Montgomery Burns

And you once called me mean spirited? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Come on newbie. You have to admit that they are angry hate-filled hard-left kooks out of touch with the public. They even rage about the "rightwing bias" of the NY Times. And they are all over the internet. Weren't you the one that I privately emailed a link to that progressive's wild deranged hatefilled rant? That was crossposted to one of the more popular progressive websites in the US--they even did radio broadcasts out of Camp Cindy in Crawford, Texas. It wasn't just a site that attracts a few dozen people a day. And the DU is a very very very popular site; second to only Daily Kos for traffic on the left. It's not some fringe site. John Edward's wife has posted there (she was very nice, not loony). So has John Conyers. I believe that It has something like 70,000 people that are registered for their discussion forums. I believe that the DU is a reasonable indicator of the progressive liberal mindset, and it is causing a "civil war" in the Democrat Party. There is a progressive blogger from Saskatoon and she is just hilarious when she goes on one of her many hate-filled tirades against rightwingers....homophobic warmongering Iraqi baby-killing oil-stealing corporate fat cats who exploit, oppress and steal from the poor, those gun-toting, rednecked enviroment-raping fascist nazi neocon religious extremist reichwingers. She's pure comedy gold! Look at the Democrats top leaders - Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and yes, that piece of *bleep* John Kerry - who went on TV and said that US troops were "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children. But that's the same crap he pulled during the Vietnam War days. If only the media would have focused on his background, instead of ignoring it. Btw, it has been about 11 months since he promised to release his full military records.... They demand that the troops come home now, the military is broken, Iraq is unwinnable, blah blah,...but when it came to "put up or shut up", the vote was 403 to 3. They're demoralizing American troops for purely partisan purposes. They even gave a radical like Michael Moore a choice seat (right beside former prez Jimmy Carter) at their Democratic National Convention. Why?! Do they live in such a bubble that they think Moore plays well in mainstream America? Now they're running around screaming about Bush's "illegal spying" on Americans suspected of having contact with Islamic terrorist groups. First, it is not illegal. Second, Clinton and even the weak Jimmy Carter did the exact same thing. Do you really think that is a good message to send to the American public? "We're not going to spy on people who we suspect of having contact with Islamic terrorists. Do we have your vote?" Until they get serious about national security (they are at war), and purge their party of those "progressive" extremists who have gained power, they will never win the White House - or get control of Congress. There were 5 completely black (no markings...Canadian, US or whatever) attack helicopters flying over Saskatoon--mostly around the Univeristy of Saskatchewan--on Sept 12, 2001. I phoned my friend (who used to be in the military) and asked if those were Canadian attack helicopters. He said definitely not. He talked to his Dad later (a career military man--still in the military). His Dad knew about them, but couldn't (code for not allowed to) tell his son whose copters they were. His son and myself suspect that they were US attack copters protecting the massive chemical food research dept at the U of S. Did CSIS get a tip and called in the US? One thing I like about Bush is that he does seem to want to protect the country from attacks from Islamic terrorists. I also believe that he has steely resolve when it comes to that. I think "the bad guys" know that too...guys like Khaddafi who got out of the WMD-making biz a few days after Saddam was pulled out of that hole. Remember when one of Uday Hussein's bodyguards relayed a conversation he had with Uday? I'm paraphrasing: I wasn't worried much about Clinton, but I think that Bush guy means business. That's why I fret about our depleted military. Everybody has different priorities, but I am amazed at how many Canadians seem to think that govt-run daycare centres, gay marriage, and Kyoto are the most important things in the election. Oh yeah, and maybe throw a few bucks into the military. I want a stronger military to defend me, my family, and my country--which includes you--from Islamic fanatics. Why is a decent man like Joe Lieberman basically ignored? Does it have anything to do with the well-documented anti-semitism from the progressive left? Why do "progressive" sites like DU, Kos, and The Nation magazine/website attract more readers than decent liberal writers like Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly...or Ezra Klein (Pandagon has went to shit since he left)...or Jeff Jarvis....or magazines/websites like The New Republic...or Matthew Ygleisas..or whatever his name is...<<< the guy with the last name that I can never spell correctly.

