Montgomery Burns

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hope many aren't over-reacting to this claim. While Kinsella is a talented liberal strategist, his blog has been as anti-Liberal Party as the typical conservative blog. He's a Chretien Liberal and seems to despise Martin's Liberals.

I wonder if the Liberals will fire up the old paper shredder. Rumors that Ralph Goodale is being pressured to resign and a pic of Goodale's office (scroll down a bit)

I realize, BD, that it is only a poll, but 64% to 23% is a huge difference; almost 3 times more. I'm sure you agree that it is a good political strategy for the Dems to whine about Bush eavesdropping on suspected terrorists. And you continue your long streak of lies when by denying that Carter and Clinton authorized eavesdropping. Jimmy Carter signs Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order. Bill Clinton signs Executive Order on February 9, 1995: Attorney General allowed to do searches without court approval. Washington Post, July 15, 1994: Administration backing no warrant spy searches: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order." Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant. Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes." Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities. "The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified." Typical Black Dog. Carter does it: Good Clinton does it: Good Bush does it: Bad.

GostHacked: Because I busted you with a link from the very site that you claimed showed that Parrish was fired for her Bush-doll-stomping incident? Gee GH. You're kinda boxing me in here. I can't use a links from the very site you claimed proved your point. I can't use links from Faux News or the Washington Times, and I can't use links from blogs. Are there any sources that I can use that are okay with you? True...and I believe that the Philippines is the other country that you were thinking of. However, the UK, Australia, and Italy govts were all re-elected. You have to admit that it is impressive that the now pacifist Japanese even sent some troops--although I believe they are doing mostly reconstruction work. And what about Poland? Their left-of-centre govt said that it was going to move its troops out of Iraq in 2006. The newly elected right-of-centre govt just announced the other day that it is keeping the 1500 Polish troops in Iraq throughout 2006...although I'm not sure how much of an issue that was in their election. Did you ever notice that nearly every former Soviet satellite state is in Iraq fighting tyranny and for democracy? I noticed that.

Uh...for what alternative? The other pro-war party? Or could it be that elections are seldom decided on a single issue (even as that single issue cost Blair 47 seats and 5 per cent of the vote)? But then, I'm dealing with someone who's convinced that the last U.S. election (one of the tightest in history) was a landslide, thus I'm not dealing with someone well-versed in reality. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1) Uh...the anti-war Liberal Democrats? Remember them? The ones that came in a distant 3rd place despite the population being, to use your words, "overwhelmingly opposed" to the liberation of Iraq. Do you honestly think that the Iraq war was not an issue to the voters? Blair might have lost a bit of support, but I put taht up the the typical quest for a change that is common when someone has been in power for a long time. And Blair still got a MAJORITY govt. 2) Please don't put words in my mouth. I dare you to find where I said that the last US election was a landslide. It was fairly close but Bush won 286 Electoral Votes and Kerry got 252. And you are the last person who should be talking about "not dealing with someone well-versed in reality". You still insist that there was no one from Al Qaeda in Iraq before Saddam was overthrown--despite every sane person on the planet being aware of this fact.

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps you should read the articles before you link to them. There is nothing in that story about her getting expelled for her antics against Bush--although the CBC cleverly words their "news" article to suggest this was the reason. She was not expelled for her antics against Bush, but for criticizing Martin. I thought everyone knew that. She admitted it herself the very next day. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok, one last time Monty. Next time READ the article. And try and put 2 and 2 together. Stomps doll, cursing Americans = dismissal. Martin told reporters that while he has defended the controversial MP's right to express her views frankly, he "cannot, as leader of our party and the government caucus, tolerate behaviour that demeans and disrespects others." What the hell part of that don't you understand. Sheesh! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What the hell is the matter with you? :angry: Martin was talking about Parrish's remarks about him and the Liberal Party, not about the Bush Doll embarrassment. Parrish even said so the very next day--did you even bother to read the above link I left for you? Read the link, then print it, then tape it to your fridge door, and your mirror in the bathroom so it can sink into your skull. Grrrr. It's so damn frustrating debating certain leftists sometimes. No matter what the evidence, they are so blindly partisan that they just ignore anything that proves them wrong and go on their merry way living in their cocoon.

