B. Max

It's kind of a tried and true attention getter. Direct, and to the point. No need to ask for clarification.

There are millions of semi auto's in the country. People are not not going to give them up and throw away their hard earned dollars because of the liberal crackpot created society of today. What are you going to do the next time somebody shoots people with a lever action gun. Ban them too.

That article that Hatrick posted is about two months old. About the same time as NATO decided to kick the Taliban's ass. It's hard to claim that you are taking anything back when you are dying at the rate of anywhere from 30 to 200 per engagement. Guys like MARGOLIS have a long track record of Bush bashing and prey on peoples lack of patience. A serious flaw in todays society.

It's worth noting, as the authour does, that abiotic oil has very few proponents among the geoological community who, one would assume, would know. The fact that its mainly championed by laypeople or scientists from other disciplines reminds me of Inteligent Design "theory", another pseudoscience designed to mystify and fool the gullible. Obviously you don't read the links. Present day theory about oil says that oil should not be found at the depths of the jack well. Apparently chevron and their engineers don't believe that and 6000 barrels a day of oil proves it. There is no proof that man evolved from apes. Then again, considering the comprehension level of some people today suggests their ancestors did climb down out of the trees, and before they were fully evolved.

What a nonsensical rant against environmentalists. The problem is not oil, the problem is morally bereft politicians like George Bush and Stephen Harper who aren't willing to do anything about Global Warming. Legislate tighter emision controls? No way, that would "destroy" the economy. Right? Go find all the oil you want, but how about using it responsibly. No? Oh yeah, Bush and Harper are in the pocket of big oil, so of course they won't fight for our interests. Lets set the record straight, I have no use for treehuggers. Global warming is not a problem that Bush or Harper could do anything about because there is no man made global warming. The so called environmentalists are the problem who are really nothing but watermelons. Green on the outside and red on the inside. There is likely something Harper and Bush could do about that. Like legislate economic treason laws.

Are you a geologist, Max? No? Proof. No not a geologist. According to the fossil fuel theory, it should be easy to create oil in a laboratory. Apparently that's not been done. The fossil fuel theory has some holes in it. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=47448 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Kudryavtsev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold

I think it would very positive. For Alberta secession.

Perhaps you missed that world nut daily gives a different spin....I'm not saying that they haven't found any oil......I'm just not buying that oli isn't a fossil fuel as per world nut daily. Now I for one would not be surprised if a main stream news outlet gets duped by some moonbat pseudo science every now and again....but with WND it's their standard fare. Yeah like man made global warming.

Most of the questions about abiotic ouil are answered here: Science or Politics They most certainly are not. The guy who wrote that doesn't know what he's talking about. The rate or none rate of recovery of any rock formation with fracture that contains oil would have nothing to do with where the oil comes from, much less prove that it didn't come from below when we don't know the process of how it got there in the first place. Most likely shifting formations deep in the earth would control recovery rates or no recovery at all. To prove that it didn't come from below one would have to prove that it came from above and was the product of plants. To do that one would have to show how it got to that depth in the first place and into the fractures.

Like what. Nothing wrong with WND. Maybe the doubting thomas's could try answering the questions.

More problematic is the enemey from with in. How to defeat both at the same time is a must. http://archives.zinester.com/14807/106573.html Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist “victim culture” itself, that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends. David Warren © Ottawa Citizen

15 billion barrels? that would last about, oh, two years at current consumption levels (and that's assuming 100 per cent of those 15 billion barrels is used for domestic consumption). As for the crap about abiotic oil, As per WorldNuts' usual standards, there's no mention of how the announcement of this discovery validates the abiotic oil theory. Its a farce, a hoax pereptuated on the gullible and people who read WingNut Daily...but that's redundant. Good eye. As usual shoot the messenger. When faced with facts. Like I said the treehuggers must be fuming.

Treehuggers must be fuming. How did all those trees and dinosaurs get down there. Assuming they did, why does the so called fossil fuel have sulfur where as biodiesel made from plants does not. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=51837

By who? The problem wasn't their rlack of communication, it's that the information they were disseminating was horseshit drawn from dodgy sources and cherry-picked to support the foreordained conclusions. By concervatives of course. The rest of your statement is nonsnese. Yet you and the merry bunch at Newsmax are trying to make such a connection. Wrong. We're not talking about vague "terrorist connections". We're talking about operational ties to Al Qaeda. there may be some vague evidence of the former, but that does not prove the latter. Saddam's connection to terrorist groups goes back to the Clinton fiasco and the first trade tower bombings. Which led to 911. Ah: it's all a conspiracy. Gotcha. Lets say a conspiracy of, and united by ideology.

I'm not gonna contribute to any more thread drift, but I will put the question to you that the departed Monty Burns was asked and never answered: if there is strong evidence of a bin Laden/Iraq connection, why isn't the Bush administration pushing said conection with thr same vigour they formerly pushed the WMDs? After all, such a conection would vindicate their decision to invade Iraq in the first place and bolster their contention that it was a necessary part of the "war on terror". Yet the administration has been very recitent to make such claims, leaving me to wonder why they would sit on information that could be of enormous poitical benefit to them and leave it to fringe outlets like NewsMax to report. One of the things the Bush administration was criticized for was not being aggressive enough in communicating and getting out the facts. Bush and others have said repeatedly that there is no proof that Saddam was directly involved in 911. On the other hand Bush has said that their is plenty of evidence that Saddam has terrorist connections. Two different things. The anti Bush media only runs with the first leaving out lets like news max to get out the whole picture.

