Montgomery Burns

Just another reason why I am feeling proud to be Canadian these days. Link: Great news. These displaced Arabs constantly use aid to finance their terror operations. The majority of these displaced Arabs belong to a death cult. Gosthacked, cut the UN crap (they recently had a map of "Palestine" covering the democratic Israel at a recent UN conference). There is no country called Palestine. Trust me on this.

Newbie: I think you are generalizing. Most areas of Canadian and American cities are safe. Just stay out of the bad areas. I live in the city with the most robberies (per capita) in Canada and the US. When you compare Saskatoon to US cities of the same size, it gets even worse; Saskatoon's robbery rate is almost 4 times higher. I sometimes think that Canada fudges its numbers. There was recently a guy here who got stabbed 7 times, yet was only charged with assault. If stabbing someone 7 times isn't attempted murder, then I don't know what is. I don't know the situation of your niece but I have relatives in the USA. Take the worst case scenario of my US relatives: San Francisco*, in the very expensive Bay Area, in expensive California. My cousin pays $850/mth ($10,200/yr) medical insurance for 3 people; his wife, child, and himself. He says he is still far ahead of what he would have if he was back in Saskatchewan. His salary is much higher, he gets to take home a much larger portion of his paycheque, and his family doesn't have to go on a 18 mth waiting list if they are ill. I have a personal experience of a relative (through marriage) dying while on a Canadian waiting list. * Don't laugh because conservative MB has a relative living in loony San Francisco. :angry:

Lost&outofcontrol: The American public usually prefers to have a bird in hand than two in the bush. See above. Highly misleading. I've seen the official US govt stats of what they consider "poor". Believe me, these people aren't exactly destitute. Far from it. One of the strange things about the USA. And Canada is also 97%. I believe this is more due to the immigration, legal and illegal, policies of both countries. Surely the author isn't suggesting Cuba's education system is equal to America and Canada--just because its literacy rate is the same. A good majority of these likely came from the red states where abortion isn't popular. Not necessarily a bad thing. The age of the teen can make a big difference. My mom was 18 when she got pregnant with me (19 when she conceived) and our family did fine. Eventually worked their way up to upper-middle class. My parents worked hard. They never expected any handouts from the govt. They instilled those values in me. Do you have proof of this? How many people outright own their home? What's the author's point? US home-ownership is at a all-time high (they get to use the mortgage interest to lower their taxable income--which is a great benefit). 34% doesn't sound horrible to me. France has one-fifth the population of the USA. Again, I wonder what the author's point is? I definitely need proof of this. I didn't make up the title; talk to Dennis Prager.

Inconsequential, indeed. Just another example of BD's nuance.

Jerry Seinfeld: They're too busy condemning a couple of abortion-doctor killers and condemning the Crusades from centuries of years ago, the same Crusades that the new Pope says were wars fought with the noble aim of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity. Link A good book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and The Crusades)

The MSM has moved on from Harper's morale-boosting leadership-showing trip to Afghanistan to anothet more important story. Harper is now supposed to be a role model for our youth and he should lose weight. They're concentrating on his "straining" gut and the fact that he had a Root Beer at lunch while the troops had water. It wasn't even a Diet Root Beer! Pathetic. And the MSM wonders why their readership/viewership continues to fall...

A great article. Dennis Prager...telling it like it is! It's true. Admit it.

Argus: That sounds familiar. Hmmm... MSM host (with big smile on face): "Today's guest is Republican maverick Sen. John McCain."

Lost&outofcontrol: True. I disagree. Jack Layton is on the record stating that he prefers to be called a socialist rather than a social democrat (I've posted the exact quote on this forum in the past). It's socialists who rail against "for-profit" entities. I don't consider the MSM to be small.

I'm not sure if Harper has any saving graces for me and I did feel sorry for Paul Martin. He took the fall for the sponsorship scandal, but the fact that the CPC just kept harping on it last election, could be one reason why they dropped in the polls and were only able to secure a minority. I realize that there are Conservative posters here, and when I bring up the issue of private healthcare, they immediately come to the PM's defense - not in the fact that he intends to uphold the Canada Health Act - but being loyal supporters, know that he is on their side of the issue; which is the move to private. However, he can't be on both sides. What I've seen with Mr. Harper so far, is that while he preaches ethics and accountability, his track record is anything but beyond reproach. Canadians wanted and deserved better. If this is a political forum, than all views should be welcome. If it is strictly a Stephen Harper fan club, then you're right. I have nothing to contribute. You didn't really answer my question. Is there anything you like about Stephen Harper? No this is not a Stephen Harper fan club, but we do try to weed out the useless and I am just trying to determine if you fit that category! Do you hate Stephen Harper? Is every post by you going to be, Stephen Harper and his ducks in a row trying to tear Canada apart, bringing in back street abortions, terrorizing the gay community, putting the nasty Bible back into schools, ruining healthcare, childcare and everything else??? You really seem to be one track minded. Actually she said she wasn't sure if he had any saving graces, which is an answer for you. Your post is one big abusive rant. Does critisism of Harper make you emotional? Abusive rant? I think not.

Nocrap: What the...? Canada elected Harper. You said something similar the other day; just because Bush got a majority of the popular vote, it didn't mean that he was a legitimate president. Your justification for this claim was that the entire voting-age public did not cast a ballot. Get real! It's a legitimate election (you are not forced to vote) and Harper won, as did Bush who captured the majority vote in the nation. Harper has been doing a fine job. I'm feeling proud to be Canadian again. Bloated unionized public-sector national daycare program: Gone. Kyoto Accord: Gone. Things are looking good.

Not to be picky, but this should be in the International Forum. It has nothing to do with Canada.

Betsy: I agree. I saw Bush being interviewed today and he said that sometimes you have to stick with what you feel is best and to heck with the polls. You or I could be a popular leader if we governed according to the latest polls and focus group results. Clinton did that and what is his legacy? Harper's been doing a great job so far and I haven't been this optimistic about Canada's future since the Free Trade Agreement was signed.

It's astonishing; it's bizarre; it's 1984-ish. Oh brother.

August1991: No, you are right. In general, your first 2 sentences summed up what unites the right in Canada. I'd maybe add that the right: 1) generally sees the value of having a credible military--to deter its outer enemies. 2) generally believes in strong law enforcement--to deter its inner enemies. 3) generally believe in protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty--unlike a certain other ideology that believes the opposite.

Geoffrey: I strongly disagree. Wal Mart creates tons of jobs and helps everyone. Low-income people get to stretch their dollar, and middle/high-come people will likely direct the money they save somewhere else--which keeps the economy chugging along. And that's A Good Thing™.

I try to read their website, but it is very very hard on the eyes. And I do not have cable TV. It's different. Not just because it leans to the right. It's different in other ways. Cool graphics. Seems faster-paced. The best looking women in news. Pro-USA in the war. Gives airtime for interviews with parents of troops who support the war--a rarity in the rest of the MSM. Lets the Bush administration give its side of the story during the latest "controversy". Neil Cavuto and Bill O'Reilly allow themselves to be insulted by some of the viewer mail they get. A couple of weeks ago, an email from a progressive liberal called O'Reilly's show The Fascist (instead of O'Reilly) Factor. Fox News shines a light on the ugly side of the left--again a rarity in the rest of the MSM. When they go to a live report, there is a tiny US flag waving in the top LH corner, which makes many on the left seethe. Their actual news isn't much different than the other channels (a lot comes from the news services--AP, Reuters, etc), but it tends to be more balanced. They show both sides more often than the rest of the MSM. There are more rightwing hosts/anchors than leftwing hosts/anchors, but their panels are almost always evenly balanced. Their hosts/anchors/pundits aren't afraid to go one-on-one with anyone. You see Democrats losing their cool because they are not used to being challenged by the media. You see Democrats being embarrassed. Some are scared to go on the FNC. O'Reilly has been calling out Howard Dean for months and Alec Baldwin won't go on Hannity's radio show. It's not only different, but very good and entertaining. Nowhere on network/cable TV do you get such a diversity of opinion as on the FNC. It's easy to see why it is so wildly successful in the US. It.is.just.different.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_11-20-02.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021016-1.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030306-8.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030308-1.html Well, that took five minutes. Note the last two were shortly after his coniving with Tony Blair to go to war regardless of any event. If I included every time Ari and Scott (speaking for the President) and Colin et al said war was a "last resort", it would be a much longer list. Get real Jerry. Of course they would keep an open door (for diplomatic and political reasons), but it was clear to me that if Saddam didn't come clean or leave the country (as Bush said 48 hrs before the liberation began), that war was going to continue against Iraq (the 1991 war resulted in a ceasefire only). Do you think that after Bush was given authorization "to use force" (code for war) in October 16/2002, doubled the amount of troops in Kuwait, doubled the amount of military equipment, that he was just trying to bluff Saddam? Have you never heard of the Bush Doctrine? How could you possibly be shocked to hear that a confidential memo from January 31/03 states that Bush was willing to go to war against Saddam without the UN's approval?! Congress - the elected representatives of the American republic - are in charge of the US military, not the UN. Russia supplied Iraq with 57% of its arms. France supplied Iraq with 13% of its arms and had built Saddam a nuclear reactor. China supplied Iraq with 12% of its arms. The Top 3 arms sellers to Iraq comprised 82% of its military equipment (Czechoslovakia was 4th at 7%). These 3 countries are on the Security Council and can block the USA. Saddam owed these countries billions of dollars. France and Russia had large oil deals with Saddam. There was no doubt in my mind that the US was bent on dealing with Saddam, one way or another. The 2002 Iraq Resolution made that clear.

Why is that?? OK he was choosen by the democraticly elected ruling party. But that is besides the point, I recall how upset the WhiteHouse was when Jafaari was elected. They wanted Allawi as PM. But I guess you can't have it your way all the time. I'm sure it was an honest mistake on GH's part when he "forgot" to include this from his link: I know it was a honest mistake because leftists always give the USA the benefit of the doubt. Right?

Warwick Green: Of course it is equitable, silly. Why don't you come right and say it? Even though the top 10% pays 54% of the taxes, versus the bottom 10% paying only 4.4%, you want to widen the gap. That's socialism and it doesn't work. Look at Europe's economic stagnation, then look at the USA's roaring economy. You should remember that the rich pay most of the taxes and if you gouge them too much, we have a close neighbor that offers low tax rates. Haven't you heard the Europeans complaining about their brain-drain to the USA?

Evidently, by your reply, you thought that Harper was wrong to say this, but that he "has to" so he wouldn't get labelled by the press. IOW, he made a comment that was politically expedient, as was Martin, however wrong either of these guys may have been. So, yes, I called it "politics". But that is not the point here. You said that I, and people like me, displayed "outrage" I'm calling you on that. Show me where I displayed outrage, or retract your comment. I'll be waiting. Although I still think it is unfair to compare the insults of Liberal Party MPs to insults from political pundits, I was unfair when I said you were "outraged". I had a hyperbole hiccup. Thus I retract my comment.

You scored -1 on the Moral Order axis and -6 on the Moral Rules axis. Matches The following items best match your score: System: Liberalism Variation: Economic Liberalism Ideologies: Progressive NeoLiberalism US Parties: No match. Presidents: Ronald Reagan (86.74%) 2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (80.24%), George W. Bush (73.12%), Ralph Nader (61.98%) A lot of typos on that site...

Wow, Argus singlehandedly whupped the pacifists on this thread. Post #2 was an A++. Army Guy: So true. These thugs see appeasement as a sign of weakness; they only understand brute force. Look at Neville Chamberlain. He gave Hitler the Sudetenland (Sept 29, 1938 Munich Agreement) because Hitler promised not to make any further territorial demands in Europe. A year later, Europe exploded--again. Iran wasn't too worried about Jimmy Carter but Reagan was another matter. Uday Hussein's bodyguard stated that Uday told him (I'm paraphrasing), "I was never worried much about Clinton, but I think that Bush is serious."

Newsmax edited it down to 45 seconds? They must have picked off just the parts where Hannity got good licks in. The whole thing is actually over 10 minutes. Listen here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/27.html#a7685 I posted the first 30 seconds or so. It took me about 1:15 to read it the whole exchange. Although they both went overboard, Baldwin threw the first cheap shot. And when he is going to make good on his promise to move to Canada when Bush won? Btw, thanks for the link. I listened to the whole thing. Baldwin made a fool out of himself. Even the host was wondering why he wouldn't go on one of the highest rated radio shows. He's chicken to go on Hannity's radio show.

I don't recall Bush telling the American people that war was a last resort. To me, it looked like there was no doubt that the US was going to overthrow Saddam. The Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (October 2002) clearly stated that if Saddam did not abide by the UN resolutions, the President had the authorization to use military force against Iraq. Saddam was defiant to the end. Game over. I realize that Colin Powell went back to the UN one more time, but Bush did that as a favor to Tony Blair, whose Labor Party was pressuring him to try the UN one more time. Unless Saddam capitulated, I was always under the impression that war was inevitable--especially after the devasting 9-11 attacks. The Bush Doctrine made it clear to me that Bush meant business.