In this democracy you're allowed to hold and express minority opinions.
Yeah, especially when someone else pays for it.
CBC 2011 federal election political compass
- Thread starter Corduroy
- Start date
In this democracy you're allowed to hold and express minority opinions.
Yeah, especially when someone else pays for it.
The last line is exactly my point. The CBC was built to provide access to information nation-wide, and has completely out-lived that role.
There is no longer an excuse to keep paying for it out of the public purse.
Especially when it is such an obvious shill for one political party.
Thank you for your support, you Green socialist looney.
Ahh, I see... so you want to tap off the taxpayers of England and Australia, who won't have any news about Canada that would be relevant to Canadians on a day-to-day basis.
You think like those guys on Wall street who will say things like, "I don't care if I'm the only guy with any money because I was able to lobby and trick the feds into deregulating so I could take it all... you can't have any of it. If the people want roads and police and fire departments and libraries and health care they can pay for it out of their own damn pockets. What's that you say? They don't *have* any money? Well tough, I'm safe behind my gated community. Tell them they can starve or they can use what taxes they can afford to pay to set up public suicide centers! I want to be able to ride my pony free on the land they're all living on, so it will be better when they're gone, but I'm not paying for it!"
This coalition thing seems to be getting a bit of traction from the brain-deads. Every bill passed since Harper got in required a coalition of people to pass them. That is what parliament does, minority or majority. There are 308 people working for the greater good of their country and constituencies. After election day all the party stuff should be pretty much gone until close to the next one. That should be every four years as Harper proposed. That would take away his only source of power however. Bundle unpopular Con. motions with popular motions from everyone else's play book and make it a confidence vote every time.
Really from election day on, no one really cares that a NDP vote in the house carries the weight of 90,000 NDP voters as compared to a Steven Harpers MP's vote carrying only the weight of 30,000 conservative voters. They just want stuff done right with proper process Coalition or working together as 308 men and women is what makes are system tick. Every time there is a vote anywhere there is that temporary alliance until more information comes to light. It is just common sense. That's how it works unless you want a dictatorship. Anyone that describes it differently is either very misinformed or trying to be very misleading.
Really from election day on, no one really cares that a NDP vote in the house carries the weight of 90,000 NDP voters as compared to a Steven Harpers MP's vote carrying only the weight of 30,000 conservative voters. They just want stuff done right with proper process Coalition or working together as 308 men and women is what makes are system tick. Every time there is a vote anywhere there is that temporary alliance until more information comes to light. It is just common sense. That's how it works unless you want a dictatorship. Anyone that describes it differently is either very misinformed or trying to be very misleading.
Let me explain the difference. Harper only needed the votes of one out of the three opposition parties to give him the votes to pass any bill. That removes the power of the BQ to unilaterally force the fall of the government, or to hold the government hostage to its demands for whatever it wants. A coalition of Libs NDP and BQ against 150 Conservatives will require the votes of ALL THREE parties, making the BQ very powerful, very capable of blackmail, as they could make the gov't fall anytime they please.
You really don't understand our system, do you....lol. First of all, the forty-odd BQ members are NOT working for the "greater good of their country" because they do NOT consider Canada their "country'. Their ONLY reason to be there is to undermine and weaken and eventually destroy Canada. Just ask them.
That is called compromise.
Ludicrous, incoherent, and moronic.....reveals a desperate and naive misunderstanding of the BQ, the party system, and Canadian political culture.
The only one that has been misled here is you, and you misled yourself
No.
i don't want to pay for a political propaganda machine posing as a social benefit.
And I listen to CBC radio constantly.
That is how I know how biased it is.
The CBC isn't relevant to anyone outside Toronto. On the coast there is a saying that has been around since at least the 60s. You know you are way out in the bush If the only radio station you can get is CBC. And you know you have been there too long when you start to like it. With satellite internet and radio there is no need to syphon tax dollars into a bottomless pit of poor programing and irrelevant stories about great aunt martha's jam. Let CBC compete or die on its merits.
BTW I often listen to CBC news in the morning but the rest of the day is worse than trash.
Not qiite right. The Bloc most certainly does not have Canada's best interests at heart.
I guess on this we have to agree to disagree. I don't particularly like every program, but even "great aunt Martha's jam" depicts Canadian life in the past. I don't think they need to be quite so graphic on matters sexual, but in this day and age that is of great interest to many people it seems. I enjoy the interviews they often have with people who have suffered or/and overcame adversity. I like Stuart McLean's anecdotes and I just love that voice. They have good news coverage local, national and international and I think it's generally fairly accurate. The morning program "The Current" is often interesting. The gardening program is informative as is Sam's auto program. I would give C.B.C. radio a C+. Oh, I forgot to add Rex Murphy's "Cross Canada Checkup" on Sunday afternoons. :smile:
Wait a few months and they will all show their true colours.
I have yet to hear one of these buttwads to address the rapid rise in the cost of living.
Will you still be partisan when you're broke?
I have yet to hear one of these buttwads to address the rapid rise in the cost of living.
Will you still be partisan when you're broke?
