River_God

If that's all the autonomy Harper wants for Western Canada I might even vote for him. His quote about multiple Federal Governments doesn't seem to wash with this moderate approach though. “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion" (Stephen Harper) My sister-in law is making $150,000 a year in Edmonton right now. She was offered $200 000 a year if she would move to the oil fields in Fort Nelson BC. Two years ago she barely had a highshool diploma and was working cleaning new housing developments before people moved into them. She is doing far better "making ends meet" than most Canadians her age. If you want to understand what is happening in the world, follow the money trail. The people who profit the most from a crime are the pople most likely to have commited it. From my experience, it's almost always about the money but I'll give you a chance to corect me.

If you added it up over all the elections it probably adds up to a few billion. 1 lawn sign = $10 1 lawn sign for each 100 people (Canada and the US) = 4 000 000 lawn signs per election cycle. 1 election cycle every 1.6 years (federal, provincial/state, municipal) = 40 years to spend $1 billion dollars on lawn signs in Canada and the US. If you take Europe, Latin America and Austalia into the picture, Literally Billions of dollars are wasted on lawn signs.

Petty Posts are a rampant enough problem to have a whole thread devoted to the discussion. It's tiring to point out this stuff on post after post inside the blogs. It might even be an idea to dedicate a few special threads for mindless posters. That might help de-clutter the rest of the board.

You are probably right about TV appealing to the masses scriblett. Randomly flicking channels doesn't take much mental or physical energy. Newspapers are generally good, but they arlso contain lots of clutter. It's also expensive to subscribe to more than a few newspapers. I've lived without TV for 10 years and don't miss it at all. Piped laughter and hyper-edited speechs are pretty monotonous after a while. They do have to cut to the commercials, though (every 5 minutes), to pay their bills. You can get information way faster on the net. That might be why TV is the media of choice for conservatives. It keeps people blissfully ignorant compared to new technology. It might also explain why the net may be coming under attack. At Stake: The Net as We Know It Google et al fear broadband carriers will tie up traffic with new tolls and controls. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/con...1215_141991.htm Note that Bush only had an 18% approval rating on a recent USA today internet poll, but he's up to 41% on traditional Gallup polls. I'm guessing that a big chunk of that is because guys on the Internet have access to 100 times more information than the guys flicking channels on telivision. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/ http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13582.content.htm I would like to see the debates tonight though. I'll have to listen to them on CBC Radio instead. I just wish the debates were more exhaustive. Timed 2 minute speeches only seem to scratch the surface. As far as I'm concerned the whole campaign should be public debates, with all politicians being required to directly answer the questions they are asked. It's ridiculous that billions of dollars are wasted on mindless lawn signs.

It would be great if we could clean up this board and get rid of all the mindless quibbles. There are far too many posts that aren't even articulate, let alone thought provoking on this site. Many guys on this site are trying to demean anyone who questions Conservatives, in four fairly obnoxious ways. Examples are: (1) A petty, completely mindless, attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge it. Try using the "Insert Image" feature. Or, rather, please don't (by PocketRocket) This has been used to a highly cluttering degree on this site (2) Make fun of the question without making any attempt to answer it. Can you provide a link with a picture of these guys holding hands??? That would make a wonderful addition to my collection of "Strange Bedfellows" pictures. I can put it right beside Sonny and Cher (by PocketRocket) A moderately funny attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue. (3) Moderate Belligerence under the guise of Humor I'm afraid your tinfoil hat is wrapped a little too tight. Do you even read what you post? (by Cybercoma) This is a moderately aggressive, completely mindless, hate filled attack. Note that cybercoma even sounds like Darth Vader (aka key neo-con puppeteer Richard Perle) (4) Outright hate filled belligerence With a nickname like RiverGod, hopefully the song they sing will be "Smoke on the Water", right after you and your conspiracy theories get nuked. My word, you are certainly obsessed. (by PocketRocket) Again a completely mindless attack without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue. The neo-con movement has clearly become unbalanced when media giants like FOX NEWS label the biggest capitalists in the world as “left-wing” if they don’t pledge unquestioning blind allegiance to Cheney and Bush’s Administration. The American fanatical-right are trying to create a culture of double-think, where people who question the Iraq War are left-wing traitors who are endangering the troops. Stunningly, zealots who want to expand the crusade to Syria, Iran and Venezuela are supposedly keeping the troops safely out of harms way. The sad reality is, of course, that the fanatical right is becoming more entrenched as the neo-fascist right (Pillaging National treasuries in the process). The neo-fascist corporate welfare scheme of pork-barreling military contractors and oil companies doesn't seem to be concerned with democracy, freedom or capitalism. It seems dangerously close to an ideology of theft and repression.

