FNC Not allowed in Canada?

[gummo]

This is great. I was watching the Fox News Channel last night and they did a report on there inability to get permission to broadcast in Canada. The real kicker is that Al Jazeera just got approval to broadcast. They had some pathetic news reporter that was trying to make Al Jazeera out as a good news source. :rolleyes:

[Crusader 4 da truth]

This answers my question (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8408&st=0&#entry111567) from a couple of months ago

They fear an alternative source of news, fortunatly there is nothing they can do about the Matt Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com) and internet bloggs... YET.

[Capitalist Imperial]

More taxes, less freedom, a commie paradise.

Funny, I've seen Canadian news in the US.

I guess they favor only state-sponsored and censored trash like al-jazzera.

And you think Ameircan media is bad?

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21 2004, 02:00 PM
More taxes, less freedom, a commie paradise.

Funny, I've seen Canadian news in the US.

I guess they favor only state-sponsored and censored trash like al-jazzera.

And you think Ameircan media is bad?
I used to live in buffalo we get Canadian news there, its bad but I think the BBC is worse.

[Louis Pio]

Maybe the canadians just don't want fairytales to be called news?
That's all fox provides, fairytales.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 02:05 PM
Maybe the canadians just don't want fairytales to be called news?
That's all fox provides, fairytales.
If thats true why doesn't the govt trust the people to see that?

What else will have to be censored in your utopia?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 07:05 PM
Maybe the canadians just don't want fairytales to be called news?
That's all fox provides, fairytales.
But they should allow for freedom of information.

Isn't it the people that should decide?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Its simply censorship, and commies support that.

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 07:05 PM
Maybe the canadians just don't want fairytales to be called news?
That's all fox provides, fairytales.
:rolleyes:

I know this is way to much for your commie mind to absorb but I'll try anyway.

Ratings should decide if the 'canadians' would like to have FNC. Not the government.

Only fairytales I see around here are you and your pink friends. Do me a favor, drop some fairy dust on yourself, and disappear.

[Guest1]

Actually dude, they had public hearings on it and none of the people who came to the public discussions wanted to give them the license. As for sattelites, we have sattelites, but they have to be provided by canadian companies so that you get the local news.

Believe it or not, the airwaves are not private property, not even in the US. They are publicly owned and are leased to the corporations. In this case, Canadians didn't want to waste that limited space on an American news network that broadcasts nothing but bullshit.

It was not the government that decided this.

[Osman Ghazi]

To demonstrate a point: My father voted Conservative in the recent Canadian elections and even he thinks that CNN is reactionary. The thing is, America is so fucked up that CNN is actually considered liberal. Fox news is just ultra-conservative bullshit nonsense and no one really wants to see it.

The reason people actually want Al-Jazeera is because they already know that American news is bullshit, they want to see the other side. Personnally, I've never watched Al-Jazeera directly, and I'm willing to bet that niether gummo nor CI have either. So basically, all we have to go on here is other people's descriptions.

[Guest1]

Al-Jazeers is propaganda, no news source has no bias. I've watched it, I am an arab afterall, and it's the best Arabic news source out there. Why? Because it challenges the Arab governments in the middle east, it's the first non-government news channel there.

They've raised a hell-storm, interviewing democracy activists across the middle east and giving them a platform. They have panels where representatives from one royal family or another are head to head with a wanted opposition leader sitting accross the table. They've had situations where the government official picks up his shit and flings it across the table and is kicked out half-way through the show.

It's crazy. I love it. But of course there is a bias, everyone has a bias. But I think they provide a poretty balanced view mostly.

[Commie Girl]

Any Canadians I know are VERY HAPPY that Fox isn't seen here!

[Lardlad95]

I want to see Al Jezeera here, but I can't. Shit I"m sick of Fox News, it is blatantly Conservative, and while they deserve to present their side, it think it's also high time Americans saw it from another point of view.

If anything CNN is the most Fair and Balanced network....I rarely see editorializing on that station. It is by no means to the left of Center.

Also I saw O'Rielly's segment. All he was doing was plugging his damn network. Talking about Canada moved to the left, or maybe America just moved to the right. Hell even the guest who agreed with him admitted america moved to the right.

If the candadian people want it badly enough then they'll get it.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 21 2004, 05:32 PM
Actually dude, they had public hearings on it and none of the people who came to the public discussions wanted to give them the license. As for sattelites, we have sattelites, but they have to be provided by canadian companies so that you get the local news.

Believe it or not, the airwaves are not private property, not even in the US. They are publicly owned and are leased to the corporations. In this case, Canadians didn't want to waste that limited space on an American news network that broadcasts nothing but bullshit.

It was not the government that decided this.
Great I’m glad your govt finally decided to allow you guys access to Satellite Dishes, but its unfortunate that they've decide not to let you choose your service provider.

Your point about the Airwaves is true, standard broadcasters are leasing the airwaves and thus must meet certain standards imposed by respective governments, I'm against this and would abolish the FCC here in America.

But those standards do not apply to cable or satellite, Space in not an issue as an almost unlimited number of programming can be viewed with a dish, The Canadian govt. has imposed its self on its people and censored fox news. That’s wrong, It should be available to those who want to view it. Che y Marijuana what if some govt censored che-lives.com? If you believe in free speech then it has to be across the board not just speech you agree with.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:45 AM
Any Canadians I know are VERY HAPPY that Fox isn't seen here!
Canadians you know is not every Canadian. Not even close. The O'reilly factor gets positive e-mails from Canada and Canadians often.

Besides, what can I say? Canadians are happy with a 50%+ tax rate and censorship. More power to you.

(Actually, I'm sorry, I guess the correct term would be "less power to you".)

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial
Canadians you know is not every Canadian. Not even close. The O'reilly factor gets positive e-mails from Canada and Canadians often.
Didn't you read the post CI the Canadian Govt decided all the Canadian people hate fox news, so it must be censored. Makes sense to me, VIVA LA REVULSION!

[Louis Pio]

Didn't you read the post CI the Canadian Govt decided all the Canadian people hate fox news, so it must be censored. Makes sense to me, VIVA LA REVULSION!


I see you can't read. Not surprisingly if Fox is your source of information. What happened was they had public hearings. If anybody wanted FOX they could have gone there. Nobody wanted it. That's a thing called democracy in action. You guys are just called pathetic for going on with a case that has no basis.


Great I’m glad your govt finally decided to allow you guys access to Satellite Dishes

Are you plain stupid? Or do you actually think Canada just got sattelittes?

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 03:41 PM

I see you can't read. Not surprisingly if Fox is your source of information. What happened was they had public hearings. If anybody wanted FOX they could have gone there. Nobody wanted it. That's a thing called democracy in action. You guys are just called pathetic for going on with a case that has no basis.



Are you plain stupid? Or do you actually think Canada just got sattelittes?
I guess the people that wanted it had better things to do than to drive to city hall when they heard the town cryer. Why should they need 'public hearings'? If it's true that people didn't show up for the councel meeting on fox but did for Al Jazeera then it's canada that is pathetic.

[Louis Pio]

guess the people that wanted it had better things to do than to drive to city hall when they heard the town cryer. Why should they need 'public hearings'? If it's true that people didn't show up for the councel meeting on fox but did for Al Jazeera then it's canada that is pathetic.

So what you are saying is that the people who want FOX is 1. to lazy to make an effort to get their station 2. don't really care since they got enough soaps anyway. I had a suspicion that those were the kind of people who viewed FOX :D

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 03:48 PM

So what you are saying is that the people who want FOX is 1. to lazy to make an effort to get their station 2. don't really care since they got enough soaps anyway. I had a suspicion that those were the kind of people who viewed FOX :D
I am saying that the people that view fox are most likely the successful class in your society and don't have time to play your stupid socialist games. It's not a coincidence that people on the right avoid the mob tactics that you lefties love. How many righties do you see blocking intersections because some crackhead got a wood shampoo from the police. If people like fox they will watch it and if they don't then fox will fail. I guess your government thinks your to stupid to make your own mind.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 22 2004, 02:50 PM
Canadians you know is not every Canadian. Not even close. The O'reilly factor gets positive e-mails from Canada and Canadians often.


.....I really hope you aren't going to use positive emails to the "Just Spin Zone" as proof that lots of canadians want Fox News. Also if they can't get it up there how do they know what to reply to in those emails. Not to mention O'Rielly selects those emails to make the show look better. He selects comments from people who are opposed to him that aren't coherent and make outrgeous claims, then he picks ones that are coherent that support what he's saying.

