roy baty

Bengazi? The mediaparty will have that buried so deep in 2016 it'll be a distant memory. Clinton with the Mediaparty's support will continue the incompetence the "progressives" seem to like to elect. How ironic the left calls this "progress". lol!

However, "sorry" will be something the Democrats will be saying once they bankrupt their country, Something tells me that "sorry" won't cut it. And yes, it will be people that helped him accomplish it and they will deserve everything that these so-called "progressive" politics gave them.

Are there factions in the West that are to blame for funding them in the past? Yes. Are they doing it now? Perhaps What it comes down to for me is that terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda who hit the US on 9/11 are comprised of Islamic fundamentalist fanatics who have, are and always will be hell bent on the destruction of the Infidel. I am not convinced that completely isolating ourselves from that part of the world in the past would have changed that fact one iota. I can't buy into drones being to blame for the continued actions of these lunatics either. If they weren't the fanatics that they are in the first place, drones or any form of military action would not have been required. The hatred of the infidel and the fanatics that carry that hatred has been there for thousands of years at different levels. I don't think it is possible to change that now anymore do I think it could have been changed a thousand years ago. I predict that what we will see in the middle east in the near future is an alliance of the southern Arab nations with Egypt at the head of it as a result of this "spring". That will change the whole dynamic and balance (or lack of it) over there if it does happen. With the US on the decline God knows what we in North America are in store for.

For the record, that whole Arab spring is not as beautiful as it was intended to be..

1 - If countries like Pakistan who was and is clearly harboring terrorist enemies of the US and who will not cooperate in defending their supposed ally (the US) against any future terrorists attacks then (IMHO of course) that country's sovereignty is trumped. 2 - Same goes w/Yemen. If these so-called allies of the West sit back and do nothing against these lunatics it is no surprise the US does strike. What I mean by "moral solution" can be better stated now in this message as "better alternative" than striking the enemy with drones. So far no one has replied with a better method of dealing with those who are hell bent on the downfall of the West by any means possible. Looking to Allies has clearly failed, hence the drone program. The program has been very successful in downsizing Al Qaeda network and probably Obama's only truly successful program in his track record. Please provide citations for the rest of your message claiming NATO is now officially funding Al Qaeda. I remember reading something about it recently w/France and the UK unknowingly funding them indirectly. If they did, that makes them bad decision makers with poor intelligence and not intentional terrorist organization financiers or terrorists themselves.

You still never answered my question. Why do you feel the drone policy and by proxy, President Obama is cowardly and immoral and what would be your moral and fair solution to Al Qaeda?

Your definition of proportions is very interesting. Are we talking about the same USA or just the one looked at from an alternate universe? http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5wkMFMMQMAc/TDxgqaSbAOI/AAAAAAAABqo/zCzrL-Nkc7I/s1600/obama%2Bdemocrat%2Bbush%2Brepublican%2Bdebt.jpg&imgrefurl=http://simplybecauseitis.blogspot.com/2010/07/bush-republican-vs-obama-democrat.html&h=578&w=749&sz=79&tbnid=AWnedr1H5hCFSM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=112&zoom=1&usg=__fDKR_1KXNkNJgkeRLoWmLgikPVI=&docid=FkMtrX3iiNTP2M&sa=X&ei=LhBcUeSFEbDi4AOD_oC4CA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAQ&dur=146 For the record, I didn't agree with how Iraq was handled.. However, that War is starting to look like chump change lately in the here and now spending habits.. If he doesn't stop his massive and irresponsible laissez-faire spending, the US will go bankrupt. Period. Why are the left so unwilling to admit that? Like I asked before, is it that they WANT to see their country fail? Sometimes I wonder of that is true.

Please return to the here and now and provide a better answer than that.

Personally, I like to think of him as more of a puppet but I am curious to know why you find the drone program cowardly and immoral? I actually find it to be one of the few things he as done that has been effective and the least cost effective in dealing with Al Qaeda. How would you propose he could have handling this without being immoral or cowardly? It seems to me, the real cowards are the ones he is hitting with these drones who like to strap bombs on women and children, and use humans as shields in their cause to "rid the world of the infidel".

