Montgomery Burns

I am reminded of this exchange from Bill Maher's old Politically Incorrect TV show: Indeed.

Hypothetical situation: George Bush gets a BJ from an intern in the Oval Office. Question: Would all the leftists stand up and say that its a private matter between two consenting adults and none of our business?

State-run taxpayer-funded CBC uses deception to make Bush look bad More of that "fair and balanced journalism" from the CBC: Read the whole thing. The whole report is largely misleading. What a costly horrid news service they provide for Canadians. And all Canadians are forced to pay for CBC's pro-liberal, anti-conservative views. Canadians have no choice. Even if they don't watch it (and ratings show many don't watch it), they must pay for their progressive liberal agenda.

Glad you listened to the tape. It's just crazy. And hearing some of these indoctrinated teens chanting in agreement with Bennish is scary stuff. This is just a Geography class. Makes ya wonder what is being taught in other classes Btw here is a pic of the teacher. No, I'm not going to comment on his photo. Ya, it was just the purest of coincidence that all 28 children in that Grade 6 class are "indignant and expressing outrage" at Emerson and Harper. When I was in Grade 6, I was interested in playing hockey/shinny, baseball, soccer, listening to hard rock music, and starting to notice all them cute girls in my school. I didn't give a crap about politics. Perhaps Grade Sixers are just different these days.

When is this civil war going to start? Next week? Next month? Next year? Next century? The left has been bleating about a civil war for a couple of years already. Yet the Iraqis continue to disappoint the left. “Senator McCain, are you concerned that if the transfer of power does take place on June 30th that a huge vacuum will be created and it will be an invitation to civil war? Because no matter how deplorable Saddam Hussein was considered, he was the ultimate referee who kept the Sunnis and the Shiites apart from killing each other.” — NBC’s Katie Couric to John McCain on Today, April 5, 2004. Moderator Bob Schieffer: “So what you’re saying is that we may be looking at something like a Yugoslavia there, which wasn’t really a country, but Tito held it together with the iron fist, and once he went, it really came apart.” New York Times columnist Tom Friedman: “What we’re gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war.” — CBS’s Face the Nation, October 3, 2004. Moderator Tim Russert: “Tipping point, could it tip back into a potential civil war if the Sunnis continue to stay out of the government?” The ubiquitous Tom Friedman: “Absolutely. Right now in Iraq the big question, Tim, is can the Shiites, who will dominate the next government basically, will they reach out and share power?” — NBC’s Meet the Press, February 27, 2005. “I’m Bob Schieffer. It just keeps getting worse in Iraq. The death toll is rising. Tension is growing between Shiites and Sunnis. Is the country sliding toward civil war?” — Schieffer beginning the May 19, 2005 CBS Evening News. “Whenever violence breaks out, many go looking for old enemies to blame. US commanders have privately noted every time a bomb goes off in a Shiite neighborhood, something bad seems to happen in a Sunni area. And that simply adds the specter of civil war to the overall mayhem, which is probably just what the insurgents had in mind.” — CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier on the July 18, 2005 Evening News. Senator John Thune: “I think we’re making, what I believe is progress in that direction.” Host George Stephanopoulos: “But you say it’s progress. But there have been an awful lot of signs that it’s not. We know that they presented, for example, the constitution to the assembly but have not called a vote on it. We hear this opposition from the Sunnis, from Muqtada al Sadr. Aren’t you at all concerned that this constitution may in fact be a prelude to civil war? That it may be deepening the divisions?” — ABC’s This Week, August 28, 2005. It's time for the left to quit wanking about this imaginery civil war and play a different tune in their jukebox.

Canada finally getting a clue? Reminiscing for the days when Canada did support liberty and didn't cozy up to totalitarian Iraq, Communist Cuba and Communist China? Vancouver Sun By a 46% to 40% margin. (it's not a large margin but it is a start) So do Americans, by a 60 to 32 margin. So does Brazil, by a 65 to 29 margin. So does Poland, by a 65 to 18 margin. So does Great Britain, by a 49 to 40 margin. So does Finland, Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines, India, Australia and Afghanistan. And so does Iraq, by a 74 to 23 margin. But but but...I thought the Iraqis hated the US for toppling Saddam. Didn't the Iraqis watch Fahrenheit 9-11? Haven't the Iraqis been listening to the Western Left? Don't they know about the Quagmire, the Civil War, the Theocracy, that Bush held a plastic turkey when he visited the troops at Thanksgiving, the Iraqis who attacked the fallen Saddam statue were zionist neocon CIA plants, it's costing too much to liberate Iraqi children, stealing the oil, and the wholesale slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, minorities being used as fodder - the caucasion soldiers are merely dumb jocks - for Bush's illegal and immoral war, and whatever the hell is playing this week on the Liberal Meme CD.

