Montgomery Burns

Not quite. In Bush's own words (from Meet the Press) Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go. President Bush: No, I didn't. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/ Initially. He enlisted in TANG (probably because he wanted to follow his Dad, who was also a fighter pilot). Then when in TANG, he eventually volunteered to go to Vietnam. His commanding officer said this was so. The NY Times is likely STILL on this tory and if they had found proof he refused to go to Vietnam, it would be front page headlines for a month straight.

Black Dog: Invest in a dictionary, junior. Why are kids allowed on political messageboards?

I take it you've never needed any social assistance, cause that is the biggest crock I've ever seen or heard. EI gives you a small percentage of your wages in the event of a job loss. I'm not even taking home 1/2 of what I was making when I was working. I've been looking for work for over 8 months to no avail. There are no programs to retrain me, I can't get the language training necessary (French) and if GOD forbid I don't find a job before my EI runs out and I need to go on Ontario Works I wouldn't get enough money to cover my rent! And I live in the slums of my town, cheapest rent to be found anywhere. Building should be condemned really. Now to add on to all of this that I have medical conditions in which I need to take medication in order to live. I have no coverage, the gov't won't help because the programs that are available take into account your previous years income and I wouldn't be able to pay the deductibles (Trillium program). So now (and no I'm not dramatizing this) I get to have a slow, painful, agonizing death because of our lack of assistance available. And you call it too generous. Ya Right I'm sorry to hear about your medical condition, but the rest of your post is a crock. Do you think EI should pay you the same amount as you made when you were working? Looking for a job for 8 months and can't find one? I was on EI (UI back then) once in my life and I found a job within 3 weeks--and I live in a have-not province. I would have taken almost anything to get off UI and make a higher wage. Why is learning French necessary for an Ontarioan? Sounds like you are unwilling to take a job unless it is the certain job you want. There's lots of ppl with medical conditions and lots of disabled ppl who take what they can. Welfare pays too much. By the time you take into consdideration that they are subsidized for nearly everything (utilities, training, etc), they take in just as much money as a lower-waged person. They even get free schooling. I had to pay for mine. All you have to do in my province to collect welfare is to phone teh govt. You don't even have to physically go see them and apply. Giving too much welfare discourages ppl from working. I see lots of unemployed able-bodied ppl able to work, but where is the incentive if the govt will pay you to sit at home, get drunk, and go out and commit robberies from ppl who are working? Look at how successful Europe is with their generous welfare system. It's killing them.

By lowering taxes and getting the economy rocking and rolling like the USA (4.7% unemployment rate vs. 6.6% in Canada). Like most leftwingers, you think there is a finite amount of goods and services. Wrong. Look at how successful Alberta is. Look at the revenue the US govt is taking in. Imagine lopping off 1 percentage point of Canada's unemployment rate--about 175,000 people off the "dole", more people paying taxes and more people paying CPP and EI--which helps all of us. Dangerous Monty, very dangerous. I'm with ya that our taxes in Canada are in general too high and we have far too generous social assistance. However, the argument that cutting taxes to a deficit position, hoping that increased tax revenue will pay for itself is what hurt the whole Reaganomics idea. There is clearly a maximum tax rate before the economy feels pressure. I see no problem with hiding out just under that, maintain some social programs such as healthcare (privately delivered of course, and maybe operating under a crown corporation insurance co.) and bare minimum welfare. Another factor in our high unemployment is the Bank of Canada's refusal to let that inflation slip up a bit. We could live with a 3.5% inflation rate, especially if it lopped off 1 or 2 percent off the unemployment numbers. That would destroy Alberta, however, as we crash into the most unbelievable labour shortage possible, to the point where labour gets prohibitively expensive and projects fail (which we are already too close to). Each Province needs it own bank! The only dangerous thing is our high taxation which is what has hurt our economy and growth. Our numbers are embarrassing compared to the US--no matter how much Canadians brag about "the best economy ever". Time for us to set our standards higher. Reagan proved that lowering taxes gets the economy rolling. Compare the Reagan years to the Carter years. It also worked for Dubya. After the dotcom bubble burst, the 2 major financial scandals, and the 9-11 attack, unemployment had went up to 6.4% (which Canadians call the best ever) and some were calling for his head. He implemented 2 tax cuts and now their GDP growth is unbelieveably high, unemployment has dropped to 4.7%, and as stated in the thread I started in the US Section of MLW, the US govt took in an amazing 14.5% more in revenues last year. Lowering taxes turned Ireland around where they are now one of the most successful economies in Europe--and Estonia has figured out that lower taxes has got their economy rolling. You also have to take into consideration Canada's dirty little secret which we don't like to talk about, because it would hurt our whole "we're superior to them". We have a braindrain to the US; we are losing our best and brightest to the US where the govt allows you to keep your own money. Indeed, this happens in my very own province, as Saskabushers best and brightest flee to low-tax Alberta. Labor is getting expensive in Alberta, but the free market and business will take care of that. Already some businesses in Alberta are offering assistance to people so they can get more skilled workers and lower the wages.

