Montgomery Burns

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10588528/ This actually makes sense to me. I mean privacy is one thing, but if you can literally drive by someone's house (hall/garage/office block/whatever) and point a doohickey at the building, and pick up some sort of radiation emission which is definitively linked to some sort of nuclear device, then as far as I'm concerned privacy concerns are right out the window. While I largely disagree with the Patriot Act, this is a completely different ball of wax. No way that this can be used under false pretenses to put away some kid who's growing a couple pot plants in his attic. This would address one issue, and one only; possible nukes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. Nothing wrong with sniffing for radiation out of mosques - especially with their sordid history of abetting terrorism.

I'm not going to bother to post links showing that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did the same thing, because I suspect you all know this, and know that is yet another attempt by the MSM to make a mountain out of a mole hill. However, I do believe that whoever leaked this to the NYT should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. BTW, where are all the lefties who were screaming about Valerie Plame being "outed" at her desk job at the CIA? I have a prediction. This will hurt the Dems badly. They already have a deplorable reputation for protecting the US public, and I can only hope that they run on this platform during the 2006 mid-term elections. I'm extremely confident that the American public is not concerned that the Bush administration is spying on Al Qaeda operatives in the US. Indeed, I saw an online poll from the liberal-left CTV a few days ago (28,000+ votes) that agreed - 70% to 30% - that Bush is justified to spy on Al Qaeda operatives in the US. Please Democrats. Please make this an issue in the next election. It's a sure winner for you.

Speaking of The Terminator:: How does it feel, EUnuchistan, to be told to "shove it" by The Terminator? Let's take a look at the next day's news: But but but...what about Tookie? Canadian and US leftists are always good for a laugh, but they can't touch the EUnuchs when it comes to pure comedy gold.

You stupid brown-skinned Iraqis deserve nothing better than to live under the boot of a mass-murdering psychotic dictator! Haven't you been listening to the left and the MSM? You are sub-human savages incapable of being "progressive". You are puppets of KKKarl Rove and AmeriKKKa! Iraq is a quagmire. It's the Mother of all Quagmires. US troops are being killed on a daily basis, and no Islamonazis are being killed by US troops. We've all seen the polls where the MSM has reported that the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave, and no, we do not bother to read the full survey results (buried towards the bottom of the article) where it shows that the Iraqis want the US to leave AFTER the Iraqis are capable of defending their country. Only Faux News puts these surveys into context. After Bush has STOLEN your oil, he is going to put you into Intelligent Design Re-education Camps! AAIIIEEEEE!!

Got another one: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. So far, so good, eh? The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like him, are cold and starving. The state-run taxpayer-funded CBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food. Canadians are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty. The NDP, the CAW and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in front of the ant's house. The CBC, interrupting an Inuit cultural festival special from Nunavut with breaking news, broadcasts them singing "We Shall Overcome." Sven Robinson rants in an interview with Pamela Wallin that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share". In response to polls, the Liberal Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant's taxes are reassessed, and he is also fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as helpers. Without enough money to pay both the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the govt. The ant moves to the US , and starts a successful agribiz company. The CBC later shows the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant's food, though Spring is still months away, while the govt house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain it. Inadequate govt funding is blamed, Roy Romanow is appointed to head a commission of enquiry that will cost $10 million. The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, the Toronto Red Star blames it on the obvious failure of govt to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity. The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders, praised by the government for enriching Canada 's multicultural diversity, who promptly set up a marijuana grow-op and sell to the community.

I can't be arsed to read all of the 160 posts in this thread, so I apologize if this one has already been posted: Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are all travelling in a car that gets sideswiped and flies off into a ditch. When they wake up, they are all standing in front of St. Peter who is trying to locate their names in the Book of Life. After some searching, St. Peter looks up and appears rather embarrased. "There appears to be some mistake," sayeth St. Peter, "none of you are due to be here yet. Tell you what, if each of you gives me $100 I will send you back to Earth." "Deal!", says Stephen Harper. He gives St. Peter $100 and is instantly transported back to the scene of the accident with not a scratch on him. Ambulances and police cars have since arrived on the scene. An officer runs up to him and asks where the other three party leaders are. Harper replies, "Last I saw, Martin said he had to create a trust fund to funnel the money through, Layton thought the government should have to pay for it, and Duceppe declared his intention to separate from Heaven."