Two days ago he had an email by a gay man who didn't want gay marriage, but I've yet to see him read an email by a gay person or a straight person in support of gay marriage that was a sound arguement. And it's not because those arguements aren't out there. It's because o'rielly doesn't want anyone to call him on his bullshit.

O'Rielly says that he selects emails that are "pithy" yet the emails made by those people who disagree with him rarely are. He selects emails that make him look good, plain and simple.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 03:55 PM
I am saying that the people that view fox are most likely the successful class in your society and don't have time to play your stupid socialist games. It's not a coincidence that people on the right avoid the mob tactics that you lefties love. How many righties do you see blocking intersections because some crackhead got a wood shampoo from the police. If people like fox they will watch it and if they don't then fox will fail. I guess your government thinks your to stupid to make your own mind.
Why would "righties" do anything for anyone that got abused by the police? The only thing you guys even care about is making sure that no one touches your money. You don't give a fuck about people. Where teh fuck were the righties whena whole bunch of people got their heads busted in for being agaisnt the FTAA down in Miami? I thought you guys were for freedom of speech yet you don't give a fuck when people get battered for voicing their opinions.

[Louis Pio]

I am saying that the people that view fox are most likely the successful class in your society and don't have time to play your stupid socialist games.

ROFL :D Ok that was funny.
Well im sorry but I think the opposite. Most people with succes wouldn't watch FOX. Not because they are socialist or don't support capitalism. But because FOX is crap quite simple and those people you are talking about need news, not uncritically praises of Bush while leaving the mistakes out. Or else they will be caught by surprise when something goes wrong. Funny how you see democracy as socialist, I take it you prefer a strong Führer?

What is see it the right using their economic power to force that view, and that's worse than blocking a intersection.

If you now tried to take your head out of your ass and drop you autopilot replies you could maybe stop and think about the following.
As far as I understood we are talking about the public network, if they don't have enough space then it is perfectly ok to put it out in public hearing. And people don't wanted FOX.

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 04:04 PM
Why would "righties" do anything for anyone that got abused by the police? The only thing you guys even care about is making sure that no one touches your money. You don't give a fuck about people. Where teh fuck were the righties whena whole bunch of people got their heads busted in for being agaisnt the FTAA down in Miami? I thought you guys were for freedom of speech yet you don't give a fuck when people get battered for voicing their opinions.
I don't think a crackhead getting a well deserved wood shampooing is trying to voice his oppinion.

[Louis Pio]

No I think they are just violent freaks who got on the government payrole.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 04:07 PM
I don't think a crackhead getting a well deserved wood shampooing is trying to voice his oppinion.
Never said he was. I'm just saying you guys don't care when anyone gets abused by the police. Also how is the wooden shampoo well deserved? He deserved it because he was fucked up to the point where he'd actualley used the fucking crack? That person needs to be helped not locked up in a prison so he can get out and do it again. If he's attacking the police, restrain him, but that doesn't mean he deserves abuse.

[Capitalist Imperial]

You guys can spin it how you want.

It's censorship, straight up.

To say that "not enough people showed up to say they want it, so now we won't allow it" doesn't sell in the least.

And you think Americans get bad info?

[Louis Pio]

You use to be able to argue but this is pathetic CI.


To say that "not enough people showed up to say they want it, so now we won't allow it" doesn't sell in the least.


People got the choice as to who should fill the space and they didn't want FOX. Quite simple...
Wouldn't it also be censorship if they picked FOX over another station? Or is it only censorship when talking about the fairytale station?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 22 2004, 04:25 PM
You guys can spin it how you want.

It's censorship, straight up.

To say that "not enough people showed up to say they want it, so now we won't allow it" doesn't sell in the least.

And you think Americans get bad info?
Well seeing as how Fox New's biggest star Bill O'Lielly is anti Canadian I wouldn't necassarily want him and his network up there either.

But your right Fox news should be allowed up there. Then again Cambodian news should be allowed over there too. Cuz if it was up to me we'd hear something from every side. But we can't always get what we want.

Fox news really should be allowed in Canada...i mean hell everyone derserves a little fiction every now and again

[Louis Pio]

Fox news really should be allowed in Canada...i mean hell everyone derserves a little fiction every now and again

Yes, but when there is not enough space it is perfectly ok to put it out inpublic hearing. Because leaving out another station would also be censorship.
That's what CI and Gummo choose not to understand, they would rather ***** to make themselves feel better.

If there is the space people should be able to watch FOX, everybody needsd a laugh. But I rather have some other stations first.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 04:43 PM

Yes, but when there is not enough space it is perfectly ok to put it out inpublic hearing. Because leaving out another station would also be censorship.
That's what CI and Gummo choose not to understand, they would rather ***** to make themselves feel better.

If there is the space people should be able to watch FOX, everybody needsd a laugh. But I rather have some other stations first.
Ok...so there weren't enough available slots?

[Louis Pio]

That's the impression I got.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Oh, "there's not enough available slots"

of course,

come on...

[Louis Pio]

Yes there's limited airspace.
And if people have CNN already I think they would like to use the rest of the space on some other station instead of FOX.

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:58 PM
Yes there's limited airspace.
And if people have CNN already I think they would like to use the rest of the space on some other station instead of FOX.
A communist that thinks for other people. Imagine that.

[Louis Pio]

So Gummo can we know conclude that after you found out you didn't have a case and you found out your pathetic whinning didn't convince anybody you are just writing crap?

Maybe you should just shut up when you have been exposed for what you are, a small kid that doesn't know what he is talking about.

Fact is you didn't have a case, and now you try to divert attention from that. A bit like FOX works I guess.

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 06:30 PM
So Gummo can we know conclude that after you found out you didn't have a case and you found out your pathetic whinning didn't convince anybody you are just writing crap?

Maybe you should just shut up when you have been exposed for what you are, a small kid that doesn't know what he is talking about.

Fact is you didn't have a case, and now you try to divert attention from that. A bit like FOX works I guess.
The fact that your commie blinders hide the point I was trying to make doesn't mean I have no case. It means your blind.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)I see you can't read. Not surprisingly if Fox is your source of information. [/b]

Typical you can’t debate someone on the issues all your left with is a personal attack. For the record I don’t get Fox news because I don’t want to pay for cable.


Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)What happened was they had public hearings. If anybody wanted FOX they could have gone there. Nobody wanted it. [/b]

So no one in the entire country of Canada wants the channel? What if I have a job and can’t attend the hearing? Or cant travel to get there? If no one wanted to watch then they would just allow the channel to be broadcast and the ratings would be horrible, and News Corp would have a major embarrassment on their hands. No, govt’s only ban what they fear; they fear that it would succeed. Again if it would fail on its own there is no need for a ban.


Originally posted by Teis
That's a thing called democracy in action.
I’m glad you're not making any pretenses about your desire to eliminate free speech, “Democratic” or not some method of squashing dissenting opinions will be necessary to obtain obedience from the citizens under your Communist Utopia. Fortunately In America we have the first Amendment witch prohibits our government from enacting legislation that curtails free speech, regardless of what the majority want to hear. If one guy in Canada wants to watch Fox news and can pay for it why shouldn’t he be allowed to purchase it? If the majority is offended they can choose not to watch.



Originally posted by Teis
Well im sorry but I think the opposite. Most people with succes wouldn't watch FOX. Not because they are socialist or don't support capitalism.

You’re missing the point one's “success” has no baring on their right to express, market or seek out an opinion. What are you arguing? That because the poor want to watch a program or have access to a show that they are willing to pay for they shouldn’t because the elites in Govt say they can’t? Come now Comrade.


Originally posted by Teis
But because FOX is crap quite simple and those people you are talking about need news, not uncritically praises of Bush while leaving the mistakes out. Funny how you see democracy as socialist, I take it you prefer a strong Führer?

Its not govts place to determine what the peoples “Needs” are when it comes to Television programming! Political censorship is not strictly socialists; all collectivist societies utilize it including the Nazis. I’m shocked that you’d resort to calling ROFL a Nazi while you attempt to justify limits on free speech.


Originally posted by Teis
What is see it the right using their economic power to force that view, and that's worse than blocking a intersection.