So the English are expected to pay for this clinic but are refused access for this service unless they are Francophone? This is discrimination. Period.

Thanks for catching that. Don't know what I was thinking. Must've been overly excited upon hearing this news and got carried away. Wish there was one of those embarrassed icons....

Edmonton Sun And I got a laugh out of this quip from a March 17, 2004 article in the National Post: I'd pay to watch that pledge drive!

Ratings are only part of the story. Polls I have seen say a majority of Canadians support the CBC and feel it makes a important contribution to the country. A poll is different than ratings. Why aren't these "majority of Canadians" watching the CBC? Private broadcasters answer to their advertisers, who in turn answer to their customers. Who does the CBC answer to? Why did the CBC - arrogantly - refuse to divulge how much it was costing taxpayers for them to go down to Louisiana for a Katrina fundraiser--which could have been done in Canada, and the money sent to the Katrina victims? When asked how much money they expected to raise, the CBC flippantly replied that no one takes these things into account. Er yes they do, you know-nothing-about-running-a-business leeches. $1 billion annually for a 5.8% audience share. WTF? When the NHL was on strike, I don't recall seeing any CBC shows in the top 30, and certainly not in the top 20. For news, Lloyd Robertson averages 957,000 viewers per night, Kevin Newman 771,000, and Peter Mansbridge is at 648,000. Lloyd Robertson is still King, the young Global is 2nd, and the well-established far-left CBC is dead last. Global and the CTV whips them in regular programming and news. If the CBC had to make it on their own, they would likely be forced to have some balance in their news--or risk losing advertising dollars because of their low ratings. Why is David Suzuki the only one consulted on global warming on the CBC? How often do you see a conservative on the CBC? Global's panels are usually 2 liberals and 2 conservatives. Even liberal CTV has a few conservatives on and attempts to have some sense of balance. I’d like to see a comparison of the operating expenses of the CBC, CTV and Global, then compare those numbers to the amount of money spent per viewer for each broadcaster. I’m betting CBC would be double or triple the cost to operate than the other 2 private stations. That would be a good start to justify getting rid of our state-run taxpayer-funded Canadian Pravda.

Melanie, I've seen your posts and I understand that you look to the govt as the solution for everything, but you are unfair to private business. My friend has a home daycare and she is a wonderful loving person, and I would trust her with children more than I would some govt employee. No system is perfect, but at least there is competition in private business. If you don't do a good job, wave bye-bye to your business. I trust a parent's judgement when it comes to choosing a daycare for their childern. Indeed, I trust the parent much more than I trust the govt--any govt, including a conservative govt, even though I voted for Harper.

Melanie: And the govt is the solution for things like this? And I am not going to even get into how costly a bloated govt bureaucracy with unionized govt workers--who went on strike the very first year in Quebec--will cost the Canadian taxpayer...

Drew Bedson: Good grief. Will this false meme ever end? Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, but wasn't eligible because he only had 300 of the 500 hours of flight training required.

Zues: Stop that. Only Democratic presidents are allowed to fondly call Stalin "Uncle Joe".

Ignore the troll, people. He has denied that Canada's debt is larger as a percentage of GDP. He's denied that GDP growth is stronger in the US, and he has denied that US unemployment dropped last month from 4.9% to 4.7%, while Canada's rose from 6.5% to 6.6%--even though there is a recent thread about this subject on MLW forum. But that's not good enough. He demands more and more proof! Next he will be demanding links proving that Harper is Canada's PM and Bush is the US prez.

No French? No service! Unbelievable! Sure there is blatant cultural discrimination against the English in Quebec (language police), but in Ontario too?