Would someone please explain to me why the left up here and Democrats down there don't seem to give a crap that this president's policies may indeed bankrupt the US? For those who don't know, this would be BAD for not just the US, but for the entire free world. Sometimes I think they actually want their own country to tank.. I just don't get it because it defies any logic. Is it that they feel that they are untouchable or somehow "immune" to economic collapse? Trust me, the Chinese and Russians were celebrating as much as the Democrats and their voters last Nov.

Thanks for that my left wing friend. Yes, FoxNews are a nothing but a den of liars! Tune in to the only source of the truth: Chris Matthews and MSNBC! You have to move past the election dude and focus on the here and now. Obama is a protected man in most news precincts and that is disgraceful to the news industry, not to mention they are doing a huge disservice to the citizens of the US. The ignoring of Bengazi, and shrugging off of the massive spending this guy has been doing by the news outlets you consider as truthful removes any shred of credability of the left and the news outlets they control. So if we are comparing apples to apples here, Fox has been far more truthful. The average US voter obviously doesn't care about incompetence and potential bankruptcy and you can hold the mainstream media partially to blame for that because obviously they themselves find it acceptable from this President.

Ok Kimmy. We could just as easily say the remaining major news outlets are media arms of the Obama administration with much more proof to back it up. Why is it that this ONE network ticks off you lefties so much? Sure the network leans right in a lot of it's opionion based content but when it comes to straight reporting, they will report very relevant stories that 90% of the remaining outlets will not because it may "tarnish" the image of their beloved Obama and expose him for the incompetent leader that he truly is. Could that be why the left hates it so much? The old saying that "the truth hurts" really comes through with the Fox News haters I have met. The US needs the likes of Fox News, if anything to offer at least one alternative to ALL the rest of the major news networks who clearly worship at the alter of Obama.

Ok Shortlived, we get it. There are alternatives to fossil fuels. The problem is that environmental radicals want us to blindly move off fossil fuels immediately and overnight regardless of cost and economic impact it may have on our families and government. Radical environmental mentality is not only unrealistic but dangerous. Making alternative sources viable using short and long term initiatives over the next 4-5 decades is the responsible approach. Greenies and non-Greenies alike just don't seem to be able to agree on any middle ground or are willing to compromise to get there and that is the unfortunate thing in all of this.

The problem still is that the major networks and newspapers are so far in the tank for the Democrats, they'll never get around to covering it if they want Hillary in in 2016 and my bet is that they still will should she become the Dem's ticket. People can diss Fox News as much as they want and gloat in the fact that Morris, Baird and others were out to lunch on their predictions but when it comes down to it, these guys who predicted Romney counted on voter trends in the past that saw a guy like Obama out on his butt because of the economy alone let alone the scandals the media party ignored. They were also wrong because they underestimated how little the average US voter cares about the state of their economy and union as did many other political analysts that weren't left leaning. Voters aren't the same today as 20 years ago and many found that out the hard way,

Well, I looked @ your chart. Perhaps you ignored the graph between 1967 and 1983 when Trudeau was PM. The Harper dip in 2009 is consistent with most G8 nations during that year and is completely expected for that time. Trudeau's spending spree was the most of any Prime Minister. That is a fact no matter what universe you're in. http://fildebrandt.ca/tag/trudeau/ Indeed he was the Genesis of deficit spending and the king of it. To deny that is just absurd.

Sadly waldo, you ask for "a sweeping drive-by" once in awhile.. Much obliged.. BTW, if Justin's economic policies even remotely resemble that of his father's and he gets elected, we should all be celebrating what will one day be be looked as "the good 'ol days of low debt and low deficits of the Harper era".

I do agree w/you that it is ridiculous argument.. Yes he should have assumed you meant "election campaign" but I think he was later just asking for a tincy wincy bit of humility in your response waldo. However, I wonder if humility is something you are remotely capable of. Instead its just relentless condescending responses to anyone who disagrees or even agrees with you. IMHO, Trudeau will also test the intelligence of the average Canadian voter in the next election should he indeed get the Liberal nod. Hopefully we turn out to have more of it than our friends south of the border did last November.

