Montgomery Burns

This persecution complex you have is a wonder to behold. You dig up a bunch of postings from crackpots on the internet and try to claim that it is some how typical of anyone who disagrees with your views. Extremist crackpots exist on both sides of the spectrum. I am sure Belinda got similar letters and e-mails when she switched to the Liberals. The difference is: she did not feel she had to post them on the internet in order to get sympathy from her addled followers.I suspect Michelle is deliberately manipulating her readers by posting these kinds of things. She thinks by playing the 'victim' card she can attract more loyal readers. Michelle Malkin gets tons of these types of emails. I've linked to this subject previously on MLW. That is why she doesn't allow comments on her web site. Seriously. How many emails do you think Belinda Stronach got calling her a c*nt? Few hate like a progressive liberal. They are an intolerant lot; worse (because of their potty mouthes and their penchant for pieing conservative speakers) than the religious right.

I thought it was kinda mean-spirited, from what I could make out (it kept on cutting in and out). I heard the phrase "right to choose"; that's not one of my favorite terms. He seemed to be talking about sex with no responsibility, even if you create a child. Oopsie. Oh well, at least the female has the right to choose. Then right after that, he talked about rightwing hypocrisy! Ann Coulter is right. Many liberals don't have morals but then they mock others who don't meet the standards that they simply renounce. Maybe it's just me, but I was kinda disappointed. I thought it would be funnier. ---- Now it is my turn. This has to be one of the funniest videos I've ever seen. It's this middle-aged white guy "rapping" about how the Republicans hacked the voting machines and stole the 2004 election. This guy's facial expressions are priceless! The video is here. WARNING: Spew alert! I had tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. He really kicks it in at the 1:15 mark (it's only a 2:20 minute video)

The progressive liberals are on Michelle Malkin's case again. The invaluable Ms Malkin had the unmitigated temerity to "link[ing] to a Students Against War press release bragging about booting military recruiters off campus and for re-posting publicly available contact info for the SAW press machine". Let's take a look at some of the hate mail that Ms Malkin got from SAW and friends: Poor Michelle. She is constantly subjected to racist and venomous comments from "the compassionate and tolerant progressives in the reality-based community". And yet the idiots continue to send her hate mail even though it clearly states on her contact page: "All e-mail is subject to print, including your name. If you don't want me to publish your e-mail, or if you would like to remain anonymous, just let me know." P.S - I was the one who bleeped the c*nt word. I'm no shrinking violet, and the ladies on this forum don't appear to be either, but that is a word I find offensive and should never be said in the company of females--so I bleeped it.

A very interesting article, related to this topic, by conservative pundit Paul Jackson: I actually warned Manning, Day and Harper to stay away from the CBC, Star and Globe and every other media outfit of a Lib-Left bent.

Nocrap, I don't mean to be finicky, but why is this topic in the provincial politics section? I understand some topics can be difficult to decide what part of the forum they should be in...but this looks like it should be in the federal politics section.

Alec Baldwin offers some compassionate commentary, liberal style! Slam two of the most credible Democrats around. Well, at least he is not a hatemonger like Ann Coulter. Then Baldwin ends it with a touch of patriotism: Oh brother! As for Black Dog's laughable claim that Alec Baldwin does not have influence in the Democrat Party...who is this person standing beside him? That looks like...it is it is....Bill Clinton!

Question: Has Jack Murtha gone off the deep end? The reason I ask is that I saw him on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows (I forget which one) a few weeks ago where he made outrageous comments and, of course, the host refused to challenge his outlandish claims. You can bet he would've been challenged if he had spewed such idiocy on the Fox News Channel (which is why the left hates the FNC so much). Then on April 8, 2006, Murtha offered up this bizarre gem regarding the US troops in Iraq: Answer: Yes, yes he has gone off the deep end. Perhaps he should hook up with Cindy Sheehan. They'd make a good pair.

Gerryhatrick: It appears that your source is sleeping and is unaware the editorial is correct, and Joe Wilson is a big liar, since the WaPo reported this a long time ago, way back on July 10, 2004, buried on page A9. Indeed, just 2 days ago, Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman were taken to task for lying to their WaPo readers with their front page fallacy: Perhaps Gerry and his source also slept through that month.

I'll give progressive icon Ward Churchill credit for one thing; he had the guts to show up and face Sean Hannity, unlike Alec "I'm a gonna move to Canada if Bush wins" Baldwin. Or Howard Dean for that matter, who still ignores O'Reilly's calls for him to appear on the No-Spin Zone. He's the head of the DNC and he refuses to appear on the #1 rated cable news show on TV.

The WaPo isn't liberal? This must've been the first time that Gerry ever read their paper. And Greg Palast? GREG PALAST?! Cuckoo cuckoo. Tell me something. Is Mr Palast still working on his "Bush stole the 2004 election" conspiracy theory?