That's doublethink argus. You guys have been mindlessly blasting my posts all day. When I point it out to you, you say I'm not playing fair and try to get me banned. Everybody should understand that extremist neo-cons have no interest in debate. They are aggressively pursuing their agenda and try to demean anyone who questions them in four ways. examples are: (1) A petty, completely mindless, attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge it. Try using the "Insert Image" feature. Or, rather, please don't (by PocketRocket) This has been used to a highly cluttering degree on this site (2) Make fun of the question without making any attempt to answer it. Can you provide a link with a picture of these guys holding hands??? That would make a wonderful addition to my collection of "Strange Bedfellows" pictures. I can put it right beside Sonny and Cher (by PocketRocket) A moderately funny attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue. (3) Moderate Belligerence under the guise of Humor I'm afraid your tinfoil hat is wrapped a little too tight. Do you even read what you post? (by Cybercoma) This is a moderately aggressive, completely mindless, hate filled attack. Note that cybercoma even sounds like Darth Vader (aka key neo-con puppeteer Richard Perle) (4) Outright hate filled belligerence With a nickname like RiverGod, hopefully the song they sing will be "Smoke on the Water", right after you and your conspiracy theories get nuked. My word, you are certainly obsessed. (by PocketRocket) Again a completely mindless attack without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue. The neo-con movement has clearly become unbalanced when media giants like FOX NEWS label the biggest capitalists in the world as “left-wing” if they don’t pledge unquestioning blind allegiance to Cheney and Bush’s Administration. The American fanatical-right are trying to create a culture of double-think, where people who question the Iraq War are left-wing traitors who are endangering the troops. Stunningly, zealots who want to expand the crusade to Syria, Iran and Venezuela are supposedly keeping the troops safely out of harms way. The sad reality is, of course, that the fanatical right is becoming more entrenched as the neo-fascist right (Pillaging National treasuries in the process). The neo-fascist corporate welfare scheme of pork-barreling military contractors and oil companies doesn't seem to be concerned with democracy, freedom or capitalism--it is far closer to an ideology of theft and repression.

Thanks newbie. You have to understand that the neo-fascists have no interest in debate. They are aggressively pursuing their agenda and they try to demean anyone who questions them in 4 ways. examples are: (1) A petty, completely mindless, attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge it. Try using the "Insert Image" feature. Or, rather, please don't (by PocketRocket) This has been used to a highly cluttering degree on this site (2) Make fun of the question without making any attempt to answer it. Can you provide a link with a picture of these guys holding hands??? That would make a wonderful addition to my collection of "Strange Bedfellows" pictures. I can put it right beside Sonny and Cher (by PocketRocket) A moderately funny attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue. (3) Moderate Belligerence under the guise of Humor I'm afraid your tinfoil hat is wrapped a little too tight. Do you even read what you post? (by Cybercoma) This is a moderately aggressive, completely mindless, hate filled attack. Note that cybercoma even sounds like Darth Vader (aka key neo-con puppeteer Richard Perle) (4) Outright hate filled belligerence With a nickname like RiverGod, hopefully the song they sing will be "Smoke on the Water", right after you and your conspiracy theories get nuked. My word, you are certainly obsessed. (by PocketRocket) Again a completely mindless attack without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue. The neo-con movement has clearly become unbalanced when media giants like FOX NEWS label the biggest capitalists in the world as “left-wing” if they don’t pledge unquestioning blind allegiance to Cheney and Bush’s Administration. The American fanatical-right are trying to create a culture of double-think, where people who question the Iraq War are left-wing traitors who are endangering the troops. Stunningly, zealots who want to expand the crusade to Syria, Iran and Venezuela are supposedly keeping the troops safely out of harms way. The sad reality is, of course, that the fanatical right is becoming more entrenched as the neo-fascist right (Pillaging National treasuries in the process). The neo-fascist corporate welfare scheme of pork-barreling military contractors and oil companies doesn't seem to be concerned with democracy, freedom or capitalism--it is far closer to an ideology of theft and repression.

That post was at least a bit funny 'PocketRocket' . That's about as good an attempt at bilateralism as I've seen by neo-cons.

