Montgomery Burns

No doubt. *shudders*

Isn't it great to actually have a Prime Minister who actually displays leadership? What message do you think Harper sent to the Islamic radicals? What message do you think Harper sent to the USA, UK, Australia, Italy, Poland, and the rest of the coalition? As for Jack Layton, after seeing this CTV report... ...the phrase 'morally bankrupt wimp' comes to mind... :angry: Layton is starting to emulate Martin even more. The rhetoric of "american" everywhere smells like the same sh*t that the hapless Martin kept spouting during the election. Ideology is everything to these people. Pathetic!

Liam: What utter nonsense. Bush did not break the law. How old are you? Don't you remember Clinton? So what? They're coming from other agencies and other NSA programs. Bush himself has said that the NSA program wasn't seeking any warrants from the FISA court. A lie. A Big lie. How many times do I have to explain this on the forum? I can't be arsed to type it all out again, but this essentially sums up what I mean. Just take a look at what happened during Jimmy Carter's administration: This surveillance took place to fight a simple espionage case, not to defend the country against an enemy that has already attacked US assets on numerous occasions and killed 3000 civilians in one attack on American soil. US federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. Indeed, the wiretapping of calls between US citizens and foreign agents without a warrant is not only legal, it would probably take a Constitutional Amendment to strip the President of that power. The only reason why the BDS-inflicted Dems and the press are spinning this is because it is a Republican President by the name of George W Bush doing it. The public overwhelmingly supports the US eavesdropping on terrorists who wish to do Americans harm.

How is intercepting calls from known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers going to "come back to bite us". It seems to me that it already bite us for not doing it during the Clinton Admin. The simple fact is that the Clinton admin's intelligence "wall" is a HUGE reason why our agencies were not able to track the 9-11 cell in the first place. You can easily get a warrant to spy on a KNOWN terrorist. No need to be side stepping the law. The Intelligence 'wall' has been fixed outside of the Patriot act. Someone is feeding you horseshit. I'm sorry but: 1) Horsesh*t, and 2) Horsesh*t. The intelligence wall was broken down with the Patriot Act. For all the hysteria about the Patriot Act, I find it interesting that you never hear any reasonable situations about someone losing their civil rights due to the PA.

I was reluctant but I voted yes. I don't know if it will be within 3 years, but I think there is no doubt that Canada will be victim of a major terrorist attack in the future. Osama named 5 countries on his hitlist and Canada is the only one that hasn't been attacked - yet. After 13 years of Liberal Party rule, the population has gone wobbly (a recent poll showed the majority of Canadians, after 11 Cdn soldiers losing their lives in 4 years, wanted to cut and run from Afghanistan if more casualties mounted) and when Al Qaeda attacks, many Canadians will want to "pull a Spain", accept Osama's "truce", embarrass our brave soldiers, and run from Afghanistan with our tails between our legs. You have to remember that many Canadians feel that the "so-called" war on terror is an American thing, and the Canadian left always take the side that undermines the US. It's instinctive because the wildly successful US is the breadbasket of capitalism and the Canadian left hates their guts for showing up the socialists. Does anyone recall Canadian leftists protesting against Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, or Yassir Arafat? Of course not. They protested against what they perceive to be the real evil in this world: George Bush and Ariel Sharon.

Intelligence said Saddam had WMDs too. And intelligence was correct.

Small point but it's in keeping with Harper's M.O. Actually, he "lured" (as in Emerson) the GG's cook. http://www.nealenews.com/nealenews_GGChef_24%20Feb%2006.htm That's great!

Gosthacked: Hee hee. A leader showing resolve against radical Islam. I knew that would get under the skin of progressive liberals. Let the seething begin.

Top cultural icon? Wtf?

Oh, it's not that bad over there. Eleven Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2002, and four of those died by friendly fire. I'm sure the military knows that Al Qaeda or the Taliban would score a coup if they could get the "scalp" of a Western Prime Minister, especially one who is showing determination against radical Islam. Harper will be well looked after. He's even going to go meet them out in the fields! Harper gets it. It looks like Canada is finally going to have a credible foreign policy and will once again rise to be a respected voice in the world--a voice that has some weight when it speaks. I'm feeling proud to be Canadian right now. Think I'll turn the telly to CBC Newsworld and watch the seething.

