BHS

Does anyone in this forum know anything about Northeastern BC? I'm considering a move there. Any help is appreciated.

I read the article and I must admit to some confusion. Are sixteen-year-olds still legally allowed to drop out of school? That was the cut-off age when I was a lad. If it's still true, then all you have to do is formally drop out of school. You can't be charged with truancy if you aren't a student. This law has been amended so that it only applies to truants, according to the article.

No. Rather, I'll ask you how far off Reagan's position (as indicated in your quote) was from reality. I remember acid rain being a big deal back in the 80's, with a lot of scary talk about dying lakes and forests. The worst of those predictions have proven hugely inaccurate. So, what happened?

Let's take these charges one at a time: 'Renditioning' people for torture: Renditioning is a practice that predates Bush and is most likely carried out by the CIA, definitely NOT a wing of the "Bush regime" (see Plamegate). Doesn't make it right, of course. sexually abusing prisoners of war: Again, the Armed Forces are not a wing of the "Bush regime". And the prisoners at Abu Ghraib (I'm assuming this is what you're referring to) weren't POWs by defintion. starting wars on false pretenses: (I'm guessing you're talking about WMD.) Making sure that Saddam isn't capable of developing nukes isn't a false pretense, regardless of whether or not he actually possessed that capability at the time of the invasion. Preventing the merest possibility of a future nuclear-armed Uday Hussein regime is worthwhile in and of itself, as is deposing a tyrants with Saddam's credentials in any case. And, to be technically correct, the action taken in 1991 was never fullly resolved, so Bush wasn't really "starting" a war with Iraq. lying on the world stage: I'll give you this one. You can tell a politician is lying when his mouth moves. I challenge you to find me one example of a politician talking on the world stage who isn't lying. Start by crossing Kofi Annan, John Kerry and Jacques Chirac off the list. undermining prohibitions against torture: You're going to have to flesh this one out a bit. Are you referring to renditioning again? Or are you suggesting that Bushco authorized domestic torture as well as farming out torture to foreign governments? Which definition of torture are you going by, the universally understood definiton that involves causing extreme physical pain and/or permanent disability, or the McCain definition that boils down to anything that causes discomfort or shame? Further, it's a pretty twisted outlook that views America's efforts to catch or kill people who saw other people's heads off for propaganda purposes as being part and parcel to "undermining prohibitions against torture". Prohibitions are meaningless if they are universally applicable. I don't know why I bother with replying to this drecht. I honestly don't believe that you think America has been disgraced by Bush - to feel that way, you'd have to have seen some good in America at some point.

Hmm. Stewart/Colbert - which one runs for which office? I can't see either man wanting to play second fiddle to the other. What do you like about Obama?

Citation?

No, only that there won't be any ice left on the North Pole.

Instead a tornado hits London, England. And Continental ski hills are all snow-free. And the papers in England are predictably linking the unusual warm weather with global warming. Last year, when Eastern Europe saw some of the lowest sustained temperatures on record? Not a peep. The only thing predictable about the weather is that no matter what happens the eco-doom crowd will spin it to mean that mankind is the devil.

What do you mean, "more accurately known as climate change"? This is something I've never fully understood: do the true believers think that climate change didn't occur before the Industrial Revolution? Were climatic conditions more or less static before humans appeared? If global warming=climate change, does that mean that the climate only changes unidirectionally? There's something vaguely Orwellian about the way the left grabs onto existing words and phrases, twists the meanings to their own uses, and expects everyone else to use their redefintions and toe the rhetorical line.

Since no one in the forums has mentioned the Princess Di bugging story yet, I thought I'd create a post at least for posterity's sake. And where better to put it than append it to this old chestnut of a thread? kausfiles

Link?

Impeach him for what?

Woo! If you're going for premium redneck effect (such as Bush deserves) you need this.

Just so. In a mature democracy, I think a militant anything would be the least appealing candidate in any race. If the unique circumstances presented themselves such that my only three choices for my local riding were the three militant types stated at the beginning of this thread, I would join the Marijuana Party, run as the local candicate and vote for myself.

Well said, Rue. On all points. I was going to jump in but you've said everything I was thinking.