Dear Eureka, Please quit embarrassing yourself by denying that Hitler was a socialist. Do you even know what Nazi is short for? Hitler was to the left of Communism, but he was definitely a socialist. The fact that you believe Black Dog only strenthens my case; BD still denies that there were any Al Qaeda members in Iraq before Saddam was overthrown, despite every sane person in the world knowing that Al Qaeda was in Iraq. A direct quote from Hitler: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions". Yep. Sounds like a rightwinger to me. From the manifesto of the National Socialist German Workers Party--written by Hitler himself: * The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good. * We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels. * We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out. * We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities. * We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. I could flood this thread with examples of Hitler's leftism but we are getting off-topic. Perhaps another time if someone wants to take me on.

Chicago banned handguns. And how many of these shootings are people defending themselves from attackers? I often read about the little old lady that shot some scumbag that broke into her house. I suspect there are even more instances of this besides little old ladies (which make for a good story). What about the off-duty cop who was shot in TO on Boxing Day? He is forbidden to carry a gun while off duty.

On this issue, I think "stupid" would be a better word than "reckless". But there are still, unfortunately, many who believe that if all guns are banned, that the gun-toting criminals will saunter into police stations across the country and surrender their firearms. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's true! Banning handguns was a resounding success in the UK and Australia (both islands). And don't forget how successful it was in Washington, D.C. It's just common sense. If you ban handguns, criminals will never ever be able to get them.

My sister used to live in Toronto and she told me that the overwhelming amount of these shootings are done by people from the Caribbean (mostly Jamaicans) and Sri Lanka. It's just that the Liberals have implemented so much Political Correctness (censorship) in society that people are reluctant to say this, lest they be called a racist.

This isn't exactly political and is oriented towards the guys...just something interesting I found. I was going to link to an Arab blog from Montreal but when I read that he is a strong supporter of Bush, a strong supporter of the war on terror, a strong believer in Reaganomics, and a supporter of the Conservative Party, I figured he must be a phony. After all, I have been told many times that Arabs hate Bush and want Papa Hussein back. Besides, his blog only had one pic of OBL's niece. So after clicking on links and "hat tips" that only had 1 pic, I came across a blog that I had never heard of...but it has 2 pics of Osama's niece from the latest issue of GQ. Wow

Just as I said earlier on this thread (not only is it legal--Clinton and even Carter did the same thing)...the public would support Bush on this matter. I'm not a huge fan of polls, however the latest Rasmussen poll states: Even half the Donks, plus 4 out of 7 Independants support Bush on this matter. Common sense wins again and another "brilliant" political strategy by the Dems falls apart. First there was Kerry saying he wouldn't use US troops to defend America unless "it passed the global test" and now they are running around screeching (with the help of the MSM) that they won't eavesdrop on suspected terrorists....and btw vote for us. Until the Dems purge their party of the far-leftists who have hijacked their party, the ones who continually undermine US national security and continually demoralize the troops for pure partisan political purposes, they will never get back in power. Look at their top leaders: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and others like Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, and Cynthia McKinney. Would you trust these clowns to protect you when your country was at war? Centrist Democrats appear to agree this is a losing strategy: Gee, ya think? But the Patriot Act allows intelligence to be shared by different agencies, which helps protect America, which is a bad thing in Liberal Land. Go Harry. Go Harry. Go Harry.