Agreed. So lets increase CBC's funding so it can focus on providing Canadian content without competing with private broadcasters for advertising dollars. Here's the latest ratings from Feb 13-19 of the top 30 shows in Canada. It appears that the public is not as enamored of Canadian content as you are. Indeed, throw out the Olympics and not one CBC show is listed--although to be fair, Hockey Night in Canada is usually in the top 30. All the other shows are from CTV and Global. For Canadian content, all I see is CTV National News (Lloyd Robertson), Corner Gas, Global News w/Kevin Newman, and CTV weekend news. Unless I missed some shows, I believe all the rest are American. It appears that the public is not too enamored of the CBC and its social liberal "Canadian values" (ball-waxing videos?) being shoved down our throats. So why are taxpayers propping up a channel that gets worse ratings than Global and CTV? Why are Global and CTV banned from having a 24 hour news channel--while state-run TV is allowed a 24 hour news channel? Why was the Fox News Channel banned for 5 years in Canada? (but not in Parliament--watching the enemy?) CtV does have a news chanel, on our dish CBC is 390 and CTV is 391 Do you have a link to CTV's 24 hour news channel? And I don't mean CTV Newsnet which is a headline news chennel--the same thing repeated every 15 minutes. And why is the very popular HBO banned in Canada?

Harper is a Nazi Media Alert for state-run CBC During the election, the CBC twice insinuated that Harper was a nazi--although they said it was a mistake and that it was just the purest of coincidence that these "mistakes" always happen in only one direction. Today, I found another way for the state-run CBC to spend Canadian tax dollars referring to Harper as a Nazi. I can imagine the CBC story would be something like this: CBC: Whoooops. We forgot to insert "is to meet Stephen" between Heil and Harper...but it was an honest mistake on our part. Btw, tell your teen children to go to our website and watch our ball-waxing video.

Agreed. So lets increase CBC's funding so it can focus on providing Canadian content without competing with private broadcasters for advertising dollars. Here's the latest ratings from Feb 13-19 of the top 30 shows in Canada. It appears that the public is not as enamored of Canadian content as you are. Indeed, throw out the Olympics and not one CBC show is listed--although to be fair, Hockey Night in Canada is usually in the top 30. All the other shows are from CTV and Global. For Canadian content, all I see is CTV National News (Lloyd Robertson), Corner Gas, Global News w/Kevin Newman, and CTV weekend news. Unless I missed some shows, I believe all the rest are American. It appears that the public is not too enamored of the CBC and its social liberal "Canadian values" (ball-waxing videos?) being shoved down our throats. So why are taxpayers propping up a channel that gets worse ratings than Global and CTV? Why are Global and CTV banned from having a 24 hour news channel--while state-run TV is allowed a 24 hour news channel? Why was the Fox News Channel banned for 5 years in Canada? (but not in Parliament--watching the enemy?)

Ritamd: The CBC likely uses Canadian taxpayers to outbid CTV and Global. Do you seriously think that there would be no Olympic coverage in Canada if not for the CBC? The state should not be competing against its citizens (private business).

Quote of the Day: Don't do it Dubya! Even I don't want to see millions of liberals' heads exploding.

It's an article of faith on the left that Iraq had no WMD and had no intention to build them, despite all the evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and used them many times. When the US only found small amounts of WMD, and didn't immediately uncover huge stockpiles of WMD, the left--and their allies in the media--pushed the meme that Saddam never had WMDs in the first place, or secretly disposed of them long ago, or that he was contained by UN sanctions. Even though Saddam knew about the US invasion over a year in advance, liberals refuse to even consider the possibility that Saddam moved or hid whatever WMD materials he had to prevent them from being discovered. The idea that every inch of Iraq has been examined and pronounced clean is asinine. Reports are still coming in of storage sites that were completely ignored by the Iraq Survey Group, which concentrated heavily on previously known WMD storage sites.Common sense would tell anyone that a place marked on every inspector's map "WMD Storage Facility" might not be the best place to hide your WMDs. Instead, something like buried and locked concrete bunkers not marked on any map might be a more likely location. And whadda ya know...several such sites were reported to the ISG...and totally ignored. 1) David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, was assigned to intelligence research. He was shown 4 sealed underground concrete bunkers in southern Iraq with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. Sources told him that the facilities had contained stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. He filed reports with photographs, grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. But the ISG never unsealed the bunkers. "We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Gaubatz told the NY Sun. Yet the ISG ignored it. 2) Several sources (US officials, numerous intelligence agencies, and the UN) indicated that Saddam sent some WMDs and equipment related to chemical and biological weapons production to Syria and Lebanon in the months preceding the US invasion. In May 2003, Debkafile reported that "the relocation of Iraq's WMD systems took place between January 10 and March 10 and was completed just 10 days before the US-led offensive was launched against Iraq." CIA satellite imagery showed "convoys of Iraqi trucks that poured into Syria in February and March 2003." After Al Qaeda's foiled chemical act in Jordan, where Jordan said the chemicals came from Syria, the left blithely ignored it. 3) Every time evidence of illegal weapons (like the ricin in north Iraq) or dual-use material (like the so-called "pesticide" in south Iraq) was discovered, the left brushed it off. Even Dr. David Kay's reports of Iraq's undisclosed WMD research (including Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever) could not penetrate their thick skulls. As Paul Leventhal testified before the Senate in March 2000, "he was in charge when the IAEA totally missed Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War and accepted unsubstantiated Iraqi disarmament claims after the war." 4) David Kay, original head of the ISG, reported: "we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program." However some things were left behind as Kay reported finding a "clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses," and "a prison laboratory complex... that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN." The ISG's investigation revealed "new research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin." Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the ISG, wrote in his final report that, "ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved... these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation." Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, even admitted that "there is some concern that shipments of WMD went to Syria." 5) As I previously posted--and linked to--on MLW, Hans Blix issued a report on March 6, 2003 (two weeks before the enforcement of the broken ceasefire) stating such things as "10,000 litres of anthrax are unaccounted for". 6) Then there is the recent report (someone else started a thread on MLW about this) that Russia helped Iraq moved WMD stockpiles to Syria and Lebanon. 7) And George Sada recently said that Iraq moved hundreds of tons of chemicals to Ba'athist Syria under the guise of humanitarian aid for Syrian flood victims. Despite all this, the left stubbornly insists that there never were any WMD. After all, the US has not found any warehouses full of WMD stamped "WMD: Next stop, the Great Satan America!"

