gerryhatrick

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entertain...D2?OpenDocument Looks like this movie is going to be a blockbuster. Anistons film "break-up" (reviewed as BAD) brought in 38million in one weekend showing on 3070 screens to take the top spot. Showing on a paltry 77 screens Gores "Inconvenient Truth" rakes in 1.33 million. That is excellent!

Exactly, so what? Why is there a campaign afoot by the Conservative party to place the word "new" in our face all the time? Here Pavlov! Here boy!

No they can't. The courts are for trials, not the media. The courts take a very dim view of the police doing it otherwise. CSIS doesn't give details to the public. They are supposed to be spooks not cops. Actually, they've done just that. Law enforcement has commented broadly on it. It is expected and they're free to say what they know can be said prior to the court date. Hopefully they've coached Harper on what he can and can't say without damaging any court proceedings. I think the point that others are missing here is Harper is making political hay over this. Yes I admit, it's expected that he say something...but he's literally pounced on this and has spoken about it twice already. He better watch his mouth or he'll become a topic in the court cases themselves. Anyone want to take bets that he's out on the stump with this again this week?

Toronto mosque vandalized after terrorism arrests Sun 4 Jun 2006 4:16 PM ET By Wojtek Dabrowski TORONTO, June 4 (Reuters) - Vandals smashed 30 windows of a Toronto mosque and damaged nearby cars after the arrest of 17 suspected al Qaeda sympathizers accused of planning bomb attacks. Canadian Muslims expressed fear on Sunday that a backlash had begun. The vandals struck overnight at the west-end mosque, a police official said on Sunday. A second official said he had no information on any link between the incident and the arrests, which began late Friday. http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticl...oryId=N04204306 The cops are saying they don't know if it's related to the arrests. I think it quite obviously is. thoughts?

The true face of Stephen Harpers "new government"!!! Thanks for that. I reported that post to the moderator. No one is suggesting that the poster speaks for anyone but himself. Who are you, Stephen Harper? Let your people speak. He's not inciting violence, only expressing a common attitude among rightwingers. Geoffrey is doing the same, although he's dancing around the phrase "all these people". What he means is all Muslims, but when you pressed him he gave a half-hearted qualification that they'd have to be "outspoken calling for violence against Candians". Initially he said "obviously so mentally corrupt that they will never be able to fit into western society". Yep, same thing. Let your fellow Alliance members in PC clothing speak August1991, they're not breaking any rules by exposing their narrow-minded intollerance.

The true face of Stephen Harpers "new government"!!! Thanks for that.

There he was bright and early on Saturday with a statement about the arrests...all qualified with the word "allegedly" of course. Why is he doing that? Can't the RCMP or CSIS tell us the details? And the last sentence was about how his "new government" will protect us. And later the SAME DAY he was talking to CF recruits and AGAIN brought up terrorism! He told the recruits that Canada's "new government" was behind them 100%, and then went on to talk about how the terrorists hate us because of our "values". http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/23/1/ He has begun to emulate George Bush in the hope that he will have the same success making fear and security a wedge issue. Nobody will protect us except our "new government", right? What a transparent manipulator. This type of work association "new government" is not good.

Ya think? Or is it just that you only open your ears when you hear about corruption and Italians. And btw, I think you're lumping some Italians into this who weren't even members of the party. You need hang onto your credibility a little more carefully. And again....the accusation you're making is that he knew the donations were coming from kids. No proof. And if he did know it, no rule against it. Rightwingers are so desperate to drag up more supposed Liberal corruption that they're inventing it. I guess watching your leader implode will do that to you.

Uh.....yeah. And....? My theory is that weak minds...minds who cannot fathom new realities that call for drastic change...those are the people who will cast off all logic and knowledge available and hide behind their denial. Fear of the truth drives them to not only hide but to actively work to hide the truth. It's sad.

Scratch that conclusion. I'm just not wasting my time with ideological nitwits who have decided what their opinions on global warming are in spite of the obvious fact that they've been too lazy to find out the first thing about it. But just for you betsy, I'll give you a clue. Go look for information on global warming and ice age. Do some reading....then come back and waste your time trying to alleviate the ignorance here.

Nobody is talking about them any differently than people would speak of anybody arrested for murder. Where is your outrage or concern for the innocent Iraqis killed? Are they unimportant to you?

Is there any indication that Volpe knew that some of his campaign donations came from minors? I think that is an assumption being treated as fact by the poster, which is in itself quite sleazey And why would the poster single out a nationality? That is quite bizarre and speaks to a character.

