sharkman

Ah Poly, is their a situation you don't have a conspiracy theory for?

Quit trolling catchme, at least try to base your dogma on reality.

Catchme, in your first post you said you guess Putin never considered using nukes. You are trying to read his mind, you have no idea what he's considered. He just doesn't say everything he thinks about. BTW, you don't have to be in your hometown to play to them. Putin's comments on the US, however could well be used on himself. His use of force has become scary. And now he uses the excuse that the US has put missle defence (I think it's Patriot missile batteries, which shoot down incoming missiles) in Europe to start building more of his own missiles. That kind of logic is not trustworthy. I don't know why you continue to listen to this guy. Listen to his actions instead.

I think Hannity brought him on the program to show his audience what these people are like. His avoidance to the questions and rants show him for what he is.

Guthrie, this is the post where, when you said SCOTUS had no business interfering in the US election, I mentioned that SCOTUS only became involved after the Florida Court foisted themselves on the issue. Most lefties had no problem when the Florida court ruled in favour of the recounts, they only got riled up when SCOTUS ruled against the repeated recounts. Which is a hypocritical position to take. As to Gore and the net, thank goodness he made that claim, otherwise he might have won the white house.

So you have an article(someone's opinion) that tries to smear Harper, and you would like another article (again, someone's opinion) that disagrees with your article? I see you just joined this forum quite recently, probably over this one issue. At any rate, it sounds like Mcdonald is a Rabble contributer, their usual strategy is to fearmonger about Harper and something to do with the U.S. In this case, it's U.S. style fundamentalism, with the generous smattering of U.S. evangelists mentioned. We don't have much in the way of the Canadian equivalent to these. Harper is in FAVOUR of gay marriage, he just wants to call it civil unions. If he was being influenced by a Canadian religious right, he'd be all over the gay marriage thing. I suggest you try reading more balanced articles.

Just like nobody seems concerned with the dangerous threats Israel has leveled at Iran and Israel actually has nukes to use, unlike Iran that is years away, if not a decade. Moreover, if you had been reading the thread you would've seen there is serious contention on whether Iran did say that, or not. Read the Putin thread and the link in it, is a telling story. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....wtopic=8050&hl= I am not interested in what Putin says. If you are trying to say the Iranian threats, which have been repeatedly made over the last year or so( and are all over the media), did not happen, then you are not dealing with reality. To accept what Israel says and not Iran would leave one with the opinion that Israel is a scare mongering bully, which is what you are doing, Catchme. Are you just trolling and trying to get a rise out of people? Quit wasting your and others time.

And I bet the rest of the world is preparing a strongly worded statement to Harper admonishing him for not declaring his support of Israel in better terms. They are no doubt afraid of what Harper hasn't said and how this will alter life as we know it. Nobody cares what little old Canada's latest PM says or doesn't say. We are too small to matter much. Just like nobody seems concerned with the dangerous threats Iran has leveled at Israel.

Now I'm confused, I thought I was a right wing reactionary. I can't keep all these names straight! And I thought we figured out how Gore lost the White House already (aside from silly claims like inventing the internet) with the realization that you're only allowed so many recounts before it becomes a kangaroo election South American style. The Supreme Court says so.

Not exactly, but it could have easily been read that way. Here is the original statement from August1991... So it begs the question, "At what had Anna done better than Melanie?" The attainment of her own desire, or of Melanie's? Or of the perceived goals of 'pop culture society'? Or of wealth? I think what August was getting at was not to judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. It's easy to call someone names or say they failed in their life, but until you know what they were up against, what they had to deal with and so on, judging them is failed speculation. Gosthacked, I suppose I could have put this thread in the Cdn/US relations, or the Morality section, but at the time it seemed to be the right spot.

Really, it's no big deal that Gore is nominated, or even if he wins. Just as long as he stays out of the white house. BTW, I'm curious, what did they nominate him for, his internet invention?

