BHS

It is Canadian soil they are seizing. Which overall regardles of who had the deed, it's only rightful owner is Canada. Now look at it this way. Turn those tables. If we even mentioned it to the US that we want to seize the criminals land property, they would laugh us right out of the place. So we should treat them with the respect they would give us. Regardless of me being a supporter of legalizing pot, Emery messed up large and is subject to all he has comming to him. I guess most possesions can be seized ect, and I know it happend all the time. And regarldess of Emery messing up and getting caught, Canadian soil is still Canadian soil. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did you even read the rest of the thread? They aren't seizing Canadian soil. They're attempting to seize privately held title. It's not the same thing at all.

I got the joke from the start, but the fact that this thread deteriorated the way it did is the really funny part.

I gather that I'm meant to be thought of as one of the people who thinks DeLay walks on water. Not true. I don't actually know very much about the man, outside of what you've printed here, which paints him as positively Clintonesque. Not a coveted sobriquet for any self-respecting Republican, to be sure. I thought my post had an air of amused detachment, and I'm disappointed if I came across as shrill. I'd think that description would more suitably describe your response. You seem to have some sort of personal vendetta against the Republicans, which is fine with me. Have at 'em. But at least pick your battles with a little more care. This court case is a clear loser, no matter how detestable DeLay is. (Sorry Greg.) I know my disapproval of your take on Bush's response to Katrina irked you, but I hadn't gathered how much. I apologize.

But then, Goodale was only considering a 3 cent reduction in taxes, not 15 cents. The Feds aren't responsible for roads, they aren't responsible for natural resources, so the only way they can get into the Transportation game is to create money-losing monopolies in air and rail transport and to levy taxes, which they can then redistribute in whatever arbitrary and irritating fashion is most likely to keep them relevant. A truly effective reduction in the gas tax would take away their stake in this aspect of the lives of most Canadians. Quelle horreur.

David Dingwall. It shows how closely I've followed federal politics for me to state that I thought he was still a cabinet minister, and I was going to express my shock that a Liberal cabinet minister had resigned for anything short of a blood-soaked satanic murder on the steps of Parliament Hill during a media scrum. But it appears Liberal cabinet ministers maintain their 1000 average for Shawinagan-style respectability. Pray tell, why would the head of the Mint need to spend $140000 on travel (in a year, no less)? Are their mint conventions? Is he studying third world coin-stamping techniques? If he works in Ottawa but chooses to maintain his residence in Peggy's Cove, why should the public foot the bill for his commute? Further, what's with the "legitimate" golf club fees? Who does he need to schmooze? His product sells itself. And since when is being a member in good standing of the Nova Scotia Bar Association a requirement for printing money? So what if the mint went from losing money to making money? Am I expected to believe that Dingwall's talent is responsible for the turnaround? In eight months? Sounds like only the complimentary part of that story is being told. The Canada Customs and Revenue Service technically "loses" money 8 months a year too - should we credit the head bean-counter when revenues pick up in early January?

I watched (or rather listened, as I was busy with something else) to Tom being interviewed by Bret Hume tonight. I think between the two of them they were trying to perpetrate some Rovian mischief. The picture I got was that they're completely sure that the charges are going nowhere, but they were painting it like he was hiding something to keep Nancy Pelosi going. The more she runs at the mouth, the wackier and more ravingly partisan the whole Democratic party looks. The fact is that, like the Plame "scandal" this is a total crock that will end with the Democrats having won nothing but a little egg for their faces. (Though, the look suits them.)

Interesting analogy.

Good post, August.

Eureka this is the 2nd time you have gone after him and not his argument. How have you not been warned/banned for this yet is beyond comprehension. Because you dont outright call him a facisit right wing nut doesnt excuse you from attacking his credibility. Why dont you attack his argument? Honestly i think its pretty sad that you cannot find something to refute the letter and then have to decend into a personal attack on his charachter. Shape up. Thanks for the link to the letter, im reading it now. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll just add that I've never seen eureka start a thread, or jump into a topic with a fresh and positive take on the subject at hand. His forte (raison d'etre, really) is criticisizing other people's posts, often without anything to back up his critique except his own bluster. For him to deride others for their posting style is just crass. I'd say more, but the eye in the sky is always watching.