Why doesn't Harper speek for himself tml. Are you on Harper's payroll to speak for him? “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… (Stephen Harper Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994) Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. The next logical step is to begin building a much more autonomous Alberta. ( Stephen Harper National Post, December 8, 2000) Harper's rhetoric only intensified between 1994 and 2000. Why would anybody believe that he is more reasonable today? Do you know that a start up job at MacDonalds in Northern Alberta pays $17/hr. No wonder Harper thinks he is so hard done by. I lived in Edmonton for 14 years and never had any problems with the rest of Canda. Now I'm living in BC and I'm still happy. Any push for breaking up Canada is misinformed at best and, more realistically, driven solely by very selfish interests like Harper's

Ah, right. But River God, this is the court of politics not a court of law. Grow up and live with it. Are you admitting that the Conservative campaign depends on smearing Martin? Are you admitting that the Conservative campaign can't stand on its own two feet?

1) The neo-cons were also way too beligerant toward Iraq. Just look at all the "intelligence" they fabricated to create fear and panic in Americans. 2) Harper has the chance to explain what he meant. He could also explain why his ideas have changed in the last few years. With all the widespread doubts surrounding him, why doesn't Harper do this...........? My best guess is that we should fear the worst from Harper.

CANADA I would like to see live, exhaustive debates before all elections. Party leaders should be required to directly answer all questions. It's ridiculous that, instead of exhaustive debates, billions of dollars are wasted on mindless lawn signs during elections. Harper Harper should detail what he means by this statement "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be" Is that just a call to allow vigilate governments to control each oil field and gold mine in the country? How is that good for the general population? Iraq I would like to hear clear, verifiable, statements by the Bush Administration about what their long term goals are in Iraq and How Iraq's oil will be managed. I would have also liked to see the American's have live, exhaustive debates with Hussein before they invaded Iraq. Saddam offered to debate, but the neocons chickened out -- even though they would have had the opportunity to go back, disect and dismiss each point that Saddam made. Iran I would like to read the full text of the Iranian President's speeches somewhere in the media (you can't even find it on al-Jazeera's english website) instead of just endless repetitions of "Wiping Israel off the Map".

Good point tml. Murdoch bought the POST in 1977 Any paper in New York is high profile by most stanadards, and I remember reading at least two liberal stories in it. Maybe it was a red herring? Judith Miller got a fake anthrax letter too. Here is some more info on Rupert Murdoch (It helps explain why Australia jumped on the Iraq War bandwagon) Who is Rupert Murdoch? How one right-wing billionaire uses his business and media empire to pursue a partisan agenda at the expense of democracy July 16, 2004 In recent years, Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch has used the U.S. government's increasingly lax media regulations to consolidate his hold over the media and wider political debate in America. Consider Murdoch's empire: According to Businessweek, "his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered." But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right. He is also an enabler of the oppressive tactics employed by dictatorial regimes, and a man who admits to having hidden money in tax havens. In short, there more to Rupert Murdoch than meets the eye. Media Manipulator In 2003, Rupert Murdoch told a congressional panel that his use of "political influence in our newspapers or television" is "nonsense." But a close look at the record shows Murdoch has imparted his far-right agenda throughout his media empire. MURDOCH THE WAR MONGER: Just after the Iraq invasion, the New York Times reported, "The war has illuminated anew the exceptional power in the hands of Murdoch, 72, the chairman of News Corp… In the last several months, the editorial policies of almost all his English-language news organizations have hewn very closely to Murdoch's own stridently hawkish political views, making his voice among the loudest in the Anglophone world in the international debate over the American-led war with Iraq." The Guardian reported before the war Murdoch gave "his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting 'morally' and 'correctly' and describing Tony Blair as 'full of guts'" for his support of the war. Murdoch said just before the war, "We can't back down now – I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly." [New York Times, 4/9/03; Guardian, 2/12/03] MURDOCH THE NEOCONSERVATIVE: Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.C. opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [source: AJR, 12/01] MURDOCH THE OIL IMPERIALIST: Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03] MURDOCH THE INTIMIDATOR: According to Agence France-Press, "Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel threatened to sue the makers of 'The Simpsons' over a parody of the channel's right-wing political stance…In an interview this week with National Public Radio, Matt Groening recalled how the news channel had considered legal action, despite the fact that 'The Simpsons' is broadcast on sister network, Fox Entertainment. According to Groening, Fox took exception took a Simpsons' version of the Fox News rolling news ticker which parodied the channel's anti-Democrat stance with headlines like 'Do Democrats Cause Cancer?'" [source: Agence France-Press, 10/29/03]

I don't know anybody who is anti-American, but neo-con fanatics want us to think that it's anti-American to say anything bad about any member of their government. Look at all the politician bashing on this forum. By that definition, everybody here is anti-Canadian. The fact that people are standing up to political decisions shows that they have faith that their countries can become better. You are right though that people should be providing creative solutions to problems, instead of just mud-slinging. The worst thing to do is to take a fanatical-reactionary approach where you end up throwing out the baby with the bath water. I sure hope this applies to the Perle Cabal Too.

