Yukon Jack

I would like to believe that your claim that black Newfoundland dogs and Labrador retrievers are "extremely dangerous" was made in good natured jest.

waldo, I have no pent-up hostility. The only time I swung a fist was when my fist held a hammer, doing volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity. But being a peaceful and content retiree does not preclude opinions and fears based on 73 years of life experience.

All of the above is better than Black Dog. Apologies to all legitimate black dogs.

Kind of like a Grade II dropout rap "artist" would find Placido Domingo boring and no fun and dull. Sorry, Squid, you probably have no idea who Placido Domingo is.

In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States made Roe vs. Wade a law. 50 million babies were legally butchered since then. Some of them may have become potential Einsteins, Mozarts, Shakespeares, Rubens's, or even Obama's. And let us not forget, taxpayers. You know, people to contribute towards the rapidly diminishing fund for Social Security.

Polygamy is THE wedge issue that Muslims can and almost certainly WILL use to hasten their quest to impose Sharia Law on an unsuspecting, or perhaps more correctly, a blind and tolerant North America. Polygamy is OK under Islam. Opposing any aspect of Islam is politically incorrect racism/xenophobia/anti-Islamism. Therefore, opposing polygamy is racist, xenophobic and anti-Islam, which can not be tolerated. Follow the logic. Expect the marriage laws change one more time. Then get the band saws ready to amputate the hand(s) of some hungry bum who stole a loaf of bread.

What Ted Haggard and Larry Craig says does not matter. Ask the person whose opinion DOES matter, the lover of brown sausages, Barney Frank. Or more locally, Scott Bryson or Svend Robinson.

There are times when the numbers of the present are overwhelmed by historical precedence. Kind of like when my brother-in-law asked me for a loan and I replied: Will you pay me back and he said: You know me, to which I replied: That`s why I`m asking you. The history and honesty of the above mentioned loan-defaulting nations is widely and justifiably known. If you put America in their category, it reflects more on your being disinformed and misinformed than mine. Unless you want to persue this further, let us just leave it right there!

Would you please repeat that - or better still, say something comprehensible and meaningful - in ENGLISH?

You ARE right! It is no longer valid to excoriate only European countries for their free-loading, wasteful, criminal, irresponsible and childishly naive approach to finances. It now affects the United States almost as bad, but unlike Europe where the slide is irreversible, America still has a chance with a President other than 0bama. I would be perfectly happy to lose any argument if the national debt was at least reduced, but preferably, eliminated. Until then, though, the sad and horrible example of Europe should be brought to the attention of sadly misguided liberals, such as yourself.

Offending others comes naturally to liberals, in fact condescension and derision towards anyone and everyone who they think is stupid enough to disagree with them, is their life blood, which they must suck away from others, kind of like a vampire. Liberals never offend anyone, they just point out the "stupidity" of others. That - in their minds - is not offensive, it is a valiant effort to lift those others out of their pathetic conservative morass. But when just one of those others dare to question or criticize a liberal or a liberal thought, they swing into high gear of name-calling, they bring out their time-tested race card, gender card, phony class war fare and alleged environmental purity. Give the liberal vampires a sliver of day light and they turn into dust.

This art compares quite favorably to the highest achievement of art by liberals, the "Family Guy".

Yes, we see how successfully the "poor" WAS lifted out of their misery in Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain (notice how the acronym of listing them by the first letter spells "PIGS"?) And is NOT a partisan painting. If any Republican was as obvious in contempt of the Constitution as to declare a "Fundamental Change" to it as 0bama so brazenly declared, the artist would have been just as strong in his condemnation.

Great art! http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379 and by the same artist: http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/page/view_search/353

OK, thanks! Now it is time to edit out ridiculous acronyms like LOL and ROFLMAO, etc. If one is too lazy to say what they want to say, they should not infect public forums with their laziness. That is not saying that acceptable acronyms are not acceptable. Like GM, IBM, NDP etc.

