way.

MB, you'd have society choose another, moral (according to you) way to achieve its ends.

Since you pay taxes to build roads, should you have the right to forbid transport of pork on a road because, as you note, you disagree with the consumption of pork? Should all roads be private? What criteria should we use for government intervention?

-----

OMG, the Left and the Right is clueless about why the State exists, and why we have government.

fellowtraveller · February 25, 2006

August 1991, perhaps we are getting closer to an answer here.

Civilized society organizes itself to achieve its goals in the easiest, least cost way.

And government must prioritize the very lengthy list of services that some citizens demand. At present , the federal government has allocated some considerable funds to a public broadcasting service. At present, relatively few Candians watch or listen to the network.

A couple of questions first, one question really.

In 2006, what do you see as the purpose of the CBC? What does it do today that serves Canadians, all Canadians? What social policy goal is met by the CBC? For ease of discussion, lets restrict it to English language service.

Montgomery Burns · February 25, 2006

Again, for the 3rd or 4th time, why am I forced to pay for something I disagree with?
MB, you pay for paving roads on which trucks drive to deliver newspapers/magazines you disagree with. Is that wrong?
Civilized society organizes itself to achieve its goals in the easiest, least cost way.

MB, you'd have society choose another, moral (according to you) way to achieve its ends.

Since you pay taxes to build roads, should you have the right to forbid transport of pork on a road because, as you note, you disagree with the consumption of pork? Should all roads be private? What criteria should we use for government intervention?

-----

OMG, the Left and the Right is clueless about why the State exists, and why we have government.

Let's talk apples and apples, instead of apples and oranges.

Why won't you address my points?

Quit trying to blur this with analogies of paved roads and 20 lb bags of potatoes.

Why should conservatives be forced to fund a hard-left TV station that constantly mocks and ridicules conservatives?

Can I force you to pay me to come over to your house and mock and ridicule you?

margrace · February 25, 2006

Again, for the 3rd or 4th time, why am I forced to pay for something I disagree with?
MB, you pay for paving roads on which trucks drive to deliver newspapers/magazines you disagree with. Is that wrong?
Civilized society organizes itself to achieve its goals in the easiest, least cost way.

MB, you'd have society choose another, moral (according to you) way to achieve its ends.

Since you pay taxes to build roads, should you have the right to forbid transport of pork on a road because, as you note, you disagree with the consumption of pork? Should all roads be private? What criteria should we use for government intervention?

-----

OMG, the Left and the Right is clueless about why the State exists, and why we have government.

Let's talk apples and apples, instead of apples and oranges.

Why won't you address my points?

Quit trying to blur this with analogies of paved roads and 20 lb bags of potatoes.

Why should conservatives be forced to fund a hard-left TV station that constantly mocks and ridicules conservatives?

Can I force you to pay me to come over to your house and mock and ridicule you?

The bottom line is a government whether democratic or dictatorship needs to have one CBC type station to question what is going on. An example of control is the Bush goverments cuts to PBS, and its putting a very right wing person in control of its finances.

What is being suggested on here is that we do the same. As long as there is free TV or free press it is a threat to those who want to control the minds of the citizens. That in the long run is what this is all about. The loss of our good services such as available train service from coast to coast has hurt the ordinary persons ability to travel. The loss of the CBC would put more of a limit on the ordinary persons ability to hear a side of a story not promoted by big business.

No matter what anyone argues on here, and these are rather intellectual arguments, the bottom line is the insidious break up of Canada as a country and control by those who promote the very obvious fact that a prominant group of Americans believe that Canada belongs to them and not as a free country.