The truly embarrassing thing about the debates was the leaders insisting that they would have never sent Canadian troops into Iraq to enforce the law. I want the Iraqis and the rest of the world to know that not all Canadians are greedy blood-money-grabbing cretins like Chretien who was only interested in keeping Saddam in power so his family could continue to receive more money from TotalFinaElf oil company. Not all Canadians are cowards who instantly have a knee-jerk reaction to anything the US does... ...and not all Canadians are bigots who think that those brown-skinned Iraqis deserve nothing better in life than to live under the boot of a psychotic mass-murdering dictator. Please forgive us.

A Liberal Party member going on Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC, and stomping a George Bush doll with her boot--and then taking a pencil to the doll's eye and stabbing it like a deranged meth addict = Okay. Liberal Party members referring to Americans as "bastards, morons, and the coalition of the idiots" = Okay. An American pundit - Tucker Carlson - referring to Canadians as retarded cousins = Bad. Even though I am Canadian, I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of some of my fellow Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since I got suckered (well actually I got a good deal) into getting a subscription to Maclean's, I have to say I disagree with you. I have seen no political agenda by Maclean's. Indeed, I was shocked that they pointed out the G&M political bias in a short blurb in their latest issue (I wasn't surprised about them going after Svend--his record speaks for itself), since I have always considered Maclean's to be left-of-centre. It's not just the articles by Sascha "it's a human tragedy in Iraq (the liberation)" Trudeau, but also articles headlined, "The US wants to take our water".

Nor did they mention Martin's glowing endorsement of middle aged men who like to have sex with teenage boys, and that he only wishes he had more of them in his cabinet. You'll have to explain this one... because it would appear to be completely unfounded and libellous.... You Child Porn Crusaders can't seem to let up on this kind of topic... and don't appear to care to present any facts to back up your allegations..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Leave it to err to get upset with people who try to stop child porn.

Thanks for linking to a 61 month old article by the Washington Post-owned Slate. And no, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson are not "on board" at the FNC. Have you ever watched the FNC? I ask this because it was banned for 5 years in Canada by the Liberal Party-controlled CRTC, and to this day is not readily available to the public (I had to buy a digital box to receive it on Channel 142...CNN is on basic cable; Channel 18). Is it because Democrats are regulary demolished on the FNC when forced to defend their stance against Republicans? You should thank the FNC. They are forcing the Democrats to sharpen up their dulled debating skills. Instead of the liberal MSM calling for the men with white coats when faced with Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, and Murtha talking what in any reasonable sense is pure drivel, the fawning MSM nods solemnly and wonders whether Bush is living "in a bubble" (as Newsweek's new issue has on their front cover). No wonder these clowns are so out of touch with the majority of the public.

Here's a good one: "Paul Martin taking on the mantle of Captain Canada? Give me a break. If he'd been hooked up to a lie detector on that one, Martin would have knocked out all the power on the eastern seaboard. The guy who refused to endorse the Clarity Act. The guy who made Bloc Quebecois founder Jean Lapierre his Quebec lieutenant. The guy who recruited separatists to run for him. Paul Martin, a defender of Canadian unity? Not quite. My money's on Harper." - Warren Kinsella Very safe bet, Warren. And here's a great one: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...06-de6cc09bdf7e Can we start thinking a majority? I certainly think so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Waaaa? Warren Kinsella is now a conservative? And here I thought that he was a former special assistant to Jean Chretien... As for Dianne Rinehart, she is quite popular at progressivebloggers.ca. Nuff said!