Newbie: I repeat: They are professionally "angry." They are pundits. You said he was as Republican as you can get. "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." -- your friend Ann Coulter Not only has Rove not been convicted, he hasn't even been charged with anything. You still upset that you got a lump of coal for Fitzmas? He also just got the GOP nomination in Texas a few days ago. "The Democratic leadership (not you rank-and-file members) are drowning in hatred. It's made them totally irrational, to the point where they can't refrain from attacking George W. Bush even when they know doing so will hurt them more than it does him. If they didn't hate Richard Nixon too, they'd do well to take heed of his farewell words: "Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself." Bush doesn't hate guys like hate-filled Bob Byrd of the KKK. That's the whole idea behind his "new tone." Two things are going on with the Democrats and this latest attack on Bush over his landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Number One: Attacking Bush is the natural instinct of the reactionary Democrats and liberals, because they can't go on living if they're out of power much longer. Everything - duty, honor, country - is second to getting their power back. Number Two: There is a seething rage and hatred for Bush. This hate fuels their attacks, and every single George W. Bush success stokes that fiery hate - which in turn leads to ever more brutal (and politically foolish) salvos. For example, every single thing these people said about Iraq turned out to be bupkis. Not one of the so-called peace movement's nightmare scenarios came true. Now they see this great carrier landing, and they flip out! If we'd lost, you know damn well they'd be all over Bush for that, but they just can't abide any reminder that this man they called an idiot won two wars against foes they called unbeatable in 18 months. These überleftists, those of you marching in the anti-Bush peace marches who can't get over this false talking point that Bush is "illegitimate" after 2000, have been infected with this hatred." -- Rush Limbaugh telling it like it is. Wtf? Your blaming Bush for terrorists killing civilians too? Sadly, civilian casualties are a part of war. However Bush has a ways to go to catch up to the million or so civilians Saddam was responsible for killing. Besides, one can make an excellent argument that Iraq Body Count's numbers are inflated. Last year Iraq Body Count published an analysis of 2 years of Iraqi casualties from 2003 to 2005. The study reported 24,865 civilian deaths in the first 2 years of the war, an apparent endorsement of the "US indiscrimanently killing Iraqi civilians" claim. But some curious statistics jump out at you: Over 81% of the civilian casualties are men. Even stranger, over 90% of civilian casualties are adults in a country with a disproportionate percentage of the population under 18 (44.5%). A stray smart bomb falling in a marketplace, stray bullets ripping through bedroom walls, city warfare, etc--all these activities should produce casualties that reflect the ratio of men to women or adults to children that prevail in Iraq as a whole. It's particularly relevant when one side in the conflict does not wear uniforms, is predominantly adult and of one gender, and engages in a practice of concealing its combatants within the civilian population. The statistics are further distorted if the Iraqi security forces – essentially the free Iraqi military on the side of the US coalition – are classified as civilians, as they are in this Iraq Body Count study. God bless those brave volunteers. Here's some skeletons for you to look at. If Woodward doesn't care about the future of his children and grandchildren, that's his perogative.

Congratulations to Greg and his wife, but quit keepng us in suspense. Boy or girl?

They are as Republican as you can get. You don't count media then? Too bad. I was going to throw Bob Novak into the mix. Are you saying O'Reilly isn't frothing from the right? Oh, and I guess you don't count hitman Pat Robertson then either. How about George Allen or Karl Rove? And then there's that self-righteous Mormon Orrin Hatch and scandal laden Tom Delay. And of course, the grand daddy of em all, good ole Dubya his self. There's so many they even have a group: http://groups.msn.com/AngryRepublicans O'Reilly is as Republican as you can get? Get real! He's pro-gun control, pro-abortion, anti-death penalty, and supports gays adopting. I'll admit that overall he leans to the right, but he is hardly "as Republican as you can get." Pat Robertson is on the fringes of the Republican Party and does not speak for the GOP (although he was right about Hugo Chavez). Btw, do you want me to bring up all the hatemongers on the left? In my previous post I just issued a short list of the angry representatives of the Democrat Party. George Allen has a 50/50 chance of getting the GOP nomination for the 2008 election. He is a fine conservative and is one of a small number of politicians with low negatives. Karl Rove rules! The Evil Dark Lord™ has the left totally psyched out. Tom DeLay has been convicted of nothing. Orrin Hatch. He's religious! Ergo, self-righteous!...unlike us progressive liberals. Dubya: Liberated over 50 million people from 2 murderous regimes in 2 wildly successful liberations, author of the Bush Doctrine, a steely resolve in the War on Terror, and a man who will be treated kindly by history as the ME slowly changes in the future. Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by anti-American Bush-bashing terrorist-appeasing whining elitists? Zero.

I'll just address this point (because really, one doesn't try to reason with the man in rags talking to himself at the bus stop): Black Dog believes you can't question someone's integrity if they work at an unabashed anti-war publication. But the integrity of someone who works for a (subjectively) pro-war publication, their honesty and integrity is immediately in question. Also, Black Dog claims that the so-called "liberal media" was not irresponsible when they immediately started claiming "civil war" in the wake of the bombing of the Askariya shrine....while ignoring he possibility that someone lke Allibritton could have a vested interest in creating an unfavourable picture of events (especially since, as Allibritton notes, has worked for the leftwing AP, NYT, and the far-left Salon--all 3 being anti-war rags). All this is a clear demonstration of Black Dog's hypocricy: Oh yeah? I'll give you another example: From me noting that the MSM has been unfair in their Iraq coverage, you morphed it into a claim of "a large conspiracy".

