B. Max

Which doesn't itself mean her comments are untrue or indefensible. Why, because it would lead to a civil war and more bloodshed yadda yadda yadda? I got news for you: the civil war is already on. As for the rest, well, since when is someone not allowed to express their opinion? People like B. Max and Bill O'Reilly, who would threaten, persecute and pillory people for disagreeing with the government are the real enemies of freedom, the ideaolgical bedfellows of folks like Saddam Hussein. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ridiculous. There is no civil war in iraq as much as the butchers you obvilously support would like to, and have tried to start. These people are the killers left over from saddams army, and foreign Al-Qaeda murders and the like. The opinion they are expressing is traitorous, like those opinions have always been. O'Reilly understands that and so do the rest of us that are not traitors.

All you're doing is spewing the leftwing crap the leftist traitors have been ranting about for years.

So? Compared to a president who talks to God, she seems perfectly sane. I assume you're refering to 9-11, an event that had no connection to Iraq. The Iraq war was started by the U.S.A, who have completely botched the job. How? Please explain. I'll tell you this: the Bush administration has done more to endanger the lives of its troops (through inadequate numbers, inadequate armour, cutting veteran's benefits etc.) than any band of anti-war advocates ever could. The well-oiled and well-funded right-wing smear apparatus creaks into gear. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Iraq is part of the war on terror, and iraq was up to its neck in terrorism, even having an Al-Qaeda base in the north east that the kurds had repeatedly tried to get rid of. Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers. The islamics started the war a long time ago that it is being fought in iraq is a matter of circumstances. The only smear campain going on here is run by those that are with the terrorists and who are nothing short of traitors who sound be taken out and hanged. Her actions and those of her like are dishonoring and nothing else can be conculded from them given the situation. Bush has done nothing to endanger the troops what soever. Could he have done more, sure, but that's a far cry from what she is doing and that is aiding and abbeting the enemy by urging on the terrorists. Her son went there on his own, twice, because he new it was the right thing to do and she is siding with those that killed him. I spit on her.

I'm surprised that the activity in the patch at this time is not that great. In fact it seems a little slow. All the rain we've had must have something to do with it.

If this storm does everything they say it likely will, it might very well be the end of new orleans and the birth of lake new orleans. All the dikes they've built will now hold the water in. Anyone who stayed could be trapped.

"I was just the spark the universe chose for some reason to spark this off, Why don't all these traitors pack it up and go to iraq and parade it up and down the street in front of the terrorists if they want to end the war, that they the terrorists started. Not only is she dishonoring her son, but everyone elses son who has been killed and putting at risk those still fighting and the security of the entire country. I'm glad to see those that understand this are standing up and confronting her and the rest of the blame america first crowd. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=45826

The bank i deal with now has no fees. It is automated. I became sick and tired of being ripped off with banking fees. I went into the TD one day about mid month and asked for an up to date transaction record of an account. She said ok, but that will be five dollars. I said no it won't. She said it costs five dollars or you're not going to see it. I said how much does it cost to close it. Nothing she said. It took a few seconds for it to register on her, and she walked over punched a couple of buttons and said her you go.

Wrong again eureka. It is no falsehood i was there. Entire companies were wiped off the map in an instant. Alberta's economy was devastated. Those are the facts. It is also a fact that it was caused by trudeau and he is hated in alberta to this day.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce argues the gap between the amount of taxes paid and services received in the province has risen to $23-billion. The chamber has it right on. Ont. has been a have not for a long time. What they don't have is a clue. They like to elect governments that will give them everything they want, now it's time to take everything they have to pay for it. So pay up.

This sounds like the free money crowd. If the government ever got the keys to the front door of the banks it would make the cost of adscam and the rest of their scandals look like chump change. There is a couple of things they can do however. Make the banks decide how they want to make their money. Either they make it on interest on money they loan, or on service fees, but not both. As it used to be. Next they need to allow more banks into the country for more competition.

The facts are the facts, and the fact is you're outa ammo.

Best you be the one who keeps a bag packed. We might send you to cuba on their official air line. Air innertube.

