gerryhatrick

Phzzzt. end White House transmission. Most Iraqis want US forces out. Almost half say it's OK to attack them. Why is it so hard for the war supporters to see that the time has come to leave? It's got nothing to do with "bleeding hearts" or any of that bullsh#t. The simple truth is that it's more destabalized with US troops there.

I think the allpoliticsnow.com site is talking about two Winnipeg papers being one-sided. Where is the one taking an opposing view??

Half of Iraqis want US troops out within 6 months and nearly half approve of attacks on US led forces. So...what about that democracy? The point is that many people are of the opinion - and polls like the one described above support it - that the violence will not abate until the US leaves. In other words...things will improve once the US is out. Iraqi insurgents will focus thier wrath on the terrorists who have been killing Iraqis once the US leaves.

Ok. But be warned...they might say it won't cost ya anything....but when the arms race heats up and test missiles start flying over your airspace more often and the silos start popping up on your land....then tally the cost.

Carolyn Parrish you mean? She didn't hate Americans. This is getting pretty sad now. And there was nothing wrong with what she did on that comedy show. Quite funny actually, too bad there's so many PC folks around. "damn Americans, I hate those bastards." Carolyn Parrish Yes, I'm aware of that quote. I still say she does not hatre Americans. It was an offhand comment made during the run-up to the Iraqi war, and she's quite obviously referring to the American administration pressuring Canada to give them support for Iraq. To argue that Carolyn Parrish has a "hatred for Americans" because of that statement is plain silly. That's like saying a frustrated child hates thier parents when they tell you they do.

It is you who made the lame complaint about something being "old news". Larry Spencer is 2 year old news. So what? Name one "corrupt" Liberal in power? No? It doesn't matter that Larry Spencer was never in power. He was part of Harpers caucus and was the "family affairs/issues/values/whatever critic"! Geoffrey on Feb. 2nd 2006: Geoffrey on Jan. 31 2006 Montgomery Burns on Dec. 25th 2005: The NEP is all the rightwingers talk about. Boo f'n hoo. Don't tell me about "old news", old boy! I didn't know I spoke for the right, thanks I guess... So out of all my posts, 2 were NEP related... I must really like to dwell on the topic. Grow up gerry. It was said that nobody mentions the NEP. Someone mentioned it just the other day as they were ranting about Liberals...can't find that one. To put the lie to the statement I searched up some old quotes. Sorry yours were in the mix, but oh well. I stand by my statement that rightwingers like to talk about the NEP. I retract the obvious implication that I was calling you a rightwinger.

...And it gives us a seat at the table. Agreed Geoffrey... Ohhhhh a seat at the table! My goodness, a seat at the table! With the Americans! How wonderful! Yes yes, let's support it, and anything else they want!!

It is you who made the lame complaint about something being "old news". Larry Spencer is 2 year old news. So what? Name one "corrupt" Liberal in power? No? It doesn't matter that Larry Spencer was never in power. He was part of Harpers caucus and was the "family affairs/issues/values/whatever critic"! Geoffrey on Feb. 2nd 2006: Geoffrey on Jan. 31 2006 Montgomery Burns on Dec. 25th 2005: The NEP is all the rightwingers talk about. Boo f'n hoo. Don't tell me about "old news", old boy!

NEP/RAPE of ALBERTA, 25 Years AGO TODAY http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...4102&hl=the+nep

Here's a video link of the new US Republican majority leader telling us that the Iraq war "may not benefit our generation, but for our kids and theirs, this maybe the greatest gift we give them." Is this the new talking point? Those US Conservatives are famous for speaking in unison....and this guy mentioned this idea twice during his interview. Smart I guess. It allows them to diminish the current negative fallout by pointing at some future yet to be realized benifit as a "greatest gift" that we can give. Also called Iraq an "investment" that "kids and grandkids" will be benificiaries of. Same point, made twice at different times in the interview. Yep, they have a new talking point! http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/05.html#a7020

Have you got some indication that they are developing nukes? And you do know that homosexuals are put to death in Iran, don't you?

Definitive information about CBC radio ratings: http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/ar...les12070507.asp So...if 2.4 million listeners was 25% fewer than the previous September/October period.....well, you do the math. That's a hellofa lot more than "nobody", as some disingenuous types here have claimed.

Well, I think you underestimate how many Canadians watch and listen (especially listen) to the CBC. And I think you missed the boat on the personal attacks I mentioned, but don't worry yourself about it.

I didn't leave it out for convenience, I left it out because it doesn't give the full picture, as evidenced by your attempt. You looked at only one matrix on that website, and got even that one wrong. The summer 2005 matrix you cite actually has an "other" category that lists "including" (implying there may be more) 8 stations. Therefore, for the summer and fall of 2005 CBC one is ELEVENTH OUT OF TWENTY THREE STATIONS listed on the matrix. CBC 2 is 14th out of 23. Let's look at the rest of the time period matrixes: For the spring of 2005 CBC one is NINTH OUT OF TWENTY-TWO STATIONS. CBC two was 13th. For the fall of 2004 CBC one is NINTH OUT OF TWENTY-ONE STATIONS. CBC two was 12th. Here's a good one: For the summer of 2004 CBC one and two are NINTH AND TENTH OUT OF TWENTY-ONE STATIONS. I could go on, but I've corrected you and that's enough. Given that the lockout was in the late summer/early fall of 2005, I'd say they are doing pretty good in a Western city there.

