Montgomery Burns

Black Dog: There is a reason why BD never offered any proof of his claim. That's because the short blurb in a UK Mirror claims that Tierney was spying: Tierney "confessed" to giving the Pentagon targets for military action when he was a member of an inspection team between 1996 and 1998. He said: "What I did was identified those people who have sold their souls to keep Saddam in power. "I made it my goal to find every place where they are." Tierney wasn't supposed to do that! Lesson learned: Always check BD's claims. He has a habit of taking things out of context and immediately swallowing whatever the anti-war media interprets. If Tierney was "spying" the media and the left would have been shouting this claim for months. Actually the ISG refused to investigate. Keep on repeating your absurd claim and maybe you will eventually convince yourself. From BD's link: ARLINGTON, Va. --''If I'm leaning a little to my left side, it's because I left my right mind at home,'' Bill Tierney told listeners gathered in a basement conference room of a Pentagon-area hotel earlier this week. He had just returned from eight months working as an interrogator for US forces in Baghdad, and had come to talk, on the record, about torture. ''The Brits came up with an expression - wog,'' Tierney said. ''That stands for Wily Oriental Gentleman. There's a lot of wiliness in that part of the world.'' And when it comes to interrogating wily insurgents, Tierney explained, he favors ''smarts over smack.'' ''It's the amateur who resorts to violence,'' he said. ''There's always a mental lever to get them to do what you want them to do.'' Smarts over smacks = light torture? Freud had a term for this; he called it projection. Again nothing in BD's link about "God-bothering". Perhaps BD is upset because Tierney is one of those Christians who believes in God. Or is it because he was against Terri Schiavo "dying with dignity", i.e., starve the b*tch and let her die (but we are against torture)? The moral of the story? Always check BD's links.

Black Dog: That BD. He's all class.

This is a lie. You are a lie.

Face it your country is in debt and your economy slowly declining Some of your posts are a barrel of laughs as well. Everyone's in debt (64.7% GDP in US and 68.2% GDP in Canada, we are relatively in worse debt), doesn't neccessarily mean economic collapse is coming, in fact, irrelevance will come before collapse. The US economy is growing faster than Canada's too sorry (US at 3.5% and Canada at 2.8%). While its nice to point out that the US is being run into the ground by a failed administration, you do need more work with your economics. Economics is never the strength of the left though, so your forgiven for your misinformation. Your telling me that the US economy is beating Canadas? where did you here this (it must be an americans point of view) ALl over the news that canadas economy is slowly surpassing the united states. fix your information and show me a link where it says that the united states economy is doing better than canada's your makign me laugh Others are laughing too....at you. Quit embarrassing yourself. Canada's economy is doing alright, but the US economy has been on a tremendous roll the last couple of years. Their GDP growth has been higher than ours for at least a couple of years and their unemployment rate just dropped to 4.7%, while Canada's rose to 6.6%. Anyone who follows politics knows this. Don't they report things like this on the state-run taxpayer-funded The National? Find your own link; it can't be too difficult.

Harper considers visiting troops in Afghanistan for first trip as PM I hope he commits to it. That would send a strong message to the world that Canada promotes freedom and liberty. I was embarrassed when Paul Martin and Jack Layton were bragging - in the first debate - about not helping the Iraqis create a democracy, just days after they had turned out in droves to vote in a historic milestone election in the Middle East. I know Iraq is different than Afghanistan, but still...it sends a message to the world. Peter Mackay to terrorist group Hamas: Change stance or lose funding: But former PMPM told us that the Palestinian (displaced Arab) Authority were our friends...

True but at what point do we force the 99.9% of the majority to pay for the 1/10th of one percent? It's like Scott Reid's "beer and popcorn" remark. True, there are the odd parent(s) who will spend the annual $1200 childcare cashback on beer and popcorn, but why should the 99.9% of other parents pay--just because a miniscule amount of parents are irresponsible? Sometimes living in the boonies of NWT/Yukon/Nunavut isn't always fair.