This has to be the dumbest thing that I every heard. The Bush regime destroying the future wealth of America by driving up the deficit - there may be short term gains but in the long term Americans will have a lower standard of living because of the short sighted Bush policies. That money has to paid back some time and as interest rates go up the amount of money sucked out of the US economy used to paid foreign bond holders will only go up.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think it is the "dumbest thing I have ever heard". I agree that the Republicans and President "compassionate conservatism" Bush should cut way back on his domestic spending, but Reagan ran deficits over 20 years ago and the US standard of living as hardly dropped.

Sparhawk: A few weeks back I posted stats from the UK govt's Home Office website. It showed a large increase in crime since they banned handguns--I specifically remember the site stating that break-ins (or was it robberies?) had risen 92% in 4 years. Since some on this site (not saying it was you--I can't remember who the people were) couldn't attack my source (Fox News is all lies!), they claimed that the UK was simply recording crime stats differently (but offered no proof), thus the near double increase in 4 years. I just came across this from the BBC in 2001: Looks similar to the UK's Home Office figure of 92% in 4 years.

Do you have anything to back up your numbers? Excuse my skepticism, but your past..... 1) Doesn't NYC have about 2.5 times the population of Toronto? 2) This Canadian gun control site states that have been 48 homocides by guns in Toronto from January to November 2005, but it has nothing on "public shooting incidents". Are you asserting that there has been 48 homicides in 11 months, but only 24 or 25 wounded due to gunfire? (1450 divided by 20 = 72.5) 3) Your "shooting incidents" statement is vague. How many of these "shooting incidents" involved people defending themself, their family, or their property--both Toronto and NYC? The MSM media rarely reports it (it doesn't suit their agenda), but I come across many many stories on the internet of crooks getting shot for trying to break in, steal, attack, or even rape someone in their home. I'm sure there are many of these self-defense incidents that I don't come across To be fair to the MSM, some of these stories come from smaller centers., and perhaps not a big deal on the nat'l scene of a country with 295 million people. 4) Why do you want to disarm my elderly law-abiding grandparents, one set that lives on a farm 16 km from the city, and the other set that lives in a hamlet (less than 100 people) 40 km from the nearest RCMP station--especially when their hamlet is near a certain "reserve" of people well-known in Saskatchewan for their high crime, violence, and murder rates? :angry: :angry:

Or spending the $2 billion on silly things like putting more cops on the streets to catch more criminals.... ...because that ain't liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> The question still stands. Clinton didn't invade Iraq and he offered more to the table than pre 911Bush. Oh, and Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott had much to do with countering Clinton's terrorism legislation. http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/pearly/htmls/...-terrorism.html. I think you are scared of the numbers Monty. Here's a little help: http://www.iraqbodycount.net and http://icasualties.org/oif. That'a a minimum of 27,000 that died under Bush's watch. But be aware, it's a MINIMUM. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Care to tell us how many Iraqis died under Clinton's watch? How many of these happened during Clinton's watch? Don't worry adding on the Iraqis killed when he lobbed missiles into Iraq to divert attention when Monica Lewinsky was slated to testify.