What's not to fear tml? Say something positive and constructive to change my mind.

And the CPC wonder why most Canadians don't want to join in the USA's games.... It's anti-Americanism you know... we should be just like "our best friends and trading partners".... If they want to kill tens of thousands of people to secure oil for their friends, well ... aren't we friends... we should support them, no matter what they want to do... ... All under the guise of morals and "promoting democracy".... Ideals just like Harper's.. Well the Bush administration isn't promoting democracy for Saudi Arabia... In fact they have a deal with the Saudi royal family to use military might to prevernt democracy from taking the royal family's power.... (Oil more important than democracy)... The USA helped overthrow the democratically elected Mossedegh government in Iran in the 1950's when Mossedegh tried to nationalize their oil.... they overthrew a democracy and installed the Shah of Iran in power because he would give them something more important than democracy and morals.... OIL. The American spelling of Democracy is Hypocrisy. These are the kinds of values that Harper wants us to share... and not dare criticize.... More hatred of the Americans from the odious Canadian left. Once again tml you are confusing "promoting democracy" with "hatred of Americans". Typical neo-fascist double-think

ARE YOU HOPING THAT THE CPC SAFEGUARDS THE NET SO THAT IT CAN ONLY BE USED FOR PRO-CONSERVATIVE DISCUSSIONS SCRIBLETT (as on the Free Dominion Blog)? I wonder about you because of you past posts.

MORE THOUGHTS ON THE PATRIOT ACT All the Patriot Act pundits realize that it would be ridiculously stupid to catch a suicide bomber and, instead of finding out what he knows about other bombers, turn him over to his lawyer and wait six months for a trial. In cases like that, it is probably justified to apply the Patriot Act. There is a huge danger, however, when nothing is built into the Act that restricts its use. Besides allowing the government to tap phones and hack computers, the Patriot Act overrides the US Constitution and gives Bush the authority to permanently jail people without giving any strong evidence for the incarceration. Consider that following 9/11, while civil aviation was grounded over North America, Bush’s own officials allowed over 150 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, and members of suspected terrorist network WAMY (World Assembly of Muslim Youth) to fly out of the USA, with very little questioning (9/11 Commission Report at p. 556, n. 25). So far, the Bush administration’s only comment is that this planeload of people was “beyond suspicion”. Is that a good enough explanation?? What was the rush?!!!! Why was this a desperate priority?!!! Who got paid off?!!!! North American airspace was closed for several days after 9/11. Thousands of people were stranded in airports. Helicopter logging operations were shut down in remote forests. Many top level diplomats were not allowed to fly back to their homes and offices in private planes. But there was an immediate requirement -- and no security threat – to fly 150 Saudis back to Arabia in a jumbo jet?!!!! I have no doubt that I would be jailed if I helped those Saudis sneak out of the country after the WTC massacre. Should President Bush (or President Kerry) use the Patriot Act to jail, without trial, members of Bush’s own administration based on the suspicions of complicity in the terrorism of 9/11? Should the Patriot Act be used to torture these guys into confessing to massive corruption and treason? Even if Bush’s administration is completely benevolent (I personally doubt they are less self serving than typical politicians), what would happen if in 2025 a completely corrupt administration manages to get elected. Maybe they rig the voting computers, then embezzle a few billion dollars, are complicit in drug smuggling operations (remember the Contra scandal), kill a few political opponents and are doing a bunch of insider trading based on their future budgets etc… If anyone tried to expose this corruption, The Patriot act could be used to label them as enemies of the state and torture them. Ironically, the Patriot Act could also be used to lock up corrupt members of the administration… Which is more likely though ????? What protection is some whistle blower going to have against these tyrants. National constitutions were largely created to protect citizens from abuse from corrupt rulers. One of the reasons for invading Iraq was to end Saddam Hussein’s regime of murder, torture, rape, oppression and exploitation of the Iraqi people. Life can go from bad to terrible very quickly if people abuse power without any accountability. Many authoritarians have gone to horrifying extremes to hide their mistakes and to avoid being held accountable for their crimes.