Instead of the previous 10 ways Dick Cheney can kill you, we'll have to bump it up to eleven.

Sean Allen (the Grade 10 student) was on Sean Hannity's radio show and he said that he was supposed to be on NBC's Today Show - via long distance feed - with Jay Bennish. He said NBC then changed their mind and he was scratched from the segment. I guess Matt Lauer wanted to be able to put his liberal spin..."I understand that they shopped this tape around to conservative news sources"...."Do you get the feeling you were set up" (cleverly turning Bennish into the poor persecuted victim) without the highschool teen around.

Have you been living in a cave? Don't you remember Bush saying "we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them?"

William Blum is a radical leftist, so of course he blames America for every ill in this world. That is typical of the far left. Blum called the first Gul War a "desert holocaust" and likened the preemptive strike against Iraq to Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland. Blum also described the Cold War as an anti-communist "conspiracy" manufactured by America's military-industrial complex. Osama bin Laden praised Blum's book Rogue State, calling it "useful." OBL also quoted another of Blum's books, which argued that the only way to prevent terrorist attacks was for the US to "apologize" to the "victims of American imperialism." Instead of distancing himself from Osama, Blum proclaimed himself "glad" of the Al-Qaeda madman's endorsement, saying, "This is almost as good as being an Oprah book." Blum attributed bin Laden's approval of his work to their common conviction that "anti-American terrorism arises from the behavior of U.S. foreign policy." Blum said: "I think bin Laden shares that view, and that is why I'm not repulsed by his embrace of my book, because that is one of my major themes." The guy is a far left radical popular on America-hating whacko conspiracy sites like Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, Zmag, etc, and far left universities.

Some Canadians are going wobbly after 10 Canadian deaths. What do our forefathers think of that? What happened to the days of our grandparents/great grandparents when worldwide, Canada was highly respected as someone you would like to have on your side in a barroom brawl? Please Gerry, spare us your attempt at righteous indignation. Although many on the left support the troops, there are also many leftists who detest the military and its volunteers. We saw the 'proggressives from the reality-based community' protesting against the Afghanistan war; they didn't want the Taliban toppled. The progressive women sure as hell don't give a damn about their Afghani sisters who were treated worse than a goat. We all saw the progressives protesting against Saddam being toppled despite Iraq sponsoring terrorism, harboring numerous terrorists, and being in being in breach of numerous conditions for 12 years straight. The progressives didn't want Saddam toppled. They didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people; over a half million who had lost their lives due to Saddam. Instead they protested against Bush...likening him to Hitler, and of course they protested against their eternal boogeyman - those rascally jooos in Israel. Indeed, American progressive icon Michael Moore called Saddam's thugs "freedom fighters" and "Minute Men". That means he is hoping for them to win. UK progressive icon George Galloway admitted in an interview that the Islamists and the progressives are on the same side. Hillary Clinton told the troops in Iraq that "some people back home are wondering why you are here". Anyone who denies that doesn't hurt morale when in a strange land, knows nothing about motivation. These people do not support the military. Their new "dissent is patriotic" meme is bullsh*t and insulting. The "not getting your troops killed in stupid "wars" IS supporting the troops" claim just shows how morally bankrupt some people are. How can you not morally support the prevention of the Taliban and Al Qaeda returning? The "USSR couldn't beat them in 20 yrs, so we can't either" claim doesn't fly in the face of reality. The USA (and a few other countries) covertly assissted the Afghani people against the USSR. The Taliban and Al Qaeda don't have a superpower backing them. Look at how easily the US and its coalition turned the Taliban into the Talibunnies. The reason why the left gave months and months of attention to Abu Ghraib is because it made the troops look bad. Why do you think the liberal media recentely released more Abu Ghraib photos from 3 years ago? To smear the troops. Why do you think campuses and highschools (overwhelmingly liberal) try to ban military recruiters from talking to potential volunteers? Why do activists dump 5 gallons of fake blood on the doorstep of recruiting centers? Because they detest the military. Why air a report claiming that the US military descretated a Koran, when your only source is a former female terrorist suspect--a terrorist suuspect who claimed she had been raped every night by 6 US soldiers? Do you think that unsubstantiated allegations like this would be aired if the liberals at NBC's Today Show supported the troops? Numerous times the media has claimed that the US military is deliberately targetting and killing journalists. You have to have a very low opinion of the troops if you really think that. If you detest conservatives and think they're evil people, how can you support the troops who are overwhelmingly conservative? If you see no difference between a soldier accidentally killing a civilian and a terrorist deliberately killing a civilian - and many leftists don't - then why wouldn't you feel the same way about the soldier as the terrorist? If you think Bush is Hitler, if you think Harper is "scary", what does that make the troops carrying out his orders? Think about it.