Stop trolling, troll. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Better watch it, BD. I caught flack from Grandmaster G for a very similar post. And I think it might even have been a reply to one of your posts. Besides which, I think MB's satire is a relevant reflection of the kind of posts I see coming out of the murkier corners of the left all of the time. If the Americans are warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on one hand, how are we not also warmongers for intervening to depose a murderous tyranny on the other?

Did you have to include "redneck homophobes" in your post? Why not just "members"? It's pretty ironic that in a post where you complain about the bigotry of others and call for bannings you would choose to include your own slurs, and thereby risk your own exile.

Suggestions have popped up here and there, but the only place outside the internet which has outright said it was Frank magazine. Pettigrew is neither out of the closet nor in the closet. He is one of those guys, like Bill Graham, who are out to family, friends, campaign staff and workers, and his party, and to large segments of the gay community, but not to the general public. The media never mentions things like this as they have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Unless the MP outright says he's gay they won't ask and won't report anything which suggests he is. The media will and have reported on him and his chauffeur, but I haven't seen any speculation about just "why" he was taking his chauffeur on trips. And I don't expect to. At most we might get a picture of the chauffeur, most likely in a tabloid, and get to see if he's pretty. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Riiiiigggghhht. You wait and see what happens when a Conservative MP gets outed. The CBC will be shouting it from the rooftops. Liberal media types are happy to ignore sexual orientation as long as you think pure, Liberal thoughts. Look at the idiotic kerfuffle about Dick Cheney's daughter, and John Roberts' plaid pants (somehow indicating potential homosexual leanings). Do you think the media in Canada will behave any differently? You heard it here first: when a Conservative MP gets outed, the media will include it in every story they can, regardless of how inappropriate the inclusion of such information may be.

And for some people, its never necessary to consider things like history, context or (here's a word you like to throw around a lot) facts. Some people aren't smart enough to recognize that important decisions (such as whether or not to go to war) should take these factors into consideration and not be predicated on paranoid delusions and pie-in-the-sky scenarios. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you talking about me or you?

For some people, it's never necessary to go to war. And then when war (or any catastrophe, really) is brought to their own doors they're the first people demanding an explanation for why nothing was done to prevent it. These are the people who blame George W. for not preventing 911 with one breath and call Iraq unnecessary in the next, and praise Clinton for his pacifism in the face of mounting terrorism, and would blame Bush for the calamity if an untouched Saddam were allowed to nuke Europe. Cand effect have no place in their thinking, because that would require a smidgen of ability with logic. As for Bush going to war for partisan political reasons, I can only shake my head in amazement at the deranged state Bush's foes have sunken to. Like Gore wouldn't have done the same thing, or worse.

This is possibly the single most putrid, ridiculous piece of trash I've ever seen you post. Congratulations. What possible definition of "class" can you be using to make this statement hold water, even in your own mind?

Are you even old enough to remember Muldoon? He was funnier in real time.

This post reminds me of your previous nonsense about Karl Rove going down in flames. Which reminds me, I have to send a congratulatory email to his office for orchestrating this whole Katrina thing to take the pressure off himself. Act of God, my foot.

You'll never see that kind of accountability from the Donk sacks of crap that run Lousianna and New Orleans Parish. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, Bush had no choice but to take responsibility, given that FEMA reports directly to him. Plus it doesn't help that his approval rating has hit the lowest point of his presidency. Like someone said, Katrina will be his Monica Lewinsky. As far as the Democrat's accountability, I refer you to what Mr. Nagin said: "My biggest mistake is having a fundamental assumption that in the state of Louisiana, with an $18 billion budget, in the country of the United States that can move whole fleets of aircraft carriers across the globe in 24 hours, that my fundamental assumption was get as many people to safety as possible, and that the cavalry would be coming within two to three days, and they didn't come." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It all boils down to how he handles the tv address tonight. If he comes across as willing to take the brunt of the responsibility without further reflection, history will have no choice but to remember Katrina as "Bush's Monika Lewinski". What Ray Nagin has to say about the disaster is largely irrelevant. His first repsonse was to throw up his arms and abdicate responsibility for anything, which is reflected in your quote. He can't be held entirely accountable, of course - the corruption in government in Lousianna is deep, wide and legendary. Witness the collapse of the police department. Those officers were hired, reviewed, promoted and maintained by the system, and are symptomatic of the problems throughout the system.