The Downing Street Memo could just be the tip of the iceberg of how determined Bush's administration was to invade Iraq. In July 2002 the DSM summarized conversations between the heads of British and American Intelligence. It explicitly stated that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.” http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/ The DSM indicates more than that Bush and Blair were lying through their teeth when they said “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” In hindsight, the following two examples clearly illustrate how “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of invading Iraq. (1) In his State of the Union Address, Bush misleadingly demonized Saddam as a man who gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. The press sensationalized this story even though the CIA had long since concluded that both Iran and Iraq gassed each other in the battle for Halabja, and that the dead Kurds' bodies indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war detailed the Halabja gas incident in The New York Times on Jan. 31, 2003 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm , but it was largely ignored in the pre-war hysteria. (2) Bush also used his State of the Union Address to scare Americans into believing that Saddam had acquired yellowcake uranium from Niger. Bush blatantly presented his Niger “Yellowcake” document to the UN, allegedly proving that Saddam was secretly buying uranium. Bush’s Yellowcake document turned out to be so badly forged, however, that it took the IAEA took only 24 hours to announce it was fake. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts...nn21032004.html Whether Bush’s team knew they were using a fake document is debatable, but it begs the question of how they obtained such a document without forging it themselves. It is very clear, that Bush ignored the fact that the CIA had sent Joseph Wilson to Africa to investigate the yellowcake charges, and that Wilson determined the allegations had little foundation. Instead of Bush’s administration being relieved that Iraq most probably hadn’t bought yellowcake in Niger, Wilson’s wife was brutally threatened by Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, and Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove. As part of a smear campaign, Libby and Rove told the press (Judith Miller) that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA agent. This clearly had nothing to do with Wilson’s credibility, but only served as a brutal threat to anyone wishing to share contradictory evidence on Iraq’s WMDs. Undaunted, Wilson later publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq. These two examples (among several others) confirm that Bush’s administration was willing to fabricate information to scare American’s into invading Iraq. The second example also shows how Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were willing to indirectly threaten the life of Valerie Plame to prevent Joseph Wilson from providing America with good intelligence on Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs. What other crimes did the neo-con cabal commit? It’s unlikely that the Plame leak was the beginning and the end of their crimes. Why was the Bush administration so uncooperative during the Plame Investigation? Why was the Bush administration so uncooperative during the 9-11 Commission Investigation? What are they trying to hide? Were Bush and Cheney just Lewis Libby and Karl Rove’s flunkies through the whole scandal or were they more complicit? Is the neo-con cabal continuing to fabricate evidence to support the invasions of other oil-rich countries like Iran and Venezuela (Note Bush’s claim of Hugo Chavez rigging the election in Venezuela even though Jimmy Carter supervised the event and claimed that it was far more transparent, honest and fair than the USA’s federal election in the State of Florida. The intrigue in Syria is also surprising considering that all Hariri’s assassination accomplished was to speed Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon.) Fabricating evidence to support the invasion of Iraq might go to a whole new level, however, when you consider the Anthrax scare. Pundits loudly announced that the only people who had anthrax were the USA, Russia and Iraq, and then hysterically demanded to know why Americans weren’t connecting the dots. Unfortunately there are a few more dots to take into consideration. ANTHRAX MYSTERY? Is it surprising that the CIA and FBI haven’t exposed the anthrax killers? Are the anthrax killers near the top of the FBI’s most wanted list? We do know this about the anthrax murders: 1. The letters contained highly classified weaponized anthrax (Ames Iowa strain, weaponized at Fort Detrick Maryland) developed by the U.S. military and/or the CIA. 2. The letters were mailed from Trenton New Jersey while the Republicans were trying to jam through the Patriot Act that would give President Bush unprecedented power to disregard Americans’ civil rights, increase defense spending, control the media and wage war. 3. Anthrax letters were mailed to: a) Tom Brokaw of NBC Nightly News (A fairly balanced news network) The New York Post. (A well known newspaper) c) A boy died of anthrax after visiting ABC news (A fairly balanced U.S. news agency) d) A editor for the National Enquirer died of anthrax (A very widely distributed and widely hated tabloid that is prone to sensationalize conspiracy theories) e) A mailroom worker contracted anthrax at CBS News (A fairly balanced U.S. news agency) The media was driven into hysteria from the Anthrax letters and fervently backed the war on Terror. Note that anthrax letters were not sent to war loving media giants FOX or CNN. f) Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (Democrat, S.D.) received the first Senate anthrax letter as he led the opposition to the original version of the Patriot Act. g) Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vt.) received an anthrax letter after he expressed reservations about the Patriot Act. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he managed the debate on the Bill. 4. No Republicans received anthrax letters. George Bush Sr and Collin Powell didn’t receive anthrax letters. No CIA agents, Military Personnel, Weapons Dealers, Oil Companies or Jewish Organizations receive anthrax letters. No large public gatherings were targeted with anthrax. (This all lends serious doubt that either Arab militants or Saddam Hussein were behind the letters) 5. The Letters contained scribbled words “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great” that were written by someone worried that his handwriting could be traced. Tom Brokaw, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy and the NY Post have no obvious connection to Israel. The anthrax letters, instead, looked like they might have been forged to frame Islamic militants. After receiving his anthrax letter, Senator Daschle switched from supporting a 2 year limit on the Patriot Act, later defending a 4-year sunset clause as the appropriate balance. 6. The letters were precisely targeted and perfectly timed to unite the media and the opposition (Democrats) in the War on Terror, the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq. 7. The letters (only 4 were positively identified) did not kill their intended targets, but the anthrax material was so sophisticated that the spores passed through the envelopes and infected people all along their path--including secretaries and postal workers. Five people are known to have died from inhaling spores from these letters, and 13 others were infected but survived. 