An adler on line poll suggests that given the chance people would decide that there would be no country. “If Canada now consisted of 9 provinces, and the province you live in were ‘today’ holding a referendum on whether or not to ‘join’ Canadian confederation, would you vote “yes” or “no” Yes to Join Confederation 5.54 % No ...Not interested in Joining Canada 65.68 % This is a destructive question. Canada is indivisble and questions like this contribute nothing positive to the evolution of a great country.. 5.17 % It's about time we had a serious discussion of whether or not we want be involved with confederation. 23.62 %

What an absurd statement to make about someone who is dead and buried. As one of the previous posters said, it is time to get over it. People who live in the past die of remorse. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you think it's to late to dig him up and hang him.

It took alberta nearly twenty years to recover from trudeau. The country never will. Fifty thousand people in alberta lost their businesses homes and everything they had over night. He will always be hated in alberta.

A wise choice on your part. Otherwise you will find out if i'm up to it or not. Leftist nonsense is no match for the facts.

If the maple leaf ever fell off the flag at liberal head quarters, underneath would be revealed a hammer and sickle. I believe a referendum at the time, which should have held would have nixed the new flag.

Nonsense, you don't know what your talking about.

Yeah, sure. Paul Martin is the Grand Wizard of the Illuminati, and he just waved his fingers to make newscasters "forget" the issue. Just like he did with ... uh, Gomery? Grewal? ... uh-huh. Why was the media asking questions? Because there has been widespread and public speculation for months that Ottawa would make a play on Alberta's resource revenue. Because Klein himself has made public warnings that such a thing could happen. Because McGuinty refered to Alberta's resource revenues as "the elephant in the room" at the recent Premiers' summit ("the elephant in the room" is a metaphor for a subject that is foremost in everyone's mind, but that nobody feels comfortable mentioning) and in wake of the Ontario report declaring they're rocketting to the poorhouse, McGuinty's "elephant" musings led people to the natural conclusion that he was interested in sharing resource money. The topic was on the horizon because of McGuinty and because of media speculation, not because of anything Paul Martin or his colleagues said. Chretien demanded more money and Klein gave it to him? I know Chretien made comments about wanting more "sharing", but I'm not aware of any change in the equalization formula in response, or of Klein giving him any special contribution. Can you provide some clue as to what the heck you're talking about? -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually what they wave at at least some media are dollar bills, and in other cases licensing. A friend of mine whos daughter worked for a radio station in drumhellar where she did the news was telling us about it a long time ago. Is this a case of that, i don't know, but i know it's out there, and i know what i heard. As far as what is really extortion payments. Klien doesn't make, never did make, nor did any other premier make a contribution. The payments are collected through taxes by the feds. It is the amount the feds hand out back to the provinces that creates the difference or the socalled equalization. Alberta gets these payments also even thow there are those who think they don't. Where a province like PEI would get back all of their tax the feds collected, alberta would not. That's how it works. What klien agreed to i believe was that alberta would take a reduction of another 2 billion i think it was in returns. Last year alberta recieved back ten or twelve billion less that the feds collect depending on what all is figured in such CPP payments and the like. I never kept any links to it, but there were plenty posted over at FD about three months ago which one might be able to find with a lot of looking because that's a busy place.

I am not remotely interested in "barefoot" Barefoot bob is not the author of that site. He was a mentor to the author. Then you are not interested in what is likely the best most complete and well researched word on the US constitution there is, "(or so I've been told by american lawyers who I've debated with on these matters)" for constructionists and those who understand that without adherence to the constitution all one is left with is lawless government like we have in this country. The prelude to a tyranny. Unfortunately because of activist judges and mischief makers, the bill of rights has been somewhat bent out of shape and is reflected in societies ills largely due to wrongs becoming rights. Which was greatly speeded up with the introduction of a posion to the culture, cultural marxism " economic marxism translated into cultural terms, and better know as political correctness. The 14th, probably illegal under some strange circumstances by which it was passed if i remember correctly, and yes it is often refered to in the way you describe it. The bill of rights is considered part of the constitution and the preamble sets out the purpose of the bill which the states ratified. Most likely the reason those who would try and usurp individual rights would rather no one new about the preamble.