9news.com: You have to listen in on this Geography class to believe this. :angry: No wonder homeschooling is getting so popular down there. The left has made a mess of their publik edukashun sistum. And here is some liberal indoctrination in Langley, BC. (sorry, link has expired at Langleytimes.com):

Poor dumb blind Black Dog. Like a little child, he demands instant gratification and results. When confronted with numerous reports of terrorists and even Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, he merely puts his simply covers his eyes, plugs his ears and says "I can't hear you and I can't see these reports". All the intelligence sources are wrong, the conservative media is wrong, and even the liberal media is wrong. Only the rankest partisan - like Black Dog - would deny that Iraq was a terrorist haven. Then he offers us up a cooked CBS poll that sampled 32% more Democrats than Republicans, to prove that Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low. Only in the fantasy world that BD lives in would there be 32% more Democrats than Republicans. Bush ain't governing by the polls! He ain't like Clinton who allowed whatever way the political wind was blowing--to dictate his policies! That's the mark of a true leader! And then BD insists that a civil war has broken out in Iraq. Let's take a look at embedded reporter Bill Roggio wrote a couple of days ago: Looking for Signs of Civil War in Iraq: As I previously stated, another leftist "civil war" fantasy turns into a wet dream.

But here's where it gets stupid: Ye gods. 1) 72% of the troops want to go home within 10 months? They want to leave Iraq and go home to their wives and children within the next 10 months? I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya. 2) Perhaps they agree with Judge Harold Baer's court decision... And Saddam's Iraq was a virtual haven for assorted terrorists, including Al Qaedans like Zarqawi and Abdul Rahman Yasin--wanted for the 1993 and a terrorist wanted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Once again Black Dog misses the nail and hits his thumb.

Dozens of Sunni mosques attacked Iraqi Police Tied to Death Squads But...but...but...they voted on a Constitution. They're a democracy. Here's some more for you to read: US military denies Iraq on brink of civil war Sunnis and Sadr's Shiites make peace Baghdad Is Calm After Days of Sectarian Violence I even used liberal news sources, since LionusFleaBag seems to be suggesting that conservative sources are somehow inferior... Oh Dear. Once agin, the Left's "civil war" fantasy turns into a wet dream. Don't these "liberated" Iraqis know better? It's been 3 years already and they still refuse to engage in a civil war! Instead they are experimenting with trivial things like "elections" and "democracy" and writing "constitutions". Ingrates!

I know this topic is always controversial, but here goes... Bush disagrees with South Dakota abortion ban I don't like abortion but this is unfair to women (and young girls). There are all kinds of emotional/psycological/social problems when it comes to incest. And why should a women (or child) be forced to carry a child to term--that resulted from a traumatic act of violence committed on her? Shouldn't the woman have the choice in these situations? Say what you want about Bush, but at least you know where he stands. No governing by polls, or whatever way the political wind is blowing at any given moment *cough* Clinton *cough*.

So what? O'Reilly is a pundit and does not speak for Republicans.

Who cares what O'Reilly says? He's a pundit, ffs! He isn't that popular among conservatives and he hardly speaks for the Republican Party. I like it that he tackles issues - in the No Spin Zone - that the liberal media ignores, but he uses quite a bit of hyperbole. Ann Coulter does the same but she is sharper (and funnier) than O'Reilly. Watch Hannity & Colmes instead. Sean Hannity is much better than O'Reilly--he mows down the liberals that have the courage to appear on H&C. I watched it tonight and Al Sharpton was defending Harry Belafonte's "Bush is a terrorist" remark. Even Alan Colmes was disappointed in Sharpton's "free speech" defense. Nowhere on TV news can you get diversity and compelling debate like on the Fox News Channel. It's not that hard to understand why it gets such excellent ratings. One liberal vs one conservative. Two liberals vs two conservatives. I admit that their host/pundits lean to the right but there are some liberals too. However, their panels are almost always 50/50. And they didn't have 2 Bush campaign advisors hosting a show, like CNN had Paul Begala and James Carville (both Kerry campaign advisors) hosting Crossfire. Here's an example of a "fair and balanced panel" that I saw on Chris Matthews' show on Sunday: 4 liberals, 0 conservatives. A half hour of criticizing Bush. You'd a loved it. For a second, I thought I was watching our state-run CBC.