It may be legal but doesn't it scare you that it is? Don't you think it's wrong for a government to have that much power? Only is someone like Clinton or Carter is in power. Why do you not want the US to eavesdrop on terrorists? Why do you want terrorists to have so much power? Do you have an agenda?

Blah blah blah. You've nothing to say, so why waste this board's time with your inanities? The article is wrong. At no point did any of the judges say the president "did not act illegally" or that he acted "within the law" when he authorized the NSA warrantless surveillance program. Read the transcript of the testimony: The judges' statements are universally in favour of judicial oversight of executive power. Judge Robertson: Judge Brotman: Judge Stafford: Judge Kornblum: The Moony Times is worse than "Murdock". I apologize for the fact that your brain cannot handle the incedibly simple fact that U.S. law prohibits warrantless spying on U.S. persons. But it's not spin. That's rich: you of all people using the MSM's coverage to defend your arguments. Feel the hypocricy! Edit: Same story, different interpretation Blah blah blah. One can always predict BD's talking points. Bush lied. The Mooney Times. Faux News. It depends on what your definition of is/illegal is. The Iraqis are subhuman; the Afghanis are subhumans. And BD proves his point by dropping a link to the reprehensible NY Times. He promised to leave this board and take his ball and go home (when Iraqi document after Iraqi document disproved his outlandish claim that Saddam had no ties to terrorists whatsoever) but he must be a masochist as he still posts here and embarrasses himself day after day after day. Ah well. You know what they say; progressive liberals have no shame.

Geoffrey: Actually the hidden FST/MST was 13.5% but it originally started at 9%. Being a hidden tax, people bitched a bit when it was raised but they quickly forgot about it. There is little chance of that happening if the govt wanted to raise the GST. All my prices went down with the implementation of the GST and NAFTA. I didn't hear any of my customers complain. I was paying between 9% and 18% duty on the items I imported from the US. With the lower prices I can now offer (now that the CDN dollar isn't at $0.65) my customers better prices and it forces my Canadian competitors to become more effective and efficient...which helps all of us consumers. For example, an item that costed me $100 (pre NAFTA and GST): $100 + $18 duty + $13.50 MST/FST equals $131.50 cost...before I even add my mark-up. Say I add on 50% to my $100 cost (before duty and MST/FST). That means I sold my product for $181.50 plus PST. Today I sell that same item for $150 + 7% GST for a total of $160.50 plus PST (however GST is refundable for businesses; MST/FST was not refundable). Ergo, it really costs my customers a total of $150 plus PST $160.50 today (PST included) versus $194.21 yesteryear (PST included). Did I mention my customers are content? Best damn thing Mulroney ever did. Lower prices is a good thing--which is why Walmart is so wildly popular. When you save money somewhere, what do you usually do? You spend it elsewhere. And where do you usually spend it? At other businesses...which creates a cycle of extra money circulating....which makes the economy continue to roll. I believe that Reagan and Dubya proved this with their lower taxation doctrines.

First, I am not surprised that Black Dog has brought out his "dissent is patriotic" mantra; the left has no shame. Second, there were 24 Canadians killed on 9-11. Third, it is about time that Canada helped the US considering that the US has had to come in and mop up Canada's previous messes--repeatedly. Fourth, Canada's leftwingers (mostly NDPers) should be ashamed of themselves for showing weakness to the Taliban. Fifth, Canada's liberal MSM should be ashamed of themselves for their inability to write an article about Afghanistan without the phrase "Canada's growing casualties". What's it been? 13 soldiers have died in 4 years in Afghanistan? God Bless these brave men and women, but cripes...are we really that wimpy? The MSM even provided coverage of the funeral for the 2 soldiers who died in a traffic accident in Afghanistan. If this traffic accident had happened in Canada, the MSM wouldn't have covered it. Sixth, the Canadian public demands that Jack Layton and the MSM address this statement by the Taliban. Out yourselves to the world and show what a bunch of terror-supporting, liberty-hating backstabbers you are. Seventh, any person (I'm talking to you BD) who equates the USSR's difficulties with Afghanistan is completely clueless about history. The US covertly (read the book about Texas Democrat Charlie Wilson--a good Democrat) aided the Afghanis (and some Taliban) against the USSR as revenge for Vietnam. The Taliban have no super power backing them these days. Canada shamelessly took Saddam's blood money in lieu of enforcing the ceasefire he signed with the US. Let's not let this country become a laughing stock again. Let our troops fight the Taliban and us true-blue Canadians will fight the fifth columnists in Canada (the MSM and the NDP--and some liberals).

Liberal Washington Post editorial: Bush was right to leak and Joe Wilson is a liar . Ouch! That's gotta hurt when even the liberal WaPo sides with Bush. Another leftist meme is seen swirling down the toilet.

