Stupid is as stupid does

CBC Radio

Why do we fund with public tax dollars a national broadcaster that plays foreign broadcasts five hours a night and more on the weekends ?

If you don’t have national programing to play then pull the plug, go home, get a job and stop spending my taxes to support foriegn broadcasting in this nation.

The international program schedule is:

1:05 Radio Netherlands 2:05 Radio Sweden and Radio Australia 3:05 Channel Africa and BBC World Service 4:05 Deutsche Welle and Radio Polonia 5:05 Radio Australia, Radio Prague, Deutsche Welle and Voice of Russia Weekends 1:05 Radio Netherlands 2:05 Radio Prague and Voice of Russia 3:05 Radio Sweden and BBC World Service 4:05 Deutsche Welle 5:05 Radio Australia


December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

fire "the stink’n jew", please.

December 07,2006

Subject: might a man have a last request ?

Dear minister of heritage and woman,

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Sorry it’s just that this (your) title seems to smack of some kind of sexist drool, racism.

Heritage AND Woman hmm.

Anyway I was wishing to make a last request now that it seems your government is doomed.

Not a federally regulated tobacco stick.

I get my own from the reserve for fifteen a carton (200 sticks) thanks .

(though not exactly from the reserve don’t ask me I can’t tell you that)

They might be illegal for all I know.

But I’m sure that shouldn’t concern the minister of heritage and woman though I do understand that you are minister responsible for the CBC.

Is it possible that the CBC should not be receiving public funds while running commercials on there TV programs.

It is wrong though I do appreciate the CBC really, I do not believe it should be running commercials while acting as a public broadcaster.

This should be illegal but in the mean time could you please stop publicly funding this commercial media outlet ?

Or even more preferably is it possible that the CBC could STOP running commercials on its public broadcasts and could you please fire the Jew in charge of the CBC.

Sorry it’s not that I consider myself superior to Jews or anything but there are so many Jews involved in the media that at least you could appoint a none Jew surely that is like putting Jack Layton NDP m.p. in charge of labour .

Just as a final request before the holidays.

Actually that’s two requests possibly one for Christmas and one for my birthday *, *.

Sincerely Yours,
*, Ontario, Canada

i could be a jew too, eh

December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

"nice to see some things haven’t changed"

“and Martin’s pledge to deal with what he calls a democratic deficit. Martin has repeatedly publicly stated that he sees federal power in Canada as being too centralized and unaccountable,”

December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

"in the House of Commons"

don’t bring this outside Mr. Graham .

You might be labelled a hate criminal and arrested for such remarks by some of us possibly as many as 70% or more that didn’t vote for you or your Party.

Spoooky stuff dude (what’s the politically correct term for dude) dood ? doody ?, howdy, doo doo ?

December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

Treason maybe can I wait til Christmas to decide ?

December 07, 2006
Dear member of parliament * * m.p., *-*,
It seems that you have today held a vote in the house of commons which should if fails bring with it the dissolution of your government and resignation of its leader the prime minister, unless I am mistaken.
News just in off the Internet it seems your motion to reopen debate on same sex marriage has failed.
While needing a new leader is not a good time to call an election it seems that you are “stuck between a rock and hard place”.
Some of “us” believe that the motion to make law the Quebecois a nation over 70% of Canadians, does cross the line into a area which I believe should concern the law act of treason.
Of course I do not expect the leader of any of the opposition or the leader of government to be rushing out to have themselves charged with a grave criminal offence.
Perhaps you should take it upon yourself brave citizen and member of parliament to ensure that the concerns of your constituency are all addressed including this.
It has been brought to my attention that treason is defined in the Canada criminal code and that rather than waiting for a public servant to address an “issue” which some believe is a matter of national security ….. I just don’t know when your going to stop doing the same things as governments previous, it is too late now, time to pack up and get on with selecting a new leader and calling an election.
I’ll check into the statute of limitations regarding treason against the federal government of Canada while your packing.
Yours Truly,
* * * *
*, Ontario, Canada

December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

lot & potty of em

Would “Georgy porgy” not have his way some day ?


December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

Dear Jack "ass",

Seventy per cent of Canadians could not be wrong could they ?

“We have long supported this concept, because it is a question of respect for our fellow citizens who live in Quebec.
As well, we have found that there has been a huge lack of respect for Quebeckers in past years. There are many examples of this: the scandals, when people sought support in Quebec with unacceptable behaviour
or with a right-wing policy—not a social democratic policy
that reflects Quebeckers‘ values
—a bellicose policy that does not reflect the sort of society in which the vast majority of Quebeckers want to live.”