True. And the result is that our cultural life is pathetic but we have sophisticated SUVs.MB, you don't get it - in the same way that Leftist Westerners don't get Steyn's demographic arguments. Please August. Admit it. Our cultural tastes are very similar to Americans. Check out Canada's Neilson ratings if you doubt this. You stated that there is no difference between Canadian taxpayers being forced to pay for the CBC, and you being "forced" to pay for Global because you are "forced" to buy products from their advertisers. I contend that you are not "forced" to buy products from Global's advertisers. There is a large market out there. Maybe you don't "vote" with your wallet like I do. As for Mark Steyn, I do get his demographic argument. I believe that Steyn ( a true conservative) is one of the best social and political commentators out there today.

If done correctly, tax cuts generate more govt revenue Which brings to mind some Clinton quotes after he implemented the biggest tax hike in American history: "To middle-class Americans who have paid a great deal over the last 12 years and from whom I ask a contribution tonight..." --Bill Clinton, announcing the largest tax increase in history, SOTU address, 2/17/93 "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much too." --Bill Clinton, remarks at Houston fund- raiser, 10/17/95 "I take full responsibility, proudly, for what we did. It [raising taxes] was the right thing to do." --Bill Clinton, press conference, 10/19/95

Face it your country is in debt and your economy slowly declining Some of your posts are a barrel of laughs as well. Everyone's in debt (64.7% GDP in US and 68.2% GDP in Canada, we are relatively in worse debt), doesn't neccessarily mean economic collapse is coming, in fact, irrelevance will come before collapse. The US economy is growing faster than Canada's too sorry (US at 3.5% and Canada at 2.8%). While its nice to point out that the US is being run into the ground by a failed administration, you do need more work with your economics. Economics is never the strength of the left though, so your forgiven for your misinformation. Well said Geoffrey. It is unfair when Canadians claim that the US is in bigger debt because their dollar amount is higher. Their percentage of debt--in relation to GDP is a bit less than Canada.

YEEAARRGGHHHHH!!! But thankfully you did not question their patriotism during wartime.

Kimmy: How many times does he have to answer the same off-topic questions? He had already answered them numerous times. The White House might have cleaned up the press conference transcript to try and not make the angry hostile press look bad, but video does not lie. These assholes from the press ignored everything Scott McLellan said and NBC's David Gregory went nuts and started yelling at McLellan--who showed class by not resorting in kind. Warning: This is a live feed from the Faux News Channel, so it has that irritating patriotic *spit* American flag *spit* waving in the top LH corner. Just put a piece of paper over the top LH corner of your monitor if it offends you. I hope you can refrain from calling me a fascist neocon for daring to link to video from the FNC. Salon? Ahhh well. I enjoyed their reasoning for their Feb 16/2006 article showing more Abu Ghraib photos (but not the Danish Mohammed cartoons) way back from 2003 because "it cannot be allowed to fade away", and that "Abu Ghraib also symbolized the failure of a democratic society to investigate well-documented abuses by its soldiers" (ignoring the fact that the military had been investigating these abuses before the photos had been released--leading to a gleeful orgy by the liberal MSM, and ignoring the fact that the military has punished and even imprisoned these soldiers for abusing prisoners).

Slavik44: As Ronald Reagan would say: There you go again. I stated that it was extremely doubtful that Clinton would have won in 1992 because Perot took 1/3 of the votes from Bush Sr. Indeed, Clinton only got 43% of the vote. Then you compared it to the 5% of the vote that Nader took from al-Gore in 2000. Not.even.close.

Saddam's uranium bombshell: The MSM is ignoring something that makes Papa Hussein look guilty? Noooo Lies lies LIES!!! Saddam's Iraq was a kite-flying utopia. Didn't any of these people watch Fahrenheit 9-11?

