The Canadian Gov’t won’t issue Fox News a license to broadcast in Canada.
On a similar note - they’ve welcomed Al-Jazera to Canadian air-space with open arms.
Bush is the King of Flip Flops:
2000: Bush is for states rights.
2004: Bush is against states rights.
Bush might flip flop less if Karl Rove could had a better memory for what to tell Bush to say.
Rainjack, grow up. There is an application process and a set of rules to follow – as well as an admittedly slow bureaucracy to wallow through. I’m sure it will happen eventually.
Here is some relevant material about a decision that was made a while back, and in all probability has delayed the approval for Fox News (directly, as opposed to the original proposed partnership). It is possible that Global Television was merely using a delaying tactic to keep Fox News out, or perhaps a deal went sour, who knows.
[i]In Fox News Canada, Decision CRTC 2000-565, 14 December 2000, the Commission approved an application by Global Television Network (OBCI) (Global) for a new Canadian Category 2 specialty programming service to be known as Fox News Canada. In Deadline to commence operation of Category 2 specialty and pay television services, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-599, 16 December 2003, the Commission approved a request by Global for a one year final extension until 24 November 2004 to the implementation date for Fox News Canada.
The CCTA attached to its request a letter dated 31 March 2004 from Fox News, the non-Canadian partner in Fox News Canada. In that letter, Fox News addressed the Fox News Canada service as follows: “Fox News does not intend to implement this service and therefore will not meet the extended deadline to commence operations.” The Commission notes that the CCTA did not provide any information from Global concerning Global?s plans for Fox News Canada.[/i]
Here is a news story about the process that went on for Al-Jazeera. Notice that our broadcasters are to edit the content and remove offensive material prior to broadcast in Canada. As noted in the political forums before, Canada does not allow “hate speech”.
[i]Arabic TV network Al-Jazeera has received CRTC approval to broadcast in Canada.
In a written decision, the CRTC said that it has decided that distributors must record Al-Jazeera programming and keep the recordings for a specific length of time in order to ensure that the content is not overly harmful to viewers.
“This measure will enable the commission and licensees of BDUs [broadcasting distribution undertakings] to verify and assess the context of the programming in the event of any future concerns about abusive comment on Al-Jazeera’s programming.”
The CRTC said it will require that distributors not distribute anything that could be considered “abuse comment.”
It will allow distributors to “alter or delete” Al-Jazeera programming to ensure that no abusive comment is distributed, the CRTC said, while at the same time striving to have minimal impact on freedom of expression.
Al-Jazeera broadcasts 24 hours a day from Qatar on the Persian Gulf. The network regularly receives video and audio tapes said to have come from al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden and other prominent terrorists in the Middle East.
Jewish groups in particular were concerned about what they saw as anti-Semitic commentary on the 24-hour news network based in Qatar on the Persian Gulf.
Charles Dalfen, chairman of the CRTC, agreed in an interview with Canadian Press that Al-Jazeera has broadcast objectionable material.
Some of the remarks cited at commission hearings clearly held Jews up to “hatred and contempt on the basis of religion,” said Mr. Dalfen.
On the other hand, he said, Al-Jazeera met the test of being a credible news service, and the commission had a legal duty not to unduly infringe freedom of expression.
The conclusion was that “we couldn’t absolutely ban it,” said Mr. Dalfen.
The decision took more than a year for the CRTC to make. Organizations launched vigorous campaigns for and against specific elements of the application.[/i]
[Talk about a hijack, and thanks for wasting my time making me go look this up to correct your misinformation]
Rainjack said
I don’t know what medication you’re on, but don’t forget to take it.
You’re kidding right? You realize that we are taxed all across the board, and not just with a payroll tax?
I make about 40k a year, and over one third of that income goes towards taxes. Maybe I am just one of the unlucky 29%?
I understand how you other guys want to go off topic (health care from BB, for example) but try to stay on the topic: Why Kerry voted for the 87 billion for the troops (he wanted it to come from the upper 2%, not the middle class) before he voted against it (a protest vote after that ammendment was stripped, meaning that the war would have to be paid for by defecit spending). And how Republicans FLIP-FLOPPED when they voted AGAINST the bill (they didn’t want to support the troops! Gasp!) before they FLOPPED and voted FOR it.
Republicans are Flip-Floppers!!!
John Kerry stated, “I actually voted for the 87 billion dollar reconstruction bill before I voted against it.”
Nothing more needs to be said. Not what you want in time of war.
JeffR
JeffR
If only we were debating this on “Crossfire” on CNN. I would SLAM my fist down on the table, and say “Don’t interrupt me again!”
Just teasing ya, buddy.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainman, some people are pretty dead set against putting debt on the heads of the next generation…
Isn’t Canada still part of the UK? The last time I checked, your government was recruiting (aiding and abedding) terrorists to help the come into the US.