kimmy: From what I have seen of your posts, I think of you as being right-of-centre. You might disagree, but as you say, whatever... Maybe so, but that is changing as the public has slowly come to realize that the MSM has been caught so many times spinning, or telling outright lies. Why do you think that the MSM's viewership keeps on dropping? Tom Brokaw was considered the most valuable news anchor of the Big Three because his numbers didn't drop as badly as CBS and NBC. Why do you think that the Fox News Channel gets higher cable ratings than CNN, CNN Headline News, MSNBC, and CNBC combined? Why do you think so many liberals foam at the mouth at the mention of the FNC? Why do you think the Liberal Party-controlled CRTC banned the FNC for 5 years? They are upset that their control of the media is slipping away. Why do you think that newspaper circulation is dropping so much? How much do you believe of what the NY Times reports? Look at the stock price of the NY Times. The thing is that the MSM injects opinion into many of their "news" reports, and they have decide what stories should be reported and what stories should not be reported. I have to disagree with you here. Bloggers do not have the resources to "report" as much of the news as the MSM does, but I find them much more reliable. And if you aren't reliable, you are subjected to fact-checking by thousands (or tens or hundreds of thousands of readers). The MSM constantly inserts falsehoods (remember the CP article I recently linked to that said that Harper promised to make gay marriage illegal if he was PM--an outright lie) or opinion into their "news" reports. Just as an example from 2 days ago courtesy of CTV: "But Harper stopped short Friday of vowing his party would avoid negative campaigning in its bid to mislead the public in its bid to form a Conservative government. Within hours, the italicized part was deleted on CTV's site. Why? Because they were likely deluged with emails from rightwing blogs and their readers and they knew that they were caught by thousands of people. As usual, there was no correction or retraction noted for its readers. That's why so many bloggers take screen shots of MSM articles. They get caught and cleverly get rid of the evidence and offer no correction or retraction to their readers. This happens on a near daily basis. Bloggers like Michelle Malkin offer a treasure trove of information that the MSM will not report. What about Captain Ed? Many Canadians visited his blog for his reports on the Gomery Inquiry when there was a publication ban put on a public hearing. The right is watching the liberal MSM. No longer can CBC put up a cropped cartoon image of Harper giving a Nazi salute without being forced to yank it from their website (as happened a few days ago). No longer can Walter Cronkite go on national TV and report that the US lost the Tet Offensive (an outright lie) to demoralize the country and promote their agenda. No longer can the NY Times refuse to report the $875,000 that Air America stole from that Brooklyn charity for inner-city children. No longer can the NY Times report bogus pre-election stories about 380 tons of weapons disappearing under the nose of the US military in Iraq. No longer can the MSM ignore the Swift Boat Veterans (their book was on the NY Times bestseller list but the NTY had not written one word about them). You'd think that 264 of 270 Swifties coming out against Kerry might be a big story, no? No longer can CBS pass off forged documents without the bloggers being right on the story and discrediting it. No longer can the AP report that Bush supporters booed Clinton's name when Bush wished him well at a Bush rally. (Fox News was there and had the audio which proved it was a lie). No longer can Paul Begala and James Carville host a poltical talk show on CNN without the public learning that they were doing this while being advisors to the Kerry campaign at the same time. No longer can CNN's Eason Jordan go to conferences in foreign countries and make the outrageous claim that the US military was deliberately killing journalists. The media refused to report on this, but the pressure of the blogosphere forced him to resign. What about former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger being caught on video stealing highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives (which he then shredded)? You'd think that would be a big story, no? According to the MSM, it was not a big story. I believe that the NY Times reported it once (after waiting a few days), the WaPo reported it twice, and the LA Times reported it once. Nothing to see. Let's move on to more important things - like whether Bush missed a physical 30 years ago in the TANG. What about this article from Reuters last week? 9+26+25+23=83 in most people's book. That leaves 17% who voted for the other 6 presidents (2.83% average), so how in the hell can Bush (9%) be ranked least popular? How much do you hear about Clinton-appointed federal judge issuing a judgement of $104 million for two 9-11 families against Iraq for its complicity in the 9-11 terror attacks? I could go on and on, but to sum it up, I am generally skeptical of what the MSM reports. A link would be fine but most of these bills or commission reports are very long and again and again, we find that the MSM picks out one sentence that suits their agenda and uses that as a headline. Remember Democrat Lee Hamilton lamenting why the MSM media was reporting that the 9-11 Commission concluded that there were no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda? It was untrue. If you have the patience and wherewithall (like some bloggers do), we found out that the 9-11 Commission could not prove that Saddam was involved in 9-11. However, as Lee Hamilton said, "there were many links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, no doubt about it." However the MSM refused to report it; only conservative news sources reported this and then we get the old "They're lying" mantra.