You just can't get your mind around the fact that today's BQ isn't about separation... it's about regionalism. It's no different than if the Wild Rose party of Alberta were to go federal, and it's no great mystery what they're going to require for their compliance... whatever bill passes, it can't hurt Quebec.
I think you're the one who needs to ask them. Join some french forums, use Bablefish, and find out what the average Quebecker is actually talking about these day.
They know darn good and well they're getting a better deal out of life being part of Canada than trying to go it alone.
But I think you don't want to learn something like that. I think your testosterone gets wound up thinking about things in the Bouchard days, and you don't want to lose that rush of hatred.
You're not alone. There's lots of people who need something to hate in order to keep going.
It boils down to psychology and how there's three basic emotions: love hate and fear, and like handedness, everyone will tend to favor one over the others.
Some favor love, and they're the ones who think all problems can be solved with empathy and kindness. They're constantly getting bit in the hand by offering olive branches to the wolverine-type characters dominated by hate.
Then there's the people dominated by fear. They're the ones you can get to line up in brown shirts with swastikas on their arm bands if the economy's going bad and they're afraid of starving and you can convince them the ones causing it are some ethnic minority.
You're funny. Polls have been done about that, and it turns out 50% of listeners think CBC is too far right, while 50% think it's too far left, which means that actually, the programmers are pegging it right in the middle.
And I don't see how you'd call it a political propaganda machine. When I listen to it, what I notice most is that I *don't* have to listen to advertising, which is a form of propaganda, and I don't have to listen to news filtered by commercial interests, which gives me headaches when I think about what's being reported and try to fit it into what I know about macro-economics and macro-sociology.
If it didn't get your dander up, would you still listen to it?
Last edited:
I understand why you're thinking this, but seriously, you need to learned some more about where Quebec's head is at these days, because they're just *not* hyped on separation like in the Bouchard days.
In my case it was pure curiosity... I plugged into some of their forums, used Bablefish, and started chatting.
Basically, they just want jobs, and they see everything as a business negotiation.
I found it annoying the way they seem to tend to see business negotiations as a zero-sum game, where one side is supposed to walk away from a deal with more than the other, whereupon the victor triumphantly declares himself to be "the better man", instead of look for deals where both sides end up with more than they would be able to produce working alone according to the Ke^(kn) principal of cooperative productive output, but over-all, I found that if you understand that that's their cultural proclivity, it's not too hard to deal with.
You know... they'll say something like, "Ontario has all the automotive industry", so you roll your eyes and remind them they have all the aircraft industry. Then they'll say something like "Quebec can make more money with global free trade and the globalists want Canada's drug prices to go to American levels so we should do that", so you remind them that 80% of all the generic drug manufacturers are around Montreal... etc. etc.
Eventually you can get them to a point where they'll start working on deals that are mutually beneficial. They're a bit pouty about it, because they act like you're taking all the "fun" out of the game, but it's doable, and they can be handy to have on-side on some international issues.
For example, they might whine about participating in military UN/NATO actions, but if you want to defend your banking system against Wall street financiers, there's hardly anything scarier than those mega-fauna at NBOC, which is anchored in Quebec.
Yep, "Little House on the Prairie" was a classic. Half Pint and Mrs. Olson made that show.
If you can get the communication companies to put a price on just getting the CBC for a few bucks a month rather than do what the Conservatives do and bundle something good with a bunch of crap you could find out in a hurray what the up take is. The problem for the networks is, they could probably get the $9.00 for the CBC but would have a hard time getting the $1.00 for the other 27 channels in the bundle. A lot of people will tell you they have hundreds of channels, but there is nothing to watch. Invariably they tell me they end up watching the CBC. The Conservatives may be able to get rid of it via Brian Mulroney's free trade deal however. It does state the it is an unfair trade practice to have a superior product. That is why food safety has dropped under Conservative governments because we can't protect ourselves without expensive challenges being launched by the Americans. There goes the neighborhood!
Ironically, that aspect of the FTA might have backfired on the Plutocrats who want free speech crushed because free speech is what gets knowledge around, and the less people know about Plutocracy the less Plutocrats feel threatened, such that they would naturally have been expecting their puppet conservative governments to pass laws leading to destruction of media not controlled by corporations...
But....
Under the FTA, US cable carriers cannot be stopped from offering CBC as an option, all the way down to Arizona, where it's one of the more favorite optional channels for citizens of Phoenix to subscribe to.
Yes Virginia, in Phoenix, chief city of the second most right-wing deregulated state in the union, they have a thirst for the content of CBC.
It reminds me of a moment when I was in a checkout line in Phoenix, a city which, if you analyses satellite photos, you will notice is stuck in the eye of a vortex that keeps clouds away all the time, which is good in winter when average temperature is 80F in the winter, but which is such hell in the summer that the place was not really inhabitable until the invention of air conditioning, and they still tell stories about how old-timers would wrap themselves in wet blankets to sleep at night. (And, just like how we warn people not to drive into blizzards in the winter, so will they warn people not to drive in the summer because cars break down and people die.)
Ahead of me were two women. One said to the other, "How did your vacation in Seattle go?"
The other said, "It rained for a week."
The first said, "Really?!?"
The other said, "Yes... it was *so* nice to have a change of climate".