PocketRocket: Why do so many on this forum apply the same standard to a pundit as they do to a high-ranking member of the governing party? Sure, a MP (and others) from the ruling party has insulted Bush and Americans numerous times. Sure, a MP from the ruling party went on state-run TV and stomped all over a Geroge Bush doll...but but but...what about MSNBC's Tucker Carlson saying bad things about Canada? Does anyone watch MSNBC or Tucker Carlson? The channel's ratings are low and Carlson is lame. Btw, Carlson's remark was in response to Martin's attack on the US, and Coulter's remark was in response to Carolyn Parrish's boot stomp. The nerve of an American pundit striking back just because our governing party is insulting and disrespectful to America and its President. Don't they know that Canadians are morally superior and polite? At least no top aide in the Bush administration ever called Chretien a moron. (no rebuke from Chretien for his communication director's insult). The PM's office might have replied better to Bush's gaffe instead of offering this in response: "Clearly, Canada is not in the Bush leagues." And I hope that PMPM doesn't continue to praise Canadian D-Day vets for their heroism during the invasion of Norway--which he said twice during the ceremony last year. She was expelled from the caucas for criticizing PMPM. Is Stephen Harper the Prime Minister of Canada? Saying you will be joining the US plan for an anti-missile defence system, then changing your mind (despite personal appeals by Bush) didn't help... Got proof to back up your statement? Sorry but I haven't figured out the double or triple quote thing.

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> oh shi .... ... but since it is a pinko commie left wing soviet style state run propaganda machine, Monty here will NOT believe a word on that article. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Typical blind ideologue who only sees what he wants to see. My above reply to Newbie applies to you too.

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps you should read the articles before you link to them. There is nothing in that story about her getting expelled for her antics against Bush--although the CBC cleverly words their "news" article to suggest this was the reason. She was not expelled for her antics against Bush, but for criticizing Martin. I thought everyone knew that. She admitted it herself the very next day.

You must be unaware that Tony Blair was re-elected to a 3rd term, that the Tory Party (also pro-enforcement of int'l law) came in 2nd, and the anti-enforcement of int'l law party (I forget its name) came in a distant 3rd. You also must be unaware that John Howard was re-elected to a 4th term in Australia. You also must be unaware that Italy's Silvio Berlusconi was re-elected in May 2005. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And as BlackDog has pointed out, there are alot more reasons for why they won their respected elections. Iraq was not the only thing on the agenda. If they both got elected for the sole reason of Iraq, then both the British and the Australians are complete retards. But I would think there was more to it. I could be just oblivious to the whole thing though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nonsense. If the people of Italy, Australia, and the UK were "overwhelmingly against the Iraq war", then neither of the 3 would have been re-elected. Why do I have this feeling that if all 3 were not re-elected--you and Black Dog would have asserted it was because of their stance on the Iraq war....

I think the leftists who call themself "progressives" are trying to deceive the public again by renaming themselves. They used to call themselves liberals, but that word usually has a negative feel to it these days. Todays liberals are mostly socialists; they've ruined that word. The people calling themselves progressives also seem to be the extreme-type of the left. They also come across as intolerant and angry. And they love their "causes" and protests. They have a low tolerance for different opinions or views. If you don't "toe the line", you are shunned, or if on a discussion forum or weblog, quickly banned. It's all lock-step stuff, living in a bubble, and then utter shock when, at election time, the public rejects them. Does anybody remember studying Classic Liberalism in University? It doesn't resemble today's liberals.

I don't know much about the Bible stuff at the beginning, but the part about Europe (and Russia) dying because of low birth rates (and rampant abortion) is dead on. Europe the soul-less state. Just like the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. No wonder they both seemed so miserable. Bye bye Europe. Hope you enjoy the future Eurabia.

A bit off topic: Did anyone see Ted Nugent on CNBC's Big Idea with Donny Deutsch tonight? I only caught about the last 20 minutes, but they had a debate about banning guns in the US. They discussed Iraq; Deutsch said he was glad that Saddam was gone, but vaguely claimed that it could have been done another way. Nugent complained about the lies of the MSM and said he is skeptical of nearly everything they report. Deutsch (who claims he is a purple-stater...a combination of blue and red states, i.e., a centrist, but he's not) got upset about that. He said he was tired of the so-called liberal media claims because of - you guessed it - Fox News. Guess Donny missed that media bias study from UCLA (Dec. 14/05)...which concluded that only 2 of the 20 major media outlets studied scored right of the average US voter - Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times. Nugent said he might run for Governor of Michigan in 2010. He used terms like "personal responsibility, "less govt", etc. He wasn't talking liberal.