I suppose you were faced with a bit of a dillema...sitting right in front of you was quote, a worthless quote. Because to accept it at face value meant that you had to accept the second half of the quote, also at face value. Or you could, and rightfully so I add, claim that Suddam was a tyrranical Dictator who couldn't be trusted but in doing so wirte off any value of the first half of the quote. So you were faced with a dillema and with all the integrety that you had rose to the occasion and did the right thing, and chopped off the second half of the quote, eliminating your dilema. And this dilema was two fold for someone who talks about ommisions from the MSM, because the full quote said this: "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. "In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq." Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes: Once again Slavik44, newbie, Gosthacked, and Black Dog are left with egg on their faces. And I am shocked - shocked! - to hear that ABC would lie about the translation. Counting down the seconds till the lefties start discrediting Tierney, Hannity, and Newsmax as fascist neocon sources....5....4....3.....2....

WorldNetDaily: Stephenson is obviously a neocon. Doesn't he understand that Iraq is The Mother Of All Quagmires™? Mrs Carlson has obviously been indoctrinated by Faux News. There are no terrorists killing people on nearly every continent on the planet. But we support the troops! Both videos can be watched at the above 'viewed here' (first quote) link.

Liberal media: It's the Bush administration's fault that the public thinks we are idiots! Dang! Bush is to blame for EVERYTHING!

I believe that there is more to this than the Bush Derangement Syndrome that the liberal MSM is infected with (they hate Bush even more than they hated Reagan). This is all a diversion so that the public doesn't know what al-Gore said about America in front of his Saudi audience last week.

Sam, I probably loathe the NDP as much as you do...but why do you want them rid? Let the free market (voters) decide. You know damn well that they haven't a hope in Hell of winning the Federal election. They are intolerant socialists blinded by their lockstep ideology who have no chance of winning the Prime Ministership. Provincial elections is another story though.... (I live in Calvert's Cuba--Saskatchewan)

Many CPC supporters were disappointed with Harper taking Emerson and Fortier, but until the rules are changed, Harper would be a fool not to take advantage. He threw an olive branch to Vancouver and Montreal (both unrepresented) and opened up the door for other "blue Grits" to cross the floor--and I believe more will cross, those liberals disgusted with the corruption and social liberalism of the Liberal Party. Another thing is that no one has doubted Emerson's qualifications. If he can (likely) solve the softwood lumber dispute, that will be a big coup for Harper. I don't think Harper is a dummy. He ran a near flawless 8 week campaign and almost won in 2004 with a party that was a mere 4 months old. THINK LONG-TERM, people. Win a majority and then we can move this country away from the left (even far left in some instances), and make it a centre-right country. At times one must choose pragmatism over ideology. I believe that Harper understands that a Reform/Canadian Alliance party will not gain a majority in Canada. A nice mixture of Reformers/CA and PC/Blue Grits has an excellent chance of gaining a majority next time. That is what hurts the NDP. They put ideology first and that is why they will never win the Prime Ministership. Even I was surprised that Harper chose so many Easterners for his cabinet; I thoght it there would be more Albertans. Your attempt to equate Belinda Stronach crossing the floor to save the Liberal Party from losing a non-confidence vote--with Emerson--is unfair. You're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, many conservatives were upset with Harper's move, but that is the difference between lefties and righties. Rightwingers are generally individualists and do NOT march lockstep (remember the uproar from the right when Bush nominated his own personal lawyer for the SUpreme Court--Harriet Miers) like leftists. We do argue amongst ourselves sometimes, but I believe that is A Good Thing™. And there isn't going to be an election for AT LEAST a couple of years. The Libs need to find a new leader, they're a regional party (completely shut out of the wealthiest province in Canada) and they are $30+ million in debt (CPC is $10 million in the black). That being said, I find your choice of a handle to be funny. "Honest Politican"? Is there such a thing?