Saskatoon Star Phoenix: Sheaf cartoonist not sorry for uproar A peaceloving man giving oral sex to a pig is the same as some mild caricatures of a massmurdering pedophile? Good grief. No wunder hour edukatshun sistum is suphering.

Interesting you brought up Jews. The pig says to Jesus, "It's kosher if you don't swallow". Isn't kosher a Jewish word?

No more "seperation of church and state"?! That phrase exists nowhere in the US constitution. Why taxes churches who do so much humanitarian work/aid/charity work? Don't these leeches collect enough tax dollars without having to go after charities?

I also beleive any one who think Hitler was left doesn't understand Hitler, the Left or flush toilets. Here's hint, kiddies: the first people Hitler rounded up were the Communists, Social Democrats, union leaders and other leftists. Why d'ya suppose that is? After all, if state economic control was the sole plank of the left, surely a socialist like Hitler could have found common ground with those (then mainstream) political parties instead of, you know, banning them and murdering their members. Fact his, Hitler's ultra-nationalist, racialist, authoritarian beliefs put him at odds with the western liberal tradition of individual and equality rights (which is why he was welcomed by the right-wing establishment). Hitler was greatly influenced by Marx, and the first people Hitler rounded up were the bourgeois, the capitalists. Let's hear from the man himself: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" Plus he was totalitarian, a hallmark of the left. Oneof the biggest lies of the 20th Century is that Hitler was a rightwinger. After the horrors of communism in the 20th Century, the leftwing-controlled academia decided to rewrite history to deflect the fact that leftism had created yet another monster.

Black Dog: Perhaps you are tagged with the "liberal" brush because you worked for liberal organizations like the Associated Press, NY Times, and Salon (the far-left rag that is asking former Premium Members to re-subscribe so they can release 100s more Abu Ghraib pics from 2003). They don't get much more liberal than the above 3. Besides, I looked at your archives and I see the leftwing blogs you link to (Billmon, Josh Marshall, anti-war voice George Paine, etc). Sorry you are unable to solve the "mystery", Mr Allibritton. He said many western reporters don't get out on the streets. That is true. You can see it with all the bylines from Iraqi stringers--stringers who have learned that the western media does not pay for good stories. If someone is travelling daily and sees no signs of a civil war, there is likley not a civil war--no matter how hard you have been fantazing aboutit for 3 years straight. How does this slander Ellen Knickmeyer? Allbritton is projecting. "There are many issues with her story" (IOW, her story was incorrect) but at least she "put her life in jeopardy" to go to the morgue. How melodramatic. I'm sure they'll turn this into a made-for-TV movie in the near future. .Perhaps if these journalists made sure so-called news stories contained some modicum of truth when they traveled with the troops, they wouldn't be so leery of you knifing them in the back. They won't take me to Abu Ghraib! Wahhhh. Take a look at this guys website. It's all anti-war, anti-Iraq, and anti-US military. The Iraqi "government" <--- his sneer quotes, not mine. Everything the US military says is balderdash. He tends to agree that Iraq is set to burst into flame. He then says it is "impossible to tally up the death and destruction, and the many Sunni and Shia shrines and mosques that were damaged or destroyed". We all know that that was grossly overexaggerated by the media. But Allbritton dismisses this and puts his numbers on the situation. He doesn't trust the Iraqi "govt" and everything the US military says is balderdash. He says he is sorry for reality intruding on the State Dept's claim that reports were exaggerated about a civil war. The he tells them to "shut your mouth, you people in Washington have caused enough damage already. He says that there has been a "low-grade civil war" for the last 18 months, but now it has been upgraded to a "medium-grade civil war." He then admits that perhaps all his doom-saying will be proven wrong. Fair and balanced, my ass. The guy is totally one-sided. It's all doom and gloom. He is the typical liberal that ignores the successes and has an agenda to weaken morale back home. Indeed, it is Vietnam again--in that instance. At least Peters admitted that things weren't perfect in his articles. According to Allbritton, little or nothing is going right in Iraq. Doesn't square with all the accomplishments that have happened in Iraq in less than 3 years. If you look at his archives, he has been predicting failure/civil war for years and he is rabidly anti-Bush administration.

It's about time. They were protesting with vile signs calling for beheadings, murders, and another 9-11. Yet the only ones arrested were 2 counter-protestors with pics of the Mohammed cartoons. I have a bad feeling about Europe. I sense it is going to explode in the next year. Spain was bombed, London was bombed, weeks of violence and rioting in France, Dutch filmmakers getting slaughtered on the street, Dutch politicians under 24 hr guard and living in safe houses, rampant Muslim rape cases, rampant protests over stupid Mohammed caricatures/cartoons, etc.