Me thinks that with all of BD's twisting and turning, his chiropracter must be making a fortune off BD. Tierney is a Christian, ergo he is a liar. Saddam is the only one who we can trust for the Pure Truth.

Who cares what the hell you think about Clinton or if it started with Clinton or even with Reagan. The American people are NOT comfortable with this. And I reiterate... NO PORT SHOULD HAVE ANY FOREIGN COMPANY RUNNING IT! The American people simply weren't aware of it before but now we are! Bush was defending this decision without having even known of it! He's a buffoon! The ultra secretative CFIUS has blocked only one out of 1,500 foreign takeovers of U.S. assets. These are the same globalist bastards that approved the sale of Unocal to the RED Chinese. There isn't even any Congressional oversight comittee to monitor those globalist bastards! And guess what... I don't like mooseslimes and I wish that we could rid our nation of every single one of them! They should never have been allowed in our country... they shouldn't even be allowed to visit it! And don't talk to me about racism or prejudice until you can come here and tell me that there are an equal amount of Christian churches in the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia as there are mooseslime mosques here in America and Canada. :angry: Mooseslimes? Don't you love it when the far-left shows their true colors?

BHS: I think one of the hijackers was born in the UAE. But irregardless, it is difficult to find many countries with no ties to terrorism. Eg, a British company is currently managing these ports. Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber" was born in London. The terrorists who blew up several trains and a bus on 7 July 2005 were natural-born British citizens. Have you heard an uproar against British companies managing American transportation assets? And I am sure that average Americans being "deeply uncomfortable" with this will die down. The public has basically tuned out the hysterical shrieking Dems.

I find it amusing that the left is now screaming for racial profiling. Many US ports are managed by companies based in foreign countries. US intelligence agencies scrutinized this deal and found no security concerns. DPW also has many Americans among its senior leadership. The UAE has been a strong ally in the War on Terror, having provided vital information to the US, and allowed them to base troops and planes in their country. The govt has worked hard to crack down on terrorist movements and financing. Dubai is one of the few modernistic states in the Mid East, having worked to build a real economic infrastructure not based entirely on oil. It was the first ME country to sign up with the Container Security Initiative program, which places American customs agents in foreign ports to screen cargo bound for the US. The demands to block the sale seem to be entirely based on the fact that they are Arabs. Treating allies with fear and suspicion based on race isn't the best way to win friends and influence people in that part of the world. There is no evidence to indicate that DPW has any ties to terror groups, besides it being based in the Mid East. Kicking the UAE in the teeth would damage US credibility at a time and in a place they need it most. The disappointing thing is how many Republicans are reacting to the Democrat's knee-jerk xenophobic isolationism--in the same way. Perhaps they are worried about the Dems are getting a "one-up" on them regarding security concerns? Not to worry. The Democrats have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted with US security. Ahhh well. Republicans disagree with each other on many things. It's one of the things I like about rightwingers; they do not march in lockstep like the Clinton Bots.

Black Dog: Oh the horror! The invaluable Michelle Malkin is disagreeing with Bush. She ain't marching lockstep. She ain't liberal!!