Canadian media trying their best to bury Harper.

[pinetree]

Sorry August1991. Thnks fr wlcm. That ws my 3rd pst on ML. Lots of bxs to clk. I'l be crfl. in futr.(if atall).

[jbg]

Deleted

[mikedavid00]

I wish taxpayers wouldn't have to fund CBC anymore.

You would still have to deal with the rest of the Liberal media.

You can ask the Conservatives to end protection of the media industry in Canada and let American companies buy TV, radio and newspapers. Then, Canadian television and radio and newspapers could be affilates of U.S. companies like FOX. Then news would be fair and balanced.

I don't know about that.. picture the spin CTV would have on the news:

Steve Harper (Picture this in the house of commons with him standing up and his Stevie voice": "We feel it is unfair amongst Canadian owned private media to compete against state sponsored CBC. We are going to drastically cut funding to the CBC and create a level playing field for the other media outlets."

-That would be music to all other media's ears and you can be sure there news stories would shed Harper in a positive light.

It's unfair for private owned morning radio stations to compete with a staff of 16 people and HUGE budgets. The masses listen to CBC and not small AM talk radio. When CBC is FORCED to advertise like everyone else, there would be a whole new landscape for private owned radio.

[mikedavid00]

like 'Martin is the most sinlge retarted person beside Trudeau and Crientien.

Yeah, and he spells bad too.

ream my sig

[mikedavid00]

Becuase they don't have a majority gov't. If the house votes, they will vote against the PC's motion because all parties except the PC are very left wing and are more or less in bed with the CBC. It's also too soon to do drastic things like take away the brainwashing of the Canadian people.

I don't feel they should eliminate the CBC, but rather just fund it down to 200 million. The CBC can then decide where to cut the fat (ie: spending horrendous amounts of money on International correspondents to run 5 min radio clips of 'The Unmarried Pregnant Women in Sudan'. Or 'A Small Russian Town's Power Shortage.'

It is probably better to cut it entirely if that is the intent of the Conservatives. You couldn't run Wayne's World with that budget. It would just be a waste.

Ah ah. They would be forced to advertise and cut the fat.

The CBC should not be in the business of broadcasting american reality shows so they can sell advertisments to raise a profit. They should be a truly Canadian oriented station and only show Canadian content. I do believe it's important that we keep our heritage.

If CBC went private, all that would happen is AOL Warner would buy them out because they would have no clue on how to run a true private enterprise and run themselves to the ground. Media companies don't go under - they get bought.

If you *drastically* cut their budget and regulate them to true Canadian content, they are forced to make tons of layoffs, have advertising, and oustource all their foriegn correspondents like everyone else.

They would be more like a PBS and turn to fund raisers and such and get more low budget and smaller.

[jdobbin]

Ah ah. They would be forced to advertise and cut the fat.

The CBC should not be in the business of broadcasting american reality shows so they can sell advertisments to raise a profit. They should be a truly Canadian oriented station and only show Canadian content. I do believe it's important that we keep our heritage.

If CBC went private, all that would happen is AOL Warner would buy them out because they would have no clue on how to run a true private enterprise and run themselves to the ground. Media companies don't go under - they get bought.

If you *drastically* cut their budget and regulate them to true Canadian content, they are forced to make tons of layoffs, have advertising, and oustource all their foriegn correspondents like everyone else.

They would be more like a PBS and turn to fund raisers and such and get more low budget and smaller.

I'd rather they sell it than see it become a joke. Seriously.

I think CBC should end the commercials, get out of sports and receive stable funding from the government. if not, sell it and end Canadian broadcasting altogether.

[jbg]

Ah ah. They would be forced to advertise and cut the fat.

The CBC should not be in the business of broadcasting american reality shows so they can sell advertisments to raise a profit. They should be a truly Canadian oriented station and only show Canadian content. I do believe it's important that we keep our heritage.

If CBC went private, all that would happen is AOL Warner would buy them out because they would have no clue on how to run a true private enterprise and run themselves to the ground. Media companies don't go under - they get bought.

If you *drastically* cut their budget and regulate them to true Canadian content, they are forced to make tons of layoffs, have advertising, and oustource all their foriegn correspondents like everyone else.

They would be more like a PBS and turn to fund raisers and such and get more low budget and smaller.

I'd rather they sell it than see it become a joke. Seriously.

I think CBC should end the commercials, get out of sports and receive stable funding from the government. if not, sell it and end Canadian broadcasting altogether.

Sort of like our PBS used to be before they started taking commercials? They also need to cut out the regular anti-American humor, such as Rick Mercer (even though I did try to book an ocean liner cruise from Calgary to Winnipeg, by way of Saskatoon, with a return via Regina and Edmonton).

