Black Dog

Yeah I hear he's pretty liberal with a loofah. Well, if anyone would know a good spanking, it's Bill.

Peggy Noonan has never really stopped working for Cheney/Bush. As for the oft-trotted out Carville/Begala business: they were on Crossfire for chrissakes. They weren't reporting, they were on the political television's equivilant of WWE wrasslin'. Both were on the show as token Democrats, a position that wouldn't change regardless of their status with the Kerry campaign. But while we're at it, let's mention a few other conflicts of interest: -Sean Hannity: narrated a video for the GOP Convention while still reporting on the convention for Fox. -Bob Novak was allowed to stay on the air and comment on the Valerie Plame affair, despite being at the center of the scandal. -Fox reporter Carl Cameron covered the 2000 election despite the fact that his wife was working for the Bush campaign. Curse you leftist media!

Schiavo couldn't swallow on her own (I read that one Dr. Hammesfahr claimed she could, but this was the same chap who also claimed that Schiavo was not in a P.V.S, a claim later debunked by the autopsy), therefore the tube was what could be called a form of mechanical intervention to prolong life. Nor could she be "prompted" because her brain was jello. Whther you can face it or not, there are a numbe rof similarities between the Schiavo and DeLay cases: both patients were severely brain damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without continuing medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared life sustained by machine, and neither left a living will. In any case, this is just one example of DeLay's hypocrisy, corruption, immorality and avarice. There are more.

Um...if sopmeone's brain is reduced to Jello, to the point where the only way they can survive is through external feeding tube simplanted in their stomach, I'd say that's a case of using mechanical intervention to prolong life. In other words: same difference. As for the Bug Man, well, I'm with Argus. (I know. I know.)

The only thing that concerns me with the idea of legalisation is that we'd have R.J Reynolds and Philip Morris swooping in and capturing the industry. I'd rather see the day where I can mosey over to the Farmer's market on a Saturday afternoon and buy some good quality homegrown. As for sticking with faile dpolicies becaus ethey may offend our neighbours, well: it's hardly our fault the U.S. is so far behind in terms of social progress.

I could explain why tis is yet another example of a false dichotomy, but I know it would just be lost on you. Just as the distinction between believing the U.S. will win the war in Iraq and believing it is capable of winning is lost on you. Ta ta.

Yopu're right that there's no point in debating the abortion issue. Abortion is not going away in Canada any time soon. So to make that the key issue upon which to base your political decision is pretty pointless.

But ID is not "at a stage" where it cannot be scientifically tested: it can never be scientifically tested. Unles sthey can come up with soem evidence showing an actual designer, it wil remain a "god in the gaps" theory. Put another way: things that may appear to be by design are not evidence of a designer. You can't base a theory on an unprovable inference.

Maybe they figure that's the easiest way to stop the drug trade. Seize all the soil so we can't grow any weed.

In order to support this claim, you'd have to show that Alberta and B.C. have significantly less rates of healthcare "abuse" as you call it, than other provinces. Until then, you're talking out of your ass. As usual. You're really bad at this. Exactly.

Uh... Is 43 less than 50? I thnk so. Well here's the thing: I don't support the troops. I think U.S. troops in Iraq are fair game. However, I already explained how one can support the troops (that is, wish for their well-being) while recognizing the mission they have been placed on is morally wrong and unneccesary.

You're actually citing the discredited Niger story and the discredited aluminum tubes story? Good thing you don't have any credibility, because that would have wiped it out entirely. You're right: they weren't, as the Dufler report clearly stated. You're clearly sufering from an extreme case of Bush Fantasist Syndrome (wow, making up mental ailments is fun! Thanks for showing me how!).

No, it's a result of extra revenue from oil and gas. If Alberta (has so many like to remind us all) has the lowest taxes in Canada, how can we be overtaxed?

Iraq's nuclear program was wiped out in 1991. The intent remained and some intellectual capital, but there was nothing else. Biological weapons have very little military use. Bioterrorism is a threat, but common sesne rejects the notion that a authoritarian personality like Saddam would spend a lot of time and energy developing biological weapons, only to relinquish control over their use by handing them off to someone else, especially given the possibility that the same weapons could be used against his own regime (let's not forget that the secular socialist Saddam did not share the same objectives as Islamist organizations like Al Qaeda: in fact, Saddam was precisely teh kind of Arab leader AQ wants to overthrow.) Nope. Again (from the ISG): .pwned.