If that was the attitude when we went to WW2? I think not.
What is even better, Kerry wanted to give the same power for Clinton to go into Iraq, but how is it different? Because their man is not in the office.
They have numerous pinko-commi’s that wanted to send out troops (not Canada’s) into Iraq to get this started back in the late 90’s because of the threat of WMD’s getting into the hands of rogue opperatives.
Madiline Half-wit even stated in the waining days of the Clinton Administration that the greatest threat to the US (not Canada) was terrorists.
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
You’re kidding right? You realize that we are taxed all across the board, and not just with a payroll tax?
I make about 40k a year, and over one third of that income goes towards taxes. Maybe I am just one of the unlucky 29%?
[/quote]
I mis-spoke - only 29% of wage earners pay income tax. That does not take into consideration SE tax/payroll tax.
I do taxes for a living and I can tell you for a fact that everyone benefited from Bush’s tax breaks. Even those who pay no taxes.
I’m not swallowing the left’s ‘tax breaks for the rich’ BS.
I will agree with you that the single wage earner gets it in the shorts come April 15. But be honest - you paid less income tax this year than you did under Clinton’s tax rates, didn’t you?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, grow up. There is an application process and a set of rules to follow – as well as an admittedly slow bureaucracy to wallow through. I’m sure it will happen eventually.
[Talk about a hijack, and thanks for wasting my time making me go look this up to correct your misinformation][/quote]
Am I childish because I was right?
or
Am I childish because of the way I framed my statement?
or
Am I childish because I made you get off your ass and look shit up?
I just listened to Edwards giving a great…pro military speech. The first part of the speech was directed to all the victims in America. The second one was about strengthening the miltiary. That part was pretty good…
Edwards wife is a hippo. Pure T-Vixen!
Rainjack, You are childish because you throw out ridiculous bullshit arguments that you could easily find to be false on your own if you wished. I guess you didn’t read my reply if you had to ask if you were right?
Sugar, its hard to tell what you are quoting and what you aren’t, but if you think Canada is part of the UK you are far behind the times. As for claiming Canada aids terrorists – you are completely out to lunch. What a moron.
Where do you idiots get all this propaganda bullshit? Is it your “fair and balanced” press? Any time you read anything about another country in your own press you can be pretty sure it is political claptrap.
vroom -
What I said about Fox News was true. They are not in Canada, yet.
What I said about Al Jazera was true - they are allowed to start broadcasting.
You have a problem with the partisan manner in which I framed my statement.
You knew nothing about the subject - maybe you should pay attention to the goings on of your own country before you start waxing political about mine.
Rain,
His government told him so it must be true! What did you think vroom? they were gonna just tell you the real reason why they aren’t letting fox news in the country? Oh sure, Fox is way more controversial than al-jazzera! Ha!
You seriously crack me up. If I had a nickel for every time you and Lumpy made me laugh out loud I would be as rich as John Kerry!
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
Rainjack, if you will bother to read what I posted you will find that Fox News is not in Canada because they had a partnership agreement with Global News which apparently did not go forward as originally proposed.
Claiming Fox News is “banned” is a blatant falsehood and carries implications. Claiming they are not currently in Canada is a different claim.
Claiming Al-Jazeera, which is a news organization, not a terrorist soapbox, is welcome with open arms is also incorrect. It is a news organization that has gone through proper process and been granted the ability to broadcast with restrictions based on Canadian laws.
If Fox News follows procedures and waits for the bureacracy to function without flip-flopping on how they would like to enter the Canadian market then I’m sure they will be allowed too.
Now, tell me where I am incorrect in claiming ignorance of Fox News being banned in Canada? You are merely trying to paint Canada as a country that is against the US in some way due to a supposedly unfair “banning” of Fox News.
It is political bullshit.
Vroom,
Here are some things that are highlighted for Kerry changing his position:
1- (As noted) He was for the 87 billion, and before he voted against it. (no mention of the tax-increase until later).
2- Druing the mid 90’s, HE purposed a bill to CUT OUR (not yours) CIA and FBI. Now he is trying to say that he would increase the spending
3- 1992- He went to defend Bill Clinton’s record on Vietnam, and he stated that it should not be relevent in an election. Now everytime there is a camera on him, it seems that he need to remind us the he won 3 purple hearts during that very same war.
4- Circa 1990- He stated in an address while running for reelection that he would not have the death penelty for terrorists the kill Americans (not Canucks), No JFK states that he would give it to them.
5- 1998-2002, He was a big supporter for going into Iraq to over throw Saddam. When he was losing traction with voters while running for the Presidental Nomination, he turns to a Anti-War canidate.
These are just a couple ot things that he has done in recent years. I would say that these document that John Kerry does not have a core, and the he will vote what ever way that it will make him reelected.