B. Max

The UN is a cesspool of corruption. I've said for years that we should have gotten out of it.

630 in edmonton was reporting this afternoon that Martin has promised to plunder alberta and hand it out to the rest of the country. Since tranfer payments come right out of the pockets of working albertans is Martin suggesting that he is going to tax albertans at a higher rate? Is he going to make the alberta government write him a big cheque every year? Will he tax the oil companies with some big special tax, likely through kyoto. Whatever the means, i can see that 43% who want to explore secession becoming 100% demanding it.

How are they rigging the prices?

Yup and since 1940 the temperatures have actually been decreasing, not increasing.

The funny thing is, water vapor is around 97% of greenhouse gases with CO2 being around 2%. Yet the green growd want to burn hydrogen that gives off nothing but water to be released into the air to increase the 97%. Not to mention how one would ever stay on the road in the winter time with all that water spilling on the road and turning to ice.

Suggested reading. For the appeasers who believe Bush is the cause of islamic terrorists. How do they explain away the centuries of islamic terrorists before bush was even born. How do they blame Bush for the USS cole, the african embassy's and on and on, before bush was even president. What bush is, is the first one in years to stand up to the islamic conquest to create one islamic state after another and kill anyone who opposes them. http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/Boo...p?prod_cd=c6805

It has not been debunked because there is no proof for the claims made for global warming. What has been debunked are the wild claims of the global warming crowd.

Accepting the Second Amendment doesn't mean you can't regulate gun ownership. Legal precedent would seem to indicate the right to bear arms etc. under the Second Amendment is only a right held by the states against the federal government. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No that's not true. http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti11.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then they should have answered no. YES.

False dichotomy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm pretty sure he said you are either with us, or you are with the terrorist. He did not leave it up in the air as to whatever else you might be with. It seems clear to me. I think the left have made equally clear theiy are with the terrorists. Nothing else could explain their ridiculous excuses and blame america first attitude.

I would have to ask what in blazes you're on about. Your "question" was a thinly veiled dig. If you have something to say, say it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You made the statement: Your asking me to take a stand? On what? Choose sides? in response to what crazymf said. I agree with him, but your response indicates that you have your feet planted firmly on both sides of the fence. When bush said you are either with us or you are with the terrorists i'm sure he was refering to your like but won't come out and say it. So i asked you the question. If it was a digging question then so be it.

In the spirit of Greg's new rules, I'll refrain from responding in the way I normally would to such a slur, but will point out that personal attacks are verboten. I'll also point out that such attacks are usually indicative of a losing argument. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I asked a question that you can't or won't answer as usual. You have not been able to make any arguement of facts. I would also suggest there is nothing abnormal what soever.

The 43 per cent figure has already been debunked as the product of a methodologically unsound push poll. As for talk-radio, I wouldn't put much stock in the views of the cranks who frequent the phone lines of shows like Rutherford. It's certainly no substitute for real evidence. Again: if spearation was such a hot commodity, surely the Separation Partyy would have garnered more than 5,000 votes in last November's election. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course you can prove what you say. Put it up there.

There is no proof or evidence of global warming, further more, that C02 is causing something that doesn't exist. http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm

Is it true that those who don't stand for something will fall for anything.

No, it doesn't, that's why I don't like the internet for info too much. I first read about Israel funding HAMAS in Victor Ostrovsky's book "By Way Of Deception', and can't quote it right now as a friend has it. Victor was a Mossad agent who quit, moved to the states and became an artist. I have debated the point with a woman on another forum, (she had a Jewish husband and could readily find links and info to disprove or confirm most of what I said) and she did some research and came back to me in agreement, 'Yes, Israel did fund (and help create) Hamas to undercut Arafat's support". Unfortunately, the internet contains about 10% truth, 80% entertainment, and 10% garbage. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Most likely it is only the first ten 10% that you can find that agrees with what you've been told to believe by arab propoganda.

Heh. Of course, the surrender of Gaza is a strategic step for Sharon, one that allows him to escalate Israel's expansion into the West Bank. Gaza will be a camp for the Palestinians. Terrorism, Hamas, Hizbullah, have nothing to do witrh it. The issue is, as it has been from Day One, Israel's expansionism (as the above poster let's slip). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No the issue is as it has always been. The destruction of israel. Gaza will become a terrorist play ground from which to launch more attacks on israel.

That israel created hamas is disputed. http://www.emperors-clothes.com/letters/cia.htm Hezbollah was created by iran. It doesn't matter now, the PLO, Hezbollah, and HAMAS are all dedicated to the destruction of israel and make no secret of it. Sharon has taken an incredibly stupid step. Israel has been following the wrong policy for a long time now. Their policy should have been clear, that every attack on israel will result in the taking back of more of our land and expelling arabs from it. At that point the price for their killing and murdering becomes significant enough to be a deterrent.

"We effectively have a monopoly in the sector, a very small number of very large companies that are setting the prices," Mr. Layton said. Layton has to be the biggest a hole hypocrit going. It was the ndp who put the liberals up to the NEP and led to the government running around at the time buying up the assets of oil companies to form petro can. Now layton has the nerve to complain about monopoly. Unbelievable.

Like i've always said, socialism is just sugar coated communism. Yes a businessmans lunch is a legitimate expenditure and continues to this day only under a different claim. When they went after the socalled lunch deduction it was actually the truckers they went after. Reducing their claim to 50% of thirty three dollars a day. Which had been 100% then 80% and so on. While federal government employees were being given around seventy dollars a day and if they are in the US they claim it in US funds. The court battles are still going on over it.The government should not be in the tranportation business of any kind. It should be private and paid for by those who use it.

Taxes are the killer of economies. Post their profits, sure. As long as they post their expenditures. There is no corporate con jobs, only greedy tax and spend socialist governments and the effects of treehugger regulations on the oil companies. In vancouver for instance they have a 6 cent a liter transit tax. That 6 cents should be reflected in the price of a transit ticket. Not some hocus pocus book keeping nonsense to get someone else to pay for their ride.

I would like to see them post the price of the gas, and right beside it on their signs post the amount of tax on it.

I can't imagine how the left will spin this. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45877 http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45859

In Saudi Arabia, the legal maximum sentence for practicing homosexuality is beheading. In China, it isn't officially admitted to exist. Formal charges would fall under 'offensive behaviour'. In the US, many states still can convict under 'sodomy laws' (though it doesn't carry the death sentence). I condemn the act and all religion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Would that include the atheist religion. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

Yes but the left finds the constitution extreme, and a road block to good government. When in reality it is a road block to tyrants, history revisionists or any other undesirable collection of rabble from the outer edge of the lunatic fringe.