EEEEthankyewww!!! (Meant to sound like a chirpy Brit accent.) You are correct. This legislation only applies in Ontario. My centrocentric mistake. To clarify, the Church does not collect taxes; rather, taxes are collected by the government on behalf of the constitutionally protected seperate school system. The taxpayer specifies whether his taxes are meant to support the public or seperate system, but my understanding is that this is a merely a form of cencus-taking and doesn't affect resource allocation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought people couldn't specify anymore. The taxes are split up based on student population, no? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You may be right. I don't recall ignoring that section of my tax return last year.

All the federal funding in the world doesn't matter a wit if local authorities ignore their own emergency procedures and fall to pieces when disaster strikes. In Ontario a couple of years ago we had a serious incidence of water poisoning in a small town called Walkerton. The usual culprits then (and still) claim that the problem rested entirely on the shoulders of Mike Harris for slashing funding for water testing and control. However, the presence of e. coli bacteria which caused the poisoning was detected and reported in more than sufficient time to shut down the effected well and prevent the catastrophe. The weak link in the chain that lead to the deaths of seven and the poisoning of hundreds was the local manager, Stan Koebel. He received the report but didn't act upon it. The subsequent inquiry noted that Stan had a history of fudging reports and ignoring warnings, for fear that the presence of a biotoxin in the water supply would reflect badly on him. Up until that last disaster he'd managed to get away with it. It's the local authorities who need to be up-to-date and ready for disaster, because their the one's with the earliest and best opportunities to make the decisions that can mean the difference between inconvenience and fatalities. Waiting for far away federal forces to take charge is beyond illogical, it's suicidal. When the inevitable inquiries and commissions have done their review of Katrina, I'm confident that the actions of the federal government will take a lower place in the blame rankings than the actions of local authorities, not because I support Bush or blame the Dems, but because disaster response needs to be handled by those in office closest to the disaster. I'm also confident that the howls of protest will have their desired effect anyway, and new procedures for the federal government taking control in these types of situations will be put in place. And when the next disaster strikes (think LA 9.0 earthquake for example) the emergency procedures will be next to useless because Washington and all the people in charge will be on the other side of the continent, doing their best to guess which actions are appropriate to the flood of emergencies.

Funny!

So that's it, then, is it? The new catchphrase for the hysterical anti-Bush crowd is to be "Too little, too late", eh?. Kinda catchy. I can hear Kennedy roaring it now*. Hope that works out for you. *Of course, it's kind of ironic that Kennedy would ever have anything to say about a disaster involving cars underwater and people drowning. You'd think he'd try to avoid that kind of image-association. Some people have no shame.

EEEEthankyewww!!! (Meant to sound like a chirpy Brit accent.) You are correct. This legislation only applies in Ontario. My centrocentric mistake. To clarify, the Church does not collect taxes; rather, taxes are collected by the government on behalf of the constitutionally protected seperate school system. The taxpayer specifies whether his taxes are meant to support the public or seperate system, but my understanding is that this is a merely a form of cencus-taking and doesn't affect resource allocation.

You haven't provided a shread of evidence to support this statement other than your own reading of events. The only accusations of corruption are coming from mis-informed web-pundits and angry lefters, and you for some reason. The Democrats howl to the media about every non-scandal that comes down the pipe, but nothing sticks because none of the accusations have any substance. It's all partisan grandstanding. Your posting on Katrina has been deplorable.

I refer interested readers to the Scott Act of 1863 (enacted subsequent to the Common Schools Act of 1859), protected by section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867. This has all been reviewed by the courts in decades past, which confirmed the Catholics' right to a seperate system of education funded by taxes. And don't bother quibbling with semantics, eureka. I'm not in the mood for it and I won't be responding to your further inevitable jibes.