And so in conclusion conservative friends, can you spot the fear, the loathing, and yes, the hatred at Harper in the above comment? By not condeming Israel for something they haven't said, Harper has pretty much become the devil, according to catchme. The liberalist fanaticism spouted here makes no sense, has no logic, and is a knee jerk reaction of the highest order. And yet Catchme believes it with all his/her heart, and nothing can cure Harper derangement syndrome. All you can do is have pity.

Well, Melanie is still alive and well. How the hell did Anna 'beat' Melanie? And what HAS she passed on to the future? Will her daughter get fake boobs, marry an old oil tycoon and show here boobs for Playboy? Yes something to live up to indeed.... wait she showed her boobs, yeah deadAnna is one up on Melanie. It wasn't stated that Anna had 'beat' Melanie.

Funny, but the Florida court that ruled in favour of the recounting seemed to win wide approval from the losers. That court had the wisdom of Solomon, but the Supremes were nasty violators. It's this hypocrisy that the left wing reactionaries just can't see, and why they resort to name calling and sky is falling crap. But at least the lefties are predictable.

If ever there was a time when too much information was presented, this would be it.

Funny that you think that, reality says otherwise. For liberals, reality is flexible and U.S. Supreme Court Justices don't count, unless they make rulings you can get behind, like abortion.(The Court ruled you can't have recounts until you get a win.)

If Harper made a rider like that, he would have to make all kinds of riders about things out of the realm of reality. For instance, since he has never come out against the use of nuclear weapons on Mars, then he MUST support the U.S.'s probable use of them on Martians.

Catchme, it sounds like you miss Chretien, who could talk out of both sides of his mouth. He was famous for changing his position on an issue within a couple of weeks, all done with a straight face. Or letting his underlings mouth off, saying something he'd love to say, and pretend he was upset about it but not really doing anything about their insubordination. But he's long gone now, and we'll have do make do with someone who says what he means and keeps his word. Concerning Israel, you can't assume Harper's made a statement on using nukes on Iran unless he actually makes a verbal statement that says so. Otherwise you are just speculating. Isn't it useless to assume something this important and then let yourself become upset about it when it isn't true?

I think Catchme explained quite clearly that it's Israel that plans on nuking Iran, and Harper has expressed unconditional support for Israel's policies. As such, Harper supports nuclear attack on Iran. Apparently Catchme can read minds as he has divined that Israel is going to nuke Iran. Well, It makes perfect sense, what with the repeated threats of destruction their government has made on Iran, the denials of Iran's storied history and having pow wow sessions with Iran's enemies. Oh wait, I'm talking about Iran's threats. Never mind... Catchy, maybe you could turn your finely tuned analytical prowess on the author of all the actual Threats of destruction, Iran, and see what it is they plan to do. Since they are getting nukes.

Anna Nicole Smith has passed away suddenly. The details are sketchy at best right now, but she suddenly collapsed and is believed to have expired on the scene. Being that she was in a gigantic court battle for multi-millions, how long until the conspiracy theorists tie this to the Bush administration? Seriously, she seemed to have a somewhat troubled life and it's sad to see her go out this way.

How 'bout,"Start looking for some non-existant conspiracy terrorist theories in Pakistan" for a thread title. It's a little closer to what you mean.

Ah yes, but the Great Horned Toads were not born yesterday, and the pond frogs have been secretly meeting to change their strategy. Servile toads? Man, you really got to try a little harder with the name calling, or give it up altogther. You're embarrassing yourself.

What a lllooooong first post!! Could you shorten things up next time? Why every single name?

No kidding. I wonder when Chavez will peacefully leave office. Probably when they carry his body out the door. Bush, however, will go when his term is up. The Bush comparison is laughable gost, except you really believe the nonsense you are typing.

Bush does not have the power to seize an industry like Chavez is doing to the oil industry. Bush does not have the power to shut down a TV station he doesn't like as Chavez is doing. It wasn't the Venzuelan people who are giving the powers to Chavez, it is their Congress. Their people had no say.