8. The Anthrax Letters created the maximum amount of terror with the minimum loss of life. 9. Dozens of hoax anthrax threats have been widely publicized in the media. The CIA and Bush administration have promoted some of these hoax threats – encouraging many American to buy gas masks and seal off their houses with duct tape. Faulty (read: fabricated) CIA “intelligence” about Iraqi Anthrax built hysterical U.S. support for an invasion despite serious doubts from Americans, Brits and most of their closest allies. Hoax anthrax scares are still creating front page headlines and extreme terror throughout North America. 10. The day after the anthrax letters were mailed to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy (6 days before either Senator received the letters), the original batch of Ames strain anthrax was destroyed with the permission of the FBI --- making tracing this anthrax type much more difficult. Could it be incompetence, conspiracy or cover up that, two months after the anthrax attacks started, the FBI still had not investigated the only facility capable of producing weaponized anthrax -- the biological warfare program based at Fort Detrick Maryland. 11. Within a ten day period, immediately after the USA Patriot Act was passed, three top anthrax experts with knowledge of the U.S. bioweapons program died under suspicious circumstances. Within four months 8 more world-leading microbiologists were killed. Coincidentally, the controversial coroner of one microbiologist (Don Wiley) was later found wrapped in barbed wire with a live bomb strapped to his chest. 12. British microbiologist, weapons expert and would-be whistle blower David Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly) died in an “alleged suicide” on July 17, 2003 – amidst world wide publicity that the U.S. and Britain had invaded Iraq largely based on fabricated “intelligence”. Half the world was anxiously waiting for further news releases on Kelly just before his mysterious death. It is notable that on the morning of his death, Kelly e-mailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller (of Valery Plame leak and Lewis Libby Indictment fame) and told her that many dark actors were playing games. (Email sent by Dr Kelly to Judith Miller on July 17, 2003 http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/conte.../com_4_0076.pdf ) Were some of these dead microbiologists capable of exposing the anthrax killers? Had they been e-mailing each other about the attacks? This stuff has got all the makings of a detective thriller other than creating any serious doubts as to who was responsible for the letters. The only thing that really has to be established is a motive. (A) Did the perpetrators mail the letters because they honestly believed that the American people needed to be shaken up – even after 9/11 – in order to face the threat of suicide bombers? ( Did the perpetrators mail the letters to cash in on hysterical support for: a. Increased Weapons Spending? Hundreds of billions of dollars are going into somebody’s pockets. b. An Invasion of Afghanistan with its strategic presence along the east border of Iran, and the oil-rich Caspian Sea? c. An Invasion of Iraq (on allegations of stockpiling anthrax and other WMDs) with its strategic presence along the west border of Iran. d. An invasion of Iran with current (delayed) allegations of its complicity in 9-11 and the terrorist attacks? e. Complete control of the oil-rich Middle East? f. Note that Shell Oil is paying $150 million in fines to the SEC and FSA for overstating its reserves by (at least) 20%. Shell’s auditors warned the company as early as January 2000 that its reserves were overstated. Could other oil companies also have been overstating their reserves and pressuring the U.S. and British governments for access to oil in Iraq, the Caspian Sea, Iran, (and Venezuela)? © Did the perpetrators mail the letters because they wanted to create a massive distraction from the financial meltdown on Wall Street that was being caused by widespread exposure of corporate corruption (ENRON, WorldCom, Merck, Arthur Anderson, Halliburton etc. etc. etc.)? The people who profit the most from a crime are the people most likely to have committed it. Who profited the most from the Anthrax letters? I really hope that the answer to the above multiple choice question is (A) but it makes you want to get some straight facts from the people Americans are trusting with their lives. It would be better than Santa Clause if there was a believable: (D) None of the above; answer Who else has a clear, believable motive to precisely target the media and the opposition with anthrax? Remember how Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were willing to pre-emptively threaten the life of Valerie Plame (by leaking her identity to the press) to prevent Joseph Wilson from providing America with good intelligence on Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs? Remember how Bush was willing to use the forged “Yellowcake” document? How much of a stretch is it to assume that one or two members of Bush’s administration were willing to threaten the liberal media and the main senate opponents of the Patriot Act and the ensuing Iraq war???? Remember that some of the people that were so desperate to invade Iraq were among the few people in the world capable of accessing the weaponized anthrax from Fort Detrick. It's chilling that it might only take a few hundred people, a few billion dollars, some orchestrated scare tactics and a lot of greed to completely hijack a government with an annual budget of a trillion dollars. Even with all the inconsistencies surrounding 9/11, Bush's team figures that it's in their best self-interest not to co-operate with investigations. What are they trying to hide? Are people just too apathetic or dumb to need to know what's going on in the world? Like Bush said, terrorists have to be brought to justice—no matter who they are. It would be best if the whole Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfwitz, John Ashcroft, John Bolton, Trent Lott, Richard Perle etc) was put on polygraphs to see if they know of any conspiracies around the WTC bombings, Anthrax letters or Iraq invasion. For consistency, other Washington insiders like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry etc should also be put on lie detectors. It’s laughable that lowly police officers and CIA agents are rigorously tested with polygraphs, but the directors appointed to control the agencies are considered “untouchable”, “beyond suspicion” and “above the law”– even during global debacles like 9/11, the War on Terror and the War on Iraq. Notes It’s Ironic that in his latest speech Bush called on Americans to make more sacrifices in the war on terror, while he and his friends seem to be getting rich off it. Note that Halliburton stock is up 300% since Iraq was invaded in March 2003. Cheney’s half million deferred stock options probably went up over 1000%. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=hal&t=5y&l...=l&q=c&p=&a=&c= Chevron is up 200% since March 2003. Does Rice have any options in Chevron? How about her friends. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CVX&t=5y&l=off&z=l&q=c&c= United Defense Industries went from $20 to $75 before being bought out. Nobody knows how Carlyle Corp is doing because it is private, but it is probably going through the roof. The Bush family has probably made tens of millions. How does this compare with the finances of the soldiers in Iraq? Many of them will barely be employable when they get back home. Deaths and injuries are growing in Iraq with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have also been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. (2005/11/18)

