Fox News North can't launch because regulation against lying in the news won't be repealed

[Hauldren Collider]

You guys are just choc-a-bloc with religious nuts.

Actually the moonies originated in Korea.

[Elok]

Some people are bright enough to understand that the context of this thread is Canadian politics and regulations. Further, the poster making the comment is Canadian.

The poster making which comment? HC was the one who first brought up the WaPo as an example of liberalism AFAICT. I'm not digging further to make sure, though.

Americans need to get the **** over themselves. The majority of the modern world shares a political spectrum that is largely the same, and the US is way offset from it.

You guys aren't special enough to get your own spectrum, use the same one as everyone else and admit democrats are centre-right and Republicans are largely right wing whackjobs.

No. Why should we, when such a spectrum is largely useless for us? I mean, beyond the limited utility of left-right spectra in the first place, and the fact that there are nuances difficult to fit into the picture like some EU countries having tax-funded state churches. When an American says left or right, he means relative to the political norm in his own country. If we did it your way, the term "liberal" could only be used for actual communists and Greenpeace.

Also, I assume by "modern" world you mean Canada, Australia, Western Europe and maybe Japan/South Korea. Why stop at that? Why not factor in the political opinions of India and China, seeing as they're at least a third of the world between them? I mean, sure, they're culturally quite different and the terms are pretty nonsensical when used in that context, but the same is true of the U.S. and that didn't stop you, so...

[Wezil]

Actually the moonies originated in Korea.

I didn't say they originated in the US but they sure found their way there.

[Hauldren Collider]

I didn't say they originated in the US but they sure found their way there.

They're actually banned in Germany. Courts here have upheld that they are allowed to practice with freedom of religion. They used to practice brainwashing--they literally brainwashed people. Yes, brainwashing is a real thing. As I recall the guy who runs it, Moon, was some psyops guy in Korea and his job was to take captured North Koreans and interrogate people, which is how the moonies perfected the technique. One of my ex-moonie friends told me that it basically involves lack of food and sleep at which point you become much more suggestible.

[Elok]

So he should judge it on what the American says it is?

He can offer you nothing other than a Cdn POV.

HC said he read the WaPo, a liberal newspaper (not as super-liberal as he thinks, but liberal as far as we Yanks are concerned). Asher retorted that on the contrary, it's center-right. Does he expect HC to read The Village Voice, or Mother Jones, or what? Hell, is even Mother Jones liberal for Canadians?

[notyoueither]

Mother Jones? Perpetuating the patriarchy! Right-wing reactionaries!

[Asher]

Asher, you don't even debate anymore. You just turn your long-since discredited talking points into ad hominem snipes and refuse to acknowledge the slightest dissent in your most outrageous positions.

You're delusional with no appreciation for how the world works outside of the USA and outside of your city.

My points are not outrageous -- you'll probably see the vast majority of the world outside the USA agrees with me.
And my points were not discredited, all you and Kuci have managed to do is keep quoting your constitution like a bible-thumper quotes the bible. And you're just as bad at acknowledging reality in debates as a bible-thumper is.

The fact that your faith is in the Constitution instead of the actual Bible is really no different.

It's not worth debating with you anymore because you don't debate.

I debate very well, thank you. You, however, do not. All you ever do is defer to authority and whenever that fails, switch to reciting dogma while incredulously wondering why anyone could possibly think differently.

[Asher]

The poster making which comment? HC was the one who first brought up the WaPo as an example of liberalism AFAICT. I'm not digging further to make sure, though.



No. Why should we, when such a spectrum is largely useless for us? I mean, beyond the limited utility of left-right spectra in the first place, and the fact that there are nuances difficult to fit into the picture like some EU countries having tax-funded state churches. When an American says left or right, he means relative to the political norm in his own country. If we did it your way, the term "liberal" could only be used for actual communists and Greenpeace.

Also, I assume by "modern" world you mean Canada, Australia, Western Europe and maybe Japan/South Korea. Why stop at that? Why not factor in the political opinions of India and China, seeing as they're at least a third of the world between them? I mean, sure, they're culturally quite different and the terms are pretty nonsensical when used in that context, but the same is true of the U.S. and that didn't stop you, so...

I don't think Canada and the USA are culturally quite different, with one major exception: Americans are more insecure so they demand to demonstrate their prowess with the military and with gun ownership. Americans are also blinded by absolute faith in their constitution, which clouds their judgement in many cases of law and results in the mess you have today.

[Asher]

HC said he read the WaPo, a liberal newspaper (not as super-liberal as he thinks, but liberal as far as we Yanks are concerned). Asher retorted that on the contrary, it's center-right. Does he expect HC to read The Village Voice, or Mother Jones, or what? Hell, is even Mother Jones liberal for Canadians?

Anyone using the WaPo as an example as a liberal paper in 2011 needs their head examined, or at least more worldly exposure.

[Asher]

They're actually banned in Germany. Courts here have upheld that they are allowed to practice with freedom of religion.

Speaking of freedom of religion, why does the US persecute traditionalist (read: polyamorous) Mormons?

For someone who blindly spouts dogma and criticizes any and all ways that foreign countries have more limitations, your country has many limitations on the freedoms you hold so fundamentally. The fact that they don't affect you personally just causes you not to care.