I guess it is a matter of perception. Some say that Martin showed passion, but I thought he showed panic. Besides, if Harper started showing more "passion", the media would bring up the "angry Harper" meme again. I got a chuckle when CTV brought in the head of the liberal polling firm Strategic Council to announce that according to a poll he did after the debate--his conclusion is that "a big chunk of people could not say definitively who won the debate." Robert Fife, CTV’s Ottawa bureau chief, chimed in: "This has got to be disappointing to Stephen Harper... he’s not connecting with voters. He’s too serious. He doesn’t show any warmth or passion." Perhaps the CTV decided they needed to spin the debate aftermath when they saw the results of their very own online poll of 9971 people, which clearly showed Harper the winner (Harper 51%, Layton 21%, Martin 18%, and Duceppe 10%). There was also an online poll at Canoe that had Harper getting 65% of the votes, although it was only at 1200+ votes when I checked it about a week ago (the link has expired).

Well, we know that when a member of your party stomps on a George Bush doll with their boot, then stabs it in the eye like a psychotic meth addict on the state-run taxpayer-funded CBC, that is not a fireable offence... As you have probably noticed, I loathe the socialist NDP and their attempts to lower Canada's standard of living. However I would never refer to Olivia Chow (Layton's wife) as a Chow Chow dog and post a pic comparing the two. The pic is here and if you want to read what Klander wrote before he killed his blog, the cache is here. This was not some "Joe Blow" who started up a blog, it is a senior executive in the Liberal Party. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jesus Murphy, the Conservatives in the US have Ann Coulter & Mark Steyn. We get Mr. Serious & Offended ... Paul Wells. I checked the site ... it was funny. Besides comparing Olivia to a Chow (rather childish as she doesn't resemble one & she knows it ... it's just a kid's name calling thing), he put up the quadruplets ... with their star Liberal candidate as one of the quads ... and that one is true! The ones with the best sense of humor will win ... lighten up. Stephen Harper should NOT be a model of personality to follow for Torys. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll admit that Ann Coulter is over-the-top sometimes (and also dead-on most of the time), but I like her because she is as vicious as the Democrats are, plus I know the mention of her name drives the left into a rage. Please don't lump her with Mark Steyn, who can be a wise-ass sometimes, but is one of the best rightwing writers around. Even the left has difficulty finding dirt on him (a search of the George Soros-funded partisan Media Matters only brings up Steyn once). He can't be that bad, because the left rarely complains about him, like they always do about Coulter. That being said, Coulter and Steyn are rightwing columnists. They are not members of Bush's administration. Mike Klander is a (senior) member of the Liberal Party. Why do you think it is funny for a senior member of the Liberal Party to post a pic of a national leaders wife comparing her to a dog?

I can't seem to find a reference to this person being a senior executive in the current Liberal party. Could you help me with a link or two? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure. From the Liberal Party newsletter: Typing Mike Klander in Google's search engine works...

What a load of crap. Claiming that "the CBC's viewership skews to the centre and left-of-centre" does not mean that the ultra-leftwing CBC is centrist, left-of-centre or unbiased. Only someone from a school of journalism would try to muddy the CBC's ridiculous leftwing bias. Oh wait! The article was written by the director of the Carleton University School of Journalism and Communication. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! I know the brainwashing that goes on in those leftwing journalism schools. I know a girl taking journalism in university and according to her, the most evil news channel in North America is the Fox News Channel. She claims that because they allow liberals and conservatives to debate issues, they are providing "loud" entertainment (I think it irks her that Democrats are readily demolished in debates on the FNC). Note the author's use of "rightwinger" in the article, nowhere does the term "leftwinger" appear. This is a constant in Canada's major media, from the CP, CTV, G&M, and Toronto Star. *We aren't leftwing, we're the norm, and anyone to the right of us is a rightwinger.* I had to chuckle at the author's claim that Maclean's has a political agenda. The nerve of Maclean's pointing out Svend Robinson's repeated disrespect of the law (fined $750 for his part in an anti-logging blockade in 1985, a 2 week jail sentence for contempt of court in 1994, witnessing the illegal assisted suicide of Sue Rodriguez in 1994, protesting with the thugs that clashed with police during the Quebec City free trade summit in 2001, and the theft of a ring in 2004 - in which he turned himself in only after he learned the theft was caught on tape) and the conventions of Parliament while serving as a MP (heckling Ronald Reagan in Parliament in 1987, petitioning to have the word God stricken from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1999, and resigning as NDP foreign policy critic after making nasty remarks about Israel). Seems to me that the director is showing his political agenda. Or perhaps the G&M liked the potshots Dornan took at Maclean's because Maclean's pointed out the G&M's political agenda in their latest issue....reporting the G&M having a 5-alarm headline on their front page "Liberals surging in Ontario" (a poll had given the Liberals a whopping 5 point lead over the Conservatives). The next day their front page story was about Harper's image problem; he doesn't smile enough. Yet on the same day, they buried a poll deep inside their paper that stated that 61% of Canadians find PMPM the dishonest national leader and that 57% said that PMPM was the most likely of the national leaders to tell a lie for political advantage. Sounds like Dornan thinks that Maclean's is looking for an audience of "worked up rightwingers".