Furthermore Shoop, the Commander-in-Chief has to be respected by the military. Can you imagine John Kerry being CIC--after he had accused the troops in Vietnam of committing crimes reminiscent of "Gin-Jis-Khan"? Remember the frosty reception Kerry got from those 4 Marines at Wendy's? You could tell in the pics that they were a bit ticked off, and to make it worse, they told a reporter that they resented Kerry. Hillary Clinton got a cool reception when she visited the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. She told the soldiers in Iraq that they were doing a good job, but some ppl back home are wondering why you are here. What a great morale booster for the troops. Bill Clinton wasn't respected by the troops. They sensed he had little use for them. Jimmy Carter was a wimp. The 2004 DNC was the first time the Dems allowed him inside the building (Michael Moore sat beside him) That is an example of how the far-left have hijacked the Democrat Party. Before, the Dems were smart enough to keep Carter "hidden" so that the public would not be reminded of what an idiot he was--and still is. LBJ never fought the Vietnam War to win. He fought to "contain" the enemy--causing thousands of needless deaths. JFK was the last Dem president that had an adequate foreign policy. He fought the spread of the murderous ideology of communism, but let down the Cuban fighters at the Bay of Pigs by backing off on air support for them. FDR was probably the last Dem Prez that took no crap and fought hard to defeat America's enemies--Japan, Germany, and Italy. The US is at war against Islamic extremism. Bush has repeatedly said that this will likely be a long war. Rudy Guiliani and George Allen are steely-resolved Republicans and if I was an American, I would have more faith in them when it comes to fighting the WOT, than I would Hillary Clinton, al-Gore, or John Kerry. Perhaps Evan Bayedh. He's not a wuss. But I fear he is not "left enough" for today's Democrat Party.

Shoop: Allen is popular amongst the base even though he is a "nobody" in the mainstream. But Howard "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for" Dean was also unknown until he caught fire with the Democrats. Guiliani could still pull it out though. He is a rock-hard conservative when it comes to crime, refused to take that $10 million cheque from that Saudi Prince (the prince wanted him to blame 9-11 on the Jews), and would be a steely leader in the WOT. So maybe the conservative base would possibly overlook his weaknesses in moral values. Howard Dean was the front-runner until the "yeeaarrgghh scream" sunk him. Then who did they pick? The #1 rated liberal in the Senate as the ADA (a liberal organization) proudly pointed out. Michael Moore was delighted that the Dems picked the most liberal Senator to run against Dubya. I maintain that she will have a tough road to hoe. The far-left has hijacked Democrat policy and has shunned moderates like Lieberman. Coincidentally, they were talking about Hillary's chances on Fox News yesterday. She is an excellent fundraiser but she is having difficulty trying to play to the moderates and the far-left at the same time. Many pundits accuse her of being politically schizophrenic (sp?). Where does she stand? Is she a moderate or a far-leftist? That hurt John Kerry in 2004. And Hillary has a LOT of baggage. Whitewater, the Vince Foster murder, the Clinton administration selling secrets to the Communist Chinese, giving nuclear material to North Korea, and her attempt to implement a socialist healthcare system that is grossly expensive, inefficient, and literally plays with people's lives. Plus, the Dems are nervous about the Republicans salivating at a crack at Hillary. Many think she is political suicide. Here's just one (of many) poll(s) from the largest American leftwing blog on the Internet, Daily Kos: Would you vote for Hillary in the 2008 primary? No - 83% Yes - 16% You might say it is only a blog, but these guys and gals raise a lot of money and Democrats, including John Kerry, post on their site. If you would put aside your *leftist* hatred for Coulter, you might learn not to take every sentence she utters so literally. Everyone knows she uses hyperbole and is a flamethrower; that's her shtick. However she is nearly always dead-on in her analysis and she has that unique ability to get under the Dem's skin. Let's take a look at the last Dem Prez. Clinton ran against Bush Sr saying that Bush went back on his word not to raise taxes. Clinton said he would not raise taxes. What did he do in 1994? He implemented one of the biggest tax increases in American history. Her quote makes sense. Not my prob you can't understand it. Perhaps you can move on to Mark Steyn's "lies and histronics". Which means he had taken more money from the taxpayers than was required. That's a good thing? He raised taxes bigtime, slashed funding for the military and the intelligence services, and was able to actually gain a surplus by doing so. Color me unimpressed. Hardly a brilliant accomplishment. He attacked a country that was absolutely no threat to the US and didn't even get approval from Congress (ignore the UN not giving him permission--I don't have much use for those corrupt gangsters). He said the troops would be home by Christmas 1996; the troops are still there. Good grief. Have you forgotten your history? The Balkans is the powderkeg of Europe. It always has been. Where did WWI start? Indeed, that idiot Wesley Clark nearly started WWIII with Russia during this scary incursion. Even today, you read stories (mostly ignored by the MSM) about the tensions in the Balkans. Clinton took a serious risk by invading this powderkeg that was no threat to the US. You might shrug off lying under oath, obstructing justice and having sex with an intern in the White House, but many think that a President should not be having sex with interns in the White House, should not lie under oath, and should not obstruct justice.

