LonJowett

I have quotes too. These ones indicate “national security be damned; we want to talk about blowjobs.” Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing." GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action." "Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions." GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'" Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment." Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'" Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa." Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

That just makes it easier on the lungs, and way more affordable...

What makes it wrong? The fact that it's illegal? Then your argument can be a perfect circle--it's wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong.

Or maybe the so-called nanny state has created the stability for prosperity to flourish. All emperical evidence would suggest that, given the economic dominance of North America since the New Deal.

Exactly, and given Black Dog's actual, supportable facts rather than your half-baked assumptions, it seems that the only way people are screwing up their lives from pot is by getting a criminal record. If it is in the interest of society to prevent people from screwing up their lives, legalize it now.

What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

Attempts by CPC shills to dismiss any commentary as "Harper-hating" and "bashing" are just getting more and more pathetic. It's sad when you get so defensive that you dismiss anything remotely resembling criticism (and even that which isn't criticism at all) as bashing. It looks like you're being overly defensive and, if so, why?

Geofrey wasnt paying attention when they covered peak oil in intro Geology if he thinks it means we are running out of oil. Every year we produce and use more oil than the previous year - thats not necessarily going to stop soon but that oil is going to get more expensive to produce. Just look at the what it would cost to produce a tar sands barrel. If natural gas prices jump, that estimated cost also goes up too. In terms of investment, that doesnt even mean the oil companies are going to get higher profits. Their profits may stay at roughly the same exhorbitant rate - or even go down. It's the production cost that will drive the price so high.

And yet you're opposed to the trade of cannibis. Which is the perfect way for provinces to make more revenue. No matter what the cost of enforcement, even though your arguments are purely economic and rarely based on "goodwill." No restrictions for business, but more restrictions on women's bodies. It's very confusing.

By that logic, nobody is truly independent and everybody's opinion is suspect because someone, somewhere wrote them a cheque. You mean documentaries in general?

No, your scenario is wrong because you base your argument on the assumption that the cost of producing a barrel of oil today is roughly the cost of what it costs tomorrow. But after the peak, it gets progressively more expensive to produce a barrel of sweet crude because they have to drill deeper to get less. And as to your simplistic question of "why don't they just leave it in the ground now?" ignores the fact that our economy is wholly dependent on the provision of oil. Take it away and there is collapse. Nobody makes money from economic collapse, so the tendency is to enjoy the good times while we have them and hope for the best. We can prepare to make this inevitable shock less severe. Our kids would thank us.

When I was a kid I had junkies always hanging in the lobby of my apartment on the Plateau in Mtl. I think I would have rather there been a place for them to go rather than there.

Yeah, or they just wanted to make sure the black market stays black.

That's a shocking accusation.

Considering how many people went to Fahrenheit 9/11 and read his books, that's a multi-million person circle of friends. Messing with people's minds through words? Do you even know what linguistics is? Okay, let me guess. You're still a student. Because no grwon-up in the real world would consider somebody's "major" to be a primary qualification for discussion of an issue. Bush portrays himself to be as dumb as can be. He doesn't need any help. He's even made it part of his schtick. Didn't you see him discuss foreign policy over dinner with Blair? What's wrong with being partisan and ideological in a documentary? People are still allowed to express opinions, aren't they? You just can't handle it when you disagree with someone? Because we live in a democracy where different ideas are openly discussed. Everything is biased. How heavily it is biased or whether it is propaganda is totally subjective. Because we get mad when people start wars to make themselves wealthy.

Unlike global warming, peak oil is inevitable but also manageable. The end of cheap oil will require total reorganization of our economy and our urban infrastructure. Unfortunately we aren't doing much of anything to deal with this, despite indications, like in this week's Moneyweek, that oil production has already peaked. The next 20 years sound really frightening: “In the end, it will be the 'total shift' to oil supply dictating demand. Rising prices will clear the market, and the prices will rise precipitously." http://www.moneyweek.com/file/16933/prepar...rgy-expert.html

Are you capable of backing up any of your bullshit with actual facts. Every opinion is based "feelings" you have or your "wilingness to bet"! Spew racist crap all you want, but at least come up with intelligent facts and not stupid unsubstantiated uninformed ideas you have while sitting at the computer. I'm willing to bet your a fat whtie middleaged unmarried suburban jew. But thats just a guess.

So? That's how it works in American politics. They call them "lobbyists." It's part of their system of government. What's your point?

Except he didn't actually serve with any of those particular Swiftboat Veterans, but the ones he did serve with backed up his story. But that's another election, another time...

Globalization will be stopped, but Harper's certainly not the guy to do it. He doesn't have the integrity or the balls. His main interest is what will give him the most money.

Chavez is the only leader with any integrity left.

I'll vouch for you, Oddman. You're definitely smarter than him.

But Gore isn't exactly a Liberal. He ran with Lieberman, for crissakes, and his wife is a bloody social conservative. Economically he's to the right of Clinton, who's economic policies are more fiscally conservative than Bush--considering they balanced the budget and still had money left over for war.