Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Montgomery Burns

Members
  • Content Count

    1,704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Montgomery Burns

  • Rank
    Full Member
  1. This has been the top news story on Fox News. 3 tons! 3 times more ammonium nitrate than Timoty McVeigh used in the Oklahoma terrorist attack. Will the left finally wake up?! And Argus has zero chance of getting a job in the MSM if he insists on calling these people Muslims. :angry: They are NOT MUSLIMS; They are "ETHNICS!" Neocons.
  2. I've seen him a couple of times in the last few days on Fox News. He insists that he never agreed to be in Moore's Bush-thrashing crockumentary, that Moore never interviewed him, and that he backs the Commander-in-Chief (can you imagine someone in the military saying they back John Kerry?) Before you get too upset about Fox News, both times the anchor/host (IIRC one was Neil Cavuto and the other was one of the Fox and Friends hosts) asked him "why $85 million?" Damon said that his lawyer came up with that figure. If you want to read the full article, the registration email address is: [email protected] and the password is nypost.
  3. Don't know if you have heard that Ted Nugent is *considering* about running for Governor of Michigan. Don't laugh. Jesse Ventura was Governor of Minnesota and look how far John Kerry went in 2004. Although Ted Nugent sometimes comes off as a round shy of a full clip, I admire him for this disdain for political correctness. Plus, if you look through his macho braggadacio, he's right (although very blunt) about many things. Like when he talks about himself being a true liberal. Watch for it. I got a laugh out of this--the reporter and Nugent are driving around Nuge's estate filling up the feeders of deer food. The Brit reporter asks: I'd like to see Nugent as ambassador to the UN. And Triumph the Insult Comic Dog as Press Secretary: "Helen Thomas, do you have a question.....for me to poop on?" Note that the Brit reporter says that Nugent is packing a Glock revolver. However Glock doesn't make a revolver. Full interview at the home of the infamous liar - Robert Fisk: The UK's Independent P.S. I think Nugent was yanking this guy's chain a bit. He has a reputation for doing that.
  4. I hope this doesn't happen to al-Gore. That would give new meaning to An Inconvenient Truth
  5. Whew! You guys have got all the bases covered. No matter what happens, mankind is always "proved" to be the cause. Colour me convinced! Forget everything I wrote earlier! Scratch that - I'm sure you already have. Mankind is the cause the only cause of environmental "degradation" and Kyoto atonement is the only source of absolution for the planet. Are you guys sure you aren't a religion? I mean, come on, you have to see the parallels. "Whew! You guys have got all the bases covered." Game. Set. Match.
  6. Twit. Another insult from BD. What a surprise. But the guy has gall. Imagine a hypocritical rank partisan accusing someone else of being a hypocritical partisan *twit* Please look up the word semantics before you continue to embarrass yourself. No such thing as a conviction in a civil trial, huh? Convictions are only in criminal cases? Yeah right. I don't know why you refused to admit that O'Reilly did not sue Mackris. Why wouldn't you admit this? Well, actually I do know why. Because you are a dishonest partisan. A columnist from the Page Six, the gossip page of the NY Post is BD's "proof." What, no link to a story to the National Enquirer? Even though both parties agreed to keep the details confidential, BD seems to have the inside scoop. Perhaps some "sources" told him the details. The fact is that the settlement did not call for O'Reilly to issue an expression of regret, which is often demanded in litigation against high-profile figures. Yes he did! What the hell is the matter with you? As for mangled syntax, you're one to talk. Your spelling needs work too, if you want to go there. Machination's linked to smokinggun.com to show that O'Reilly was being sued for sexual harassment, then he linked to Media Matters to prove that O'Reilly was biased--all in the same post. If you can't connect the dots between someone smearing O'Reilly and then linking to a site funded by a convicted criminal, then I have no hope for you. Cripes. It took about 2 seconds to find this: "Doctors confirm that it is possible for an exercised vagina to shoot ping pong balls and pick up coins(like some of the Bangkok bar girls do)." And I can assure you that iamaprogressiveliberalwhoresidesintherealitybasedcommunity.com is not in my Favorites Folder. All anonymous commentors, huh? And I just looked at the first 2 hits. BD caught lying again. I'm shocked, I tell ya. Shocked! The fact that you are so offended by what Coulter said, but find nothing wrong with the Asian whore slurs against Malkin jsut shows how your moral relativism. As for Betsy, BD shows once again what a gentleman he is. A pic just for you. Scroll down a bit and try not to seethe too much.