At first, I thought that this was an overreaction. However I see that the demented Jimmy Carter agrees with this port deal. If al-Gore (who is ALWAYS on the wrong side of history) comes out in favor of this deal, then I will change my stance.

I think we should all thank Geoffrey for having the patience (I wouldn't have even bothered) to wield The Cluebat™ to this communist/socialist post by Winterhaze. Good grief. The employer has the advantage? In Newfoundland where the unemployment rate is 15+%, yes! Certainly not in Alberta where the unemployment rate is 3.5%. Not in the US where the unemployment rate is 4.7%. The left constantly amazes me. No matter that the USSR could not compete with the USA; no matter that Western Europe's economy is struggling because of their socialism; no matter that socialism/communism has been proven time and time again to be a failure, the left insists that if only it was done "correctly", communism/socialism would be an utopia. Socialism/Communism = everyone poor Capitalism = everyone's standard of living rises. You ever checked out the US govt's standard of "poor"? These ppl aren't exactly destitute. And, as Geoffrey said, I paid for my own education. I did not expect the rest of the country to pay for it. Why the hell do you think that the USSR collapsed when confronted by Reagan and the US? Incentive. Why bother to go to school for years to be a doctor/lawyer/engineer/accountant if you are only going to be making a bit more money than the janitor at your local elementary school? It might sound greedy but that is human nature. My first priority is myself, my interests and my loved one's interests. When I vote, I vote for my interests. I don't give a damn what Fwance/China/Germany/Russia/America and the UN wants. I vote for MY interests. Period. That being said, I do give some money to charity...but I give it when I feel like it. I resent Winterhaze's claim that businesses take advantage of employees. Some might, but I didn't make a profit (a very small profit) until my 3rd yr in business. I lost money my first 2 years. The 1st year I probably averaged 70 hrs/wk trying to stay afloat. I basically did nothing for a year straight except work and sleep--no time-and-a-half overtime for me. I went over my credit limit when customers were slow in their bills--costing me money. And when I went downtown and got accosted by invective-spewing bums demanding money....I resented it! :angry: F*ck 'em. Take a shower, get a haircut, get some clean clothes and get a J-O-B. I worked like a bugger to get where I am. Like Geoffrey said, everybody is not the same. Life is a b*tch sometimes. You have to deal with it. Is capitalism perfect? No. Is it the best system out there? Yes. I pay my employees a decent wage and I am NOT FORCING them to work for me. Arrgggghhhh. Why did I waste my time replying to this commie? Sorry for the rant but this OP pissed me off. $11.50/hr minimum wage? Yeah right. Then the left would be whining about the high cost of products/services because of those "evil greedy businesses". What a load of crap! I didn't take the risk - and it is a risk - to go into business to make my employees wealthy.