Eureka, why won't you answer my questions? And since when is Britain's Home Office (an official govt site) akin to the NRA? Or were you talking about The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London?

Wow. The person who wrote the OP links to Jihad News, which had one of its reporters sentenced to 7 years in jail--in Spain--for collaborating with an Al Qaeda cell leader, the news source that is always first to get their hands on the latest propaganda tapes from terrorist groups, the news source that was actually banned--for a month, I believe--by Iraq's Prime Minister for its blatant bias for the jihadists. But yet this same person tore a strip off me (along with a bunch of expletives) for linking to David Horowitz's (former leftie turned rightie...neocon alert ) "bogus" Front Page Magazine. I have never heard of PLATFORM. Checking their website, they are based out of London England, and obviously an anti-business activist organization. The title of Muttitt's report (Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth) raised a red flag. I went to the BBC website and typed the name of the author of the report. No matches for Greg Muttitt. So I did a google search for Greg Muttitt. Wow! He is a favorite of many interesting *shudder* websites. And then Newbie links to the Stalinist Counterpunch website. Do you know Alexander Cockburn's history? Ah well, at least they aren't Faux News. Then you claim that the US bombed Iraq for no reason. I've linked many times on this site to The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq resolution, passed by Congress with both Democrat and Republican majorities. I'm sure you have read the 23 clauses--it's not a long document. But apparently, you are in such denial, that you choose to simply ignore it. I can't be arsed to post it again. Pity. I thought there might have been some hope for you.

Pocket Rocket: She erred about CANADA sending troops, but there were many Canadians who fought in the Vietnam War. Ann should brush up on the history of the country that, according to PMPM, leads the woorrrlllldddd! What is it about Ann Coulter that makes certain people scour every inch of her 4 best-selling books, scour her numerous speeches (when she isn't being pied by the champions of free speech), scour her numerous columns, and scour every word she utters on her numerous TV appearances, frantically looking for something - anything! - that might not be absolutely 100% accurate? Might it be the fact that she regularly demolishs liberals using cold hard facts and her razor sharp barbs? Do you really believe that the CBC would have allowed her to reply on TV? The same CBC that deletes the word "terrorist" from its comments? Context. Why did she utter that sentence? Oh right. It was in response to Carolyn Parrish going on our state-run TV and stomping a George Bush doll with her boot and then savagely stabbing the Bush doll in the face with a pencil. The bloody nerve of Coulter. She obviously doesn't understand liberal "humor". Can I answer for him? Hmmm. The NY Times? The CBC? Dan Rather? Mary Mapes? Howard Dean? Cindy Sheehan? Harry Reid? Michael Moore? George Clooney? Sean Penn? Ward Churchill? Chris Matthews? Nancy Pelosi? Noam Chomsky? Robert Fisk? Kofi Annan? Ramsey Clark? Dick Durbin? New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin? Jack Murtha? George Galloway? Maurice Hinchey? Cynthia McKinney? Kanye West? Ted Rall? Juan Cole? Code Pink? So many to choose from....

It is the Democrats who have divided the country. Despite Bush's repeated attempts to reach out to them, they prove time and time again that partisan politics is all they care about. Look at how they embolden the Jihadists when they constantly demoralize the troops. They are playing with people's lives; they are dividers, not uniters.

Typical of Eureka and IMT. When their arguments are shredded apart, they resort to their typical insults. Lame.

Freud had a term for what you are attempting; he called it projection. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> maybe... from the little i've read of your comments on the whole iraqi thing that's the impression i was getting. it at least sounds like you believe that the recent positive developments in iraq justify the questionable means they were arrived at; is that much accurate? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What questionable means?