Here are some articles on why the US went to war in Iraq(the petro-dollar cycle): http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/cah/rriraqwar.html http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/hl0303/s00182.htm p.s. Burns, you are truly pathetic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh great. Another leftwing radical appears to stink up the forum. First link is by Peter Dale Scott, a professor from the most radical university in America - Berkeley. I had never heard of him. After a quick google search, I can see why. I don't frequent radical "alternative" websites where he seems to be very popular. Places like the Stalinist Alexander Cockburn's website, Counterpunch. Oh, and Scott uses Greg Palast as a source for his info. I wonder if Palast is still working on his "the 2004 US election was rigged" thesis. And he is a favorite at Alternative Radio. Nice guest list they have! Just a quick peek shows: The notorious anti-American Noam Chomsky (191 appearances). Code Pink (the group that gave the Fallujah terrorists $600,000 just before the Marines went in to "take out the trash", and the group behind Cindy Sheehan) spokeswoman Medea Benjamin. Alexander Cockburn. Former Black Panther and convicted cop-killer, Mumia Abu-Jamal. Ward "little Eichmanns" Churchill (6 appearances). Another former Black Panther, notorious commie Angela Davis. George Galloway. John Pilger. Edward Said (35 appearances). Scott "I enjoy the company of young teen girls" Ritter. Gore Vidal. Cornel West. And lots and lots of Muslim names. And guess who else? Robert Fisk. The guy so full of crap that a new word was invented by the internet to describe an article so full of idiocy that it can being demolished piece by piece: Fisking. The guy who has traveled all throughout Iraq and has not found ONE PERSON who had anything good to say about the US overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The guy who was writing that there were no US troops in Baghdad while the rest of the world was reporting that Baghdad had fallen....shades of Baghdad Bob the former Iraqi (dis)information minister. Very interesting company Peter Dale Scott "hangs with". Oh, I see he is also popular at Alternet, the site run by Marxist Robert Scheer's (recently fired by the LA Times and replaced with...Jonah Goldberg from the National Review ) son. Mr Scott has written some books. Let's take a look see at the first one that pops up at Amazon. It's about the JFK assassination. Not sure what it is about, but I bet those dastardly neocons and Zionists had something to do with JFK's death. Uh oh. The first editor's review is from the liberal Publishers Weekly. They try to make Scott look somewhat credible at the beginning of their review, but then they end it with this: This is hardly a new concept, although Scott broadens the scope of the shadowy business villains considerably beyond the usual military-industrial complex to include fruit companies and law firms. His drawing of suggestive links is tireless--he is a great synthesizer--but since the "facts" on which he relies are often the result of other people's not necessarily accurate reporting, the whole structure has a ramshackle feel. Fruit Companies are evil! Why is Peter Dale Scott so anti-American? Perhaps because he is from Canada... The only thing "pathetic" is my wasting time responding to you. I've got the week off but I have better things to do--including even bothering to look at your other 2 links. Eureka, Err, Newbie, Black Dog, LionusFleaBag, etc, are rightwingers compared to you.

Wow, a snide Nazi reference, making up the totality of your first post. I wonder what sort of contribution you're going to make to the forum. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bite me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Looks like BHS got his answer.

The Honest Politican cont'd: First, it is $1200/yr. Second, every one with a child under 6 qualifies. The Liberal plan does not cover everybody. Not all families have 2 full-time working parents. Some have home-based businesses. Some people don't have 9-5 jobs; they have shiftwork. What if one parent works a 3-11 shift? It's a lot easier to drop off the kid(s) at Grandma's for a bit until Dad (or Mom) gets home. From the CP website: Choice in child care: We will support parents whether they choose formal day care, a babysitter, neighbourhood child care, or having one parent stay at home. Do you think having no choice - other than the state - is best for raising your children? Most parents believe in family member care. Do we really need another Liberal bureaucracy with vast administrative expenses? You know darn well - I hope - that govt programs always end up costing more than planned. Gun Registry? Quebec's govt-run daycare program? Remember the 7000 Quebec daycare workers who went on strike the very first year and held up the taxpayers for a fat raise? Can parents (and non-parents) afford more unionized public sector workers and their vast costly benefits? How is that different from govt-run daycare centres? With Harper's plan, if you are unhappy with the daycare, you can take your business elsewhere. Competition is better than a monopoly. So the parent is not to decide what is the standard for their childcare, but the state decides? Didn't they do similar things in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Sorry, but I don't understand your above quote.