Here's a clue. He was giving the same response given by the US Rightwingers who support the deal. See...you made a compartitive joke, and so did he! Oh no...we're all so grateful that an American honors us as you do by your presence here! America is so much better than Canada, really! Allow me to apologize to you for all of Canada for being smug and morally superior! Clearly you are morally superior! You have led the way in moral superiority with uneccessary war and widespread torture in foreign gulags. You ARE American, correct? You're not one of those self-loathing Canadians who wants to live in America but is too lazy to move so you tear down Canada, are you? 1) Actually the American right seems to be split on this deal. But that is the right. We do not march in lock step to our ideology. 2) Torture in foreign gulags? Panties on the head! Rap music played too loud! Temperature too hot! Temperature too cold! Lemon rice is not cooked correctly! Duck a la Orange is too cold! Those poor Islamonazis who are NOT PROTECTED by the Geneva Convention. Typical of the Canadian left. They always take the side of thugs, murderers,and dictators. Typical Candian leftie comparing the US to the Canadian left's beloved USSR, Castro, Saddam, Chavez, etc. Going to war with Saddam who ignored the ceasefire he signed, ignored or broke the 16 UN Chapter VII (binding) resolutions, tried to assassinate an American President, and constantly fired on US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones that Saddam agreed upon....is being "superior". Let me guess. You're morally superior to the US because Jean Chretien's son-in-law's father was the biggest shareholder in Fwance's TotalFinaElf's oil company--a company that was in bed with Saddam. Or is it the fact (as proved by the FOI Act) that Saddam invested $1 million in Paul Martin's shipping company? Did the CBC "forget" to report this? But do continue with your "Canadians are morally superior to the US" canard. I hope you enjoy the blood money that our govt took from Saddam. I love it when the left outs themselves.

Quinton: I didn't make it up. I'm going by Steve Milloy's stats. He's not exactly a nobody--although the liberal media refuses to give him any airtime. Thank goodness for Fox News who does give him air time. Steve Milloy's credentials: Biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center. Yes, we have to be careful about pollution and greenhouse gas. However, I am old enough to remember the late 70s and early 80s where the "ice age" hysteria was the latest rage. Let's just say I am suspicious of the global warming hysteria. I believe that trying to combat nature is a waste of money. Sure

Melanie: Likely not for long. No matter how much the liberal media promotes the changing of the 2000 year definition of marriage, the public disagrees. There is a reason why the left would not put it to a referendum--a free vote, like democracies have. They knew that the results would be the same as they were in the 2004 US referendum. Many many Liberals were against this attempt to shatter the bedrock solid institution of marriage. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has vowed to open up this topic for further scrutiny. I am very confident that the Candian public will reject the changing of this 2000 year definition. The gay community could've had civil unions, but NO! They had to push it further; they demanded it be called "marriage". 185 out of 190 countries in the world reject gay "marriage". I suspect that it will son be 186 out of 190 countries. And I predict that the CBC/CTV/Toronto Star/Globe & Mail will - after gay "marriage" is rejected by the public - refer to traditionalists as homophobic bible-thumping hatemongering conservatives. You know its true.