Yes we use our powers of mind control to make people watch fox news constantly! No one chooses to watch because they find it informative or entertaining. ;)


Originally posted by Teis
If you now tried to take your head out of your ass and drop you autopilot replies you could maybe stop and think about the following.

No Comment.


Originally posted by Teis
As far as I understood we are talking about the public network, if they don't have enough space then it is perfectly ok to put it out in public hearing.

What are you talking about? Fox is its own network, and the satellites and cable companies are not public. They may be public companies In that they sell shares but they are not owned by the govt. The Canadian Govt. has blocked service providers from showing fox news; this is not a bandwidth issue. .


[email protected]
And people don't wanted FOX

That’s find for them, but why do they have to impose on someone that wants to pay for it? They aren’t forced to watch.


Teis
Wouldn't it also be censorship if they picked FOX over another station? Or is it only censorship when talking about the fairytale station?

Now you’re starting to understand If the govt makes a decision as to what can and cannot be viewed then that is wrong. Just as if the Canadian govt decided to outlaw che-lives.com, even if a bunch of people get together in a room and vote on it. That’s why they should just stay out of it and let the customers decided what programming they would like to watch. Wow it took a while Teis but we’ve reasoned this one out together.

[Louis Pio]

I wrote a long post but it disappeared.

Anyway the point we were discussing was about the public airwawes. And why should FOX be treated differently than other tv stations in that? FOX is not outlawed in Canada. People just need to get a sattelite dish.

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:49 PM
I wrote a long post but it disappeared.

Anyway the point we were discussing was about the public airwawes. And why should FOX be treated differently than other tv stations in that? FOX is not outlawed in Canada. People just need to get a sattelite dish.
And the point we are trying to make is how stupid it is for Canadians to suck up to shit like Al Jazeera as a real news source while not allowing fox. I wouldn't expect someone that gets all of there news for communist just sites to understand.

[Louis Pio]

And the point we are trying to make is how stupid it is for Canadians to suck up to shit like Al Jazeera as a real news source while not allowing fox. I wouldn't expect someone that gets all of there news for communist just sites to understand.

If they already have CNN they don't really need FOX now do they.
Btw it's not real news to leave out criticism of some people as FOX does.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:58 PM
And the point we are trying to make is how stupid it is for Canadians to suck up to shit like Al Jazeera as a real news source while not allowing fox. I wouldn't expect someone that gets all of there news for communist just sites to understand.
Question....how much al jezeera do you watch? I watch loads and loads of fox news, I've seen first hand that it's shit. I didn't get Al Franken to tell me. In fact fox news is on in my room everyday, along with a whole bunch of other news sources. I've never actualley watched al jezeera for a substantial amount of time so i have no basis with which to praise or ciritcize it. So if you do watch enough al jezeera to criticize it, what cable provider/satelite provider do you have because i've yet to see it.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Teis
If they already have CNN they don't really need FOX now do they.
Btw it's not real news to leave out criticism of some people as FOX does.
Again, you are deciding what other peoples' needs are. This is wrong on so many levels.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Teis+Jul 22 2004, 02:49 PM--> (Teis @ Jul 22 2004, 02:49 PM) I wrote a long post but it disappeared.[/b]
:rolleyes: I’m sure your epic post shatters my arguments, shame it was deleted. Its not the length of the post that matters it’s the coherence of the reasoning used.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Anyway the point we were discussing was about the public airwawes. And why should FOX be treated differently than other tv stations in that?

It shouldn't that’s the whole point, but the Canadian Govt has decided to censor this Fox News, while allowing others like Al Jazeera the freedom to operate.


Teis
FOX is not outlawed in Canada. People just need to get a sattelite dish.

By FOX I mean FOX NEWS CHANNEL not the main network, and yes FNC is banned from being broadcast in Canada, via sattelite or cable.

The frightening thing is that the Canadian Govt, controls both of these mediums deciding what the public can see. Even worse under the Broadcast Act of 1991 they have legal authority to regulate the Net, I have no doubt there will be calls in the near future for the Govt. to use this power to block 'offensive' websites.

[Louis Pio]

Hmm maybe you are right. But I won't take your word for it since it seems to like doubble standards so a little twisting the truth is probably not far from you.
Else I appoplogise, but maybe some canadians could tell us if FOX is banned in Canada?
Anyway you still jump over the point, why choose FOX over Al Jazera, isn't that as much censorship as the other way around?

[Louis Pio]

Again, you are deciding what other peoples' needs are. This is wrong on so many levels.

No am not Sasha. I would suggest you to learn to read properly. My point was that in publiv airspace if the space are limited it is perfectly ok to held public hearings as to which stations should occupy it. Why should FOX be choosen over some other or vice versa? Maybe people didn't choose FOX because it is like CNN, it just have more american flags, some wack hosts and are totally onesided. Now if FOX was a left station we would probably hear you scream that it should be removed.

[Osman Ghazi]

Okay, 1. This discussion involves almost no one from Canada.

2. Fow News is not 'banned' because they were never allowed to broadcast in Canada in the first place.

3. Contrary to popular belief, it is not allowed to broadcast not because of its content, but because, quite simply, its not Canadian. The CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) has made it so that at least 30% or so of all the programs have to be Canadian-made. (You know, preserving 'Canadian Culture', whatever the hell that is.)

4. The reason Canadians don't want FOX News is because we have real news here. We have about four or five good national news networks that people already trust. (I don't know why, but hey they do.) Anyways, the only reason a Canadian would watch American news is for a laugh, because, especially in the wake of the Iraq war, Canadians have learned (somewhat) that CNN, Fox News and their ilk are full !

5. Oh, and also, since people actually came and voiced their opinions on whether or not the channel should be broadcast, it wasn't really the government who made the decision. Face it. The people have spoken. So shut the hell up and listen to them!

[Capitalist Imperial]

thank fate for satellites

the O'reilly factor gets plenty of canadian e-mails, positive and negative, but they are in fact watching regardless. They were to busy actually working to attend some public hearing.

Lets be honest, who really attends any public heraing in reality?

Retirees with nothing better to do.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 06:31 PM
Okay, 1. This discussion involves almost no one from Canada.

2. Fow News is not 'banned' because they were never allowed to broadcast in Canada in the first place.

3. Contrary to popular belief, it is not allowed to broadcast not because of its content, but because, quite simply, its not Canadian. The CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) has made it so that at least 30% or so of all the programs have to be Canadian-made. (You know, preserving 'Canadian Culture', whatever the hell that is.)

4. The reason Canadians don't want FOX News is because we have real news here. We have about four or five good national news networks that people already trust. (I don't know why, but hey they do.) Anyways, the only reason a Canadian would watch American news is for a laugh, because, especially in the wake of the Iraq war, Canadians have learned (somewhat) that CNN, Fox News and their ilk are full !

5. Oh, and also, since people actually came and voiced their opinions on whether or not the channel should be broadcast, it wasn't really the government who made the decision. Face it. The people have spoken. So shut the hell up and listen to them!
Oh, please...

I was in Michigan on business, and I saw the Canadian Broadcast News in my hotel room. There was not an iota of difference between it and US news outlets.

[Osman Ghazi]

Oh, please...

I was in Michigan on business, and I saw the Canadian Broadcast News in my hotel room. There was not an iota of difference between it and US news outlets.


I never said there was. I said that Canadians trusted them. The difference is in peoples minds.

What the hell is 'Canadian Broadcast News' anyway?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 06:57 PM

I never said there was. I said that Canadians trusted them. The difference is in peoples minds.

What the hell is 'Canadian Broadcast News' anyway?
I think thats what it was called.

I think thats what it was called.

It was CBN, or maybe CCN...or maybe CNC (Canadian News Channel?)

I just remember one of their commericails advertizing some returaunt that sells chili in a bread-bowl, and a donut on the side, with a cup of coffee. It was weird. Their tag line was: "And I ate the Bowl!!!"

It was so funny.

[Osman Ghazi]

I think thats what it was called.

It was CBN, or maybe CCN...or maybe CNC (Canadian News Channel?)


None of those channels sounds familiar to me, so I don't think they are national networks, however I remember that commercial.
EDIT: Come to think of it, it was probably CBC the Canadian version of the BBC.

It was Tim Horton's I believe, a company named after a dead hockey player (Oh my God, in Canada? Really?). The guys are all talking about times that they ingested massive amounts of food (13 cheeseburgers etc.) and the guy says something like "Oh ya, well today I ate a bowl of soup at Tim Hortons.... And then I ate the bowl!"

