Montgomery Burns

The Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution passed Congress and was signed into law on October 16, 2002. You might want to read it. It's a short 23 clause resolution. It's being reported that this confidential British memo was written after Blair visited Bush on January 31, 2003. What's your point?

ABC News on the Iraqi documents: Countries don't have friends; they have allies...and enemies. I don't trust Russia. They're even arming Iran now.

Fox figured out that there is a niche for news targeted at people with right leaning views. That does not mean Fox is more balanced or objective - it just has a different target audience in mind. But most media studies have put the FNC closer to the centre than most of the MSM. Their panels are always balanced. You think it's balanced when you watch Chris Matthews show with its 4-liberals panel? If you haven't watched the FNC, you can still watch Fox News Sunday (morning) on your regular Fox station. Chris Wallace (Mike Wallace's son), who is center-left, hosts a panel of 2 liberals and 2 conservatives.

Believe it or not, it gets even uglier (about 45 seconds)

It is the liberal (even Marxist at times) universities who churn out these journalists. You make it sound like there are no leftwing corporations. Democrats/Liberals own/run lots of corporations. You are stereotyping by suggesting that all corporations must have a conservative/rightwing ideology. You know that the MSM is biased to the left. You're not a dumb guy. Like Argus stated earlier, the left complains about the FNC, and that's about it. I have the FNC and it leans right but it not far-right. There are more conservative hosts than liberal hosts, but the panels are always balanced. It only seems like GOP-TV compared to the CBC, BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CTV, CNN, etc, who repeatedly try to paint the Bush administration in a bad light. While acknowledging the latest "controversy", the FNC tends to let the Bush administration give its side of the story.

Next he will pie her since that seems to be the extent of political debate by some on the left these days.

Riverwind: The Funniest Quip of the Day™. If only those dumb flukey Americans would take the time to investigate the issues, then they wouldn't have voted Republican in 5 of the last 7 presidential elections. Typical leftist elitest arrogance. So out of touch...that's why the Democrats have a fetish for polls. Makes them feel better than voting day.

Writing a constitution and having 3 elections a mere 2 years after Saddam was overthrown is a "mess" I wonder what you would call Japan and Germany after WWII. A colossal super-duper mess?

UK's Telegraph: Why am I not surprised that these activists are acting this way?

Riverwind: Typical hatemongering from the hard left who want to believe that that the world is a nice tidy place where everything and everyone is the same. How naive can you be? Unfortunately there is evil in this world. The hard left just can't recognize it. Indeed, they are often sympathetic to it. We've all seen the left protesting and comparing Bush to Hitler, but we haven't seen them protesting against Saddam or Osama Bin Laden. How ghastly to kill an innocent baby (who does not even get the benefit of a trial unlike Tookie) just because these humans 'might' spend their lives going in and out of jail, 'might' have SEVERE addictions of their own, and 'might' cost society a lot of money, essentially they should be killed just because they are an inconvenience. :angry: 100,000 babies are murdered every year (average 274 every day) in Canada and about 97% of these murders are for no reason other than they are an inconvenience--not because of the mother's health being in danger, incest or rape. That's what I call moral cowardice. Keep it up but what if you abort yourself into near extinction? More conservatives will be coming into this world.

Of course it is.

The invaluable Matt Drudge has a copy of the email: Oh, that liberal media. MNBC's liberal Keith Olbermann knows who is behind this. You'll never ever guess who: When the anti-Bush Dana Milbank thinks you've went too far with your conspiracy theory, then you're really out in "left" field. February jobs report: Investors Business Daily versus the NY Times: Spin spin spin.

Riverwind: "Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites." -- Ann Coulter That doesn't even make sense.

That is the entire point. Just because a majority of voters supports the right wing Republicans that does not mean a majority of Americans support them. The polls are an indication of that disconnect. At some level people who don't vote don't have a right to complain but it is pretty arrogant for any politician to assume they have the support of the majority of Americans based on a plurality of votes in an election. So we should do away with elections and just rely on polls--like those exit polls from the 2004 election that had Kerry whipping Dubya? Good grief. What's your next argument? Reagan was an illegitimate President in the 1984 election (where he won 49 of 50 states) because the entire eligible voting population didn't vote? OMG, the left is sinking deeper and deeper into the depths of insanity...

