B. Max

What's frightening about it. http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...v=nr&id=743

As it turned out he was right about that also. Gandhi was the author of his countries poverty and that's about it.

So what. They keep coming back.

He should have been kicked right out of the party for that nonsense. He's obviously a liberal.

We are not there to convert them. We are there to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

What would you call it. An early christmas present.

Yes about .5 of a degree in the average temperature which most of it took place before 1940 and since then there has actually been a slight cooling. As jbq points out in another thread, they were calling for another ice age in the seventies claiming an even bigger temperature drop. Supported by what I don't know. I think that climate scientists who disagree with the current weather fad would love to have their research put on trial, but in stead we find the gloom and doom industry trying to silence them by claiming the debate is over and threatening to put those who disagree on trial for disagreeing. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/pr...,944914,00.html

What the hell are you talking about? You are the one that used the word correct and I asked if that was politically correct. There is nothing stable about those folks.

"Right" in the sense of political orientation, perhaps, but certainly not in the sense of "correct" or even "stable". Would that be politically correct.

What kind of science uses one little part of Green Land and its glacier as proof of global warming and fails to mention the glaciers in the rest of it and what is happening to them , and out right lies about the ice in Antarctica. Then there is last seasons hurricanes that were also proof, and the list goes on. I guess since this years hurricanes were a flop we can conclude that global warming is over. Oh and now we have the gloom and doom industry wanting to put those that disagree with them on some sort of Nirenberg trials.

9-11 was neither a rebellion or an invasion by any stretch of the imagination or meaning of the words. It is to those of right thinking people.

The industry of doom and gloom have been on the offensive lately as their climate change scam has been going down the toilet. Now this. “Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Where, exactly, is the rebellion or invasion? 911 the most obvious. I don't believe there is any number requirement.

Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, restricting powers of Congress, forbids the suspension of habeas corpus except, "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." Lincoln did it during an armed uprising. There you go.

Easy words to type. Can be applied to any topic of discussion by any side of any debate. Well this applies to one in particular. The left likes to claim the debate is over. Laughable, what debate. There never was a debate. We had the left proclaim man made global warming and then set about to try and silence everyone else. The reason for that is because their evidence or proof won't stand up to the scrutiny and facts of proper science.

I read some where in the constitution that the president has the power to suspend habeas corpus. Abe Lincoln suspend habeas corpus for the civil war.

Right now Alberta is carrying the whole country. The oil patch is not simply drilling a hole in the ground and that's the end of it, it's just the beginning. The list of materials that go into it is almost endless and come from all over.

That's not true and there is no, I repeat no proof of that. If there is put it up there. In fact all the evidence suggests that it plays almost no part in it.

Be more precise because that is a large subject. In the mean time have a look at this. As you will see and is claimed by the socalled science skeptics but never mentioned by promoters of CO2 driven temperature scientists. Most global warming took place before 1940 and since then has actuallly cooled at a time when CO2 was suppose to be increasing. http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

I would say Harper is looking out for canadian interests. As opposed to those who promote leftist one world government.

Oil prices spiked in 1990 and then fell right back just as fast. They remained reasonably steady through the 90's but over all were rather low. Alberta still managed to come out of the 1990 recession while Ont. remained in recession as did BC through the late 90's mostly as a result of the ndp. While Alberta's oil patch was growing BC's oil patch was not.

"This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april...massculling.htm This agenda for the 21st Century was signed by 179 nations at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Among other things, it called for a Global Biodiversity Assessment of the state of the planet. Prepared by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), this GBA armed UN leaders with the "information" and "science" they needed to validate their global management system. Its doomsday predictions were designed to excuse radical population reduction, oppressive lifestyle regulations, and a coercive return to earth-centered religions as the basis for environmental values and self-sustaining human settlements. http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html I'll decide, and I certainly don't need any lessons in credibility and least of all from you.

She is not discredited, and least of all by your assertion, that offers nothing and only discredits your own credibility.

For a party trying to rid its self of the image as the party of corruption they in stead seem to be confirming it.

So I take it you would be against: - promoting energy conservation, - the conservation of wildlife, habitats, and natural ecosystems, - repleting fish stocks, - cleaning up contaminated water, and - clear-cutting old growth forests. Greens a threat to the world? No, just to people like you who are willing to burden your progeny with our mess. I oppose all forms of tyranny no matter what guise they operate under.