[notyoueither]

Or maybe the US is right of most of the West in the main, and the WaPo could be centre-left for them (although, what's up with blanket endorsements of Rebublicans in Virginia?).

[notyoueither]

Speaking of freedom of religion, why does the US persecute traditionalist (read: polyamorous) Mormons?

For someone who blindly spouts dogma and criticizes any and all ways that foreign countries have more limitations, your country has many limitations on the freedoms you hold so fundamentally. The fact that they don't affect you personally just causes you not to care.

Polyamory is not polygamy.

[Asher]

Or maybe the US is right of most of the West in the main, and the WaPo could be centre-left for them (although, what's up with blanket endorsements of Rebublicans in Virginia?).

It's Liberal to endorse Republicans.

[Asher]

Polyamory is not polygomy.

Correct, but there's actually homosexual Mormon cults too (I'll try to find the link later at home, it's hilarious).

[Asher]

From Wiki:

As Katharine Graham (the former publisher of The Post) noted in her memoirs Personal History, the paper long had a policy of not making endorsements for political candidates. However, since at least 2000, The Washington Post has endorsed Republican politicians, such as Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich.[28] In 2006, it repeated its historic endorsements of every Republican incumbent for Congress in Northern Virginia.[29] There have also been times when The Post has specifically chosen not to endorse any candidate, such as in 1988 when it refused to endorse then Governor Michael Dukakis or then Vice President George H.W. Bush.[30] On October 17, 2008, The Post endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States.[31]
The Post's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent: it has steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including CAFTA.
In "Buying the War" on PBS, Bill Moyers noted 27 editorials supporting George W. Bush's ambitions to invade Iraq. National security correspondent Walter Pincus reported that he had been ordered to cease his reports that were critical of Republican administrations.[32]

You guys are seriously telling me these are traits of a Liberal newspaper, even by US standards?

How many Liberals support all Republicans running in their state? How many Liberals actively supported the invasion of Iraq? How many liberals support social security privatization?

[Al B. Sure!]

From Wiki:


You guys are seriously telling me these are traits of a Liberal newspaper, even by US standards?

How many Liberals support all Republicans running in their state? How many Liberals actively supported the invasion of Iraq? How many liberals support social security privatization?

The Washington Post endorsed Obama.

[Asher]

The Washington Post endorsed Obama.

Congratulations, one endorsement for anyone-but-Palin in a sea of Republican endorsements. Sounds like centre-right.

[-Jrabbit]

Wow, did this thread take a turn.

Um, thanks to Alby for defending me, I guess. But please note this is not necessary. I don't crave the respect of the craven, and certainly not because of my advanced years (57 btw).

Props to, I think it was Provost and DaShi, maybe MikeH (too old to remember, I guess), for attempting to point out the difference between journalistic integrity and freedom of speech, and the problem of opinion/propaganda being presented as news.

HC, for a guy who's trying to lecture Asher on proper debating, that was a particularly steep decent into unsupported name-calling. A bit ironic, and not in a good way. I'm pleased to learn that you read traditional newspapers. Sadly, it makes your contention -- that the outlawing of untruths being presented to the public as news, on a "news" channel, is censorship -- even harder to understand.

OK, y'all can go back to discussing Moonies and redefining the political spectrum.

[Wezil]

Thanks for that.

Has anyone actually seen a Moonie at the airport?

[Wezil]

Or is that hare krishna?

[Elok]

I don't think Canada and the USA are culturally quite different, with one major exception: Americans are more insecure so they demand to demonstrate their prowess with the military and with gun ownership. Americans are also blinded by absolute faith in their constitution, which clouds their judgment in many cases of law and results in the mess you have today.

We're also substantially more religious. Probably there are other differences too, except I don't know Canadians IRL and I don't follow your politics.

[Elok]

Or is that hare krishna?

I haven't seen either at the airport, but I have seen LaRouche followers at BWI and the MVA. They're a regular fixture at the latter, I guess they think dealing with the state's cruelest bureaucracy puts people in the mood to believe Queen Elizabeth is a lizard-person or whateverTF they think.

[Asher]

We're also substantially more religious. Probably there are other differences too, except I don't know Canadians IRL and I don't follow your politics.

No, I wouldn't say you are more religious. Canadians just view religion as part of their private lives, and not a tool to inflict morals on other people through government and media.

83.7% of Canadians are religious, as of the last census (77% of which are Christians).

Amazingly, 76% of Americans are Christian (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States). Which makes Canada more of a Christian nation than the USA. We're just a helluva lot smarter about it.

So 83.7% of Canadians are religious, 85% of Americans.

[Wezil]

Elok - They are a special kind of crazy.

[Elok]

Well, they're certainly scarier than the HKs, though not necessarily scarier than the Moonies.

Asher, are you admitting your country is more "backwards" than mine in that one limited respect?

[notyoueither]

Being religious means being backwards?

[Elok]

Being religious means being backwards?

According to Asher, yes.

[Wezil]

How is 83% vs 85% more backwards (religious)?

edit - possibly 83% vs 88.4% depending on which numbers you use. Still not "more" by Wezil Math.

[Elok]

True, you're only more Christian than us, apparently.

[Wezil]

By a hair. Stay tuned though.

The Cdn numbers have a breakdown by age. All major religions are above the median age of the nation except Muslims.

Non-religious was also under the median.