The Honest Politician: Do you work for - or get all your news from - the Canadian Press? That's EXACTLY what they reported a week or two ago. Do yourself a favor and go to the Conseravtive Policy website and look at their policy on gay marriage. They want a FREE Vote on it. That's what usually happens in democracies. Polls show that the majority of the public wants a free vote on this attempt at radical social re-engineering. Are you worried that the majority of the public is against changing the 2000 year definition of marriage? Will he stop 100,000 babies from being killed in Canada every year? Puhleeze. Yep. Once the ball starts rolling....what's next? Two gay men adopting a young girl? That's progressive! Once the ball starts rolling...what's next? Preachers being hauled before a Human Rights Commission for preaching Church Doctrine (anti-gay marriage)? Oops. That has already happened--in Alberta. Many believe that the traditional definition of marriage is the bedrock of civilized society. Don't these people have the right to vote on something that has been around for thousands of years in every part of the world? YOU do the math. People with less income spend a larger proportion of their money on GST. And a reduction in the GST helps everybody, which is fair. Besides Harper has promised more taxcuts are coming. I'm hoping that he drops all the federal tax rates one point.

Betsy: Ipsos Reid released a poll after the 2nd debate and one of the questions was: Which leader do you think was the most visually attractive? 36% - Stephen Harper 29% - Jack Layton 14% - Paul Martin 12% - Gilles Duceppe 9% - Don't know I don't put much stock in stuff like this, but thought I would post it for your interest (amusement?)

American Woman (a great song by Canadian band--The Guess Who): It's desirable when dealing with thugs around the world. Power/Force is all they understand. Talk to the Eastern Europeans, Central Americans, Iraqis, and Afghanis. I bet they disagree with you. At a very high, both monetarily (my province spends 44% of its budget on healthcare) and physically painful price. Canadians lack enough MRIs, Catscans, and often have long waiting lists. Private healthcare is officially illegal here--just like Cuba and North Korea (although the govt turns a blind eye to the few private clinics). If, or when, I need an operation, I don't give a damn what it costs; I want it done now--not to be put on a waiting list for a year and a half. Canadians have NO CHOICE when it comes to choosing healthcare. There is no competition and there is no incentive to be efficient when you have no competition. 10% of Canadians don't have a doctor. Haven't you wondered why so many Canadians go to the US to be healed? Our healthcare forces people to suffer for long periods in pain and even kills our citizens. You are playing with people's lives when you have socialist healthcare. Which is good. Which is bad. I don't like my tax dollars being spent to house scumbags who killed at least 11 children (Clifford Olson). Didn't you find it disgusting when those people were protesting for Tookie to be spared from death, but yet they were silent about the deaths of the 4 people he killed? Reminded me of those people protesting Bush for the Iraq liberation--but couldn't find room in their hateful little hearts to protest against the massmurdering Saddam Hussein. Maybe our govt gives more percentage-wise (through forced taxation), but NO ONE gives more - to NGOs and the church - than US people. Perhaps your citizens can afford it easier since your per capita GDP is 27.3% higher than ours. But not the rights of the traditional family...or the right to put this issue to a referndum so the public can vote on this attempt at social re-engineering. Lucky Americans get to vote on things like that. We don't get to vote because the Canadian left knows that the majority of the public is against changing the 2000 year definition of marriage. You might find this long post by a female libertarian interesting. At the conclusion, she didn't come out on one side or the other. Blair was re-elected with a majority govt to a 3rd term after his 2nd term was dominated by foreign policy issues. Blair's party got 356 seats, the Conservatives got 198 seats, and the anti-war Liberal Democrats got 62 seats. Despite the UK's notoriously leftwing media spinning that Blair lost some seats because of his Iraq War stance, he did still get a majority govt, and I believe that the decrease in seats was more due to the voting public's typical desire for "a change" after someone being in power for a long time. If the UK public was that stridently against liberating the long-suffering Iraqis, they surely would have given Blair the boot.

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.

And much of it is being financed by China. "The United States, the world’s leading debtor nation, is now heavily dependent on Chinese capital to underwrite its fast-growing debt." Source http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update45.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you sure you want to go there? Shall I bring up all of Canada's dealing with China? Just because Canada's MSM is virtually ignoring all of Communist China's acquisitions in Canada (the subject is too close to Liberal Party vulnerabilities to risk reporting it too much), it doesn't mean that political junkies are unaware what is going on. Sinopec's 40% stake in a $4.5 billion oilsands project. China Nat'l Offshore Oil Corporation's purchase of 17% stake in MEGEnergy... ...and their buy-out of Calgary-based PetroKazakhstan. Communist-owned China National Petroleum Corp's $1.4 billion acquisition of the Ecuadorean oil assets of Canada's EnCana Corp. And from Socialist Saskatchewan: NDP Premier Calvert going to Bejing looking for Communist investors in Sask oil fields and uranium mines. Chinese delegation visiting Cameco's uranium mine in Saskatchewan.