Not very bright, but hey, no one ever accused advertising execs of being overly creative.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 08:26 PM

None of those channels sounds familiar to me, so I don't think they are national networks, however I remember that commercial.
EDIT: Come to think of it, it was probably CBC the Canadian version of the BBC.

It was Tim Horton's I believe, a company named after a dead hockey player (Oh my God, in Canada? Really?). The guys are all talking about times that they ingested massive amounts of food (13 cheeseburgers etc.) and the guy says something like "Oh ya, well today I ate a bowl of soup at Tim Hortons.... And then I ate the bowl!"

Not very bright, but hey, no one ever accused advertising execs of being overly creative.
yeah, yeah, that's it, exactlly!!!

man, it was so bad, it was funny

"and I ate the bowl!!!", LOL

and you're right, it was the CBC

[Osman Ghazi]

man, it was so bad, it was funny


Well, ads are ads pretty much anywhere you go. Almost half of the TV that I watch is American and the commercials are, as far as I can tell, pretty much the same.

The thing is though that American news like CNN generally never talks about the influence of the media or other decisive factors. And the fact that the CBC runs the BBC news as well shows that they are at least less one-sided then American news. Also, CBC Newsworld tuns Hot Type (yes, a TV show about BOOKS!) whose equivalent I have never seen on CNN or any other American news network.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)
Again, you are deciding what other peoples' needs are. This is wrong on so many levels.
No am not Sasha. I would suggest you to learn to read properly.[/b]
"If they already have CNN they don't really need FOX now do they.
Btw it's not real news to leave out criticism of some people as FOX does."

My bold. I love it when I'm right in such black and white ways.


Originally posted by [email protected]
My point was that in publiv airspace if the space are limited it is perfectly ok to held public hearings as to which stations should occupy it. Why should FOX be choosen over some other or vice versa? Maybe people didn't choose FOX because it is like CNN, it just have more american flags, some wack hosts and are totally onesided.
Why don't you let the cable/satellite provider add in whatever channels they want? If they include channels that people don't like, their profits will suffer. If you're so sure they don't want Fox, you should have no problem with this.


Teis
Now if FOX was a left station we would probably hear you scream that it should be removed.
No, you wouldn't.

[DaCuBaN]

Bollocks. If it was a leftist station you'd start ranting about 'the enemy'.

It's the nature of things I'm afraid. I must admit though, if we in the UK are forced to endure all these US stations, those damn canucks are going to suffer too!

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 06:31 PM
Okay, 1. This discussion involves almost no one from Canada.
Good thing we have you here :)


2. Fow News is not 'banned' because they were never allowed to broadcast in Canada in the first place.
That doesn't change anything.


3. Contrary to popular belief, it is not allowed to broadcast not because of its content, but because, quite simply, its not Canadian. The CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) has made it so that at least 30% or so of all the programs have to be Canadian-made. (You know, preserving 'Canadian Culture', whatever the hell that is.)
Government coercion, pure and simple.


4. The reason Canadians don't want FOX News is because we have real news here. We have about four or five good national news networks that people already trust. (I don't know why, but hey they do.) Anyways, the only reason a Canadian would watch American news is for a laugh, because, especially in the wake of the Iraq war, Canadians have learned (somewhat) that CNN, Fox News and their ilk are full!
And with that piece-of-sh** cultural purity law, they wouldn't get it even if they wanted it.


5. Oh, and also, since people actually came and voiced their opinions on whether or not the channel should be broadcast, it wasn't really the government who made the decision. Face it. The people have spoken. So shut the hell up and listen to them!
This is a classic example of a socialist dictatorship by the majority. We're talking about an inalienable right that has been voted upon.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:59 PM
Bollocks. If it was a leftist station you'd start ranting about 'the enemy'.
No, I insist, I wouldn't.

That's the difference between you and me; I believe in freedom. I believe in inalienable rights that I wouldn't dare break even if it meant the benefit of those I despise.

[DaCuBaN]

Then you and I are not as different as I assumed: You portay somewhat partisan (in appearance) views, and I made an assumption.

My apologies.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:10 PM
Then you and I are not as different as I assumed
Since when did communists believe in inalienable rights?

[DaCuBaN]

Since when am I a communist?

Or are you too making assumptions... :lol:

Follow the link in my sig.

[Osman Ghazi]

Since when did communists believe in inalienable rights?

We've always believed in them, they are just different then the ones you believe in.


Good thing we have you here


Why thank you. :D


That doesn't change anything.

True.


Government coercion, pure and simple.


Also true, but no matter what, the population of a country always have some effect on the actions of the government, even in China. In Canada, generally the government does what most people want, or at least most supporters whatever party has ruling power. Consequently, the governments decision actually reflects popular support.


And with that piece-of-sh** cultural purity law, they wouldn't get it even if they wanted it.


I don't know about that. I think sooner or later we will get it. I mean, honestly, do you think Fox would let the Canadian government stop them from making money? Because I don't.


This is a classic example of a socialist dictatorship by the majority. We're talking about an inalienable right that has been voted upon.

Damn right it is. But wait. What right are yuo talking about? The right to broadcast Fox news? Besides, we don't have total freedom of speech in Canada. For example, unlike in America, you aren't allowed to say racist things, or sexist things, or now even homophobic things. Besides, Fox News literally would get banned for half the shit they say just because its so reactionary and conservative compared to Canadian politics.

For example, in the 3rd country in the world to legalize gay marriage, no one is really into hearing O'Reilly's opinion on the subject, which I'm sure would be quite at home in a Victorian party, but has little bearing on modern ideas or values.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:31 PM
Since when am I a communist?

Or are you too making assumptions... :lol:

Follow the link in my sig.
It says "Commie Club" under your avatar. I thought that is what this site uses to designate communists. Anyway, I've scanned a fraction of that FAQ, and found this:

"The final basic conclusion is that a new distributive system must be instituted that is designed to satisfy the special needs of an environment of technological adequacy, and that this system must not in any way be associated with the extent of an individual's functional contribution to society."

I'll read more later. If I'm wrong about you being a communist, I apologize.

[DaCuBaN]

It says "Commie Club" under your avatar

It also says 'Filibustering Technocrat' :D
It's an administration forum, the grouping just happens to have that name, given that this is a 'leftist' message board. I'm certainly a 'commie' of sorts, I suppose. The only part of the communist manifesto that actually 'hit home' with me was the marxian catch-phrase :rolleyes:


"The final basic conclusion is that a new distributive system must be instituted that is designed to satisfy the special needs of an environment of technological adequacy, and that this system must not in any way be associated with the extent of an individual's functional contribution to society."


Yes, and you'll find plenty more 'communist' tendencies within the text. I don't subscribe purely to the ideologies laid down in that FAQ either, but it does put forward some interesting points. The above is one I whole-heartedly agree with.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)We've always believed in them, they are just different then the ones you believe in.[/b]
Positive rights. Tho I don't think you can regard them as inalienable unless there are enough slaves to guarantee them.


Originally posted by Osman [email protected]
I don't know about that. I think sooner or later we will get it.
Even if an overwhelming majority was against it? How will they profit?


Osman Ghazi
Damn right it is. But wait. What right are yuo talking about? The right to broadcast Fox news?
The right for a company to broadcast Fox or anything else they want to.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21 2004, 07:00 PM
More taxes, less freedom, a commie paradise.

Funny, I've seen Canadian news in the US.

I guess they favor only state-sponsored and censored trash like al-jazzera.

And you think Ameircan media is bad?
"Your are an idiot" or "are you an idiot?", Why is it that I can't adress you without making these remarks.

Al Jazeera is a way better news source than CNN.

In Canada we sensor racism, oh how totalitarion of us! If "Hockey Night in Canada" were not on the CBC right around news hour, we would be just as arrogant and biggoted as you yankees.

The only good news TV that I get out of the states is KTS9 and Detroit Public Television.

[Osman Ghazi]

It kinda sounds wierd to me, what with all the 'technates' and 'sequences' and what not. But I guess its really no different than a commune or a People's Power Assembly.


Positive rights. Tho I don't think you can regard them as inalienable unless there are enough slaves to guarantee them.


Well I've always figured 'Why give them freedom if you won't give them life?'. I mean, you can talk about inalienable rights all you want but the fact is that it really doesn't matter unless a person has food and shelter everyday. After all, don't people have the right to life?


Even if an overwhelming majority was against it? How will they profit?