UK's Telegraph: Well that sucks! :angry: How is Canada's left going to look down their noses at those stupid Americans if we ignore Kyoto like they did? As the Toronto Star radical Linda McQuaig pointed out last December, "Of course, Martin would have more credibility if Canada's own record on climate change weren't so bad [compared to the US]. We've failed drastically in cutting our own emissions. Still, we did sign Kyoto!"

More news that the MSM will ignore: Top secret Iraqi memo calls for suicide attacks against American interests: Hmm. A brigadier general in the Iraqi Air Force wrote this pre-9-11. And there was the Boeing 707 used at Saddam's Salmon Pak terrorist training camp... This is similar to what Russia's Vladmir Putin said: Wow. How is the left going to spin this? It is an article of faith on their side that Saddam has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, let alone that he was a threat to America. Let's guess which excuse they use. 1) The memo has bad grammar so it is not credible? 2) There is a mispelling in the memo so it is not credible? 3) The brigadier general is a Zionist Joooo? 4) Faux News reported this? 5) The NY Post (which is owned by Rupert Murdoch of Faux News) reported this? 6) The MSM is rightwing and that's why they are ignoring this memo? Oh wait. That doesn't make sense. Dang! It's confusing being a leftwinger. 7) Halliburton forged this memo so they could continue to make their monstrous 3% gross profit? 8) The Super-Duper Evil Genius Dark Lord (Karl Rove) forged this memo? 9) It depends on what your definition of "American interests" is? 10) Just because they claimed to want to recruit suicide bombers in a top secret memo, it does not constitute proof? Uncle Saddam always was an amiable jokester! You can add any excuses I missed to this list. P.S. -- The perfect gift for your progressive liberal friends; guaranteed to make their heads explode.

See this is the problem, and you seem to know it Monty, but won't own up to it. The US sells them the stuff, then they bitch that it could be used against them. This is the case with Iraq, and Iran, alot of tech came from the US. Alot of it legaly (well legal in the US view, but now a hypocritical 180 degrees) OMG NORTH KOREA HAS NUKES, and they have the intention of using them. INVADE INVADE!!!. But do not worry, we already have 2/3'd of the Axis Of EVIL under control now. Actually, I believe that the problem is that you won't admit it, Gosthacked. I have posted on this forum numerous times the link from SIPRI (that Swedish Peace organization) that shows that 1% of Iraq's arms came from the USA. Numerous times I have asked liberals to name just one piece of equipment in the Iraq military that is US-made. I have not come across one who could answer this question, even though there must be something as they did sell him 1%. 57% came from the USSR, 13% from France, and 12% came from China. That's a total of 82% of its arms supplied by the top 3 countries, who just happened to on the UN Security Council and were owed billions by Saddam....and (Surprise!) voted against the USA, thus giving the left its "illegal" war mantra. As for NK, I can't help it if Clinton's presidency was the most scandalous of the 20th century. As for Iran, I'll turn this over to the ever quotable Ann Coulter: Iran-Contra was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-Communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the President's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats." You know she's right.

This must've made Gerry's weekend; a totalitarian dictator threatening to attack the USA. I can just imagine Gerry gleefully dancing when he read this article. Perhaps NK will use the nukes that Clinton gave them.

Thanks, but I don't run your links. Oh, and btw, I told you to PM me the location of the topic/post you were wanting a response to. Posting it here is trolling. Therefore, you can continue to b#tch and complain about not getting an answer. Hope you enjoyed that song. It's sure to be a smash hit. Btw, I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the location of the topic/post and response. I don't take you too seriously as it is easy to see you are inflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

I just have to reply to this (first ever?) BD thread. It's only a poll but I am not surprised to see the results. Harper has been doing a good job. It's been a while but I am feeling proud to be Canadian these days: A true commitment to spreading freedom and liberty The first country (after Israel) to reject sending money to Hamas and the PA Stopping taxpayer funding to parasitical leftwing global warming zealots

Glad to see you finally get it. I see these leftwing talking points every day I log on to my computer. I'm two steps ahead of y'all.

I doubt that he was talking about himself and Dick Cheney; he meant the people who do not have the constitutional authority. Only if your MO is "gotcha" when assessing the Bush administration. If they had the constitutional authority to do so...yes!

I hate to rain on the parade of some people here, but presidents and VPs can declassify information based on their own good (or bad) judgment. That is a privilege and responsibility of the office. Their authority is near absolute, whether you like it or not. Circulating unclassified information isn’t a crime, no matter the technique used. The information can be disseminated at a press conference, in a press release, in a speech, or yes!-– via leak.

Uh oh, there's more: It's legal No wonder Bush has been calling out the Democrats. No wonder this story has dropped off the MSM radar. Yet another Bush "scandal" gets flushed down the loo...