[BubberMiley]

Sort of like our PBS used to be before they started taking commercials? They also need to cut out the regular anti-American humor, such as Rick Mercer (even though I did try to book an ocean liner cruise from Calgary to Winnipeg, by way of Saskatoon, with a return via Regina and Edmonton).

If you think Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans is anti-American, you don't know anti-American.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I think CBC should end the commercials, get out of sports and receive stable funding from the government.

That would take what - another $600million of our money?

Yuck!

[Argus]

Sort of like our PBS used to be before they started taking commercials? They also need to cut out the regular anti-American humor, such as Rick Mercer (even though I did try to book an ocean liner cruise from Calgary to Winnipeg, by way of Saskatoon, with a return via Regina and Edmonton).

If you think Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans is anti-American, you don't know anti-American.

Of course it's anti-American, in its sneeering assumption of superiority and its determination to make Americans look ignorant. The local paper asked around and found a huge chunk of people they interviewed couldn't name who Canada's first prime minister was or when confederation was. It's not hard to find ignorant people anywhere on any subject. Aiming specifically at Americans - and you can bet that those who answer capably and intelligently are left on the cutting room floor - and aiming to make them look stupid is anti-American.

How about I start a show called "talking to Arabs-Canadians"? I will, with a straight face, ask them certain questions and they will make people laugh with their inept, stupid and ignorant answers. We'll run this every week. Think the CBC will pick it up? We can substitue Quebecers for Arabs if you like, or Blacks, or Jews, or anyone else the Left feels worthy of being protected.

The Left has long had an open season on Americans, though, so anything, any ridicule, however unfair, is fine with them.

[jdobbin]

I think CBC should end the commercials, get out of sports and receive stable funding from the government.

That would take what - another $600million of our money?

Yuck!

The BBC, which has one one time zone, is funded by $6 billion a year. The CBC, with multiple time zones and jurisdictions, less than a billion. At the moment, the CBC is spread too far and asked to do too much.

If the Conservative want to cut funding, it will just make it an even worse network. Drop it all together if that is the intent.

Most Canadians, according to polls, are not interested in any Canadian broadcasting except perhaps a local news. Perhaps it is time to sell it all.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I think CBC should end the commercials, get out of sports and receive stable funding from the government.

That would take what - another $600million of our money?

Yuck!

The BBC, which has one one time zone, is funded by $6 billion a year. The CBC, with multiple time zones and jurisdictions, less than a billion. At the moment, the CBC is spread too far and asked to do too much.

If the Conservative want to cut funding, it will just make it an even worse network. Drop it all together if that is the intent.

Most Canadians, according to polls, are not interested in any Canadian broadcasting except perhaps a local news. Perhaps it is time to sell it all.

You won't get any tears from me if the CBC bites the dust.

[gerryhatrick]

You won't get any tears from me if the CBC bites the dust.

The CBC is more of a cerebral source of news and entertainment.

Where do you get your information? Talk radio?

The CBC will never "bite the dust". Such a move would be the death-knell for any political party who tried it, and the next government would be elected on a promise to restore it.

[gerryhatrick]

What to you makes more of a newsworthy story?

"Montreal Woman Blames Harper For Her Family Dying"

or,

"Montreal Widow Announces: "Hezbollah is our protector"

Those are both positive to Harper.

The ridiculousness of your perceived bias is stunning. You're basically complaining because you're not seeing rightwing bias. I read the news and watch TV, and I've seen in both mediums that woman saying Hezbollah is a protector. It's not being missed. You complain that it's not the headline.

Making the title about the woman blaming Harper is not negative to him, that's actually the most newsworthy piece of information. And what does the average Canadian think when they read that? Even those of us who think Harper had a big mouth last Friday and has the wrong attitude in general about the conflict recognize that such an accusation has no credibility and the woman loses credibility by making it.

Crying about bias over that shows a lack of understanding of people and attitudes

I've seen a lot in the last few days (including CBC, btw) about Harper flying people back from Cyprus and how it's being painted as a humanitarian gesture and how he's stayed on the tarmac to avoid any perceptions of a photo op.

It never ceases to amaze how the rightwing complains about bias if they don't see enough bias to the right. Straight-up news makes them cry about bias!

And what is the "big lib media" in Canada, btw? Would that be SunMedia? BellGlobe media? Winnipeg Free Press? National Post? Talk Radio? CTV? Stop me when I get to it...

Never did here anything back from you on this MikeDavid00. With this explanation can you recognize that what you're seeing as bias actually is not?

[jbg]

Of course it's anti-American, in its sneeering assumption of superiority and its determination to make Americans look ignorant. The local paper asked around and found a huge chunk of people they interviewed couldn't name who Canada's first prime minister was or when confederation was.

Without googling, so maybe not right, John MacDonald and 1867.

[jdobbin]

You won't get any tears from me if the CBC bites the dust.