You are not being fair. Bush took office as a recession just started (in the tail end of the Clinton presidency--the dotcom bubble burst), had two major corporate scandals (Remember Enron?), and 9-11 was a major hit on their economy. Now look at their economy. Even with all those hurricanes (especially Katrina), a rise (for a while) in gas prices (before dropping)--they have a 5% unemployment rate and their last quarter had a whopping 4.3% GDP growth.

Again, see what I 'm talking about when I say Canadians come off very arrogant at times. 2004 GDP United States $10,980,000,000,000 Canada $957,700,000,000 Are we done talking about economic strength yet? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not quite. Govt of Canada website: Canada's 2005 federal debt ($ millions) -- 499,863.0 But shhhh. Don't tell anyone.

newbie: Yep. That's why much of the world (including Canada) imitates American pop culture. That's why the US attracts more immigrants than any other country in the world. And that's why the US is the 2nd most visited country in the world. Because most of the world hates the US!

Newbie: Oh really? What about all the Canadians who sew Canadian flags all over their bags when they travel to another country? I've been to Europe, Mexico, the US, and spent a week in NYC (where you see people from practically every country in the world) and I do not recall ever seeing anyone with their country's flag sewn all over their bags....except for nationalistic Canadians.

Gosthacked: Perhaps you should take your jug of Kool-Aid and head over to the racist hatemongering Linda McQuaig forum... Speaking of media whores who rant and sensationalize... Plus, he made a complete jackass of himself when he went on that tirade on CNN's Crossfire.

America1: Sure, if you are talking about insignificant things like having the most powerful economy, military, and culture. But you do not have gay marriage - the single most important thing to Canada's liberal left (except for the majority of the public and those 40 members of Martin's cabinet who oppose it) - and you did NOT sign Kyoto! * Just ignore the fact that our greenhouse gas emissions have risen almost double that of the USA's since 1990...we are morally superior, damnit! *

Black Dog never ceases to amaze me... 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.

Yaro, I realize that you are smoking cheap crack here but really...do you intend that this discussion continue in this most ridiculously childish fashion? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What do you expect from Yaro? His "Economically we are already FAR more important going forward then the US" comment was good for a laugh, though. Our GDP growth is good (in the 3s), but the USA's is better (in the 4s). Our unemployment rate is good (6.5%). but when the US unemployment rate was that high in the US, some were calling for Bush's head. They are now at 5%.

Pocket Rocket: I feel sorry for the students in that political science professor's class. From the NY Times-owned International Herald Tribune (so no one can whine about rightwing sources): And the prof's claims that the right rants more than the left is laughable - although I admit that the right does like to rant about the bias of the MSM (but I don't, of course )

PocketRocket: By criticize, do you mean the Liberals calling them bastards, morons, the coalition of idiots, and going on the state-run TV and stomping on a George Bush doll with your boot and then stabbing it in the eye like a psychotic kook? Harper has to say that. He knows darn well that the media is itching to link him to Evil America. But Martin slamming the US is not "schoolyard rhetoric?" Harper is right. The Liberals call names (bastards, morons, coalition of the idiots, gloating about the possibility of selling oil to China--clearly to aggravate the US), and instead of Martin contacting Bush to discuss the softwood lumber dispute, he went to Wall Street and gave a whining speech. If a politician is repeatedly insulted by the governing party of another country, then that politician would likely play hardball with them. Why? Because "it is politics", just like you said.

Classy response to Biblio. Too bad you weren't face to face. Then you could give him the middle-finger salute like the person in your signature liked to do to Canadians.