The fact that Iraq talked to Bin Ladin was duely noted in the 9-11 commisioners report and is not news. What is still missing is any evidence that Iraq actually did anything. Even if it can be established that Iraq had some marginal involvement with Bin Ladin activities that in it itself does not justify the invasion since there is already overwhelming evidence that Sudan was working extremely closely with Bin Ladin and represented a much bigger threat.No matter how the right try to spin it they cannot escape the fact that the Iraq invasion was mainly an excercise in ego gratification for the wannbe cowboys in the Bush administration who tricked the American public into supporting the war by manipulating the post 9/11 fears. WTF? You were arguing the other day that one of the 9-11 commissioners had obviously not read his own report that Al Qaeda and Iraq had links. It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor....Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden. No matter how hard the left tries to spin it, they cannot deny that Saddam and Al Qaeda had links and worked together--as we saw when those documents showed that Saddam funded an Al Qaeda terrorist group in the Philippines. The reason why so many on the left supported Saddam staying in power is because they almost always take the position that undermines US security. Only an arrogant elitist would claim that the American public was "tricked".

No one on the left sympathizes or supports these regimes - what they disagree with is the methods used by the US adminstration to deal with them. The fact that so many on the right cannot understand the difference illustrates a lack of critical thinking. What a crock. Many on the left supported and were sympathetic to the USSR; they fought Reagan every step of the way against his crusade against that murderous evil empire. Many also support Castro's Cuba (Cuba has a 100% literacy rate and healthcare for all--after all Castro says so, it must be true). And Ted Turner said when he came back from his recent trip to North Korea, he found nothing wrong with the country. And I don't think I have to waste my time proving Jane Fonda's support for the communist North Vietnamese.

Here's your reply, POCKET ROCKET. Sorry I couldn't get to it earlier, but I have been busy oppressing my employees.

This off the cuff remark of yours caused me to waste about 10 minutes poring over the old "Tucker Carlson/Anne Coulture" thread in great detail to find the "outrage" with which I supposedly reacted. My reasons for asking the question which began this thread were simply to stop this all-to-common tactic of shouting "America hater" at anyone who dared to question the USA's current policies. If truth be told, you are one of those who is largely responsible for my asking the question for which this thread was set up. You seem to have a habit of putting words in other people's mouths, or twisting their statements into something they were not originally intended to be. If someone condemns GWB's actions, you often "translate" that into a "hatred" of America and all things American. That's too bad, really. You're a very smart guy, perfectly capable of debating an issue on its own merits. But instead, you seem to enjoy antagonizing people. So, I'm calling you on this one. Please show the "outrage" I displayed over Tucker's remarks. AMERICA 1 (a conservative-type) and I seem to have gotten along quite well in that thread, and came to a consensus on many points. In fact, I agreed with many of his statements in that thread, including those regarding the USA's military and economic superiority over Canada. If I said nothing in that thread to offend a conservative American, then what comment stands out in your mind as a display of "outrage" ??? C'mon MONTY, time to put up or shut up. Show me the "outrage" in my comments. If you find that you're incapable of producing such "outrage" from any of my posts on the topic, then I will expect a retraction of your accusatory comment here. You seem to have a habit of turning every issue into a shot at the Bush administration, then when questioned on it, you plead "friends can critisize each other". POCKET ROCKET, you shouldn't have wasted your time on the Carlson/Coulter thread, but instead went to this thread where you compared Carlson's (a guy that does not speak for the Republicans) "retarded cousins" statement to Martin's anti-Americanism during the election, dubbing it "politics". I didn't forget that because it was such an outrageous claim comparing Liberal Party members calling Americans bastards, morons, and coalition of the idiots (not to mention Parrish's embarrassing antic on the state-run TV (where we get our Commander-in-Chiefs from). You might have forgotten about it, but I did not.

But at least we can console ourselves in the fact that these people no longer represent the government of Canada. Harper's first photo-op was a not by co-incidence in Afghanistan. I think we can hope now that "God will bless Canada". The word God is in the Canadian constitution. Enjoy.

Why is Carlson not at CNN anymore? The little pundit got owned by a satiricle news show host. Carlson tucker'd his tail between his legs and in shame left for another network. THAT is why no one watches him. He did not garner any respect from the incident. Far from me to defend Tucker Carlson, but you can't blame the guy for leaving an afternoon show to star in your own primetime show. And Stewart never owned anyone. He made a complete ass out of himself then went on to host the Oscars resulting in the 2nd lowest Oscar ratings in history. That's why no one watched. He made a fool out of himself. He's a 2nd rate cable television comic whose shtick is to look at the camera and make "funny" faces. He can stay on cable where he belongs and I doubt he will asked back to host the Oscars.