But since the money we pay into our healthcare premiums doesn't actually go into our healthcare system, suggesting the payments we make are someow conected to the health of our system is disingenous. Again: healthcare premuims don't go into healthcare. So, basically, you're proposing setting up an arm of beauracracy to dole out money to Albertans and then have yet another arm to take that money back. How very Soviet. It would be far more prudent (and dare I say it?) conservative, for the government to ax the uneccesary beauracracy and shoulder the burden of health care premiums itself.

Also, just under half of American voted for Kerry in '04. COINCIDENCE? I think not. The evidence is clear: half of all Americans hate America.

The troops don't get to pick their missions. So if the civilian wonks in the Pentagon choose to send them off on a "morally repugnant" mission, that's not the fault of the grunts. Supporting the troops includes supporrting not sending them on morally repugnant missions and my wishing for their well-being and safe return when they are. On the flip side, supporting sending troops on a morally repugnant mission with insufficient numbers and equipment, while backing an administration that cuts veteran's health care and benefit programs is not supporting the troops. So say it loud, Monty and Shady: "I support our politicians and bureaucrats!"

Uh...by my math, that's $8,760,000,000.000. Property tax is a municipal responsibility.

It was right because Germany was a threat in all the ways the Iraq most definitely was not. Ridiculous. Read the Deufler Report, which lays out, in detail, Saddam's ambitions and capabilities: So it appears Saddam's aspirations never went beyond restoring and maintaining his own status as a regional power and protecting his regime. Given that, it's highly doubtful he would have ever attacked the United States. You don't go out of your way to provoke the biggest threat to the regime's survival. The U.S. was defending itself from Iraq in much the same way as Germany was defending itself from Poland in September 1939.

Hey, if some of that surplus were to go to upgrading municipal tranist systems, you wouldn't hear me complain. And you're right: that would be a good first step (also probably a more long-term and sustainable move than building more goddamn roads). According to Alberta Health, only one out of every nine dollars of your health care premiums goes back into health care.

Yeah, many wish Ralph cut health premiums instead. "TO HELL WITH THE NEEDY!", eh? Is Ralph stopping you from applying your 400 bucks towards medicare? Of course not! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And how, pray tell, is one suppossed to apply one's $400 to medicare? "Excuse me Mr. Klein sir, I would like this $400 you've alloted me to go into medicare." "Sure, I'll get right on that, just as soon as I finish up at the casino..." Healthcare premiums don't have anything to do with medicare. Yeah, just what both cities need....more cars.

To the issue of nuclear proliferation: the Pentagon just announced its new nuclear policy, which authorizes the "preemptive" use of nuclear weapons against anyone using "or intending to use WMD" against the U.S. or its allies and in cases of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy". Kinda blunts their credibility on the whole nuke issue, don't it? Now, given the U.S.'s readiness to go to war on preemptive grounds (the Iraq war war billed, in part, as a preemptive war against an enemy with stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a dangeropus nuclear program,allegations that were sketchy at the time and subsequently proven false), and are now considering reserving the right to, essentailly, nuke anyone they damn well please, plus the fact that they are sitting on an aresnal of some 7,000 nuclear warheads, I have to wonder about all the fuss over North Korea and Iran...

Arguing with some of these people is like putting pant son a pig: you just get muddy and the pig gets mad. Some nutjobs aren't worth the bandwith.

Took a look at the newest deal and compared it to the 1994 Agreed Framwork put in place by the Clinton administration. 2005: 1994 2005 1994: 2005 1994 2005 1994 This latest deal (which North Korea likely won't honour either) is a virtual carbon copy of the 1994 bilateral agreement. The only difference is that the Bush administration did not explicitly promise to build Kim Jong Il a light-water reactor, as Clinton did in 1994, promising instead to talk about building such a reactor "at the appropriate time." So a question for our resident Bush-boy: given this latest "stunning victory's" stunning resemblence to the "failed Clinton-era NK policy" of "appeasement", why are you supporting a government that supports appeasement of dictators and terrorists?

And the point is...? Let me guess: "Liberals are bad. Bush roolz!" Yawn.