  7. Liam: Odd. A search of Wonkette's site shows only one reference to an individual doing ping pong ball tricks. Guess who that individual is? Hint: She is an Asian conservative. Really now. Harry Reid and Jerry Falwell doing ping pong ball tricks is just silly beyond pale. I stand by claim that the vast majority of people who defend freedom and are willing to give their lives to do so are Republicans. Why do you think that about 75% of the military votes Republican? No, don't give me any of that tin-foil voter fraud that the Dems always whine about when they repeatedly lose. Why do you think Dems do everything they can to disqualify military votes? How many of the Dem-elites signed up their kids for this war? Why do you insist on calling them kids? Why do you insist that parents must sign up their children for military duty? Interesting that you mention Bush and Rumsfeld--two guys who did serve in the military. Cry me a river about "torture" at Abu-Ghraib. Do you have any credible proof about the GOP running secret torture prisons overseas? The people at Gitmo are treated far too well, even being served Duck a la Orange for meals. They are given 3 meals a day (sometimes served duck in orange sauce with rice pilaf and pita bread), they have clean cells, clean sheets, blankets for their beds, workout facilities, outdoor areas where they could get exercise, showers, medical care, skull caps and rugs so they can pray 5 times a day, they are given the Koran, and kept in open-air cells in a tropical climate. As for Haditha, typical. Even though the investigation has not finished, you have tried and convicted them already. But you support the troops! It's not Republicans doing everything they can to undermine the WOT. Not conservative news sources reporting top-secret information to aid our enemies--like the NYT and WaPo did. It is not Republicans sending cards to injured Joshua Sparling at Walter Reed military hospital - saying they hope he dies. 1) You are implying she wished death upon NYT staff. I do not see that in Coulter's quote. 2) To borrow a line from you: "It is so clearly a joke that it cannot be taken seriously." Come on. Republicans, the party of liberation (Eastern Europe and Iraq and Afghanistan) are fascists? Clearly a joke. Ahh. Two guys attempting to assault a woman is just a weak assault. It's meant to generate a laugh. Haha. Democrats who violated the sanctity of the Schiavo family. They wanted her to "die with dignity." Nothing illegal about that, as I have proved numerous times on this forum. Proof about the Bush administration using the Patriot Act to round up "petty criminals?" That's a violation of civili liberties? FYI, Joe McCarthy was proven right about the Communists in the Democrat Party. The left had to smear him because they support communism. Look at how they fawn over Fidel Castro still to this very day. If you are not phoning terrorists, then you have nothing to worry about. They are not listening into calls, they are data-mining. Why would someone be worried about the govt data-ming phone calls during war...unless they have something to hide. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Padilla. The Circuit Court judged that: "We can discern no difference in principle" between a designated combatant captured abroad and inside the U.S. "The locus of capture" is not decisive. "Like [Yaser] Hamdi, Padilla associated with forces hostile to the United States in Afghanistan....And, like Hamdi, Padilla took up arms against United States forces in that country in the same way and to the same extent as did Hamdi....Because, like Hamdi, Padilla is an enemy combatant, and because his detention is no less necessary than was Hamdi's in order to prevent his return to the battlefield, the President is authorized by the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution--the resolution that no leftwinger on this forum appears to have heard of] to detain Padilla as a fundamental incident to the conduct of war." They ruled that Padilla cannot be held indefinitely, only as long as hostilites continue with Al Qaeda. The decision was unanimous. Judge Luttig wrote the opinion and the 2 judges who joined in Luttig's opinion - Michael and Traxler - were both appointed by then President Clinton. One thing many people seem to forget, or deny (there is no war on terror--Bush is playing games to make the public fearful), the US is at war. FDR interned a bunch of Japanese-Americans