Montgomery Burns

Update! Ex Special Investigator for the Pentagon Spurned on WMD Claim Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Opinion: Wow. Loftus better hope he is correct. He was wrong when he gave a San Francisco address for a "terrorist". I haven't seen Loftus on Fox News since. I guess I will have to log on to intelligencesummit.org Feb 17 to see his "smoking cannon".

Your party got 399,000 votes and you're mocking the "Tweedledum Party" that got 62 million votes?

Nice to hear your take.

Ever since many of Asper's newspapers got into the habit of misspelling the word "shoo-in" in his dailies, I complained about it wherever I could. But it wasn't until I complained about it here that PocketRocket took it upon himself, ( "just to make me happy" he said) , and made sure my complaint got to Asper's main editor's ears. Now all my daughters are back on track in spelling it the right way, and I hope this latest Vancouver Sun article gets you there too. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...bb-ea54c39f3e72 You're welcome! The liberal Aspers might have their own way of spelling, but KKKarl Rove told me that "shoo-in" is the correct spelling and I always take the side of The Dark Lord™.

Speaker: The CBC and Toronto Star, of course.

Tucker Carlson is lame but Ann Coulter rules! She emasculates the Democrats with her razor wit and I get a huge kick out of that.

I don't know much about him, nor do I hear much about him. I never hear anything about him from rightwing sites, so I wouldn't get my hopes up too much. I know he wrote a book called Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. I'm curious what he wrote because I too, sometimes think liberalism is a mental disorder. But I've never ordered the book and I haven't seen it in any stores in town. I could request the library order the book but they would refuse. I live in a province governed by the NDP and I believe that they control what literature is allowed in the public libraries. The left is noted for doing everything they can to control the information the masses see or hear (eg, the 5 year Fox News Channel ban). I once requested the library order an Ann Coulter book. They sent me a letter saying they didn't order the book because it got "poor reviews". But this book was on the NY Times' Bestseller List for 16 weeks and Coulter is one of the best-selling political authors in the last decade! Later I asked them to order the controversial Swift Boat Veterans For Truth's Unfit For Command. I was curious as to what Kerry had done to make 264 of 270 of his mates dislike him so intensely. The lady at the library told me that it was on order but I would be #12 on the waiting list. She said that they might have to order another one since the waiting list was getting high. Later I got a letter saying the book wasn't ordered because it got "poor reviews". I've given up on my public library. Now I just keep my head down most of the time when I am in the library.....[to avoid looking at the tons of Bill Clinton books that seem to be in every aisle]. Savage used to have a show on MSNBC in the States called "The Savage Nation." It got canceled and he got fired after he said something about homosexuals having no morals or something like that. That's unfair--if Savage said that about homosexuals. I wouldn't be surprised if it is true because I never hear anything about him on the right side of the news.

Total and absolute popycock. Otherwise, the First Amendment would only apply to the federal government, and states could have unlimited rights to censor your speech and religion; the Second Amendment would apply only to the federal government, and states could have unlimited rights to seize all firearms; etc., etc., etc. What utter rot. Have you even read the Bill of Rights? It's quite short. Its purpose is to limit the Federal Govt's power. The First and Second Amendment do not only apply to the feds. And states and the people do have the right to ban firearms (Chicago, Washington D.C.). They have the right to put gay marriage to a vote, right to bear arms to defend yourself, etc.

Bingo.

Gerryhatrick: "Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites." -- Ann Coulter

But the point is that the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for something so powerful that has an obvious agenda. If they were private, I still wouldn't like them, but I wouldn't give a damn what they do. The amount they can charge advertisers will show how well the public relates to them, i.e., let the market decide. The CBC is a waste of money. Use that ANNUAL $1 billion towards lower taxes, more cops, and our depleted military.

YankAbroad: Of course I have a problem with their far-left content. Taxpayers should not be forced to fund such a powerful propaganda tool. Only the wackiest lefties deny CBC's obvious bias. Places like Saddam's Iraq had a state-run TV channel. Btw, the CBC is rabidly anti-American. Do you think that is appropriate? First, I am socially moderate. Second, can you give me some examples from 'your experience', where social conservatives have 'gotten in power' and provided govt funding for their content. Iran? Saudi Arabia? Third, what would you think if US taxpayers were forced to fund a state-run TV news channel that was akin to the Fox News Channel? I suspect the calls for Canada needing a state-run channel to promote "Canadian values" would die immediately on the left if the CBC was like the FNC--whose news is fair and balanced (although I admit their commentary leans to the right.

Risk of what? Catching the gay? No. It's just that while Yankabroad brings Kleenex to watch Bareback Mountain, some other guys--like me--don't care to watch one guy stick his tongue in another guy's mouth. It's a guy thing.

