sharkman

No of course it's not being attacked that makes you weak. I am referring to the enemies of the U.S. and not their attacks, but their lack of fear of the U.S. They used to fear the U.S. and now they don't. It wasn't Bush's policies that did this in the seventies and eighties and nineties. And how the U.S. has been able to deal with past attacks has reduced the fear of your enemies.

I wasn't on this board during the last election so I wouldn't think you have any knowledge of my last election predictions at all. The only election I have given my thoughts on was the Manitoba election. My prediction was for an NDP majority and no change in the seat count. I was one seat off. Feel free to check any of that. As far as your predictions go, you did assert that the Republicans would win and I didn't have to exaggerate anything you said. It is all in the forum record. You are free to check back if you like. You seem to have trouble reading. But you have indeed repeatedly overstated what I said about the American elections in order to make my predictions seem worse than they were. Maybe you should check back yourself. I am surprised to find you've only been on this board less than one year, and yet you have amassed over 7000 posts. Why do you spend so much time here?

Decade? No, less than that. What a difference just one very terrible president can make. Think bigger figleaf. During Clinton's terms, many U.S. government properties were attacked, and 9/11 was plotted and partially carried out before (the terrorists were already in the U.S.) Bush came to power. As was the first WTC attack.

Funny the Search function can't turn up any evidence of that. Care to explain? I'm sure you'll jump to her defence anyway, but I will show you the post in question: More than one infraction, can you count them all? Upon review, she wasn't referring to me specifically with the term asshole, but it is still against the rules. She did tell me to get off my high horse of BS, among other things though. And then she has the short term memory loss to tell jbg to mind the rules!

The Liberals will defeat the Tories and Harper will take a job in the U.S. Uh, how did your predictions go for our last federal election? Didn't you predict a Liberal win? I only bring it up because every time I talk about upcoming American elections, you talk about how wildly wrong I was with the mid-terms. And you exaggerate my predictions to make it seem so. With your track record, I won't be holding my breath.

Bottom line, the main reason all of these premiers are whining about equalization is because of the budget surplus. Just as a cat will come running and rub hair all around your legs when he hears the can opener, the premiers are loudly mewing, trying to outdo each other and score cheap political points with their voters by bashing the Feds. Politicans are so predictable. Harper needs to open a can of whup ass.

I believe my political leanings are to the right of yours, but I hope we are so lucky with Dion!

Okay. Enough with the hypocrisy Buff. You called me an asshole this morning on another thread, and here you have the gall to claim insults are against board policy. You do nothing but insult and name call, trolling for responses. It's beyond silly, and I don't understand why anyone takes your nonsense seriously. Grow up.

The point is the church has been doing something about it. And the admission by John Paul did more than just apologize, it started a change. Edit: Funny how any thread with the Catholic church usually ends up with some flippant remark using the child molestations to score cheap points.

More nonsense from someone who can't abide with anything negative towards Islamist terrorists, but loves to smear the groups she loves to hate.

Frankly I'm a little disappointed that it's only 500,000 people. Those fibbies better get cracking before an attempt at terror on U.S. soil is successful.

I have to ask, when you say "they" hate us, do you mean to perpetrators of 9/11 and the general consensus of extremists, or do you mean Muslims in general? The reason I ask is because your explanation actually makes sense, IMO, for the former. But as time goes on and Western leaders abuse the events of 9/11, I think the latter start falling into that category as well. Which is, unfortunately, what the "Hitler" types wanted - a united front against their perceived enemy. You want clarification? Scott was referring to the same they kuzadd referred to in the previous post to his, which was referring to the origonal question which started this thread. And since the haters in question are killing people, your hate paragraph is not needed. Ah yes, you won't see this post since you put me on your ignore list. Perhaps you hate me.

Yah, and you hate them because they are. which is BTW, totally irrational. I see you buy into 'divide and conquer' quite nicely. Do you enjoy the subjugation? You've written many such posts which reveal the contents ( or lack thereof) of your head. If you can't allow others to share their thoughts without such twitty knee jerking, your insistance in painting all conservative thought on this forum with the same brush will give you a nervous breakdown from all of the running around. You can't leave religion out of it when the people you are analyzing for their hatred wear religion like a sword.

Wow, I'm surprised, finally a province you don't think got screwed by Harper. There's hope for you yet.

In your world, he screwed everyone. In Canada's world, we just got over a major screwing with the Liberals. That's why the provinces are so sensitive, they don't want it again. Your welcome.

Gost, it sound like you are counting the hours until the blast. Would you mind explaining how staving off attacks since 9/11 proves the terror agenda is proceding? At any rate, we agree it will happen. Can you imagine how that will change the American way of life, and ours by extension? Already their money is devaluing and China is getting more powerful economically, militarily and otherwise. Iran, North Korea, Russia; nobody fears the U.S. anymore. What a difference a decade makes.

Homosexual behaviour is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Similarly, having brown skin is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Can you not see the analogy? Do I need to simplify it further? Boy you sure do love to get into gay debates norman. Yes, the analogy is plain. But false, since gayness is not a ethnic group. Say, why don't you bring up your gay agenda in more FEDERAL POLITICS THREADS, even if it has nothing to do with the topic, it's easy to derail a thread.

Yes, and you characterized it this afternoon with no time frame for the payment, which I pointed out. Twice you responded to my accusation without correcting yourself. Further, you never bothered to respond to my other point, which was that the B.C. and Sask budgets were mere fractions of the Ontario one, so your remark on B.C. and Sask being gouged by the Feds to pay for the Quebec largess is also inaccurate.

And the premiers in question are only fooling themselves to think they are being ripped off.

You made it sound like it was a lump sum payment, after 18 months in power.

Harper has announced that he will apologize to various ethnic groups for past historical injustices. In my opinion, he's being a hypocrite by not apologizing for other historical injustices, e.g., historically our first nations people were subjugated, women couldn't vote, and homosexuality was a criminal offence. What makes this convoluted logic? The fact that you consider a sexual preference to be the equivalent to an ethnic group. As an aside, homosexuality itself wasn't an offense, only buggery was. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I take it the answer is no. If you are patient it may learn some.

Uh, these aren't emails, they are posts. And you are currently a one topic person. I will let you know if it changes. The rest of your post is just more of the same convoluted logic by which you introduce your pet topic. Does it do tricks?

No, the 4.8 billion is to be spread over two years. For you to omit that simple fact is either clumsy or manipulative.

So an American soldier's life isn't worth piss to any US president who does that. So, if a president pisses of CanAm commies and socialists, it's a sigal that he doesn't value American soldiers? What kind of alternate reality is that? Bush will look good 10 years from now after the terrorists fianlly manage to set off a nuke in the U.S. By then most will look back at the years of no attack with envy as the fall out cooks their food for them.