Too bad Canada doesn't have the equivalent. Not an equivalent, but you can get the FNC in Canada--now that the Liberal Party-controlled CRTC lifted its 5 year ban--after extreme pressure because they allowed Jihad TV (Al Jazeera) 5 months earlier. However, you will likely have to buy a digital box and pay extra for the channel. It's on channel 142 on my (Shaw) TV. CNN is on channel 18, basic cable. The FNC is a welcome breath of fresh air. They actually have conservatives on the FNC; indeed, although there are many liberals on the FNC, there are even more conservatives. The FNC even allows the Bush administration to give their viewpoint without the hosts smirking and rolling their eyes. Their panels (Brit Humes's show) actually have 2 liberals and 2 conservatives, and Hannity & Colmes is 1 conservative and 1 liberal. That's "unfair" according to the left. Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy have been offered open invitations to appear on the FNC and both cowards have refused. And I love it when Fox goes to a live newsfeed. They show a little American flag waving in the top corner on their live reports. Drives the American-hating left insane with rage.

They want to BUY our oil--a little distinction you omitted. No wonder you never posted a couple of paragraphs from the article. Or is Halliburton going to invade Canada to "steal" our oil? NO BLOOD FOR OOOIIIILLLLL!!!

Shakeyhands: You mean the FNC actually allows the Bush administration to defend themselves--something the liberal media rarely - if ever - allows. I watched Brit Hume interview Cheney. Care to give some examples of where Hume said that Cheney was "swell and he smells of roses"? Anxiously awaiting your reply.... You are a liar. The FNC was banned for 5 years because they didn't want to adjust their programming to include 35% Canadian content--just like the 35% Canadian content that the Liberal Party-controlled CRTC enforced on CNN. Oh wait. CNN had no such restrictions put on it. Montgomery Burns 1 a: I didn't miss this one: "If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we'd take it right now and walk away winners." -- Dan Rather while interviewing Bill Clinton. Montgomery Burns 1 a: Shakeyhands 1b: Time magazine is run by fascist neocons!!!

Speaking of partisan, "everyone else involved" were all bigwig GOP friends of Cheney. I don't see how anyone can reasonably conclude that alcohol didn't play a factor in the shooting when the law enforcement officials were turned away that night. We have the word of Cheney and his friends, and that's it. We don't even know what Whittington's blood alcohol content was. As for the Secret Service allowing a drunken Cheney to wandering through the woods, one doesn't have to be falling down drunk to be legally under the influence. Furthermore, the Secret Service aren't there to police Cheney. They're job is simply to protect him. I think that John Burtis summed it up well: But but but....Cheney got 2 DUIs at the ages of 21 and 22. Surely that proves he is a drunk. And, of course, the MSM is NOT biased against conservatives.

So good that he bluffed Dear Leader into signing the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, declaring that Saddam was a threat to the free world and was hiding his weapons programs? Edited: Don't forget he kicked the UN inspectors out in '98 and could easily (and did) fool the U.S. given their pitiful intelligence and Saddam's bragging. Clinton's Act simply ties into the United Nations: My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. It says nothing about any imminent threat or barging into Baghdad though, but rather letting the UN keep Saddam in check. And he was kept in check through sanctions. Bush never said anything about an imminent threat. Do you want to challenge me on this? You can use the spin of the NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, NBC, ABC, CNN, and See-BS. I'll go with the transcript from the White House--unless you think that KKKarl Rove--with some help from Halliburton--cooked the transcript on the WH website. Yeesh. Why do I continue wasting my time trying to educate these maroons?

I suppose you were faced with a bit of a dillema...sitting right in front of you was quote, a worthless quote. Because to accept it at face value meant that you had to accept the second half of the quote, also at face value. Or you could, and rightfully so I add, claim that Suddam was a tyrranical Dictator who couldn't be trusted but in doing so wirte off any value of the first half of the quote. So you were faced with a dillema and with all the integrety that you had rose to the occasion and did the right thing, and chopped off the second half of the quote, eliminating your dilema. And this dilema was two fold for someone who talks about ommisions from the MSM, because the full quote said this: "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. "In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq." Poor Slavik. The person who tried to equate Nader splitting the left's vote (5%) with Perot splitting the right's vote (33%). Perhaps you should have read the whole article... "An individual can do it." Ohhhh that proves that Saddam had no links terrorism. Are you trying to win the Dumbest Reply of the Year™ award?