BWAHAHAHA!!! No such meeting occured. Strike one. There were no anthrax stockpiles. Strike two. Ah yes: the "smoking gun" that the admnistration has almost totally ignored. Salman Pak was used as a bio weapons site and special forces training area. But there's no evidence it was used asa "terrorist traning facility". Strike three. You're out. To say there is no evidence is ridiculous, and even one 911 commissioner has changed his mind. A dem no less. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...26/185610.shtml Although he is careful to note that the 1995 deal does not implicate Hussein 'directly' in the 9/11 attacks, he says, "It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States." He adds that the relationship between Hussein and bin Laden will eventually become clear as more intelligence is translated and analyzed. So, once again, the 'official government' position (as outlined in the work product of the 9/11 Commission) was incorrect. Gosh-oh-gee-golly!

For someone who fancies himself as "smarter than the average bear," this is not what I would call intelligent discourse, in fact it borders on insulting and name-calling. If I or any others came on here and said the same of Harper and the Conservatives, I would be attacked and called a troll in the nth degree. First, did Layton ever say that the 9/11 disaster was in fact orchestrated by Bush? So trying to make that link, even indirectly is quite frankly...sad. And how do you know that 100% of those 22% would vote NDP. Some of those 22%, heaven forbid, might even be Conservatives. Second, many people would argue that Harper's ditching of Kyoto is a gigantic-dumb move that risks the planet's future and is appeasement to Big Oil, though personally I would call the move misguided. In regard to the softwood lumber agreement, I believe that any agreement that allows the Americans to keep $1 Billion dollars of money that is rightfully Canada's (even the WTO and NAFTO agree) is suspect. I won't even touch upon the other aspects of the deal that makes it questionable. And just because one is pro-Kyoto and against the softwood trade agreement doesn't make one automatically Anti-American. And going back to your calling 22% of the population dumb. There was a poll done by CNN that asked if people believed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. 43% responded yes, even though there has not one single thread of proof that there was a link and in fact, with Saddam's dislike of Al Queda, seems very unlikely. The sad thing is the Bush administration, for the longest time, ran with this and used it as one of its justifications to attack Iraq even without proof. Do i believe that 43% of the US's population is dumb? No...just misguided. Actually the evidence of saddam's connection to Al Queda is overwhelming. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/17/232349.shtml

No, not really. I don't think I can explain it any clearer without the use of hand puppets. I didn't think so.

For the third time: according to him, Fitzgerald was unable to perform a complete investigation due to the obstruction. Now, that doesn't prove a crime took place, but it doesn't show one did not. What we do know is that Scooter Libby is looking at one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements, and two perjury counts because of allegedly false statements made before the grand jury. Now, if no crime had been committed, I'd have to wonder why Libby would place himself in a position where he could end up facing 30 years in the clink. So either the administration employs pathological liars, or they are obstructing justice and covering up illegal activities. Either way, I can see why someone like you would be proud of them. That's not what I asked you. Care to try again.

Oh you "new" it, did you? Well, how did you "new"? You, sir, are a dullard. I have a better idea MR. prosecutor. Tell us what the law says. Where it concerns Fitzgeralds original investigation. Tell us what law was broken and be precise.

It was fitzgerald's job to investigate and charge. As we all learned before the case ever ended there was no crime and that's why there was no charge of leaking the identity of a CIA under cover agent. What started out as a witch hunt turned into some sort of inquisition by rabid leftist sickle swingers. So much for government accountability. This is the reason why the kooks on the left are pissed. But the right fails to see that. Bush says he will prosecute. They found who leaked it, he admited it. No action will be taken against him. THAT is the problem. But don't worry, eventhough the Bush admin lied to you before, you still take it and love it. You don't care that there was no yellowcake from Niger. You don't care that the CIA told you there were NO links between Iraq and Al-Queda. You don't care it was all a smear campaing against Wilson who told them the intelligence was faulty. You don't care that Plame was revealed because of Wilson did not support the Iraq War. You don't care that Bush has relied on faulty intelligence and recomendations for (what I beleive) most of his choices as President. This is the problem The Left has, the administration is not holding people accountable for their actions eventhought it said it would. Again, the lies, how many can you swallow before you get full or get sick of it alltogether. The Bush Administration seems to be giving out lies by the bucket load. So when it comes to The Right - Accountability = Witch Hunt. Still pumping out those old lies. The dems are a disgrace and have been undermining the war for political gain which can only be summed up as traitorous. What part of no crime committed don't they understand. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../11/13956.shtml

So you're saying Fitzgerald had nothing and invented groundless charges of obstruction, perjury etc.? Wow. He must be pretty good if he's able to convince a grand jury to lay charges for nothing. Let me explain it to you again: if the investigation was obstructed, how do you know there was no crime? Because there wasn't. We new it before and we know it now.

Actually, Fitzgerald said he was unable to determine if any crime was committed because of obstruction by Bush administration officials. That's why Libby was indicted. Like i said, we all new before it was over that no crime was committed. When Fitzgerald finally realized the same he tried to salvage something out of it by trying to trip up Libby. Since there was no crime there was no reason for obstruction.

It was fitzgerald's job to investigate and charge. As we all learned before the case ever ended there was no crime and that's why there was no charge of leaking the identity of a CIA under cover agent. What started out as a witch hunt turned into some sort of inquisition by rabid leftist sickle swingers.

The global warming scammers base global warming on their computer models and then trot out everything from one hurricane season to some heavy rains to what have you, as proof for their computer models. In reality none of which can even be made to match the historical temperature records. How could they then be even remotely reliable to predict the future. Then claim the debate is over. In fact they have resisted every slightest attempt at debate by attempting to demonize those who debunk their theories and so called science. Not much global warming here. Looks like they're wrong for another 14 days. http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/1...ef=wxeyewx14day