Figleaf

Strategically, it is not a great idea to launch an impeachment and fail. It looks like you didn't know what you were doing. So, probably the Dems will drag their feet and launch impeachment proceedings only when it's too late for them to conclude before the election.

Maurice Duplessis.

Yeah, I thought of that five minutes too late. I think you're right. Maybe I should have cut it off before Trudeau, too.

We are talking about mass murder by the US government - most people do have a conscious and participating in a such a plot would haunt some of them enough to overcome concerns about incriminating themselves. We are talking about 100s - if not thousands of people who could potentially provide conclusive evidence of such a plot yet not one has come forward. I think it could be done with about 25-50 of the right people. ould say they haven't pulled it off So his 'partial confession' strategy is working on you. I would say they actually have not pulled it off. Well, we've already agreed they are incompetent. But anyway, you work with what you have ... the CIA and the BushCF had bin Laden and the former mujahedin they had trained in Afghanistan.

Why I oughta...

Technically, I think Conrad disqualified himself.

Who stank most? I left out short-timers to keep the focus on policies and achievements.

Are Barbara Amiel or Mark Steyn Canadians?

I'm sorry simple wisdom insults you.

So, you're saying May's comment was alright after all? Nope. What made you think that? It seemed like you were saying that if May's quote was simply a comment that history would judge one the same as the other that would be ok. Thanks for clarifying.

People like Who?

What? Why would the victims need to be willling collaborators? They're dead and can't blow any whistles. Oh, I certainly believe planes went down. I just think they were part of a larger inside job. (Remember, Rummy arranged to be the only person with authority to scramble fighters that day and then he went MIA for the key couple of hours that fighters might have made a difference.) In fact, flight 93 was probably supposed to hit WTC7 to 'explain' how it collapsed too but the passengers intervened. The conspirators decided to 'pull it' even though the plane never made it. This much we know for certain: -PNAC wanted 'another pearl harbor' to advance their cause; -PNAC leaders became Bush regime leaders with responsibilty for preventing 'pearl harbor' type events; -a 'pearl harbor' type event happened -the PNAC leaders used the event exactly as they had earlier prescribed. Coincidence? Maybe.

It has been 6 years and no whistle blower has come forward to become instantly famous or at least assuage their guilty conscious. George Tenet - one of the highest ranking officials in the US government on 9/11 - has published a tell all book that makes no mention of an inside job yet he is clearly willing to burn all of his bridges with his former friends in the whitehouse. The total absence of whistle blowers does not prove that the plot did not happen but it is pretty compelling evidence that such a plot is extremely improbable. If that's the only basis you draw upon, I don't find it thoroughy convincing. People implicated in the worst terrorist attack in US history would have a pretty strong self-interest in not exposing themselves.

So, you're saying May's comment was alright after all?

Yeah yeah, sure sure. The Secret, yadda yadda. But if I buy the video, will it tell me how to become a 'Freeman-on-the-Land', or 'invest in real estate with no money down'?

Here's some guidance for that question. It's sort of a 'Forest Gump' thing (so possibly too deep for you to grasp) -- bigot is as bigot does.

Hmmm... a mystery-prison unknown to the regular authorities ... another island in George Bush's gulag archipelago perhaps? I wonder who gets to be tortured there. Wait! Maybe there's a solution to our prisoner problem. Don't hand them over to the Afghans for brutal benighted medieval torture -- hand them over to the U.S. for efficient calculated modern torture.

For the record, there was an insider clique whose behavior would, if on this Board, be considered trolling. One of the posts the "moderators" let stand was a wish that I'd be on a Jerusalem bus caught in a suicide bombing. Hmm. I wonder if the other posters on that forum would concur with your perspective on that. In any event, your plot was carried out against the very efforts to prevent abuses that might have eventually been successful.

Indeed can ANYone suggest what rational the RCMP could possibly apply to determine that Hart's statements in the fax did not implicate him and at least one other person in receipt/payment of a benefit to resign his seat? It seems to defy any sense at all, but maybe there's an interpretation that explains it that I just can't think of. It boggles the mind how the police could possibly see someone say his resignation was contingent on the negotiation and then not conclude that very likely his resignation was contingent on the negotiation. Seriously does this make sense to anyone? Did Stock simply issue orders to the RCMP not to follow up? What is going on here?

They'd sure get shuffled out of the Environment portfolio PDQ.

If Conservative Party attack dogs didn't have Taliban Jack they'd have to invent him. Oh, wait ... Conservative Party attack dogs DID invent "Taliban" Jack.

Do I know you? Do you know fu6k all? No and no.

Affiliations are not the question here. Canadian police officers are still Canadian police officers when they go to another country, but they have no jurisdiction. Similarly, a student may 'be' a student in or out of school, but that doesn't mean the schools authority extends with him. It's just a word. Right. So it's not 'in school' and the school's authority does not extend to it. That comment is too stupid to be worthy of refutation. Looks like your spring has run down, Dancer -- time to get someone else to wind you up.

No. It is called common sense and good science. The Rolling Stone article makes the point very well: your theories are rubbish unless you can come up with a coherent story arc that explains why these buildings were demolished in the way they were. It is not enough to point to inconclusive bits of data and claim that they 'prove' that a ridiculously improbable plot took place.Which is more probable: 1) 3 out 7 buildings collapsed symmetrically as a result of asymmetric damage. 2) The US government murdered 3000 of its own citizens and was able to ensure that no one leaked any evidence exposing the plot. You can rant as much as you want about how improbable 1) is but you can't escape the fact that 2) is infinitely less probable. A rational person would conclude that 1) is likely what happened even if they think it is improbable. I'm thinking through your last structural comments, but meanwhile, what exactly makes (2) so improbable?

Dirty filthy lie.