Oh that's a toughie. In the last election, if I could have voted, I'd have voted for the Liberal Democrats. They're the only party consistently protecting civil liberties from Labour's big scary statist schemes like a mandatory citizen DNA database and mandatory ID cards. However, I am impressed with David Cameron's leadership of the Conservative party, and have had several colleagues who are NOT "traditional Tories" get contacted by his deputy and invited to join the party and influence its policies. If he can get together with the LDs and agree on civil liberties, while advancing a free market economic policy and reorganisation of the clogged British government which reduces spending and improves efficiency, he could possibly form quite a compelling government. He is loathed across ideologies. I share their loathing. So does my conservative Tory bunch of friends. So do my ultra-left Green Party bunch of friends. The man is just an odious twat. Actually, I greatly enjoyed listening to a right-wing talk show rip Ms. Coulter to shreds. Apparently, the listeners -- most of whom are gun enthusiasts and privacy advocates of the rural New Hampshire/Montana type -- were enraged over the Patriot Act. Ms. Coulter, expecting a friendly audience which would ignore her inanities, began defending the PATRIOT Act. Bad idea. The bony little battleax got ripped to shreds by conservative callers. My favourite line: Caller: "Why don't you think the PATRIOT Act is all that bad." Coulter: "It's just liberals lying about it like they lie about everything. The PATRIOT Act doesn't give the government any powers they didn't have before." Caller: "Have you read the PATRIOT Act?" Coulter: "No, but--" Caller: "Well if you haven't read the thing, what are you doing talking about it?!? I've read it and it's dangerous. People like you are selling us out to the government!" Coulter: "Oh, this must be a liberal or something." Oh cripes. How can anyone fall for the oldest liberal trick in the book? The concerned "conservative" (really a liberal in disguise) worried that the PATRIOT Act is "bad". No proof. No evidence despite the hysterical shrieking of liberals. Good grief. You see this tactic on every review at Amazon whenever it comes to reviewing a book by a conservative: Name: Lifelong Republican "As a registered Republican, I was anxious to read (insert conservative author's name), but I was deeply disappointed in the lies and jingoism in this book. Blah blah blah list all the leftwing talking points. If you want the truth, read Al Franken's new book." Typical of liberal's contempt for everyone else. They really think everyone is stupid enough to fall for their elementary school tricks.

are you ready? ....duh folks! this one is really easy.... ...guess which one is (was) a MP of the ruling party? ...guess which one speaks for the ruling party? ...guess which one speaks for Canada? Tucker Carlson said ONE THING, ONE TIME. Parrish spewed her crap daily to an audience of millions of enraptured followers.

Contact former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berg(l)er--the guy who was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants from the National Archives prior to testifying in front of the 9-11 commission. He stole something like 50 classified documents and shredded them. If you are unaware of this, don't feel bad. The MSM completely buried this scandal. Why? Because Berg(l)er isn't a Republican. If a Republican had done this, it would have been the top news story for at least a month straight. Obviously the scandal-ridden Clinton administration had something to hide. Hopefully he got lots of paper cuts on his genitals. :angry: Saved any of those links?? We should pay attention to who was in charge when and of what during both of these administrations. I have moved away from the big bank heist theory, and just am concentrating on #7 I am also aware that the Bush admin is going into the National Archives and reclassifying a whack load of documents that should not have made declassified. So what are they pulling from the shelves? Why is that important? Clinton AND Bush Jr, did not really know the scope of what went on. They may be the CEO but they do not control the military's day to day movement. But I think Bush knows more than Clinton, and he knows more of what went on. Got links?

US elections to not produce results that reflect the opinions of the majority of the people since barely 50% of eligible voters actually vote. OMG, is that the best you can come up with? The majority of voters. Is that better?

Hot on the heels of Naji Sabri (Saddam’s foreign minister who became a CIA informant before the liberation) stating that Saddam desperately wanted a nuclear bomb, and that Iraq had stockpiled weapons and poison gas left over from the first Gulf War (in typical MSM-style, this info was buried in the bottom of the March 20 MSNBC article) and the documents showing Saddam's financial support for an al Qaeda terrorist organization in the Philippines comes this: I'm sure this will be the top news story for the next while. Yeah right. If only Clinton had taken up the Sudanese when they offered Osama to him. Perhaps those were the classified documents that Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives during the 9-11 commission hearings. Oops, I did a no-no. Any critisizism of Dear Leader is not allowed, according to some on this forum.