Questions: 1. Does Canada in general and Prime Minister Harper in particular, force other countries to buy our asbestos? 2. Is asbestos a natural resource that Canada has and other countries want? 3. Is it Canada's responsibility to caution the buyers of asbestos that the buyer should be aware? 4. Is it moral to leave several hundred Canadians who are willing to work in an asbestos mine, unemployed? 5. Should Canada also stop exporting oil, lumber, minerals, coal and electricity? 6. Has political correctness finally terminated common sense?

Long, long, long before Osama bin Laden was killed by the Navy Seals, Osama was a totally irrelevant, insignificant, spent force that nobody listened to or respected any more, reduced to being locked up and watching porn made by American liberals, 24/7. So, let the President and his acolytes brag about Osama being dead. Gingrich's three wives and alleged open marriage, Romney's riches and his lack of worrying about the real poor, Santorum's name being besmirched by some liberal yahoo on the internet, will be a spent force by November, but the 9-10% unemployment will NOT be. Gloat while you may.

Since the introduction of The Great Society by Lyndon B. Johnson, in the mid-1960's the poverty rate in the United States went down a measly 6%, with the not so measly amount of 16 TRILLION dollars spent, to date. Look it up. I will not give you computer welfare by providing the link, but if you do diligence, you will find it.

If there were fewer people in power or aspiring for power, who worry about the poor people, there would be significantly fewer poor people. "CARING" or "WORRYING", if you will, in this context is nothing but encouraging laziness and freeloading.

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself. The present situation brings 1980 to mind. Back then, there was a desperate middle class, struggling with high interest rates, high unemployment rates and high inflation. Today, admittedly it's only one out of three. Back then, there was a peanut farmer way over his head. Today there is a community organizer, way over his head. Back then, there was a nuclear scientist/engineer vs. a B-actor. Today there is a former governor vs. a state senator who quit for running for U.S. Senate, who quit that for running for the Presidency, based on nothing but one rousing speech and counting on the guilt feelings of white Americans, who were unable to see that their idol had NOTHING to do with slavery, since he was the son of a recent African immigrant. Back then, the B-actor was denigrated as an "amiable dunce" by the smart people, but was smart enough to ask: Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?. Today, the eventual Republican candidate will surely ask the same question. Back then, there was Iran. The over-his-head peanut farmer failed in his mission to rescue Americans held hostage by Iranians, because his predecessor did not develop methods to deal with situations involving terrorists. Today, there is AlQuaida. Obama was successful killing Osama Bin Laden, because of GWB's foresight and wisdom. Back then, Iran released the hostages as soon as Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. Whose election do you think would compel Iran to curb or stop their nuclear weapons development? The presence of Obama surely seems to make no difference.

After 563 replies to this topic, whose title was, obviously designed and created by a liberal, it is time to ask the question: Why is the Democratic incumbent not any crazier than the Republican contenders?

In my opinion, absolutely no chance. McCain is a person of the past, the representation of a failed past, a symbol of war that America was never meant to win, a fence-sitter, who doesn't realize that sitting on the fence puts slivers in your rear end, a person that though was never qualified to be President, would not shy away, as Vice President to do anything and everything TO become President. There was a Lyndon B. Johnson already.

A cruise nothing but an expensive mall food court on water.

You obviously and enthusiastically support communist slavery. If you are too cheap to vacation in Puerto Rico or Hawaii or Florida or Bermuda or Bahamas or just about anywhere else just to save a few lousy bucks, your value for human life, dignity and freedom is well below the state of and concern for your wallet. One more vacation for you in Cuba and then you will graduate to the greatest vacation destination: North Korea. BTW, I live in Winnipeg. Admittedly not downtown, but I never worry about locking my door or car, and definitely not worried about getting mugged or killed.

Why should 8.5% round DOWN to 8.0%? Have you conveniently forgot what you obviously never even learned in Grade 4 math class? And you also seem to have forgotten the braggadocio by Obama that if the stimulus passes and the unemployment rate is not below 7%, he deserves to be a one-term president?