I was going to ignore posting on this thread (the OP seems way over the top), but then I saw that you created it as a counterpoint to one of my previous threads. 1) Your source is a big dodgy. It talks about a memo but doesn't say who wrote the memo or what dept it is from. Some anonymous UN source makes a wild claim that "the US thought of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq painted in UN colours". All these anonymous sources make it look like it was written by Seymour Hersh. Who are these anonymous sources? The mysterious "Lucy Ramirez" from the Rathergate Scandal? 2) Even if the memo did come from someone in Bush's inner circle, it reinforces my belief that Presdident Bush is a man of character. He refused to turn over America's sovereignty to the countries in the UN's Security Council. When I voted for Harper I was voting for my interests and Canada's interest. I don't give a damn what China, France, Russia, or the UN says. Countries are not "friends", they are allies. They put their own self-interests first. Anyone with half a brain: knew that Saddam had broken the ceasefire he signed in 1991 knew that Saddam had ignored or violated 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN resolutions knew that Saddam tried to assassinate an American president - an act of war knew that Saddam repeatedly fired on US and British aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zones, and knew that Iraq was a haven for terrorists Saddam should have been taken out years ago but the US had a president more interested in getting blowjobs from interns, giving North Korea nuclear material, selling secrets to the Communist Chinese, bombing aspirin factories, and bombing people (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc)--who were absolutely no threat to the US--without the authority of Congress or any resolution or authorization from the hapless UN. And US troops are still there--after Clinton said they would be home for Christmas in 1996. The 3 biggest arms dealers to Saddam were Russia, France, and China. Respectively, their arms comprised 57%, 13%, and 12% of the total Iraq military. All 3 of these countries were on the Security Council, so they voted to keep the flow of blood money coming from Saddam. Just like Chretien did (daughter married to son of biggest shareholder in France's TotalFinaElf oil company) and Martin did (Saddam invested $1 million in one of Martin's companies--good ole FOI Act . 3) Anyone with a lick of intellectual honesty knows that the Iraq War was very very successful. In 2 years and 9 months, they had 2 historic elections and wrote a historic constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech, of religion, and of the press, and then had an election on that too! The massmurdering dictator is in jail and on trial (he actually gets a trial) for his life. This is a milestone for the Middle East and it was deeply embarrassing for Canada when Layton and Martin were bragging about not helping Iraq (during the first 2 debates), just days after the Iraqis had had a 3rd historic election. If you read the Iraqi blogs, they paint an almost completely different picture of Iraq compared to what the liberal MSM tells you. The Media Research Council did an analysis of the MSMs Iraq War coverage in 2005 - the year Iraq wrote an historic constitution and had 3 free elections. 10% of the coverage was postive, 62% negative, and 28% neutral. According to the liberal media, 2005 was a disasterous year for Iraq! The MSM is overwhelmingly liberal and I think they even hate Bush more than they hated Reagan--thus the ridiculously biased coverage of Iraq. Has the US even killed 1 terrorist? It seems, according to the media, they only kill innocents. Perhaps the most precious thing of all will be when history vindicates Bush just as it did Reagan. Speaking ill of Ronald Reagan these days is political suicide. Even the wackiest Democrats are careful what they say about this great man. In the future, American grandkids will be attending George W. Bush Junior High School. How's that taste? Btw, there is far more support for the Iraq War than the media claims--where they do poll after poll until they get the answer they want: President Bush re-elected despite probably the most biased election coverage ever. CNN even had 2 Kerry campaign advisors hosting Crossfire. Tony Blair re-elected to a record 3rd majority. 2nd place went to the pro-war Tories and the anti-war Liberal Democrats finished a distant 3rd. Australia's John Howard, a staunch US ally, re-elected to a record 4th term. Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi--re-elected. Even the pacific Japan sent some people to Iraq and Junichiro Koizumi was re-elected to a 3rd term.

I don't know much about him, nor do I hear much about him. I never hear anything about him from rightwing sites, so I wouldn't get my hopes up too much. I know he wrote a book called Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. I'm curious what he wrote because I too, sometimes think liberalism is a mental disorder. But I've never ordered the book and I haven't seen it in any stores in town. I could request the library order the book but they would refuse. I live in a province governed by the NDP and I believe that they control what literature is allowed in the public libraries. The left is noted for doing everything they can to control the information the masses see or hear (eg, the 5 year Fox News Channel ban). I once requested the library order an Ann Coulter book. They sent me a letter saying they didn't order the book because it got "poor reviews". But this book was on the NY Times' Bestseller List for 16 weeks and Coulter is one of the best-selling political authors in the last decade! Later I asked them to order the controversial Swift Boat Veterans For Truth's Unfit For Command. I was curious as to what Kerry had done to make 264 of 270 of his mates dislike him so intensely. The lady at the library told me that it was on order but I would be #12 on the waiting list. She said that they might have to order another one since the waiting list was getting high. Later I got a letter saying the book wasn't ordered because it got "poor reviews". I've given up on my public library. Now I just keep my head down most of the time when I am in the library.....[to avoid looking at the tons of Bill Clinton books that seem to be in every aisle].