There probably wouldn't be any tears either if CTV and Global were part of NBC and FOX.

[Guest Warwick Green]

You won't get any tears from me if the CBC bites the dust.

The CBC is more of a cerebral source of news and entertainment.

Where do you get your information? Talk radio?

The CBC will never "bite the dust". Such a move would be the death-knell for any political party who tried it, and the next government would be elected on a promise to restore it.

Various sources - radio, other TV networks, and on-line news media.

I agree. We are stuck with the CBC. There is enough support from the liberals that it's infeasible to get rid of it - even though very few people watch it.

[jdobbin]

Various sources - radio, other TV networks, and on-line news media.

I agree. We are stuck with the CBC. There is enough support from the liberals that it's infeasible to get rid of it - even though very few people watch it.

Or any Canadian television for that matter. You could argue, there should be no Cancon committments or foreign ownership restrictions on radio and TV and let them join with bigger companies in the U.S. It would be good for shareholders in Canada.

[Topaz]

First of all. not ALL media is "liberal" as you would like most of us to believe. Secondly, HArper did do something that even his friend Bush hasn't done and probably wouldn't do.... share his plane with other citizens and got them out of danger. That's one for Harper, if he did it out of the goodness of his heart.

[AndrewL]

Harpers government reaffirmed the mission, and now we are just occupying that nation and not really promoting secular or liberal values. Democracy only goes so far, it takes liberalism (classical western liberalism, not the narrow liberal VS conservative liberalism of domestic politics) and secularism to make a nation free.

You sound like one of those conspiracy bums that sit out on the street corner. How can we 'occupy' a nation that is begging us to stay through a democratically elected government of the people?

You are a selfish person if you believe that your so far above everyone else in the world that you just don't give a damn. It's people like that that have got us into the mess to being with, allowing poverty to flourish under totalitarian regimes. Free the people and their market and they will prosper.

So what you are saying is you support hardcore islamic regimes? Of course i give a damn, that is precisely why i do not want my tax money going to prop up yet another theocracy in that region.

Free the people? That is ridiculous. The people will do what they want, all we are doing is protecting a government who enjoy some support in the capital. Many afghanis are calling for a return to the stability of the taliban.... and these are the type of religious fanatics that will control afghanistan whether Canada is there or not. We cannot change that. In fact we are helping to promote it.

The only desirable type of government on the planet is one that is secular and liberal. Those should be the only governments that we should support.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

All we have now is a few Canadian soldiers getting killed, and a waste of my taxes, helping to promote a backwards religious government that has no interest in freedom. And that means we need to get the hell out, pronto.

Andrew

That Martin sent in.

I don't agree with them being there either, but it was Martin who started it and the house voted to keep them there. I say, we should keep them there for this term only and bring them back.

I think it was typical vote pandering that got them there anway. I was amazed the morning I heard them announce that they were sending troops into Afganistan. I'm like 'Martin is the most sinlge retarted person beside Trudeau and Crientien.

All politicians are pretty low on the list of people i have any respect for. But I will say that Martin originally sent them in because there was originally a mission to get rid of AQ. That has been done, now we should leave. A western nation occupying an islamic nation is about the stupidest thing a nation can do.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Affirming what? Not all Bush's policies have been discredited. Many just have a problem with the way he's carrying them out, and the sometimes shoody, slipshod planning. The war against terrorism is not a discredited Bush policy. Being in support of democratic groups and against terrorism is not a discredited Bush policy. Fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over HERE is not a discredited Bush policy.

Nonsense. The foreign policy of violently introducing elections into nations is bogus. Iraq and Afghanistan both prove that quite conclusively. In fact, the idea of pushing democracy as if it is the end all be all is just silly, democracy itself is nether good nor bad, it just gives people a way to partially shape policy (or just have the illusion that they are). In the ME we are dealing with highly religious people, most who are completely disillusioned by american heavy handedness and one sided economic policies. This means they will vote against america when they are given the chance, and they will vote for fundamentalism.

What is good from a security perspective for western nations is a nice tolerant people who subscribe to classical western liberalism. Democracy is functional only when people are tolerant of each other, just relying on democracy to produce sane, peaceful, and calm people is just stupid. If anything it only gives legitamacy to their intolerance, as people in this region evidently tend to vote for backwards religious half-wits.

If Bush had a policy of introducing classical liberalism to these people it would still fail but at least he would make some sense. The entire idea of saving people by blowing them up and killing their children is really only for the extremely dumb. Violence should only be reserved strictly for self-defense, not nation building and in some childish pursuit of hegemony. What Bush has done amounts to nothing other than state inflicted terror, and to fight a War on Terror by using terror is fully discredited, and always has been among serious people, save for the national post and fox news.

Bush's policy of violence in pursuit of peace against nations that are not a threat, and moreso against the people of those nations that have never been a threat, is just not working and most sane people recognized that before it even started.