The more important question is; how high will the investigation go up the chain of commands? Good God. Do you honestly believe that the higher-ups ordered the troops to avenge the deaths of their fellow marines by massacring women and children? You need to think a bit. The point is quite obviously how high will the investigation go up the chain of command as to who decided a cover-up was necessary. Initially the story was covered up. You have been following this story? Quite obviously the massacre was a knee-jerk reaction by soldiers who were under pressure, just as Murtha describes.

You state something in your first sentence (had no choice but to declare 'war on terror') that you don't support. You say the "act of war" required a declaration of a "war on terror". Did you read the article? The question posed is why not declare a war on a specific enemy instead of a tactic. I'll be interested in your response after it becomes apparent you read the article.

Are you suggesting I or the article is suggesting terrorists aren't bad guys? Did you even read the article? I think the central point is why does a war on terror need to be declared (causing some of the problems addressed in the article) as opposed to a war on explicitely identified terrorists? The terrorists you refer to are Al-Q, correct? So, what would be wrong with a war on Al-Q? Maybe you don't think Al-Q are bad guys, huh?

Indeed. The article touches on that.

http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/20/1/ Well, he's the decider so ah guess that's that...war on terror it is.

I do listen and watch something else. What I resent is being forced to pay $60/year to fund Canada's Pravda. Too bloody bad. We all pay for things we don't use. Stop paying taxes or quit your whining. The partisan accusations against the CBC are old and tired. It was the CBC that gave me constant factual damning play-by-play of the sponsorship scandal as it unfolded. The lack of bias at the CBC is what rankles you and every other rightwinger unable to see the world through an objective scope.

I don't hate Monty, I hate being lied to. Do you enjoy it? Oh gawdam, you too? How hard is it to read English? You and Monty are entitled to your opinions, obviously. What you are not entitled to is your own version of the truth. It's a stupid debate started by someone who is either too dense to understand a very clear English phrase or just a sh#t disturber. To his credit, I don't think Monty is really that stupid so it is probably the latter. It's very funny, but in the end quite pointless and he (and anyone else who wants to jump on his wagon) loses all credibility. So the joke's on him I guess.

Nobody cares if you've "had enough". You're welcome to watch and listen to something else.

Allow me to answer. It's a little dishonest to throw the "aren't you one of the people beaking him not talking to the media" out on this. The issue is not him not talking to the media, it's him trying to control who asks questions. On your main question, he was asked I believe. It was a press conference with the Austrailian PM, so he was asked. I would have respected him a great deal more if he had said "If that's true...." (he DID say that, to be fair) "then it's very unfortunate. I haven't heard about or seen the reports so I can't comment on that much more than that" No, instead he used the opportunity to rag on another nation and compare them to Nazis. As Condi would say, it's not helpful. Defend him if you like, but it was an inexperienced move...period. Was he defending them? No. Typical rightwing tactic. Rise up out of the muck BHS.

Actually many journalists take their jobs and the responsibility of informing the public quite seriously. They're about journalism and reporting facts, not selling papers. Your narrow view is akin to saying that hospitals in the USA have a singular purpose...to make money. It is true US hospitals have to make money, so the statement is not altogether without basis...but Doctors more often than not have a higher motivation that that. If the new accountability legislation was provided to reporters more than a few minutes before the press conference on it then you might know a little bit about how the FOIA is impacted. As it is, you don't. I guess we all have to go read the new legislation ourselves, right? Can't rely on the media to look at it and report the relavent facts to us, huh? I've never seen such paranoid delusion in this Country. Who dug up the sponsorship story? If all those 200+ journalists are doing is telling us what comes out of a press conference then why is Harper trying to control and restrict them? It makes no sense. The media is what scritinizes government. It is a check on government power. I think the naive one is you if you think a government should be allowed to operate in a bubble of it's own making. Your love of Harper has gotten in the way of rational thought.

You disagree strongly with someone, so cue the personal attacks, eh? You could at least be creative. As a term, stupid shows shows so little effort. I get a little annoyed when someone is telling bald-faced lies. That's just me. So yeah, cue the personal attacks in that case and creativity be damned. MB should learn to debate in good faith. If he believes there's no scientific consensus on global warming or the causes like the handful of fossil fuel funded skeptics believe then let him argue that, but don't come on here and tell us what is quite obviously black = white and then stand behind it like a pig-headed fool.

I think I just figured this out. Monty isn"t intending to lie about what Gore said, he is just too stupid to understand the term "over-representation". Honest mistake due to a low literacy level. Sorry Monty, I should not judge so quickly.

Why are you wasting my time with your drival? Are you trying to reduce the importance of this occurance? You think it is OK, that your point? Seems to be it.