Shady

Great post MB! I was hoping to see this incident. Thanks. The free-flow of information equals the lying, corrupt liberals downfall. Keep it coming!

Well, airplanes, space shuttles, satellites, ships, medical and scientific research, etc, are expensive, I suppose. And yes, it definitely is nice work. Work is the key term.

Hmm, let's see. I'm not talking about Star Trek, and I thought it was dubbed "Star Wars", so why the reference to the Enterprise? However, I'd like to point out that this is a non sequitur argument. Well, when you don't research and test, like you propose, I guess the chances drop dramatically. And many top physicists, engineers and weapons experts have said that it is worth the cost and experimentation. Well, we all saw what happened to the Soviet Union the last time there was an arms race. It would be a shame if North Korea and Iran went bankrupt. How exactly is protecting yourself from smoking like chain-smoking? Must be some new fancy "liberal logic". No, it's not anything like welfare. These companies (people and families when you get down to it) actually do work for their money. Big difference. Again, if you stop the research and development, when exactly is the "time" that there will be a reasonable chance that it can be made to work? Maybe the same thing can be said about the gun registry? So what, it doen't mean you don't try and protect yourself from them. Again, must be some fancy new "liberal logic".

Suppose they can eventually get the accuracy up to say 100%? Or suppose that the time and money spent on this technology leads to new and better technologies? Why are you so against innovation? The implementation of "Star Wars" isn't necessarily to defend against individual "mystery assailants", it's to defend against accidental launches and/or rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. As for fishing boats and/or suitcases, that can already be attempted, no matter what type of security apparatus you wish to erect. You can try and play defense for the whole game, but it's not a very successful strategy. That's why the most logical and effective action is to go on offense, and change these people and the environments they develop in. However, it doesn't mean you leave the back door open, just because there's some windows that haven't been closed.

There's an especially high level of anger related to Martin's ridiculous comments regarding the tragic shootings in Toronto on boxing day. About how we all need to make people feel more "inclusive". I thought it was hilarious that Stephen Harper pointed out that these "excluded" individuals responsible for killing that girl drove off in a BMW. Seriously, I don't think I've ever hated a Canadian Politician the way I hate Paul Martin. :angry:

No, people are free to question the Iraq War. However, they're not free to undermine it, and when they do so, they're called on it. People like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Howard Dean may have the freedom to disparage the American troops and their mission, but it doesn't mean that there won't be negative consequences, like having to defend their ridiculous statements. And how noble of you to stick up for the vicious dictators of Syria, Iran and Venezuela. Typical liberal. However, you forgot to mention Hussein, Ill, and Castro. Next time, make sure you include all the left's friends.

Stephen Harper said this? This man is a visionary. Especially if he was referring to the very "legitimate" human rights commissions issued by the United Nations, headed by Iran, Syria, and Libya.

No, what's funny is, for some reason, you think that all new innovation and technology is perfectly functional from the beginning, and requires no testing and further experimentation. If the great innovators of the last 100 years had your attitude, we'd still be using horse and carriages to get around in. Apparently your attitude is, if you can't get something right, stop trying. Great idea. LOL.

Ho hum, more liberal fear mongering. Didn't like the looks of the latest polls, eh? LOL

Enjoy! Link

Not really, especially when one examines the details of the situation. Plus, I'm not sure your premise regarding "international law" fits with reality.

Um, because he's not.

Also, here's some more interesting information related to this topic: Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own NR EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE EO 12139 23 May 1979 By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows: Executive Order EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949 FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows: Executive Order

Lyingfleabag is compulsive liar and has been outed as one many times in many threads. Go away lyingfleabag. Please just go away, or at the very least, have a spine to responsd to your lies. Jamie Gorelick's wall The disclosure that Jamie Gorelick, a member of the September 11 commission, was personally responsible for instituting a key obstacle to cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence operations before the terrorist attacks raises disturbing questions about the integrity of the commission itself. Ms. Gorelick should not be cross-examining witnesses; instead, she should be required to testify about her own behavior under oath. Specifically, commission members need to ask her about a 1995 directive she wrote that made it more difficult for the FBI to locate two of the September 11 hijackers who had already entered the country by the summer of 2001 WT

Lie. Jamie Gorelick's wall The disclosure that Jamie Gorelick, a member of the September 11 commission, was personally responsible for instituting a key obstacle to cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence operations before the terrorist attacks raises disturbing questions about the integrity of the commission itself. Ms. Gorelick should not be cross-examining witnesses; instead, she should be required to testify about her own behavior under oath. Specifically, commission members need to ask her about a 1995 directive she wrote that made it more difficult for the FBI to locate two of the September 11 hijackers who had already entered the country by the summer of 2001 WT Hmm, a 1995 directive. Sure sounds like something "manifest". I'd suggest that from now on, if you don't know something, don't pretend you do, liar.

Probably? Nice argument, why don't you go find out for sure. Anyways, we all know that the Patriot Act simply gave the same tools to authorities to tackle terrorists as they have against organized crime. It also is reponsible for tearing down the Gerelick wall that was erected during the Clinton Administration which prevented the sharing of intelligence within different government agencies.

Come'on Burns, by now you must realize that the kook-left's hatred for President Bush trumps anything good for the world and Iraq. Bush lied, regardless of what people like George "It's a slam dunk" Clinton appointee Tenent had to say, regardless of what the world's other intelligence agencies had to say, and regardless of the official regime change position of the United States government in 1998 had to say.

I just took a peek at the Wild Thing video. That one is really well done as well and is also quite amusing and effective. I was suprised to see Jon Stewart in it. Funny.

Great post! That video is amazing. I love it because it lets the American people truely understand what the Democrats real position is on Iraq. Not the fake one they want everyone to believe. Plus, it uses their exact quotes and appearances to do it, so it's even more effective. Howard Dean can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly. It's originally from the Simpsons, not American politicians. Get your facts straight.

Yeah, that was a bad one. Let's not forget about the flashing X over VP Cheney a couple of weeks ago on CNN. Apparently is was just a "malfunction". Sort of like the one Janet Jackson had I guess.

First of all, you're the king of red herring's and strawmen. Second of all, we're just comparing quagmires, that's all. We're just trying to figure out which Christmas Bill Clinton was talking about when he said the troops would be home by Christmas. I was also kind of hoping for an exit strategy as well, maybe even a detailed time table of troop withdrawal. But it's been what. 10, 11, 12 years, so who really knows?

No he isn't. In the United States a President can only serve for two terms.

Well, it took a while, but you finally admitted the truth. Better late then never. The belief was Iraq possessed illegal weapons, but the differences were over the solutions, inspections vs force. Some people favoured infinite inspections and infinite sanctions. Some people favoured inspections, and then the removal of all sanctions if Iraq was deemed "clean". Others favoured Saddam's removal from power. Now that you've admitted this fact, I"d like you to please correct, for the record, your mis-statements in this thread and other threads. Thank you. Yes I did. Did you read it? Carefully? Can you read that please? It says that this "senior intelligence official" is not aware, not aware, not aware, not aware. Not aware doesn't mean there wasn't detailed information. If he doesn't know, then surely you have no knowledge of this either. So again, how do you know there wasn't detailed intelligence? I'll answer for you. You don't.

Wow, so your reply to all of the facts laid out in the last several posts is to ignore them completely, and call someone sick and to seek psychiatric help? That's some weak shit. Let me guess though, in person, you'd probably be throwing food like the rest of them, right? Stop posting, you've already been deemed useless.