Ya, their own society apart from Canadian law and Constitution which you have committed treason in supporting.

You may wish to argue that but I think a court of law is where your rebuttal should be heard and not a court of public opinion.

That’s just me though eh and seventy percent of Canada that did not support your vote to call the “Quebecois a nation”.

In your defence it was the “politically correct” thing to do.

December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

the Aristotelian corpus

and the left bank win again though their time is shortened by virtue of their deluded victory

December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

Just reading the news

Noting how the motion to make “the Quebecoi” “a nation” “means nothing” !

How’s my grade six education, i know my spelling and grammar are pathetic good thing for spell check.

I think my teacher didn’t have the heart to fail me, as i did recieve a grade eight diploma, or the ability to teach but that’s a nuther story.

…… black superman
“In times of war, we need somebody raw. Rally the troops, like a saint that we can trust to help us carry through.”
— Tupac Amaru Shakur (T.I.P)

December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

dont whuup me massa !

Let’s vote freely and fairly while we are a minority surrounded by the same members who just voted to make same sex marriage the law in contravention of Canada’s Constitution.

Six Conservative cabinet ministers, are reportedly ready to vote against the government motion to revisit same-sex marriage according to a survey by The Globe and Mail.

Look out runaway Canadian freight train carrying 30, 000, 000 passengers.

Passengers ride on passenger trains and cattle are carried by freight trains, so ? News Staff

After debating late into the night, MPs will vote Thursday on a controversial motion to revisit debate on same-sex marriage.

However, it appears to have little chance of passing when it goes to the vote.

More than 170 MPs, including six Conservative cabinet ministers, are reportedly ready to vote against the government motion to revisit same-sex marriage, according to a survey by The Globe and Mail.

These numbers are well above the 154 votes needed to defeat the Conservative motion asking the government to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

The newspaper’s numbers are taken from surveys by advocates of homosexual unions and supported by interviews with individual MPs.

The motion calls on the government ”to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.”

More than 12,000 gay couples across Canada have already wed.

Conservative House Leader Rob Nicholson launched Wednesday’s debate in defence of his government’s position.

“This is completely consistent with what we told the Canadian people we would do,” he said. “We’re fulfilling that promise.”

The cabinet ministers who are expected to vote against the motion include Treasury Board President John Baird, Trade Minister David Emerson, Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice and International Co-operation Minister Josée Verner.

Former Liberal cabinet minister Bill Graham dismissed the motion as a shoddy ”smoke screen” meant to sow political division.

”It’s a manoeuvre designed to divide the House and the nation on an issue that’s been decided.”

Graham said the only way for the government to restore the traditional definition is to use the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause, which allows governments to override the Charter. Harper has said he would not do that.

Both Harper and new Liberal Leader Stephane Dion have said they will allow their MPs to vote their conscience.

But the Bloc Quebecois and NDP are expected to require their MPs to reject the motion, meaning there is virtually no way it will pass.

Dion doesn’t support reopening the divisive debate, but he worried that imposing party discipline would hand the Conservatives more leverage on the issue.

A handful of Liberal MPs support revisiting the same-sex issue, and would have to be disciplined if they acted out of step with a whipped vote.

But Dion made it clear that if the motion had gone directly to strike down same-sex marriage, he would have whipped the caucus because the unions are protected by the Charter of Rights.

Last year, 32 Liberal MPs voted against the same-sex marriage law.

Laurie Arron, national co-ordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage, argues that it is time to move on.

“I think it’s quite clear that Parliament is poised to defeat this divisive motion and this will be the third vote in three years in three different parliaments under three different prime ministers,” Arron said, appearing on CTV’s Canada Am on Thursday.

“And it’s quite clear that Canadians are quite opposed to reopening this measure, that there’s a growing consensus, that the issue is settled,” he said.

But even if the motion is denied, it is unlikely the issue will be put to rest, said Canada Family Action Coalition President Charles McVety.

McVety is calling for a study that will impact the definition of marriage on all people, including heterosexual couples and clergy.

“We still need to do that study and this is just measuring the temperature of this Parliament. This Parliament’s not going to last very long,” he said.

“There’s going to be an election soon. There will be another Parliament, and this issue will come up once again in the next Parliament.”

December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

Leave it to the "socially progressive"

To give us the good news now that Conservatives are in office !

I wonder where these “social progressives” were while all this was going on during Paul Martin and presumably Jean Chretien’s reigns as “Vicar” and “Sovereign’s” of this fabulous free “democracy” called Canada.

December 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment