newbie

Not quite. In Bush's own words (from Meet the Press) Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go. President Bush: No, I didn't. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/ Initially. He enlisted in TANG (probably because he wanted to follow his Dad, who was also a fighter pilot). Then when in TANG, he eventually volunteered to go to Vietnam. His commanding officer said this was so. The NY Times is likely STILL on this tory and if they had found proof he refused to go to Vietnam, it would be front page headlines for a month straight. Monty, so glad you have joined "us." you know the guys that don't trust Bush's own words?

Not quite. In Bush's own words (from Meet the Press) Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go. President Bush: No, I didn't. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

Satire Drew.

Another ally is Saudi Arabia, you know that place where most of the 911 terrorists came from. But maybe this whole affair isn't a big deal. Hell, Dubya didn't even know about it until a few days ago.

The jury's still out on that one.

Hi. Possibly we can get the facts striaght before the discussion goes south on us. The ports have not been under US control for years, rather British. And, will also remain under British control after this goes through with financing and control over those companies by the UAE. The ownership of the ports will be US. What has happened here is that the companies who have controlled the ports will now be bought by a UAE company and undergo no personel or policy change. Unless the British and a few US companies suddenly turn 'terrorist' on us, then things will remain the same. The security for these ports will still be provided by the US authorities as per whatever breakdown would occur if they were owned by anybody. How can you be certain there won't be a personnel change? It is basically a takeover situation.

Well, you can thank Mulroney for that. He pushed the multiculturalism to the limit, even signing an act to that effect. I have nothing against turbans on RCMP, but that was just the beginning of the endless concessions we seem to be handing out to immigrants.

What the hell is he thinking? Turning over 6 major ports to a country with ties to terrorists? Duh. http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/0.../ap2542124.html Bush says he will veto any attempt to block this. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politic...tssecurity.html

Perhaps I am a bit harsh with my statements, but I will readily say that if ADD does exist (and if it did then it probably always did, but didn't have a name until recently), it has been used more often as an excuse or a profitable cash cow, than it has spawned solutions. I definitely agree with that. It was getting to the point where Ritalin was over prescribed, and ADD was used as an excuse for "bad" behaviour in large classrooms. However, in our case, the medication was a Godsend and we are very grateful for the diagnosis and the drug.

Last time I checked it was... maybe I was imaging that they had their first elections??? Elections do not a democracy make.

ADHD and ADD are not farces. From http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/adhd.cfm according to the most recent version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders2 (DSM-IV-TR), there are three patterns of behavior that indicate ADHD. People with ADHD may show several signs of being consistently inattentive. They may have a pattern of being hyperactive and impulsive far more than others of their age. Or they may show all three types of behavior. This means that there are three subtypes of ADHD recognized by professionals. These are the predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type (that does not show significant inattention); the predominantly inattentive type (that does not show significant hyperactive-impulsive behavior) sometimes called ADD—an outdated term for this entire disorder; and the combined type (that displays both inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms). I have first hand knowledge. One of our sons has had this since birth. He was medicated once in school on ritalin and he has made a very significant improvement. He still takes this medication as an adult and functions fine in society. I don't believe this drug is for everyone. There are other non-addictive stimulants that are available. But to say this disorder does not exist is to deny the medical science.

That what they said about the old Reformers. Maybe the NDP could change its name a couple of times, spruce up its leadership and voila. Who knows?

My sentiments exactly. I'm glad you used the word "generally." I don't always follow the Liberal line, and I will criticize especially when I see an injustice. I didn't like Martin's "apology" re the sponsorship scandal and I said so on this forum. I also agree with you. The libs desperately need to work on their leadership.

margrace, I think wannabes is the right description.

Yeah, Gost, I think you're right. I was in a vulnerable mood yesterday and forgot not to respond to Monty's rantings. Oh well, it's too late now.

The last guy that said that was Trudeau. And you know what happened to the NEP. The thing I worry about is that when the U.S. enters a transaction, they tend to do it only if they get the better deal or upper hand. That's been their tradition. Of course. And why shouldn't it? If I were PM, I would want to do what's best for my country, regardless who I was entering into agreement with. The U.S. has got a bad name for this exact reason. Banning our beef by closing the borders, the softwood lumber deal, trying to access the caribou reserve for oil, and on and on. I'm just saying it's a pattern with the U.S. gov't. I don't know if they understand the term "fair deal."

Absolute nonsense. How come 2000 soldiers have died? Because it's a war. The problem is that the media in conjunction with the US military only reports the number of coalition casualties. I may be wrong, but as of now, the terrorists have yet to release any casualty figures of their own, which would amount to 100 times greater then any US or British total. And yes, some new Iraqi forces are attacked, but nothing close to everytime as you state, and nothing close to everyone. How old are you? Seriously. You lack any type of historical perspective. I'm guessing around 13, am I right? You forgot to mention that little issue of collateral damage, somewhere between 25,000 and 100,000 iraqis.

The last guy that said that was Trudeau. And you know what happened to the NEP. The thing I worry about is that when the U.S. enters a transaction, they tend to do it only if they get the better deal or upper hand. That's been their tradition.

On the right track.

What the hell is the matter with you? The 9/11 commission said that Saddam was unquestionably linked to terrorism. Good God, the entire planet--with the exception of you and Black Dog--knows that Saddam's Iraq was a haven for terrorists. FFS, Saddam openly boasted about paying the families of displaced Arab (usually called Palestinian) suicide bombers!! Who is paying you to troll the internet? Billionaire George Soros? Get it right Monty. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

Semantics dear Monty. http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/11/define-imminent.html "Well, of course he is.” • White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question.“is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03 "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02 "Absolutely." • White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03 "This is about imminent threat." • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03 Okay, fine, we know Scottie doesn't speak for anybody, he's just David Gregory and Terry Moran's puffy pinata. So what about Preznit Remedial Reading himself? "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." • President Bush, 11/23/02 "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." • President Bush, 10/7/02 "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." • President Bush, 10/2/02 You're right. He didn't use the specific word "imminent." Too many syllables.

Make a million, kill a cartoonist: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...5df8b52&k=51644

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P138885.asp

Slavik44, thanks for clearing that up. Monty has a habit of taking things out of context.

Oh, and as far as Saddam and links to terrorism, I trust the 911 commission that Bush initiated on that.