Montgomery Burns

No, they have minimized the destruction. They refuse to even show the film of people diving out of the towers to their death. If they did show this, it would arouse the American public and that would help President Bush - and the media is dominated by liberals so they do everything possible to thwart support for President Bush. The media is not a boon to the present US government. Now when Clinton was in power, it was a different story.

Remember when former Senator Bob Kerrey said that Bill Clinton was an "unusually good liar - unusually good"? Well, surely by now Democrats realize that John Kerry is an unusually bad candidate – unusually bad. Just consider: Kerry's never said why he should be president, other than to fulfill a lifelong dream. He inappropriately boasts of his war heroism, when experience tells us that authentic heroes rarely brag about their heroism. The SBVFT have deeply discredited numerous parts of his Vietnam record, but Kerry hasn't even attempted a factual rebuttal to any of the charges. He has been forced to admit – despite testifying that the memory was "seared, seared in me" – that he wasn't in Cambodia on Xmas 1968 at the orders of Richard Nixon, who wasn't yet president. He's had to virtually admit that no hostile fire accompanied his 1st Purple Heart incident, meaning he didn't deserve that award. He has personally attacked Bush's National Guard service and Cheney's "5 deferments" and contrasted it with his volunteering for 2 tours of duty in Vietnam. But he hasn't answered John O'Neill's charge that his first tour was 100 miles off the shore of Vietnam and he didn't volunteer for service until he was about to be drafted. Besides, who in their right mind would believe that Kerry would volunteer to risk his life in a war he adamantly opposed? He either perjured himself in his antiwar testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in admitting to committing atrocities or he actually committed those atrocities. Which is worse? POWs have said their communist captors used his slander of American troops against them. He was present at a meeting of the VVAW where assassinations of public officials were discussed. Whether or not he voted against them or left the meeting, he has never explained why he associated with such a group of sadistic thugs. He admitted to being in Paris and having "talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." Under whose authority? For what possibly legitimate purpose? He castigates Bush – preposterously – for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq. But he's never explained how he would be qualified to plan for any peace, given his disastrous predictions of no bloodbath or refugee problem upon US withdrawal from Vietnam. I guess it is a soooper sekrit plan. He was rated the most liberal senator in 2003 by the nonpartisan National Journal. And that doesn't even begin to tell the story of his egregiously anti-defense and anti-intelligence record for his entire 20 years in the Senate. He has failed to denounce Michael Moore's deceits, but he demands that Bush denounce the Swiftees' truths. He insists that Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror yet claims that the US has lost 1,000 people in the WoT. He hasn't explained how his Silver Star citation was signed by Navy Secretary John Lehman years after the fact when Lehman denies signing it. He also hasn't explained how a "combat V" was affixed to the citation when such designations never accompany a Silver Star. Where's Dan Rather? He refuses to release all his military and medical records and hides behind his biographer Brinkley, who contradicts him, saying Kerry alone possesses authority over his records. He brutalized Cheney for saying America would be safer under Bush-Cheney but in the next breath said he would make America safer. He swears he voted for the Iraq war resolution because Bush promised he'd attack only as a last resort. Since there were no such conditions in the resolution and no one else corroborates his claim, are we to assume that Bush gave Kerry these assurances confidentially based on their close friendship? He says he won't delegate US national security to other nations but never stops complaining, essentially, about Bush's failure to delegate US national security to other nations. He claimed that foreign leaders prefer him for president. What was he doing talking to them, under whose authority and about what? He ducked the press for 6 weeks after excoriating President Bush for hiding from the press. He won't answer hypotheticals about what he'd do on fundamental issues as president. He says he has a plan to withdraw troops, but when pressed admits he won't know enough about the conditions on the ground until he's president. He admitted that life begins at conception, but is pro-abortion anyway. He has made incredibly destructive and bogus claims about GOP plans to disenfranchise a million black voters. Are you dizzy yet? This guy is more embarrassing and pathetic than Jean Chretien.

Maplesyrup wrote: Please give us a spew alert the next time you post something so funny. I spewed my drink all over my monitor when I read your post. I take it from your nick that you are Canadian. No leftwing media outlets in Canada? What do you consider the state-run CBC, CTV and Global (owned by the liberal Asper family)? With the exception of the National Post, there are no major conservative media outlets in Canada. At least the US govt thinks their citizens are adult enough to watch Fox News Channel. The unelected liberal hacks at the CRTC have banned Fox News in Canada. Ahh, you gotta love the Nanny State that they are forcing Canada to become. You sound like one of those leftwing extremists who think the Liberal Party is rightwing, the Conservative Party is extreme rightwing, and the NDP is slightly left of centre.

Black Dog links to The Nation. Now there is a credible source. It's nothing but a Bush-bashing site. It even has a pic of the President as Alfred E. Neuman on its site. Like August 1991's thread said...why does the Left hate so much? The Nation has Eric Alterman writing on their site. This is the same guy who wrote a book claiming that the media is not dominated by liberals, but by conservatives. I'm sure it was in the comedy section or the fiction section of the bookstores. Weren't you the guy who link to Indymedia the other day?

Not only that, but he is foolish. He should know better to take his 3 year old daughter to watch Edwards at the airport. How DARE he have his daughter hold up a provocative hate-inspiring Bush/Cheney '04 sign? What Black Dog is essentially saying is that it is too dangerous to bring your 3 y/o daughter to a Kerry/Edwards rally. :angry: Maplesyrup said: "At one time the US backed the right wing regime of Hussein". Good grief. Rightwingers like smaller govt. The govt (Saddam) controlled everything in Iraq. Saddam was a leftwinger...a socialist. Yeesh!

And I'm positive that Bush is going to kick Kerry's tail on November 2. Good grief. They have had record GDP growth and the unemployment rate just dropped to 5.4% last month. You sound as out of touch as Kerry does. That war was won a long time ago. Most of the country is peacful and bustling with activity and business. I read Iraqi weblogs. You must get your info from the CBC. And you base this on what? Just because that Democrat Senator (forget his name) tabled some kind of bill for a draft, I can't see it passing. Classic Leftist response. Bush is stooopid (exept when he is an evil neocon genius trying to take over the world). Reagan was stoooopid (except he is considered one of the greater Presidents of all time). Only the liberal elitists can guide the stooooopid peons who make up the population. Obviously he knows they are 2 different people as both were involved in terrorism and Clinton appointed federal judge Harold Baer last year awarded a $104 million judgement in a lawsuit brought against the state of Iraq for being involved in 9/11. Because we all know that OBL, Saddam, Ararat, the Talibunnies, and the Mad Mullahs from Iran are peaceful gentle people! Then Kerry's speech writer must be a 2 year old. All Hat, No Cattle? How about All (magic) Hat, No Cambodia. Did you see that cheesy salute he gave at the DNC? Or the "I was born in the West Wing" joke? Sounds like he thinks he is entitled to be Prez. And it was surreal seeing a guy talk for 26 seconds (out of 55 minutes) about his 19 years in the Senate - and probably talk for 26 minutes about his 4 months on a Swift Boat in Vietnam 35 years ago. If only Kerry had a dollar for every time he mentioned Vietnam...oh wait. He does. Yeah, he is no great orator, but actions speak louder than words. Perhaps you like Kerry's "nuance" more (read: flipflops). Yes, I answered your troll post. But I didn't bother answering your other statements as they are simply childish insults. Let me take a wild guess. You get your info about Bush from smirkingchimp.com.

Just look at the issues that the Canadian media considered "important" in the federal election, and which issues they considered unimportant. Smaller govt? Lower taxes? Overhauling the embarrassing inept socialized healthcare system? The unemployment rate being 2% higher than America's? The fact that Al Qaeda has put Canada #5 on their hitlist? The woefully underfunded military? Security for our country? Asking Martin why he called an early election (before the new Conservative Party could mount their platform) before promising to get to the bottom of Adscam - like he promised he would? Unimportant Important? Gay marriage and infantcide...or as the media calls it - abortion. Now maybe it is just me (but I know it isn't), but gay marriage and infantcide/abortion are lower on my list of priorities from a govt than the above issues I listed.

Eureka: I don't need an assault rifle. I have enough ammo. After listening to 4 years of Bush=Hitler tripe for 4 years, I am quite fed up with many on the Left. However, there are some that do debate reasonably. And what major Canadian outlets lean to the Right? The National Post is the only one I can think of. You seem to be upset about "corporate propaganda", but I mean social issues. These corporations hire people and drive much of the economy. The government does NOT. I noticed you left yourself an out by saying "most" Canadian outlets are "fairly" balanced. I suspect you were not talking about the state-run CBC as they are very leftwing. I rarely watch their news anymore, so tired of them of their bias. When Clinton was Prez, they weren't bad, but now that there is a conserviative Prez, they just bash bash bash. They are like a Al Jazeera-lite. I just can't understand why they bash a thriving democracy like the USA - a country that is responsible for 85% of the trade from Canada. I sure as hell wouldn't constantly bash a customer who provided me with 85% of my business. Well, actually I can understand it...but I won't go there. Oh, and thanks for bringing up Hitler. He was a lefty; a socialist, just like Mussolini was.

If the displaced Arabs from the Palestine region would quit hiding amongst the civilian population, there would be less of this happening. I have seen many many many pictures of this and I have seen a video of these terrorists jumping into an UN ambulance after attacking Israeli soldiers. There is a BIG difference. The Israelis do NOT deliberately target civilians. Their enemies DO. Their goal is to terrorize.

Black Dog posted: Oh? You're telling me that there is a TV News Channel in Canada that does offer a conservative view? It must be a sooper sekrit channel, as I have never seen it. As for your comment about Al Jazeera, I can understand your dismay that Al Jazeera won't be able to easily promote their well-known anti-Jewish views - and that angers many on the Left. It is well known that the Left hates Israel - the only democratic country in the Middle East, and gleefully takes the side of the death cult of displaced Arabs from the Palestine region. The Left does not like democracies, and still hates Reagan with a passion these days for committing the unforgivable sin - helping the downfall and breakup of the USSR. How the left loves its totalitarian dictators (Castro, Saddam, Arafat, etc). Hell, just try and call a Palestinian Arab a terrorist after they blow up a busload of women and children on the CBC forums. The word terrorist will be deleted by the moderators. You have to call them militants, insurgents, hostage-takers or my personal favorite - "activists". Leftists...so morally bankrupt. And what is the wildly liberal New York Times' slogan? It is not the "fair and balanced" slogan that bothers you. It is the fact that Fox News acts as a check against the lies of the liberal media. You don't like the fact that they caught The Associated Press making up that story about boos at that Bush rally when Bush wished Clinton luck on his heart surgery. No liberal news station or paper reported that that was a lie, but Fox did. THAT is what bothers you. I won't even bring up the forged CBS documents as they were so obviously phony, that even the liberal media was forced to question CBS - AFTER conservative bloggers broke the story and it was broadcast on Fox News.

The Terrible Sweal Posted on Sep 13 2004, 11:28 AM I was not talking about a court of law, although one could think that, what with the 16 Dems in the House of Representatives threatening legislation against Rupert Murdoch and Fox News. When you want to debate the Left's attempts to censor other views, eg. the Dems threatening TV stations with legal action for running the Swift Boat ads and threatening bookstores with legal action for stocking Unfit For Command, let me know. caesar Posted on Sep 12 2004, 09:55 PM First, Bill O'Reilly does not report the news. He is an opinionist as he has said many many times. Second, I share your outrage, just as I am sure you share my outrage when Chris Matthews (on Hardball) refused to let John O'Neill finish any of his sentences and also when Chris Matthews threw the beautiful and talented Michelle Malkin off his show. Right? And then there was James Carville's disgraceful performance on CNN's Crossfire, when he pounded his fist on the desk while screaming at John O'Neill, and then turned his back on him for the rest of the "interview". Btw, CNN's Carville and Belaga have been hired by the floundering Kerry campaign as advisors, but are still on CNN's Crossfire as political commentators. Conflict of interest? Of course not! The Left has been silent. But if 2 political commentators from Fox News were hired by the Bush campaign and still were allowed to stay on Fox News providing political commentary, the Left would be screaming bloody murder! Black Dog Posted on Sep 13 2004, 12:23 PM Well, when you put ads on your website comparing Bush to Hitler, it is difficult to take your concerns about Fox News seriously. However I got a chuckle when I read Moveon.org's call to their supporters and read this: "Let's take back OUR media". Truer words were never spoken. Btw, I got a good laugh at this sentence from that Bush-bashing site you linked to: "So why did AlterNet go out on this limb? Mainly, because we were angry. Really angry" That pretty well sums up the Left; anger. Good grief. Get your facts straight. Fox News IS banned in Canada. Fox News Channel is banned in Canada by the leftwing zealots and Liberal government appointees who regulate what Canadians are allowed to watch using one of their favorite political tools, the state-run CRTC. The CRTC is stacked with liberals. Most of the Canadian political institutions that control Canadian lives - what they see, how they think, how they're taught - are stacked by liberals. It may come as a surprise to Canadians that the TV they watch is only what the CRTC decides they will watch. It is not a free market. It is a fully state-regulated market. Unelected Canadian government bureaucrats decide what the people will see on TV, and what they will not be allowed to see. In response to their customers' demands, cable operators in Canada have tried unsuccessfully to be "allowed" to offer Fox News to subscribers for a fee. But they have been refused. Cable companies cannot satisfy their customers' demand even by offering it to them for a fee. Fox News is seen by the leftwing liberals in the CRTC as "rightwing", and therefore a threat to the hitherto successful Liberal Party commercial otherwise known as the state-run taxpayer-funded media giant CBC, which regularly churns out pro-liberal, anti-American rhetoric, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. The hacks and Liberal Party supporters in the CRTC and the CBC feel threatened by conservative-thinking Canadians because they feel their jobs would be on the line if Canadians voted with common sense for a party that didn't believe quite so much in social engineering. CNN, founded by Ted Turner who was formerly married to Jane Fonda the militant feminist and extreme leftwing liberal heroine, is decidedly not rightwing but is perfectly acceptable, as is BBC news, which is decidedly not rightwing to put it mildly. The CBC is leftwing to put it even more mildly. To put it less mildly, it is a leftwing joke. But because Fox News is rightwing to their way of thinking, Fox News is banned in Canada. In a free market where Americans can switch to any channel they please including CNN and the BBC, Fox News is America's most popular 24-hour news channel nation-wide. It gets higher ratings than CNN (53% higher than CNN). Far more popular than the BBC. Let me reiterate: More Americans watch Fox News Channel than CNN and MSNBC combined in America. So why don't the social engineers in Canada allow Fox News in Canada despite Canadians demanding it? It's no wonder Canadians are so liberal politically. Canadians have been bathed in leftwing liberal rhetoric daily, to the point where they see it as normal. Ask a fish "how's the water?" and the fish will say "what water?" Liberal-speak is churned out by the state-run media giant CBC on TV in many languages (8 aboriginal languages, French, and English) and on many channels, all for free even without cable (well, "free" inasmuch as it is taxpayer funded to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars); and all over the radio, and the internet. The dangerous so-called "rightwing views" as expressed by Fox News are banned. So what do you think Canadians will become over time, but leftwing liberal voters? Most Canadians naturally now see Fox News as rightwing - or even "extreme" rightwing (code for "not liberal"), and so many don't care that Fox News isn't allowed in Canada. Yet they care a great deal when you dare speak up about being anti-abortion, or in favor of sending troops to Iraq, or, God help you, in favor of George Bush or "making a profit". To their credit, the liberal machine has been extremely effective. Of course, to their credit goes a good portion of my income, in order for them to brainwash me and forbid me to watch Fox News Channel. Unfortunately for them, conservatives have common sense. And word leaks out through private, unregulated (at least thus far) internet web sites such as this. Oh and also it's obvious. And it's embarrassing for Canadians. Fox news had an old application approved in 2000 on the basis that it would be supplemented by Canadian content and called "Fox News Channel Canada" - a bid they entered into together with Global Television - but Fox News walked away from that quite wisely, since they weren't about to be manhandled by government bureaucrats from another nation deciding what content is acceptable (it had to have 35% Canadian content, but CNN has no such restrictions) and what isn't, particularly when it's at least partially a "breaking news" channel in a world which pays very little attention to what unelected Canadian government bureaucrats think and how culturally inept they feel Canada is. In the case of MSNBC Canada, viewers complained frequently about the ridiculous manually injected Canadian content into what is an American broadcast news, information, and commentary channel about American things from an American perspective! Shows would be pre-empted and Canadian junk would be inputted in order to meet the CRTC's stupid Canadian content regulations. How ridiculous and provincial. And Soviet. The owner of that MSNBC-Canada license, Rogers, also complained that it was too expensive to operate it that way and would ultimately cease its operation unless it could just broadcast MSNBC straight-up. Also, it is difficult to take you seriously when you link to Indymedia sites. These are the people who "advise" their anarchists on how to cause civil disturbances, and "advise" their readers on how to conduct DOS (Denial of Service) attacks on conservative websites - to shut them down. How tolerant.