Well in 1830, an overwhelming majority were against the abolition of slavery but if that could change in just 30 years then surely so can this. Not to mention that that was more then 150 years ago, and social processes have sped up since then.

[DaCuBaN]

It kinda sounds wierd to me, what with all the 'technates' and 'sequences' and what not. But I guess its really no different than a commune or a People's Power Assembly

When you make something, you tend to assign 'jargon' to it. It seems to be some kind of instinct or something. It puzzles me.

I've pretty much concluded that they used such abstract terms so as to distance themselves from any other ideologies. I quite like it though :)

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)After all, don't people have the right to life?[/b]
Not at the expense of others, no. The right to life is only the guarantee that you may sustain your own life without the coercion of others. It requires a voluntary group of law-enforces, not a non-voluntary group of producers. I don't want to spin this thread off into another discussion on this, tho.


Osman Ghazi
Well in 1830, an overwhelming majority were against the abolition of slavery but if that could change in just 30 years then surely so can this. Not to mention that that was more then 150 years ago, and social processes have sped up since then.
So you're afraid that the canadians might eventually warm up to Fox News after the ban has been lifted?

[Osman Ghazi]

Not at the expense of others, no. The right to life is only the guarantee that you may sustain your own life without the coercion of others. It requires a voluntary group of law-enforces, not a non-voluntary group of producers. I don't want to spin this thread off into another discussion on this, tho.


The funniest thing about objectivism is that by their defintion, you can kill people without using force or coercion.

For example, (obviously, this is a hypothetical situation, and I'm not sure why they would do this but the point is they could), if a couple of people get together and decide for whatever reason that they don't like some person and that he would be better off dead. So, they all gather together and agree not to hire him until he starves and thusly, without using any force, they have the ability to commit murder.

It's . They make it out like economic power doesn't mean anything but it is the stuff of life.


So you're afraid that the canadians might eventually warm up to Fox News after the ban has been lifted?

Im not 'afraid' at all. But I wouldn't be surprised if they got a slot the next time one opens up. Most people would probably still think its reactionary , but people in Alberta are like in Texans, conservative to the max.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)if a couple of people get together and decide for whatever reason that they don't like some person and that he would be better off dead. So, they all gather together and agree not to hire him until he starves and thusly, without using any force, they have the ability to commit murder.[/b]
They didn't use force, so it's not murder. We live in a division-of-labor society, where everyone can focus on one specialty and trade with others for everything else. This is a huge convenience, and almost everyone chooses to take advantage of it. If they choose not to for irrational reasons, like because the person is ugly, it is immoral. But people are not cattle, obligated at birth to keep others alive with their trade, so it should always be legal.

Think about this on the large scale. The US and a few other capitalist allies get together and decide that they don't like Iran. They can stop trading with that country, forcing it into massive economic breakdown.


Osman Ghazi
Im not 'afraid' at all. But I wouldn't be surprised if they got a slot the next time one opens up. Most people would probably still think its reactionary , but people in Alberta are like in Texans, conservative to the max.
If there are enough people who will want it, the cable companies will want to broadcast it. You shouldn't be trying to prevent them from doing that. It's that simple.

[Osman Ghazi]

If they choose not to for irrational reasons, like because the person is ugly, it is immoral

What if they chose to do it for rational reasons, like say, the man was a union leader (or rather wanted to be) and this unionizing of your labour would be detrimental to profits? Would it be 'immoral' then?


Think about this on the large scale. The US and a few other capitalist allies get together and decide that they don't like Iran. They can stop trading with that country, forcing it into massive economic breakdown.


And killing half a million people like they did to Iraq? Sasha, you have a ed-up concept of morality.


But people are not cattle, obligated at birth to keep others alive with their trade, so it should always be legal.


I wasn't aware that bovines are keeping me alive with their trade. Thanks for the warning.


If there are enough people who will want it, the cable companies will want to broadcast it. You shouldn't be trying to prevent them from doing that. It's that simple.

I'm not trying to prevent it, I'm justifying the decision. I couldn't care less if we got Fox News here, I sure as hell wouldn't watch it. What I'm saying is that if Canadians get together at a meeting and decide that they would rather watch Al-Jazeera than Fox News, that is their inalienable right.

See, communists believe in inalienable rights. ;) :D

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)What if they chose to do it for rational reasons, like say, the man was a union leader (or rather wanted to be) and this unionizing of your labour would be detrimental to profits? Would it be 'immoral' then?[/b]
No, and if I was a CEO I wouldn't give a dime of my money to a union leader either. Then again, I would never be able to get the whole city to do the same, so tough luck for me.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)And killing half a million people like they did to Iraq? Sasha, you have a ed-up concept of morality.[/b]
If Iran indeed helps terrorists, my answer is 'Hell yes'. Protecting yourself from force is an entirely moral endeavor. Of course, I would be against mass civilian killings, because they are not ones threatening us. That said, if they place military forces near civilian areas, the civilian deaths will be the fault of the government who put them in such danger.


Osman [email protected]
I wasn't aware that bovines are keeping me alive with their trade. Thanks for the warning.
'Cattle' is used metaphorically to mean entities that are controlled by others, that live to sustain others.


Osman Ghazi
I'm not trying to prevent it, I'm justifying the decision. I couldn't care less if we got Fox News here, I sure as hell wouldn't watch it. What I'm saying is that if Canadians get together at a meeting and decide that they would rather watch Al-Jazeera than Fox News, that is their inalienable right.
From what I understand, they voted to not allow cable companies to air Fox News. Everyone here justified it by saying that Fox News sucks and nobody wants to watch it anyway. You say that that might change.

Voting not to allow companies to air Fox News is a denial of free speech. Unless you admit to me that you don't consider free speech to be inalienable, it does not make sense that people have the inalienable right to vote it away. Inalienable rights are not afforded to you by the majority; by definition, they stay with you through thick and thin no matter the circumstances.

[DaCuBaN]

Voting not to allow companies to air Fox News is a denial of free speech

:blink: :unsure: :blink:

Forgive me if I'm wrong.... but I very much doubt that it has been 'cast in stone'.


Protecting yourself from force is an entirely moral endeavor.

Force and coercion are synonymous: Whether by economic means or physical means it makes no difference.


Of course, I would be against mass civilian killings, because they are not ones threatening us. That said, if they place military forces near civilian areas, the civilian deaths will be the fault of the government who put them in such danger

'Oh, we don't want to kill you - we want to kill the guys living next door! We didn't mean to hit you. Collatoral Damage'

[Osman Ghazi]

No, and if I was a CEO I wouldn't give a dime of my money to a union leader either. Then again, I would never be able to get the whole city to do the same, so tough luck for me.


But why? If workers choose to organize, they are engaging in voluntary association. Why do you want to stop that?


If Iran indeed helps terrorists, my answer is 'Hell yes'.

The thing is that sanctions kill the citizens of the country but they don't usually do a lot for freeing them, as can be shown by the example of Iraq. I realize that collateral damage is ultimately unavoidable, though that isn't an excuse. However, sanctions involves the deliberate starvation (whether it be actually food, or another resource vital for production) of essentially innocent people whose only crime is being born in the sanctioned country.


Unless you admit to me that you don't consider free speech to be inalienable

I don't consider free speech to be an inalienable right.

That is why it is okay for people to vote it away.

That is why I support the Canadian hate crime laws. You know, the ones where is you say something racist or sexist, (well to be technical, if you 'promote hatred against an identifiable group') you will be thrown in jail.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Actually, I live in Ottawa and Fox news is readily available on regular cable.
That is, the regular Fox channel is available and Fox news programs are regularly broadcast on that. I'm assuming Fox News is a seperate channel from the regular Fox station, but one is more than enough.

It has been correctly asserted that any advocates for Fox News will likely be among the propriated class - so they can easily afford a sattelite dish.
As for the rest of us, it alreday seems quite appearent that we (or a good majority of us) do not want to be lied to by Fox News.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by DaCuBaN+--> (DaCuBaN)Forgive me if I'm wrong.... but I very much doubt that it has been 'cast in stone'.[/b]
I'm sure it isn't, but temporarily restricting someone's rights is still restricting their rights.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Force and coercion are synonymous: Whether by economic means or physical means it makes no difference.
You cannot "force" by economic means. Force is when you get someone to do something against their will. You have to do something. To deny someone something of yours involves you not doing something.