Why would people riot over a strike? That is a labor dispute. And many, many people cared, very much and were happy when it was resolved. Did I not If Harper had a majority and tried to dismantle the CBC there would be demonstrations. Riots? I dunno, some vandalism or violence is always possible when a demonstration occurs. And please refrain from personal attacks, thanks.

Interesting spin/opinion piece. As you your own spin, the "Liberals" only pointed out that Harper would seek to go after same sex marriage, which he admittedly will do. Beats me why a simple statement of fact is considered "scare tactics" or "fear mongering" by all the Harperites!

Well, As It Happens is listened to on 84 American stations, although I doubt Americans will come up for the riots. The Current is listened to by almost 1.4 million Canadians each week. To use Edmonton as an example....a decidedly Western locale where someone with your mindset might think nobody listens to the CBC...they get a respectable 5 point share. The top stations average only about 11/12. Your comment is based on nothing but your bias against all things CBC. You should listen to CBC radio sometime. Open your mind.

Ah sh@t that's funny. Thanks. This was said by Putin quite a while back...that they were developing something to beat BMD. The USA needs to wake up on this one. And no (for all the self-loathing Canadians), I'm not being "anti-American" when I say that. The majority of Americans don't support BMD. They see how much money it's cost them and they don't see any real value in it.

Pay attention shoop. My quote was "Are you suggesting the CBC censure Canadians becuase you don't like the content?" Do not misrepresent what I've said Ok? Thanks. Go ahead and lobby for giving equal payments to those other organizations. Try to touch the CBC though and there will be riots! Have you ever listened to CBC radio? I mean, really made an attempt? It's slipped a bit since the lockout, but it's still heads and tails above everything else out there.

good grief man. That was the whole point. Harper makes a play at the US ambassador over Arctic sovereignty, and nobody calls it anti-American. It was no better or worse than much of the political stuff that Martin or Chretien did which was labelled anti-American by rightwing partisans. You asked what area of the country I'm from. Irrelavent. I travel throughout the nation. You asked because you claim "anti-Americanism" is rampent in Canada. I say the constant claims of "anti-Americanism" are being made by self-loathing Canadians to ashamed to be proud and recognize that critisism of the USA or Canadian pride OR harmless comedy/humor are NOT anti-Americanism. I asked you once, and all you did in response was ask where I live... WHAT anti-Americanism? Be specific. Explain how anti-Americanism is rampent in Canada. I've been all over and I don't see it. I see a lot of disgust towards Bush and what he's done. Would you classify that as anti-Americanism?? thx.

Shiela Copps (a.k.a. sour grapes) said Martin was working to get the PM to support the war? Oh well then, it must be true. Shiela Copps has zero credibility. As for the rest of your comments, they do nothing to support your claim that Martin wanted to join the war in Iraq. For example, here's the entire quote from Paul Martin: "The problem is increasingly failed states, or states that are on the edge of failure, the fact that now we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that." So he's calling post-invasion Iraq the threat...a "failed state". Here's the full story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/ (edit: I see now how you are being misled. STEPHANIE RUBEC from Sun Media is not worth reading if you're interested in unbiased truth) At least you didn't bring up that quote you were probably tempted to.....but I pre-empted. Good for you! Your claim that Paul Martin supported going to war is debunked. It's an interesting accusation, one designed to deflect critisism from Harper. I think he was elected in spite of that....mainly because the desire for "change" outweighed it.

That would be foolish, considering anarchy would result... You make that assumption only because it supports your position that the US should stay. All rightwingers in the Western world supported this war and thus all want to see the US leave when things are rosey in Iraq, not before. The simple truth that the presence of the US is making it worse at the moment - something widely agreed on by Iraqis themselves - seems to be lost on people who believe as you believe. Tell us, why would there be more "anarchy" than there currently is? Do you have such little faith in Iraqis to govern thier own affairs without a bunch of US troops running around that you think anarchy would break out? Why would anarchy result? Why, instead, wouldn't the different factions and local clerics be able to stabalize the nation given the absence of US inspired violence?

Sounds like a cult leader who has gotten his hooks in you. He's a liar and a kook. He belongs on a wall of fame with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, and Ann Coulter. All from the same cloth.

I didn't say anyone did. Why do you waste our time?

Look back. This is one show out of hundreds, and many of those clips are submitted by the public. Are you suggesting the CBC censure Canadians becuase you don't like the content? This; as a critisism of the CBC, is truely the most pathetic objection I've ever seen. The CBC has ideological enemies who resent the fact that it's not rightwing. Anything not rightwing (but centrist as the CBC is) is condemned by rightwing fundamentalists as being leftwing. ie. anything left of them is left. Sad. What "partisan purposes"? WTH are you talking about? Stop making empty accusations and give us some specifics. And pointing at a couple of clips on a single show (which may have been submitted by viewers) does not make your case, just so you know. How about this past election? It should be easy for you to find "partisan" activity there if indeed the CBC is what you claim it is. Can you? I've seen right-leaning posters here point out that the National "your turn" hammered Martin and went relatively easy on Harper. Agree? Disagree? I've pointed out that the CBC didn't even touch the incredible news of Harper locking down media access 2 days before vote to protect his lead. Accountability? Transparancey? Huh? What say you? All the bullsh#t about CBC being a leftist partisan organization is pure invention by people who want to utilize the network for thier rightwing partisan goals. Look at how much media is pure rightwing....talk radio and Sun Media....obviously they want more.