The Liberals insulted Canadian parents by claiming that they will spend Harper's childcare cash on beer and popcorn; they whined about US ambassador Wilkins interfering in a Canadian election (but when Michael Moore did it in 2004, it was A-OK), and now they have stooped to a new low: Well, we know that when a member of your party stomps on a George Bush doll with their boot, then stabs it in the eye like a psychotic meth addict on the state-run taxpayer-funded CBC, that is not a fireable offence... As you have probably noticed, I loathe the socialist NDP and their attempts to lower Canada's standard of living. However I would never refer to Olivia Chow (Layton's wife) as a Chow Chow dog and post a pic comparing the two. The pic is here and if you want to read what Klander wrote before he killed his blog, the cache is here. This was not some "Joe Blow" who started up a blog, it is a senior executive in the Liberal Party.

Why am I not surprised that TLFB is upset that President Bush is doing everything he can to protect US citizens from terrorist attacks (4 yrs with no attacks)? Answer: TLFB wants to see American citizens killed. No ifs and or buts about it. The bloodlust of the far-left is insatiable.....

You have a helluva nerve. Democrats have a long sordid history of racism, and yet you have the bloody GALL to try and portray the Republicans as racists!! Either you are a blind ideologue, or you are patently dishonest. The Donks refer to Robert Byrd (D-KKK) as "The conscience of the Senate". Pathetic! D The Republicans have a long history of freeing the oppressed, from slavery to freedom, to the Civil Rights in the 60s, from Abe Lincoln to Ronald Reagan liberating 160 million Eastern Europeans,, to President Bush liberating 55 million in Afganistan and Iraq..... Meanwhile, the Dems have done everything in their power to make sure those "brown-skinned Iraqis" are subhuman scumbags who deserve nothing better than to lie under the boot of a massmurdering dictator.... Pure unadultered racism.... :angry:

I've yet to see how criminals or a criminal organization could love the country they frauded. What the Liberals say and what they mean are two very different concepts in this regard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The "honest politician" is obviously an ideologue liberal that believes that raping the taxpayer is A-Ok; after all they're liberal.... But Stephen Harper is "scary" and "angry" and has a "hidden agenda". Canada's liberal MSM does not come out and say what this "hidden agenda" is, but they throw deep and dark hints that it is "American style"... The feckin' nerve of trying to pattern yourself after the the world's #1 economy, #1 culturally, and #1 militaryily. THAT AIN'T LIBERAL!

Suck on this, Newbie... Homeowner shoots scumbag criminal: The bloody nerve!! Cary Dennis was defending his family from a scumbag who was trying to enter his residence. That ain't liberal! My heart *bleeds* for this scumbag...

*looks in the camera and states:* In front of the world: I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Only radical ideologues like Newbie would try to justify a President lying under oath (a felony)--to the American public. Clinton had his law license yanked for his lack of ethics.... A half-decent president (becaue of the Republican controlled Congress), but a failure as a man...

Oh there you go, Sharkman...using facts, data and stats to justify your point. Neocons. Here's the only fact you need to know: NO BLOOD FOR OOIILLLL!!

Here's the latest Canadian poll I could find. It's from July, 2005. It indicates that 55% of Canadians want Bill C-38 to stand and 39% want it repealed. Sure 55% is less than the 69% who favour decriminalization of marijuana but it's further evidence that Stephen Harper is out of step with the majority of Canadians. Here's the July poll: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...tem/itemID/8147 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would like to see this put to a referendum. Would you?