Being careful about environmental spending is nonsense?? Rhetoric? lol. To come in here and say extreme environmental policy and spending would have no effect on our economy is what is nonsense. Believe what you want...

I think Shady said "extreme" environmental policies shortlived. Moderate common sense policies slowly phased in over the long-term make sense. To think that there is no economic impact for extreme measures not phased in over the long term is very naive to believe. Whatever policies we implement have to be carefully thought out such that they are positive on the environment but at the same time don't have a damaging effect on our economy and it's growth. The problem with extremists is that they want everything done overnight regardless of the impact it may have on the economy and that is dangerous.

I rest my case.

Trust me, debating this guy results in the same thing for any topic that he opposes an alternate view on. His debating tactics are quite common on the left and do often result in anyone who debates him in just giving up. I suppose in his mind he sees that that as a huge victory in the debate. I just see it as a textbook example of behaviour from a left wing ideologue. I am sure waldo will refer to me, you or anyone with any form of right leaning views in a similar fashion and frankly I could care less. Some people cannot and will not be open to any alternate point of view or respect it and he is one of them.,

This is the most factual statement in this forum, Careful though Shady, the progressives hate any media outlet that has not been hijacked by their ideology and immediately discard them as sources of hate and lies. I would say that progressives are more in denial than clueless however. In short, the truth hurts too much so they choose to ignore or talk around what the end result of their failing policies will be and live only for today. Unfortunately they elected a man who thinks the same way. Sad times for what once was a great nation..

Yes, the President who has inspired America! lol. Oprah inspires more people than the Obamas. Maybe she should run for office in 2016.. Crazy thing is... She'd probably win!

Both sides of the scientific and ideological spectrum can provide both relevant and irrelevant scientific data up the wazoo to support AGW and GW etc.. etc... However, none of it can truly prove either side is correct or incorrect. All of it is still theory. Period. Many of you "believers" believe this is all man-made and we need to spend trillions to fix it. That's great. You're entitled to believe that, but just stop and acknowledge the "possibility" that there just may be other reasons behind the current changes in global temperatures and weather patterns that are not man-made before supporting mass spending that could lead to economic ruin long before environmental ruin. Oh, and Kairos. In your effort to completely discredit anything I said, please note that I never contradicted myself, I just didn't differentiate "man-made" from "natural". I'm sorry you were unable to figure that out for yourself. I'll be more clear next time..

I know my 2 cents will ruffle the environmentalist flag bearers in here but this I believe this so-called "Global Warming" theory will someday go down as one of the biggest scientific scams in history. Believers can post charts of CO2 emmissions per country, scientific studies and Al Gore documentaries as they'd like but until they can undenyably DISPROVE what many other studies now claim are natural cycles in global temperature and weather anomolies associated with it, it's still just a form of environmental theology. http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real In the past 10 years, the left has embraced this global warming phenomenon as the trendiest thing to talk about at a liberal dinner party since the acid rain and the ozone layer panic of the 80's. http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/14489/truth-about-acid-rain-msm-wants-bury-climaquiddick/henry-payne oh and http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2007/09/ozone-the-hole-truth See, I can post some opposing "denier" propaganda instead just as easily that many consider just as valid.. It's what you choose to believe in personally that matters and that we in the very least respect each side's opposing views. Then again, if the environmentalists that seem prodominent in big government these days decide to wreck the economy based on theology, I guess it will matter for all of us. Humm... I wonder who is right and who is wrong? It is certainly possible a global warming denier like me could be wrong about it all, then again so could the global warming believers. I believe we'll all find out soon enough.. One final thing. Why is it that so many on the left will believe any theory science throws @ them as the undenyable truth even to the point of being wildly zealous about it, yet scoff at a mere whisper of the slightest possibility of a divine creator who may be responsible for the weather patterns and the earth's behaviour as we appoach the end times in biblical prophecy?