Politically, this is utter nonsense. Harper would be better off, in terms of local popularity, to take a harder line with Bush, continue to expound that phony, feel-good liberal "neutrality" that so many Canadians seem to feel makes us international darlings, and do nothing that could cause bad publicity. Blair and Howard have also taken popularity hits for siding with Bush. Both would have been better off, for domestic, political reasons, to oppose him, or at least be somewhat belicose and doubtful.

No its not. Politicians always play to their base. Bush does it by pandering to hard-core religious evangelicals who can hardly wait for Israel to usher in the end times or put an end to all science, either through banning it outright or abusing it through brainwashing ones children with the teaching of creationism and demonizing of Darwin.

Harper does it through appealing to the conservative base in Alberta who want nothing more than extremely close economic and political ties to the US regardless of the consequeces. Be it environmental destruction or going off on the war path. This is just pandering all the same and it is exactly what Harper is doing. Sure he might lose some mainstream votes, if people in the mainstream even care or bother to vote, but he cannot afford to alienate his base. This is common and expected of politicians, the dastardly sycophants that they are.

And when has that ever happened? Pearson did it once. No prime minister since then has "taken the lead" in any foreign crisis. None have even been involved in any substantive way. We are not a player, not even a small player. Internationally, we are nobodies.

I want them to do it. I am sick of being constantly dissapointed. All you are saying is Harper sucks because we suck. If what you say is true than we should not bother with things like the G8, NATO, or the UN at all, we should immediately cease any foreign policy work, completely disband the military, and put those dollars to better use here at home.

Why? Because we have to once again express our nobility and self-righteousness at what others are doing? Because they're being (eek!) violent and stuff? We Canadians turn up our noses at such behaviour. We know that it's never necessary - even though, of course, we've never faced danger or terrorism to speak of.

Still, we know that if everyone just hugs and holds hands and sings Solidarity Forever all war and fighting will end and peace will reign forever. Right?

No because Israel in her present form only exists through the violation of international law and Canada should be pressing for Israel to first honor her obligations as a nation beholden to international law and norms before she resorts to completely insane and cruel state terror that will never lead to any security in the region. Sure we can admonish and condemn Hezbollah and Hamas all we want, and we should, but we also have to demand that Israel abide by international law and should first compromise on all the outstanding issues to do with palestinian statehood, something they have never done seriously. Only then can Israel says she has tried every diplomatic path and has tried to avoid war. By standing beside Israel at this time we are affirming that international law is unimportant and we need not abide by it. This makes Harper party to a crime, at the same time he is just cheaply pandering to his base.

Let's see. It worked to keep Israel from being overrun a number of times. It worked to win Jerusalem. It worked to gain them secure and peaceful borders with Syria and Egypt. And ultimately, it will work here, as well.

It did not work when it failed to stop Israel from overrunning the people who were already there and from being displaced from their land and livelihood. We wouldnt be in this pickle now if Israel was not allowed to use violence and terror to create a state in the first place where there were already people subsisting on the land.

Fine. Israel exists now, just as Canada is allowed to exist on stolen lands, but the people whom they displaced illegally have a right to resist it. If you support Israels right to exist through violece why would you not support the palestinian right to exist through violence? That is really what it comes down to and why groups like Hezbollah and Hamas exist in the first place. Israel has their patron in the US, and palestinians have their patrons in Iran and Syria. Its not Canadas business to interfere in this, it is only our duty to promote a diplomatic solution to this crisis.

Actually not true. Canada has not been any kind of real player on the international stage in decades None of the oh-so neutral countries are. Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland? Nobody gives a crap about them. The players are the likes of Russia and the US, France and the UK.

Canada was an important part of the Kyoto agreement, Mulroney is often credited with convincing Bush Sr. of going the route of the UN and building a real coalition in the first gulf war. Pearson was very progressive in his ideas for international peace-keeping. Canada played a huge role in WWII. Canada used to have a role. If harpers statements lately are any inclination of his future policy, we might as well not even have one, we can just sit back and watch america decide how the world is to be.

Siding with the US and Israel is certainly not the easy route.

It is if you dont want to deal with americas tit-for-tat policy decisions against us in trade and commerce Is their not a higher international principle than cronyism and profit regardless of the consequences?

You mean make wishy-washy mouth noises without commiting ourselves to anything, and stand back so we can keep our pretty sandals clean? You call this leadership?

We could commit ourselves to the principles of international law, we could recognize that the massacre of civilians of another country, when those civilians are not engaged in any violence against your nation, is not in the interests of peace, and that history has shown us that this only creates more violence and terror. If by commiting ourselves to something you mean the wholesale destruction of lebanon? well we have not commited ourselves to that at all, we have just refused to condemn it, which makes us part of the problem in the ME not part of any real solution.

Andrew