DaCuBaN
'Oh, we don't want to kill you - we want to kill the guys living next door! We didn't mean to hit you. Collatoral Damage'
I'm talking about bombs. It may not be possible to surgically strike your enemy without a little collatoral damage.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)But why? If workers choose to organize, they are engaging in voluntary association. Why do you want to stop that?[/b]
I would NOT try to force them to stop, since they are not doing anything illegal. I would deny them my money. Unless they're complaining about something legitimate.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)The thing is that sanctions kill the citizens of the country but they don't usually do a lot for freeing them, as can be shown by the example of Iraq.[/b]
The point is to deny the government any benefit, and to hopefully lead to a full-scale invasion to oust the governmetn and free the people.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
I realize that collateral damage is ultimately unavoidable, though that isn't an excuse.
How could you ever suggest that something unavoidable is still not an excuse? Are you going to let the artillery, ack-acks, and footsoldiers hiding in residential areas slaughter you and not fire back?


Osman [email protected]
However, sanctions involves the deliberate starvation (whether it be actually food, or another resource vital for production) of essentially innocent people whose only crime is being born in the sanctioned country.
If there was some way we could economically starve the evil government and not the people, we would. But war isn't that pretty.


Osman Ghazi
I don't consider free speech to be an inalienable right.
Then I don't think we'll get anywhere in this discussion.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Regicidal Insomniac+--> (Regicidal Insomniac)but one is more than enough.[/b]
This is like what Teis was doing, proclaiming what other peoples' needs are.


Originally posted by Regicidal [email protected]
It has been correctly asserted that any advocates for Fox News will likely be among the propriated class - so they can easily afford a sattelite dish.
Although I doubt this, even if it is true, it wouldn't make the ban right.


Regicidal Insomniac
As for the rest of us, it alreday seems quite appearent that we (or a good majority of us) do not want to be lied to by Fox News.
Another "Fox News sucks" assertion. I don't care what you think of it. We could be talking about a ban on Sesame Street and my argument would be the same. Unless you're like Ghazi and don't believe in free speech, cable companies should be allowed to show it if they want to.

[DaCuBaN]

Although I doubt this, even if it is true, it wouldn't make the ban right

No more right than allowing innocents to become 'collatoral damage', certainly ;)

[Sasha]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:28 AM

No more right than allowing innocents to become 'collatoral damage', certainly ;)
Allowing? Who said it's a choice? Certainly it's wrong if you can avoid it, but I pose the same question to you: Are you going to let the artillery, ack-acks, and footsoldiers hiding in residential areas slaughter you and not fire back?

[DaCuBaN]

Are you going to let the artillery, ack-acks, and footsoldiers hiding in residential areas slaughter you and not fire back?

I would never under any circumstance go on the offensive, so the question really isn't relevant...

[Sasha]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:12 AM

I would never under any circumstance go on the offensive, so the question really isn't relevant...
You mean, you wouldn't go on a pre-emptive strike? How do you plan to deal with terrorists?

[DaCuBaN]

You mean, you wouldn't go on a pre-emptive strike?
The idea of a 'pre-emptive strike' is a fallacy - even the most detailed intelligence is just guesswork. We can't tell the future, hence it is merely an offensive.

"If we hadn't attacked them, they'd have attacked us first!"

Is it just me that sees this?


How do you plan to deal with terrorists?
Internal or external?

[Sasha]

Originally posted by DaCuBaN+--> (DaCuBaN)The idea of a 'pre-emptive strike' is a fallacy - even the most detailed intelligence is just guesswork. We can't tell the future, hence it is merely an offensive.[/b]
Of course. You can't be certain of something that hasn't happened yet. The task is to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, like a court case. Our safety is THAT important. It's like getting a search warrent for a warehouse that you believe contains a nuclear bomb.


DaCuBaN
Internal or external?
External.

[DaCuBaN]

It's like getting a search warrent for a warehouse that you believe contains a nuclear bomb.

My emphasis added. I don't think this kind of thing should be happening - If we are dealing with internal terrorism my response would be instant capitulation, and initiate discussion. Filibuster my way out of it ;)


External.

Given my views on pre-emptive action, an attack would seem inevitable. Unfortunately I was raised a catholic, and although I have expunged most of the ideals it subverted upon me, 'turn the other cheek' is one I am yet to rid myself of...

[Osman Ghazi]

I would NOT try to force them to stop, since they are not doing anything illegal. I would deny them my money.

Why?


Unless they're complaining about something legitimate.


Like what?


The point is to deny the government any benefit, and to hopefully lead to a full-scale invasion to oust the governmetn and free the people.


So to free the people you have to starve millions of them to death?
It reminds me of something Mark Twain said about the American repression of the Filipino rebels. He called it 'benign assimiliation'. As a joke of course, considering that that is what the concept of sanctions is.


How could you ever suggest that something unavoidable is still not an excuse? Are you going to let the artillery, ack-acks, and footsoldiers hiding in residential areas slaughter you and not fire back?


With what?


If there was some way we could economically starve the evil government and not the people, we would. But war isn't that pretty.


Then why do it? Why not try some other method? This is what I don't understand. If war isn't pretty why the hell do you keep advocating it?


Then I don't think we'll get anywhere in this discussion.

Entirely too bad.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)Why?[/b]
Why would I pay a group out to get me?


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)Like what?[/b]
Unsafe working conditions.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
So to free the people you have to starve millions of them to death?
The point of taking down the government is that the country will have a free economy and become a valuable trading partner with us. If it ends up doing the opposite, starving millions to death without regime change, it isn't worth it. It's not in our interests, and it's not in their interests. I'm okay with crippling an economy temporarily, tho, as long as we have a plan to quickly oust the regime and revive the economy.


Osman [email protected]
With what?
Bombs, 30mm cannons from A-10s, whatever you need to get the job done. There is always the chance of collateral damage, no matter how surgical you are.


Osman Ghazi
Then why do it? Why not try some other method?
Diplomacy doesn't work 100% of the time. Anyone who suggests otherwise is naive.

[DaCuBaN]

Diplomacy doesn't work 100% of the time. Anyone who suggests otherwise is naive

Force has been proved not to work. It provides a short term solution and in fact fortifies resentment. Anyone who suggest otherwise is delusional.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:50 PM

Force has been proved not to work. It provides a short term solution and in fact fortifies resentment. Anyone who suggest otherwise is delusional.
When was it proven? What facts are you referring to?

[DaCuBaN]

Try this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=violence+doesn%27t+work)

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:51 PM
Try this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=violence+doesn%27t+work)
:lol: Nice!

[DaCuBaN]

I'm glad someone appreciates my fabulous research efforts ;) :lol:

[Osman Ghazi]

The point of taking down the government is that the country will have a free economy and become a valuable trading partner with us. If it ends up doing the opposite, starving millions to death without regime change, it isn't worth it. It's not in our interests, and it's not in their interests. I'm okay with crippling an economy temporarily, tho, as long as we have a plan to quickly oust the regime and revive the economy.


So you are willing to initiate force against them? Ooh, you're being a bad objectivist.

Oh, and a sidenote on collateral damage. Those people are deliberately killed. The U$ military says that it is okay to kill X amount of innocent people. They know from the second they enter a conflict that they are going to slaughter innocent people. Yet, even knowing that, they enter a conflict, thus, they know full well that they are going to kill innocents, but you know what? They don't give a flying . So all of the blame rests on their heads.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)If they already have CNN they don't really need FOX now do they.[/b]
That’s not really for you or the Govt. to decide.


Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)Btw it's not real news to leave out criticism of some people as FOX does[/b]
Leaving out criticism? I thought the purpose of news was to disseminate information, not editorialize. That’s what op-ed pages and analysis shows are for.


Originally posted by Teis
Hmm maybe you are right. But I won't take your word for it since it seems to like doubble standards so a little twisting the truth is probably not far from you.
I’d ask for an example of my deceitfulness, but I understand its standard operating procedure to for collectivists to use ad hominem attacks to cover up for their lack of an argument so I’ll just move on.


Originally posted by Teis
Else I appoplogise, but maybe some canadians could tell us if FOX is banned in Canada?
? I’m confused Teis I though you told us that it was banned because the proletariat in Canada got together and decided to deny them the license to operate? I thought you said this ban was democracy in action? It was only a few pages ago…

Originally posted by Ties
What happened was they had public hearings. If anybody wanted FOX they could have gone there. Nobody wanted it.
Remember?