In order to crack down on CHILD PORN... Get your facts straight.

The state-run taxpayer-funded CBC is at it again, this time promoting their social liberalism--and I am forced to pay for this sh*t. Privatize these leeches and let them get out in the private world--like Global and CTV--and see if they can make it. Your tax dollars at work--videos promoting social liberalism: Ballwaxer: Yes it is a video of a guy getting his privates waxed at a waxing establishment. *Might not be work safe* Gay wedding: Two guys getting married. Watch at your own risk (lots of guy-on-guy kissing). Body modification: Some dude who was more piercings than the state-run CBC's George Stroumboulopoulos--goes to a piercing parlor and gets meat hooks put in his back. Then they show the guy swinging back and forth on these meat hooks in some kind of establishment (a progressive liberal fund-raiser? ). Kids: (Don't) Try this at home. Promoting graffiti: The CBC doesn't show the faces of these vandals. Why? Because they are engaging in an illegal activity. An obviously wasted teenage girl spots the fuzzy CBC microphone and says that it could "tickle" her. Perhaps it was the shape of the mic? A (stoned?) teen girl says judgemental people should take that pickle out of their a$$ and then takes a pencil and pretends to take a pickle out of her a**. What's the point of this? Teenage boy--who "doesn't believe in clothes"--streaks through a public parking lot: *Not work safe* Weasely American liberal who moved to Canada--goes on a long tirade bashing America before getting to the real point: "George Bush is a monkey". What a "progressive" analysis for the kiddies. Stephen Harper should yank the $1 billion they annually get and put them out on their own. There is no balance on the CBC. It is a political organ for the Canadian left, especially the social liberal activists. The Liberal Party even picks Canada's Governor Generals from the CBC. I believe that many people would dislike their taxpayer dollars going towards programming like this. If you are a private station, air whatever you feel like. Private stations like the centre-left CTV and centrist Global are forbidden by the CRTC to have a 24 hour news station like CBC Newsworld. Unfair. Let's not forget that the wildly popular Fox News Channel was banned for 5 years in Canada. When they applied in 1999, they were told they had to have 35% Canadian content and it was to be called Fox News Canada. Does anyone recall the CRTC putting those restrictions on CNN? Only the uproar caused by the CRTC allowing Al Jazeera into Canada forced them to lift their 5 year ban of the FNC. What was the Liberal Party-controlled CRTC scared of? They were scared of the masses hearing the other side, and they were scared that "their side" would be regularly demolished when forced to defend their views against right-leaning opponenets. And their fears were justified. Fox News is a breath of fresh air. It's easy to see why it is so popular in the US. I love watching Sean Hannity mowing down liberals with facts on the Hannity & Colmes show.

tml12: Exactly! No matter what you may think of abortion, Roe v. Wade was a bad ruling; judicial activism at its worst. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, its purpose is to limit the Federal govt's power to infringe upon the rights of both people and states. If an issue isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the Federal govt has no automatic right of jurisdiction in the matter. The Tenth Amendment specifically states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court decided that abortion was too important to let the masses have a say, and removed the right of either states or people to decide the question by creating a new Federal power with the stroke of a pen. And it is built on a falsehood. Abortion can only be legal if unborn children aren't considered human. I contend an 8 or 9 month old child is human. I will never understand how progressive liberals can protest to save a convicted multi-murderer like Tookie Williams from the death penalty, but think nothing of killing a child who did not even get the benefit of a trial. I guess I'm just not nuanced enough to understand those progressive liberal "values". The liberal-dominated MSM pushes abortion-on-demand. Witness the last week of the Canadian election. The media constantly hammered Harper and asked if he was going to take away abortion (which means, in Canada, unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions at any time in your pregnancy--and the father has no say). The fact is the vast majority of Canadians only support abortion if the mother's health is in question, rape, incest--some go further and say even in instances of deformity or in the first trimester. Yet the media ignored this and pushed their social liberalism. No other Supreme Court decision has caused so much death and caused so many people to be callous about taking the most innocent of life. Taking the lives of the most helpless of human beings because they are inconvenient--the reason for 98% of abortions--is simply wrong. This should be up to the people and states to decide. Why is the left so afraid about putting it to a vote--the only "poll" that really counts? Are they worried they will get the same results as the gay marriage vote in those 11 states on Nov 2, 2004?