Wrong as usual. The bill of rights was not to give anyone rights that did not already exist nor did they give any power to the states. They are individual rights and nothing eles, nor can they be changed by any government. 10'000 deaths by people defending themselves. The right to keep and bear arms is not outmoded, and infact never will be. The entire constitution was writen on the premise that government was granted it's power from the people and that it was limited only to those powers which the constitution gave it.. http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti10.html#140-4 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the Fourth of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine. The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the Time of their Adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses should be added: And as exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution, RESOLVED, by the Senate, and House of Representatives, of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Two Thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States: All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified by Three-Fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz. Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution. The above PREAMBLE was then followed by twelve proposed amendments, the first two of which failed of adoption. The first related to membership in the House of Representatives by population, and the second was against the taking effect of laws varying the compensation of senators and representatives until an election should have intervened. This second proposed amendment was resurrected in 1985 and ratified, becoming Amendment Article XXVII after ratification on May 7, 1992. Six States had ratified this proposed amendment in the two year period from 1790 to 1791, and between 1985 and 1992 an additional 33 States ratified this amendment proposal that was nearly 200 years old. In ALL the presentations of the Bill of Rights today this most important part of the Bill Of Rights, setting forth the purpose of the Amendments, is left off. Without this Preamble we have no protection from those who would pass amendments, laws, or otherwise corrupt the Constitution. I have taken the liberty to emphasis in red text the area I am referring to. Please join with me to correct this misconstruction of the Bill Of Rights before it becomes an accepted presentation. It is ESSENTIAL that we read and present the Constitution in it's entirety. This MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution, and if it didn't, the Amendments spell out the Rights of the People the government couldn't change. Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!! It is imperative that the complete text be included in any study, interpretation or construction of the contents and the Limitations of government imposed by the Constitution for the United States. It has been stated that some scholars don't think this is important. This is a fallacy. It is IMPERATIVE for the following reason: The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede and restrict all previous parts of the Constitution, and restrict all subsequent amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments are a declaration in very plain language of the restrictions to the powers of government and "STATE". There are people in this country that do not want us to know that this Preamble ever existed. For many years these words and understanding have been "omitted" from presentations of our Constitution. Public and private schools and colleges alike have based the education of the people and their whole interpretation of the Constitution on this fraudulent omission. (Indeed, when I was searching for it, I was informed by the Dean of the Law School at UC Berkley, that the Bill of Rights amendments had no Preamble.)140 Corrupt judiciary and politicians have, through clever deception, erected interpretations and statutes that fly in the face, in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights amendments. The amendments and their declaratory and restrictive intent can be changed only by due process and the will of the people, as prescribed in the Fifth Article of the Original Constitution. The Bill of Rights amendments, being declaratory and restrictive, are separate from all the other amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments restrict the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government and "STATE". The deception is that government and "STATE" can interpret all of the Amendments and the Constitution itself, to serve the ends of "STATE". By Omitting and Ignoring the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this has been done, usurping the Rights of the People. As Thomas Cooley has said in "Principles of Constitutional Law": "Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it . . . To pass an act when they are in DOUBT, whether it does or does not violate the Constitution, is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume." We the People must end the deception. The ten Amendments adopted make the so-called American Bill of Rights. The plain fact is that these Amendments do not confer any rights on anyone. These RIGHTS are INHERENT to all FREE MEN, bestowed on them by their CREATOR.

I've never had any use for Axworthy.

Since there is no global warming, i can't take the other seriously either. This country handed its sovereignty over to the UN years ago.

I broke my "no AM radio" guideline yesterday to tune in and listen for this report. All I heard was 630 Ched reporting that Alberta's intergovernmental affairs minister was not concerned with the possibility. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well i did hear it. Only once mind you, but once is enough. I guess the feds got to the media and told them to keep quiet because you're right there is nothing being said in the print media. I know the topic was on rutherford today but i didn't hear the show. If there is nothing to be concerned about and the topic doesn't exist why are all these government officials commenting on it. McGuinty and company must be feeling like they were given a backhand by some of the things being said. Chretien was here just before he packed it in and said albertans had to hand more over and klien did. He can't be trusted.

Does one have to draw you a picture. I really don't care what you think. What matters is what concerned albertans will think. Come to think of it, when the last ballot is cast for secession it will for once, be a time when Ont. and the rest of the alberta haters will have no say what soever in any of it.