Perle and Black are clearly soulmates: Both were Primary Hollinger Directors Both looted Hollinger Both are being charged in the US for looting Holinger. Harper and Black are clearly soulmates: Black's Giant Media Chain Backs Harper and continually advances the neo-con agenda. Harper was at 2003 Bilderburg Meeting holding Black's hand along with Perle and Wolfwitz Richard Perle quote: If we go forth, and wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us Stephen Harper quote: Human rights commissions are an attack on our freedoms. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff. Harper being part of Perle's cabal is very scary stuff. ================= What is Stephen Harper doing at a super-secret Bilderberg meeting of the Western worlds central bankers, defense experts, press barons, royalty, prime ministers, international financiers, industrialists and government officials? The 2003 guest list includes names such as David Rockefeller, Richard Perle, Klaus Schwab (World Economic Forum), Henry Kissinger, the King and Queen of Spain, Paul Wolfowitz and a host of other bankers, corporate heads and royalty. Some Canadians in attendance included Conrad Black, Mark Steyn (National Post) Heather Reisman (Chapters-Indigo), Anthony Fell (RBC Dominion Securities) and Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition Attending this meeting wouldn’t generally be a problem, but Harper has a history of kissing up to the worst of these guys while smearing Canada in the process. http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparti...per_speech.html The Bilderberg group's secret annual meeting determines many of the headlines and news developments that you will read about in the coming months. But the Establishment media completely black out any news of it and remain strangely reluctant to lift the curtain hiding this major event. A number of high-ranking members of the press who attend the annual meeting are sworn to secrecy, and news editors are held responsible if any of their journalists "inadvertently" report on what takes place. Yet few have ever heard of this exclusive and secretive group of the world's most powerful financiers, industrialists and political figures. (Why would Bilderburg not want to advertise their agenda on a website? Obviously because the public would not find any benefit in that agenda. http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?sto...005040313371980 Conrad Black (key Harper supporter and former owner of 3rd biggest media empire in the world, including the National Post and dozens of other Canadian newspapers) was working side by side with Richard Perle (architect of the Iraq Invasion, self proclaimed Darth Vader, and key pupeteer behind the Bush administration) Both of these guys are being indicted over conspiracies involving Hollinger International The amount of money stolen by Black and his cohort David Radler amounted to $400m, a staggering 95.2% of Hollinger’s net income for that period. Hollinger went from being an expanding business to becoming a company whose sole preoccupation was generating current cash for the controlling shareholders (This same treasury plundering happened in the USA when the neo-cons came to power, and it will happen to Canada if Harper is elected. Remember how quickly Canada went into debt when Mulroney was elected?), As a result of his involvement on Hollinger’s executive committee, uber-neoconservative Richard Perle, ‘The Prince of Darkness’, sometime Chairman of the Pentagon Defence Policy Board, may soon find himself out of pocket to the tune of 5 MILLION DOLLARS Hawkish author Tom Clancy (Patriot Games and The Hunt for Red October) "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle. "Perle was saying how Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me." Lawrence Wilkerson, General Colin Powell's chief of staff until January this year, alleged that US policy on Iraq before and after the March 2003 invasion had been hijacked by an alliance between Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, fostered by President George Bush's "detached" attitude to details of post-war planning. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle330218.ece Wilkerson even accused Vice-President Dick Cheney of creating the climate in which prisoner abuse could flourish, and implied that he might have committed war crimes. Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard." http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/29/wil...w.ap/index.html Richard Perle would have been a key puppeteer in this Hijacking of the US Government. If Perle’s Network penetrates into Harper’s Government (see diagram above) Canada could face the same kind of neo-fascist hijacking that happened in the US. Complacent conservatives, of course, assure us that whatever happens, Canada has a strong constitution and the rule of law prevails. However, the Perle network in the US led the Bush Administration to withdraw from several international treaties, and contravene several international laws. Bush (under the Perle Cabal’s Direction of course) was recently quoted as saying the US Constitution was just a GOD-DAMN PIECE OF PAPER. “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush said. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” http://www.comlinks.com/polintel/pi051214.htm Remember how furious Harper was that Chrétien wouldn't let Canadian soldiers die "shoulder to shoulder" with Americans over Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction --- even when it was completely obvious that Iraq didn't pose any near-term threat to anybody? Well the war drums are still beating. The neo-cons still have Iran, Syria and Venezuela in their gun sights. How has Harper changed in the last few years. Probably not much -- though he may be more cunning. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now. Richard Perle It's hard to believe that key neocon puppeteers like Perle could change their philosophies that much overnight. Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. The next logical step is to begin building a much more autonomous Alberta. ( Stephen Harper National Post, December 8, 2000) “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with o­ne national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.” (Stephen Harper Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994) Harper's statements are clear to me. It wouldn't even surprise me if Harper is backing the Quebec separatists because he hopes that will help precipitate Alberta's (or nothern Alberta's) separation. Do you know that a start up job at MacDonalds in Northern Alberta pays $17/hr. No wonder these guys think they are so hard done by. Harper's relationship with the Conrad Black and Richard Perle indicates that maybe the whole thing is in someway tied with Bush's energy policy. Are Bush's buddies trying to get "freer" access to Alberta's oilfields? Canadians should get very serious and look into this instead of treating it like it is such an unlikely scenario. Don't forget that even oil-rich Venezuela is in the Perle Cabal's gunsights.