Nothing either. Of course, both Democrats and Republicans work hard to ensure that people with newer, better ideas cannot get access to the ballot, the electoral process, or the debates. Had our Libertarian presidential candidate been allowed into the highly scripted, phoney "debates" of the last presidential election, he'd have wiped the floor with both Dubya and Kerry. And in 2000, Harry Browne would have reduced Bush and Gore both to tears. Both would have won millions of votes and helped elect L's to the House. . . except that the Republicrats and Demopublicans ensure that nobody outside of their mutually ensured duopoly gets any time at all. The gerrymandering and ballot laws means that even in places where registered Libertarians outnumber registered Democrats, the Libs have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on ballot access which the Democrats get automatically. And no mainstream Republican leader would dare debate a Libertarian leader head-on, because the GOPer would have most of his "limited government" con-man's rhetoric blown to bits in the first ten seconds. I think libertarians have many good policy suggestions--indeed some political tests I take place me as a libertarian--I think it could have been disasterous having Banirak in the Bush/Kerry debates. Badnarik's foreign policy was naive--even dangerous--isolationism. He advocated an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, which would be a strategic and moral disaster. Unfortunately, Badnarik often lives up to the Loonytarian stereotype. He has refused to get a drivers license or file an income tax return, he was arrested on the campaign trail, and he suggested he would blow up the UN building on his first day in office. Btw, if your party only gets 399,000 votes, I don't think it deserves to be in the debates.

Stignasty: When a federal party (Liberals) implement social liberalism, they are on the left.

The corporate sector does not generate wealth; it exploits resources and may control the distribution of wealth. C'mon, guys! This is economics 101. The wealth of petro resources in Alberta were not created by the corporate sector. If we had the furthest left government you can imagine, those resources would still be there and would still be being exploited. The difference would be the mechanism for sharing the wealth generated from these resources among the population. As to our being a "trading nation": a) there is a huge amount of analysis of Canada's economic origins as a mercantile economy dues to its colonial history. this is 2006. Every country is engaged in international trade ("nations" tend not to be). P.S. rbacon, maybe you should start your own blog if you want to post this stuff as it just adds useless clutter in a thread. If we had the furthest left government you can imagine, those resources would still be there and would still be being exploited. Obviously you know nothing about Saskatchewan and its filthy rich resources that the socialist NDP ignore. And of course the private sector generates wealth. Economics 101, indeed!

Mar: Check out today's business news. The US jobless rate dropped from 4.9% to 4.7%. Low jobless rate = less people on welfare rolls and more tax, unemployment insurance, and pension plan revenues, etc for the govt.

Get real. I;ve seen that map of the oil and gas exploration in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Are you trying to say that it is the purest of coincidence that the oil and gas exploration virtually stops at the man-made Alberta/Saskatchewan border?

They get away with it because they control the schools--where they rewrite history--and the media. I am absolutely amazed when I talk to someone from Europe and they claim that the GOP is a racist party. And they seem sincere! A Republican president went to war to free the slaves. It was Republicans who introduced legislation in the 1920s so women could vote, and It was Republicans that overwhelmingly voted the Civil Rights Act through (Al Gore Sr and Robert "KKK" Byrd filibustered it). I have always considered leftwingers more bigotted than rightwingers. As recently as 2001, former Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (who the Democrats refer to as "the conscience of the Senate") used the phrase "white n*ggers" on the Evil Faux News Channel™. And I have seen far too many cartoons from ultra-leftists like Ted Rall (who CBCunlocked.com lovingly linked to when they were on strike) portraying Colin Powell as an Uncle Tom and especially the RACIST cartoons about Aunt Jemima Condi Rice. The Condi ones were especially disgusting. No one hates like the progressive left. Here is an example from progressive liberal Air America's radio host Mike Malloy--on the air: Damn! Malloy outed Karl Rove and Dick Cheney--and myself! And here is Malloy's "tolerant progressive thoughts" on President Bush: Nice. But remember. President Bush is "the divider" and the Democrats are "the uniters"...

Gosthacked: Prescott Bush earned one whole share in the Union Banking Corporation, ergo he "bankrolled" the Nazis. What the left "conveniently" ignores is that liberal icon Avery Halliman owned 3991 shares in the Union Banking Corporation. I'm totally shocked that the left would try to revise history. It's not like they exactly have a history of doing that.