Originally posted by Ties
Anyway you still jump over the point, why choose FOX over Al Jazera, isn't that as much censorship as the other way around?
You know its bad Teis when I can answer you question with my pervious post.

Crusader 4 da [email protected]

Teis

Wouldn't it also be censorship if they picked FOX over another station? Or is it only censorship when talking about the fairytale station?
Now you’re starting to understand If the govt makes a decision as to what can and cannot be viewed then that is wrong. Just as if the Canadian govt decided to outlaw che-lives.com, even if a bunch of people get together in a room and vote on it. That’s why they should just stay out of it and let the customers decided what programming they would like to watch. Wow it took a while Teis but we’ve reasoned this one out together.

[Commie Girl]

WOW....such outrage over a decision by our Sovereign nation causes this uproar! Gotta Love it!

Yet, in Crawford, Texas, Michael Moore has to show his film on the side of a football stadium to those who WANT to see it because the theatres there refuse to screen it! Irony?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:43 PM
WOW....such outrage over a decision by our Sovereign nation causes this uproar! Gotta Love it!

Yet, in Crawford, Texas, Michael Moore has to show his film on the side of a football stadium to those who WANT to see it because the theatres there refuse to screen it! Irony?
No, absolutely no irony.

There is a difference between government censorship and private businesses exercising freedom of choice.

[Louis Pio]

? I’m confused Teis I though you told us that it was banned because the proletariat in Canada got together and decided to deny them the license to operate? I thought you said this ban was democracy in action? It was only a few pages ago…



We were talking about public airwawes as I understood it. That means that people would be able to watch Fox if they just bought a satellite dish. That was my point, now if the basis was wrong then im wrong. but im wondering why you choose not to understand what im saying.


Leaving out criticism? I thought the purpose of news was to disseminate information, not editorialize. That’s what op-ed pages and analysis shows are for.


News cannot be objective. You will always have to choose what you will include, therefore it is not objective. FOX chooses to leave out criticism of Bush even though it is of interest that someone doesn't agree. Also a tv station can choose to send more happy stories about a person than focusing on his mistakes/embarresing behaviour etc. Like focusing on Bush talking with nice little kids instead of focusing on Bush saying thing that doesn't makes sense (like he is known to do).


? I’m confused Teis I though you told us that it was banned because the proletariat in Canada got together and decided to deny them the license to operate? I thought you said this ban was democracy in action? It was only a few pages ago…


I was talking about public airwawes. In Denmark you can get the stations you like if you purchase a satellite dish. That doesn't mean that the public part should be used for Al Jazeera/FOX or whatever.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)We were talking about public airwawes as I understood it. That means that people would be able to watch Fox if they just bought a satellite dish. That was my point, now if the basis was wrong then im wrong. but im wondering why you choose not to understand what im saying. [/b]

I didn’t understand what you were saying because I made the error of assuming you knew what you were talking about. You’re a Marxist, I should have known better, allow me to inform you, we are talking about satellite dishes and cable, not the standard TV through the “public” airwaves.


Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)News cannot be objective. You will always have to choose what you will include, therefore it is not objective. [/b]

I agree in that in choosing what is “news worthy” an organization’s or an individual’s bias inevitably enters. But that is completely different from editorializing and calling it news.


[email protected]
FOX chooses to leave out criticism of Bush even though it is of interest that someone doesn't agree.

I’d ask you for a specific incident where they left out criticism of Bush that the other networks reported, or some sort of proof but I know you don’t have any so I’ll just move on. This does strike at the hurt of why you were zealously defending the FNC ban; you don’t like their content. You are upset that they do not give liberals a free reign to bash Bush, that they actually present the conservative point of view, and you wanted to use the govt. to try and stop people from accessing it.


Teis
I was talking about public airwawes. In Denmark you can get the stations you like if you purchase a satellite dish. That doesn't mean that the public part should be used for Al Jazeera/FOX or whatever.

Good for Denmark, that’s a more reasonable policy. Too bad the Canadian people don’t have the same freedom.

[Louis Pio]

I didn’t understand what you were saying because I made the error of assuming you knew what you were talking about. You’re a Marxist, I should have known better, allow me to inform you, we are talking about satellite dishes and cable, not the standard TV through the “public” airwaves.


Blah blah didn't your mom ever teach you not to be patronising? Anyway I was wrong on the subject I know. For that I appologise.


I agree in that in choosing what is “news worthy” an organization’s or an individual’s bias inevitably enters. But that is completely different from editorializing and calling it news.


So we agree news aren't objective. Then it would be nice if we can stop hearing rants about how FOX is objective. Who would you say editorialise? From the FOX I have seen I would say they tend to do the same. As does 60 minutes, CNN and the rest of the american crap we get over here.


I’d ask you for a specific incident where they left out criticism of Bush that the other networks reported, or some sort of proof but I know you don’t have any so I’ll just move on. This does strike at the hurt of why you were zealously defending the FNC ban; you don’t like their content. You are upset that they do not give liberals a free reign to bash Bush, that they actually present the conservative point of view, and you wanted to use the govt. to try and stop people from accessing it.


CNN also gives a conservative point of view. As does alot of canadian tv stations am sure. FOX just does it in a way that alienates most other people than diehard conservative fundamentalists. But the point was that I made a mistake in asumeing it was the same as in Denmark were we have the distinction between the public and private. And it took you a long time to correct me, seems you don't even read the posts but just post something right away.


Good for Denmark, that’s a more reasonable policy. Too bad the Canadian people don’t have the same freedom.

Well they are not loosing anything. But sure people should have the oppotunity. Everybody can need some escapism from real life.

[Guest1]

Actually, Satellites transmit throuight the airwaves too, just on much higher frequencies.

So, because they are still taking up a position on those airwaves, they are still subject to the people's ownership of those airwaves. Cable, on the otherhand, is different, except that no cable channel is transmitted on cable solely. Usually they beam it to the different locations by satellite before it is transmitted by cable.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)Blah blah didn't your mom ever teach you not to be patronising? Anyway I was wrong on the subject I know. For that I appologise.[/b]
You’ve called me stupid and a liar and tried to imply that gummo was a Nazi, I think you can handle a little patronizing you’re a big boy… ;) opps sorry.


Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)So we agree news aren't objective. [/b]
Yes most aren’t but I’ve read some stories that are “just the facts”, but when it comes to political reporting this is very difficult.


Originally posted by Teis
Then it would be nice if we can stop hearing rants about how FOX is objective.
Never made that claim, I do claim that they present the conservative side.


Originally posted by Teis
Who would you say editorialise?
I don’t mind editorializing that’s what op-eds and news analysis shows are all about but when a Peter Jennings says this:

Originally posted by ABC News+ 1993--> (ABC News @ 1993)President Clinton kept a promise (emphasis added) today on the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Mr. Clinton signed presidential memoranda rolling back many of the restrictions imposed by his predecessors.[/b]

Originally posted by ABC [email protected] 2001
One of the president's first actions was designed to appeal to anti-abortion conservatives (emphasis added). The president signed an order reinstating a Reagan-era policy ...
That’s an example of not playing it straight, its find that he’s pro choice but its not ok that he claims to be objective.


Teis
From the FOX I have seen I would say they tend to do the same. As does 60 minutes, CNN
Depend on what you’ve seen Fox’s primetime lineup is news analysis programming as is 60 minutes, and some shows on CNN, they are free to editorialize.


Originally posted by Teis
and the rest of the american crap we get over here.
I understand that you think its crap because it presents a different point of view, but I’m attempting to demonstrate the error in using the Govt to sensor it.


Originally posted by Teis
CNN also gives a conservative point of view. As does alot of canadian tv stations am sure. FOX just does it in a way that alienates most other people than diehard conservative fundamentalists.
Really which ones? If so then they having nothing to fear from adding FNC to the mix.


Originally posted by Teis
But the point was that I made a mistake in asumeing it was the same as in Denmark were we have the distinction between the public and private. And it took you a long time to correct me, seems you don't even read the posts but just post something right away.
No of course I don’t read you posts, I only dissect them line by line responding to every statement.


[email protected]
Well they are not loosing anything. But sure people should have the oppotunity. Everybody can need some escapism from real life.
I couldn’t disagree with you more, when the government controls what can and cannot be seen, the people have lost a measure of freedom.

Question for you just so I’m absolutely clear about something. I’d like you answer you own question.