The Conservatives have been fighting dirty since the last election. Harper is continually smearing Martin with by alleged crimes that Martin hasn't been found guilty of.

What if you can't afford a lawyer? Should the court system also deal with Health Care? Theoretically, sick people will pay big money to pay for private health care because they can be sued for not being duly diligent to prevent spreading contagious diseases. Theoretically Children, who can't afford health care, won't become a burden on society (for not growing up healthy) if we eliminate all public welfare and social programs. I think public heath care is a great idea. Nobody really has the heart to let their fellow citizens suffer with medical treatment. At the same time, most people don't have the time to do health related charity work themselves. Empowering the government to take care of health care is probably the best solution.

The argument that gun crime went up in Britain and Australia following its ban is, at best a statistic. Both australia and the UK have much less gun violence than either Canada or the USA. The UK government stresses that the apparent rise in violent crime merely reflected better reporting and recording of offences. Because of the handgun ban, several people were recently charged with the new crime of simply possessing handguns. Both the UK and Australia are also suffering from lots of internal strife and violence from being at war in Iraq. It’s also notable that Toronto is experiencing a 400% increase in gun deaths since 1998 even though it has not had a gun-ban. I think serverely resticting gun sales would be a huge help for the cops cleaning up the streets. There should also be strong penalties for not safely storing guns, or for giving or selling old guns to people who aren't competent to use them safely. The way it is now, thugs are getting hold of new guns faster than the cops are getting rid of old ones.

what other reasons Argus? Be honest and thorough if you can stomach it. If I can stomach your posts I can stomach anything. I've explained my reasons before. I don't feel the need to explain anything much to you as I strongly suspect you won't be around for very long anyway. Once again argus, you are cluttering up this board with your mindless ignorance instead of clearly articulating your real agenda.