The Terrible Sweal Posted on Sep 7 2004, 10:56 AM On the contrary, it is a deliberate attempt to stifle conservative views, just like Moveon.org is trying to do by suing Fox. However, I did agree with one thing Moveon.org when they were trying to rally the Donks. They said, "Let's take back OUR media". Truer words were never spoken. Then we had the 16 Democrats in the House of Representatives who demanded a meeting with Rupert Murdoch because they had "concerns" about Fox News' content. They threatened legislation if he refused to meet with them. And, of course, Fox News is banned in Canada by the non-elected liberal hacks who run the CRTC. But the anti-semitic and anti-American Al Jazeera is welcomed with open arms to Canada. CRTC logic: Fox News gives conservatives a voice - bad. Anti-semitic and anti-American Al Jazeera - good. Extreme leftwing staterun CBC - good Leftwing CTV - good. Leftwing Global - good. takeanumber Posted on Sep 9 2004, 03:24 AM No, it is news. How can you claim that Brit Hume does not report the news? Oh, right...he is conservative. That's BAD. Bill O'Reilly gives opinion. Hannity (a conservative) and Colmes (a liberal) duke it out on The Hannity and Colmes Show. To the Left, that is just not fair! :angry: I'm sure enjoying watching the liberal CBS and Dan Rather implode with those forged documents. It's like watching the Kerry campaign implosion. Or Howard Dean's implosion. They're in full panic mode.

And that article by the Bush-bashing Will Thomas is worthy of any propaganda piece that Michael Moore-on has ever written. Check out the pic of "peaceful" Baghdad while Saddam was in power - at the bottom of the page. Just like Michael Moore. He described Iraq as an oasis of peace and tranquility while Saddam was a puppet President. Thank goodness John McCain called out Moore on his flagrant lie when he called him a disengenous filmmaker at his RNC speech - causing Moore to flee the convention and never come back.

Stevenpfo: Thanks for your great service to the Canadian military. Unlike a certain ex PM and a certain Presidential candidate in the USA, I support the men and women of the military.

August 1991: It is not infringing copyright by posting an article on the Internet. It is done all the time, plus I did give the link. Now, I called it a GOOD opinion report, so what do you think my opinion of it is? What do YOU think of the piece? I posted it here for discussion, both pro and con. The Terrible Sweal: Chanting "Fox News off the air" is not trying to start a boycott; it is a deliberate attempt to stifle free speech. Do you, by chance, work for the CRTC?