Teis
Anyway you still jump over the point, why choose FOX over Al Jazera, isn't that as much censorship as the other way around?
You implied the answer was yes but I want you to explicitly answer.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Follow up question, I was having a similar discussion with a Democrat on another forum, and he flat out told me he did not believe in free speech and felt that some speech needed to be restricted by the govt. Do you feel that way Teis?

[Louis Pio]

Follow up question, I was having a similar discussion with a Democrat on another forum, and he flat out told me he did not believe in free speech and felt that some speech needed to be restricted by the govt. Do you feel that way Teis?


Hmm yes in some cases. Racism for instance or advocating ethnic cleansing.


You’ve called me stupid and a liar and tried to imply that gummo was a Nazi, I think you can handle a little patronizing you’re a big boy… opps sorry.


Yeah. Well Gummo is if not a nazi at least a guy with serious problems debating. Moreover he is just plain stupid.


Yes most aren’t but I’ve read some stories that are “just the facts”, but when it comes to political reporting this is very difficult.


Indeed.


Never made that claim, I do claim that they present the conservative side.


Ok, I probably confused it with FOX owns patethic claim that they are objective.


That’s an example of not playing it straight, its find that he’s pro choice but its not ok that he claims to be objective.


And we see it the other way around also. It's at least better than using the bible for justification or as a source. A thing I see to often in USA.


I understand that you think its crap because it presents a different point of view, but I’m attempting to demonstrate the error in using the Govt to sensor it.


No it's crap because it is USA centered. Still we get it. And what the fuck is an old fart like Andy Rooney doing in a news show? It just goes for the lowest common denominator.


Really which ones? If so then they having nothing to fear from adding FNC to the mix.


Were you talking about FOX? The reason they alienates people is both flag wawing and that you have a show host taking his gun up at a show and saying he would kill Ossama. That's just well Rambo style. Maybe people love it in America...
Or if your talking about CNN, of course they present a conservative point. In the middle east they only interview people who are against the USA from a religious standpoint. Leaving the rest out.


I couldn’t disagree with you more, when the government controls what can and cannot be seen, the people have lost a measure of freedom.


Quite abstract. They still have the rest of the lot. So I take it it is also a great sin to not show kiddie porn?


Question for you just so I’m absolutely clear about something. I’d like you answer you own question.

QUOTE (Teis)
Anyway you still jump over the point, why choose FOX over Al Jazera, isn't that as much censorship as the other way around?


You implied the answer was yes but I want you to explicitly answer.


Yes it's censorship. As it is to choose FOX over some others. Or not allow communist books in the library.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by "Teis"+--> ("Teis")Hmm yes in some cases. Racism for instance or advocating ethnic cleansing.[/b]

Good you’ve admitted it; I have never met a collectivist that was for freedom of speech. Despite the calms of “libertarian” communism, and the assurances that liberty would be possible in a communist society. Now we can proceed to debate the merits of govt. censorship.

You have noted two areas where you feel the government should suppress free expression. Why just two, are not Anti-Semitism, and homophobia as repugnant as racism? What about religious extremists or those deride religion?

Second how would you enforce such a ban? Would you have communist party agents canvassing the towns, and villages listening in conversations? What about someone who writes a novel, a play, or movie, that is racist? What about the internet?

Third how would you punish such crimes? What would you do to repeat offenders?


Originally posted by "Teis"+--> ("Teis")It's at least better than using the bible for justification or as a source. A thing I see to often in USA.[/b]

Again I’d ask for an example of any major News Organization in the US using the bible as a source, or justification, but I’m sure you don’t have any. Since you “see it so often” in the American media you should write some of it down, so the next time you in a debate with someone you can add some facts to your argument.

("Teis")No it's crap because it is USA centered. Still we get it.[/b][/quote]

Yes that the trouble with American news, it tends to focus on America.

("Teis") And what the fuck is an old fart like Andy Rooney doing in a news show? It just goes for the lowest common denominator.[/b][/quote]

I haven’t seen 60mins in a while but they are a self described “news magazine show” so Andy Rooney is free to editorialize, I suppose some people find him funny.

("Teis")Were you talking about FOX? The reason they alienates people is both flag wawing and that you have a show host taking his gun up at a show and saying he would kill Ossama. That's just well Rambo style. Maybe people love it in America [/b][/quote]

Yes I was talking about fox you said it alienates people, and my response was then the Canadian Govt has nothing to fear from allowing it to operate. If the programming on FNC is of such poor quality that it drives people away, then it will fail on its own, there is no reason for a Government ban.

As for the host flaunting his firearms, I’m unaware of this incident do you have any documentation?

("Teis")Or if your talking about CNN, of course they present a conservative point. In the middle east they only interview people who are against the USA from a religious standpoint. Leaving the rest out.[/b][/quote]

:lol: care to rethink that statement.


Originally posted by Crusader 4 da truth

I couldn’t disagree with you more, when the government controls what can and cannot be seen, the people have lost a measure of freedom.
("Teis")Quite abstract. They still have the rest of the lot. [/b][/quote]

Its not abstract at all, but you are a collectivist so allow me to make more concrete for you . When a Government authority controls what information can and cannot be disseminated robbing the people of choice, they have lost a critical freedom.


"Teis"@
So I take it it is also a great sin to not show kiddie porn?

:blink: Children are unable to give consent; their minds are immature and developing. The fact that you would try and equate government restrictions on political discourse to child porn is distributing.


"Teis"
Yes it's censorship. As it is to choose FOX over some others. Or not allow communist books in the library.

Yes that’s the point, though I’ve never heard of a library banning communist books, in America. Does this occur in Europe?

[Louis Pio]

You have noted two areas where you feel the government should suppress free expression. Why just two, are not Anti-Semitism, and homophobia as repugnant as racism? What about religious extremists or those deride religion? Second how would you enforce such a ban? Would you have communist party agents canvassing the towns, and villages listening in one conversations? What about someone who writes a novel, that is racist, what about a play, or movie?

Nope but when caught people would be put on trial. Quite simple, as happens today when the USA bans something.
Religion is ok, except when they cross the line. The religious nutcases in the 700 club can do what they like. Btw anti-semitism is racism.



Again I’d ask for an example of any major News Organization in the US using the bible as a source, or justification, but I’m sure you don’t have any. Since you “see it so often” in the American media you should write some of it down, so the next time you in a debate with someone you can add some facts to your argument.

Of course the journalists don't that's obvious. But the bible is used as a sourche and justification in everything from some newspapers to the presidents speeches. We both know that so shouldn't we stop beating around the bush?


Yes that the trouble with American news, it tends to focus on America.

Yes indeed. In most other countries they focus more on the world. But then again you live in the most selfcentred country so it's no wonder.


Yes I was talking about fox you said it alienates people, and my response was then the Canadian Govt has nothing to fear from allowing it to operate. If the programming on FNC is of such poor quality that it drives people away, then it will fail on its own, there is no reason for a Government ban.

Yes there's no need for a ban.


As for the host flaunting his firearms, I’m unaware of this incident do you have any documentation?

Well it's hearsay. I will look into it.


care to rethink that statement.

Nope, because I forgot to add they either view it as religious or baathist.


Its not abstract at all, but you are a collectivist so allow me to make more concrete for you . When a Government authority controls what information can and cannot be disseminated robbing the people of choice, they have lost a critical freedom.

Like in the USA? You remembewr the recent case with that anarchist being arrested because of his webswite? Maybe you should start with your own country?


Children are unable to give consent; their minds are immature and developing. The fact that you would try and equate government restrictions on political discourse to child porn is distributing.

So you are pro censorship afterall....


Yes that’s the point, though I’ve never heard of a library banning communist books, in America. Does this occur in Europe?

Nope only in USA. And several dictatorships of course.
In Denmark our public libraries have almost everything and if they don't have it you just get em to order it.

Btw there's a discussion on FOX, im wondering why you haven't rushed to it's defence http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27766

[all-too-human]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:27 PM
Yes there's no need for a ban.
There is quite simply no room for U.S. Government propaganda on Canandian television. It makes about as much sense as broadcasting the CBC in Los Angeles.

[Commie Girl]

Well said....I suppose we wouldnt be having this discussion if the Canadian Government had decided not to allow al - Jazeera?

We are happy not to be getting FNC anymore....when it was previously available, most people I know were, frankly, stunned by the obvious "holywood style" reporting and blatant distortions!