Black Dog

Yeah it's pretty hard to take someone seriously when their response to their "ugly and hate-filled" political opponents is nothing but bile and vitriol. The angry demands for idealogical purity from some G.O.P fans here is reminsicent of the rhetoric used by the likes of Red Guard during China's Cultural Revolution.

We're not in Iraq because it's none of our goddamn business.

Christ, what I wouldn't give to see a reliable poll done to guage seperatists sentiment. Because in the pols that matter (that is: elections) support for western separation is a non-entity. I actually am starting to think that every single person in favour of western separation is posting to this board. Both of 'em.

See Ralph can make a Grade A jackass of himself in public or pick fights with the feds and get away with it because he knows how to play the people of Alberta against the "other". However, people would be a helluva lot less forgiving if he started costing them jobs and livliehoods. Give your head a shake. It would be political suicide for him too. Ralph's many things: self-destructive (well, politically) ain't one of 'em.

Excellent point, kimmy.

90 per cent of the people still in New Orleans are black. Poverty is widespread and the black population doesn't have the resources to get out of harm's way, let alone rebuild. The rich white folk (Bush's base, as he calls them) can always go back and rebuild. The poor, predominately Democrat black population can't. That's the difference.

And why would Ralph cut off his nose to spite his face? The province owes its success to the oil and gas sector: stopping production of these resources would be economic suicide.

Can you provide any evidence to back up this racist statement? Uh...how is that a rascist statement?

Well, the current line of defense from the Bush admin is that now is not the time for "politics" (a phrase which, when uttered by a politician, is as good as an admission of guilt). Of course that didn't stop the RNC from using the occassion of New Orleans' continued descent into chaos and destruction to rally supporters for more tax cuts.

Well, you've been going on and on about Salman Pak, and any other shred of heresay, speculation and innuendo you can. In that way, you're very much like left-wing conspiracy nuts who take any bit of heresay, speculation and innuendo they can to show, for example, that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane on 9-11 but a cruise missile or some other such conspiracy theory demonstrating the U.S. government's knowledge of or outright complicity in the events of 9-11. That's what makes conspiracy theories so seductive: they draw threads from every which way in and tie them together in a neat little package. Nonetheless, no matter what you present, the fundamental fact is that the administration has made no attempt to connect Saddam to 9-11 and has offered up (in fact, disavowed) any solid link between the two, despite the fact it the political benefits of doing so would be enormous. The only reasonable conclusion one could reach from that simple fact is that the intelligence is just too weak to allow them to make a strong claim. And given this particular administration's past useage of weak evidence based on unreliable testimony ("Curveball", anyone?), that must be saying something.

It could become Newfoundland West!

Tell me about it. I am sure there's people naif enough to think there's no connection between the breach of the levees and the Bush adminisration's decision to cut the funds to fix those same levees, in order to divert that specific funding to Iraq. Or the decision to cancel open up parts of the wetland buffer zone between New Orleans and the gulf for development. All this despite warnings from the Federal Emergency Management Agency that in the event of a "New Orleans hurricane scenario...the city's less-than-adequate evacuation routes would strand 250,000 people or more, and probably kill one of 10 left behind as the city drowned under 20 feet of water. Thousands of refugees could land in Houston. Economically, the toll would be shattering. Southern Louisiana produces one-third of the country's seafood, one-fifth of its oil and one-quarter of its natural gas. The city's tourism, lifeblood of the French Quarter, would cease to exist. The Big Easy might never recover." (Link) Yet some people are still naive or ignorant enough to make statements like:

To be fair to, the idea that young people of certain ages are sexually off limits is not only at odds with biology, but is also a fairly recent phenomenon. After all, in times past, girls of 14, 15 were prime marriage and breeding material. When women were expected to churn out children at the maximum rate, then it was best to start them young. The biological aspect is also interesting: girls especially seem to be, uh, developing much earlier these days, so its not surprising that these things happen when physical development outpaces mental and emotional development. Which is why comprehensive sex ed, starting in elementary school, is a good idea.Unfortunately, such things are taboo in most of America and in places like Kansas in particular.

There's a simple way to avoid that, you know: decrease yous consumption.

That in itself is largely a byproduct of economic factors, no?

Link. Also: Just for you, B. Max.

Didn't work when I said that to you a while back. Times change I guess. hehe <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Refresh my memory.

See post #50.

When I'm not painting murals in Iraq, of course.

Wait, I thought Al Qaeda was destroyed in Afghanistan? Surely, then, it would be unable to accomplish a feat such as "overrunning" Iraq. Sure, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That means you. I'm not about to do your homwork for you.

Not so long as it is between consenting adults.

As I've already noted, Myrolie is a crackpot. Any judge willing to accept her testimony is flirting with crackpotdom himself. "no collaborative relationship" What do you suppose that means? It certainly allows for the possibility of contact between huessin and AQ, and indeed, such contacts have been documented. However, there's absolutely no evidence of any working relationship . None. A few pointers for our reality-impaired friend: The New York Times is not "left wing" (indeed, jailed Times reporter Judith Miller was a key figure in dissemenating administrations WMD claims to the public), nor is Myrolie left wing by association. You can't prove a negative. Again: all this would constitute "smoking gun evidence" of Iarq's involvement, yet the Bush administartion has been completely silent and has disavowed any links between Iraq and 9-11. Why would they do that Monty? Why would they leave that information to fringe right-wing web sites, bloggers and discussion forum posters when they would have so much to gain by showing such a link? I've asked this question more times han I care to count, and have not recieved an answer, I expect because the "evidence" is overblown, exaggerated (a mural?!) and unsupported by any real evidence. I'm done.

prove it.

Hey is there a mural of her in Baghdad?

I'm not really surprised you don';t even know what Baer said. In other words, no evidence, just speculation and conjecture. Let's break it down: on Monty's side, we've a no-name judge and a whackhjob consiracy theorist. On the other, the Dufler report, the 9-11 Commission and the freaking President (who would have a very vested interest in showing a link between Saddam and 9-11) all saying, essentially, there's no link. And really, Myrolie wouldn't be the first crackpot employed by the Times, nor the last. Whoa! A MURAL! Why didn't you say so, man? Have you alerted the President? Still you, sweetheart. Because, as the 9-11 commission report indicated, the issue isn't whether or not any AQ affiliates or members were in Iraq, but if there was a working relationship between Saddam's regime and teh organization. And, again, according to the commission's report (the results of which have not been disputed by the administration, which, again, would have a vested interest in demonstrating such a relationship), there was " no collaborative relationship" between the two camps. But i am curious about one thing: if ther eis such an overwhelming mountain of evidence linking the two, why isn't that evidence being trotted out every single day by the PUSA in response to criticism on Iraq. Why would the administration sit on iformation that would be so very beneficial to them politically?