Good topic! Y'all be surprised at my prediction: George Allen will be the 2008 Republican nominee. Arrghhh...another 'George'. -Rudy Giuliani could reasonably be called the front runner based on his tough on crime rep, his performance after 9/11, the great work he did on the campaign trail during the 2004 election cycle, and his charisma. However Guiliani's weaknesses will likely hurt his candidacy. He's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage and is divorced from a woman who accused him of "open and notorious adultery". With the voters in the Republican primary being more conservative than the general public, I think Rudy is not a lock like many think. -John McCain will not get the nomination (sorry Americain--just my gut feeling). He is perceived by conservatives to be a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) who publicly undercuts the Repubs on important issues just to gain favorable (he's a maverick!) press from the liberal media. McCain's very soft stance on illegal immigration, his age (he'll be 72 in 2008), and the McCain-Feingold legislation - widely disliked by the base - will also hurt him. -Jeb Bush has virtually no chance. He's a very good Republican, but I feel that the base (and public) does not want another Bush, a Bush dynasty. -Condi Rice would whip all of these nominees as she is wildly popular among the base...but she has said she has no intention to run, she's inexperienced (never run for any office), and she is an unmarried 50 y/o woman and you know darn well that the Dems and their cohorts in the media would hint at "lesbiansim". However it would be delightful to see the left's notorious racism exposed (I doubt even the liberal media could hide it from the public) as they would attack "Aunt Jemima" a la Ted Rall etal.... As for the Donks: -Wesley Clark has no chance. The guy is a flake. -Breck Girl John Edwards (remember that video of him primping and preening with his hair?) has no chance. Like al-Gore, he lost his own state and is perceived to be a flake. He has "channeled the dead" when winning multi-million dollar lawsuits against doctors--causing the rise of healthcare to rise greatly, he claimed that if ppl voted for John Kerry, "people like Christopher Reeve would rise from their wheelchair and walk again". Additionally, his claim to fame seems to be that Cheney didn't utterly destroy him in the debates--he merely gave him a spanking like an adult does to a child. However after the clobbering Cheney gave to Joe Lieberman (a good decent Democrat) in 2000, the bar was set lower. -John Kerry has no chance, even with Terr-ay-za's Republican dollars. He lied about releasing his military records (despite building virtually his entire candidacy on his "war hero" status). Indeed, he has STILL refused to release his military record. He is an egomaniac who took a film camera to Vietnam to tape his "heroism", 264 of 270 of his Swift Boat mates hated his guts after a mere 4 months of service, he abandoned his mates after 4 months instead of serving his 1 year term, he has Walter Mitty-like fantasies about President Nixon sending him on secret missions to Cambodia on Christmas Eve in Cambodia in 1968 (despite Nixon not being Prez then), and he said he would turn over US sovereignty to Fwance, Communist China, and Russia--all 3 who were in bed with Saddam...."we'll use our troops if it passes the global test". -Joe Lieberman has no chance. The Dems dislike him for not being a loony lib. -Hillary Clinton will have a tough road to hoe. First, the hard-left that has hijacked the Democrat Party despises her for pretending to be a moderate. Second, the Repubs are gleefully licking their chops at the chance to savage her--they despise her even more than her loathsome husband. She also tried to implement socialist healthcare in the US--a grossly expensive inept bureaucratic plan that plays with people's lives (see Canada's socialist healthcare plan). And this June 2004 quote by Hillary will come back to haunt her: "Many of you are well enough off that the [bush] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Stealing from the productive and giving to the non-productive: Socialism. NOT popular in the US. To sum it up, I think that George Allen will win the Republican nominee. The Democrats? I'm not sure. Republicans would love a crack at hatemonger Howard "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for" Dean, or Billary. Seriously though, I don't know who the Dems can pick who would have a chance. Perhaps Evan Bayedh. He doesn't seem to be as loopy as most of the Party. But will the base support him? Let's face it. The Dems have nothing. Nothing! They have no plans, no ideas, they even stood up and applauded when Bush said - at the Jan 31 SOTU address - that Social Security reform was a no go. Even though Social Security is going bankrupt, the Dems applauded this--this a govt program, and the Dems are for big govt. It was truly a sad sight. The only thing the Dems have to offer is that they hate Bush. That's it. I feel that the Democrat Party is dying before our very eyes. You might not believe this, but I find that sad. A credible opposition keeps the governing power honest, or at least semi-honest--and yes, that includes Republicans/conservatives. As the ever quotable Ann Coulter quippped: "The common wisdom holds that "both parties" have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do." I agree. I am instinctively suspicious of both. Look at the pork barrel crap the Repubs have implemented. $28 million to the arts community? Compassionate Conservativism. Pffft. However the Dems are truly frightening--especially during wartime....

Apologies for going off topic, but i LMAO when I read this: Man forced to marry goat in southern Sudan

I find this sad. See what happens after years of liberal rot? I saw this poll and it said that if more Canadians die in Afghanistan, that we should cut and run. I hope the Afghanis didn't see this poll. God Bless the 8 Canadian soldiers who have died in Iraq...but 8? What the hell do our grandparents think of this gutlessness by the Canadian public? Shame. Shame! :angry: It is the height of naivety to think that Al Qaeda wouldn't like to hit Canada. This "everyone loves us" bullsh*t is just that; bullsh*t. Osama listed 5 countries on his hit list and Canada was one of them. As for the LIBERAL MEDIA'S hysteria over the Emerson appointment, the public appears to disagree. At least there is some hope for Canada. Harper approval rating rises 5 points to 59% Yeah I know it is only a poll, but there was a poll released a few days ago putting the Conservatives at 39% versus 27% for the Libs. Two polls seems to give these results some credibility.

The American deal isn't bad, when did I say that? I checked Newbie's thread and you did not say that. But why did you call me a racist? I guess I should have been clearer. I was merely mocking the Canadian liberals who were bashing Bush for doing the same thing that Canada's Liberal Party did.

Zues: And Clinton went on the air, looked the world in the eye and said, "I did not have sex with that woman." Then he lied about it under oath and obstructed justice. But that's okay. He's liberal!