September 3, 2004 IT'S enlightening to see just what the hard left's message is in this election. In two words: "Shut up." **Post Removed due to copyright infringment.** Please read the rules and guidelines before posting entire articles.

Bull, unless you are from Quebec. Enforcing a broken ceasefire is illegal? Are you a troll or really that ignorant? The courts say differently. Clinton appointed federal judge Harold Baer awarded two 9/11 familys $104 million in damages last year against the state of Iraq. Don't tell me the CBC didn't report that? I don't think I was ever as embarrassed as a Canadian as when Chretien decided the blood money Chretien's daughter and son-in-law were taking from Saddam was more important than enforcing the broken ceasefire. Shameful. Absolutely shameful. It made Canada look as morally bankrupt as France. :angry: Indeed, besides the $10.1 billion the UN made off the Oil for Food program. Here is the list of the countries, companies and individuals who were taking oil bribes from Saddam. Ironically the anti-democracy loony leftists were correct; IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL!

This is a direct result of leftwing politics. To leftists, "compassion" means giving less productive people the fruits of the efforts of more productive people. But real compassion means enabling less productive people to become more productive themselves. That way, the poor have not only more material things but also more self-respect, as well as more respect from others, and the society as a whole has a higher standard of living and less internal strife.

But, of course, showing civilians being burned to a crisp, being stomped on, and their burnt bodies hung from a bridge is not in bad taste. A leftist telling someone else to take off the tinfoil hat. Funny that! And I don't know how long it is going to take the morons on the left to understand that Saddam was a bad man.

And the immortal question "What do you get when you cross a gigolo with an ambulance chaser?" is finally answered. Aren't Kerry and Edwards are the two most liberal senators? And Edwards hasn't even finished one term as a senator. You think that Tim Russert carved up Edwards last year...wait till Cheney debates him. Poor John Edwards.

The BBC, CBC, Reuters and PBS are some of the most respected news outlets in the world and their integrity is without question?! Are you serious or making a joke?

Odd. I think it is the opposite. It seems like the liberal media doesn't bring up 9/11 enough. I know they have censored any pics of the people who were suffering that day and jumping to their deaths. I suspect the media censors it because the American public might get angered enough to want to crush these insane Islamofascists who want to destroy Western civilization. The liberal media doesn't want that, because they don't want the public to support Bush. A good example is Abu Ghraib. They showed those pics over and over for weeks on end, but when Nick Berg was beheaded, it got about 2 days of coverage. In the media's mind, having panties put on a terrorist's head and having a woman put a leash and collar on them is worse than a innocent civilian being beheaded. :angry: Besides, there are guys out there who pay for women to do that to them.

The real question is: does a handful of 12+ year old shells constitute an "urgent threat"? Bush never said it was urgent. Where did you get that from? He said that they must act before the threat was imminent, i.e don't wait until thousands of more innocents are killed, before acting.

Stop saying bigotted things about women (calling them whores now, are we?), immigrants (especially muslims), francophones, jews and homosexuals, and I won't have to call you a bigot. But when you give me cause to say that you're a bigot, then you're a bigot. And by me refering to you as a bigot isn't bigotry, it's merely pointing out a fact. Every single Conservative here has either posted something bigotted outright, or has used lines of logic which are reminiscent of an intellectual COR-Nazi-Conservative shin-dig. I said I felt responsibility slipping away like panties off a whore. That was not a bigotted statement against women. Would it be bigotry against males if I said I felt responsibility slipping away like a male alcoholic who can't show up for work? I never said anything about immigrants, muslims, francophones, jews or homosexuals. You are a lazy thinker who can't debate sensibly, so you launch ad hominem attacks. You said "every single conservative" has posted something outright bigotted or used lines of logic along nazis. I am a conservative and I have never said anything like that, so grow up!

Harper: 100 Martin: 60 Layton: 50 Duceppe: 20 Pretty well what I expected.