during WWII. The ruling/opinion is here. If weak attempts like this is a harbor of things to come, then yes--more. As for the Dems: Percentage-wise, who supported the two most important civil rights bills, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965--Democrats or Republicans? Waco attack, Elian Gonzales kidnapped at gunpoint, Al Gore Sr and Robert Byrd (D-KKK) filibustering the Civil Rights Act, Clinton's "roving wiretaps" allowing the FBI to tap all phones a suspect used rather than just one specific number, attempts at gun control, throwing military recruiters off campuses that are federally funded, smoking bans, pushing Congress to restore the Fairness Doctrine, Clinton collecting data on private citizens, his maintenance of secret dossiers and using them for overtly political purposes, eminent domain, attempting to censor the rights of peaceful protesters; censor the views of priests and doctors and censor radio, TV, and the internet, warrantless searches and seizures, constantly pushing for judicial rulings that will sanction expansions of federal power, constituting double jeopardy, shifting power from juries to judges, no jury trials for "minor" offenses, overturning jury acquittals at sentencing, Clinton being the 1st president in American history to deny that the Constitution limits the powers of the federal govt and seeking to federalize health care, crime fighting, environmental protection, and education. More?
  8. Do you honestly think that if a MSM photographer had a pic of the Oreo cookie incident that their editor would allow this to be printed in the news? Come on. The MSM is ridiculously biased for Dems and anti-Repub. Do you ever see them have pics like this in the news? I have seen many such pics on the Internet (mostly taken by US soldiers) but not in the MSM. And the Dems have a documented history of attacking minority conservatives. Party trumps race for Steele foes: Michael Steele confirmed the Oreo cookie incident just a couple of weeks ago on Hannity & Colmes. Alan Colmes didn't try to rebut his comment because he said it was off topic. Now who would you believe?
  9. Good find Warwick. I was furious when I read this earlier tonight. However there is a bit more to the story: They fight Canadian conservatives, but claim that fighting terrorists is wrong. They think it is acceptable to launch a borderline thuggish and harrassing protest in the sanctuary of a church, but they shriek if Canadian or US people don't respect the sanctuary of a muslim mosque. Reason #15,894 why I have nothing but contempt for liberals, specifically "progressive" liberals. And Monte Solberg had one of the most entertaining blogs in Canada, before he shut it down when he became Immigration Minister. They are on the other side; no ifs ands or buts about it. :angry: If I had my way....
  10. No MB, if you were over-representing factual presentations in this case, you would be badgering the nurses to treat you before your ingrown toenail becomes infected. You are thinking of "misrepresenting," which is a different word. Regardless, even if Gore did lie, it wasn't to engage his country in an immoral and illegal war. I went to emergency and told them this tale and they said that I was lying! I told them, "no I am not lying, I merely gave you an over-representation of factual presentations. Obviously the hospital is run by neocons. "even if Gore did lie, it wasn't to engage his country in an immoral and illegal war You shouldn't post things like this, Bubber. It makes you look really bad. Your "illegal" claim is an outright lie, or as al-Gore said: "an over-representation of factual presentations". Your claim that it is immoral to overthrow a mass-murdering dictator and liberating 25 million people appears to prove the Michael Savage adage: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
  11. I fail to see how this proves right wing bona fides. Giving money to the Palestinians was never a partisan issue. Despising Hamas as terrorists was likewise neither a left nor right wing position (at least as regards North American politics). It follows that cutting off funding after Hamas took power was possible from either wing's perspective, though I doubt the fence-arsed Libs would have had the stones to do it so quickly. Which proves nothing about Clinton being a lefty. True, his predecessor Carter is a total leftist boob and has displayed an unseamly eagerness to embrace the world's more unsavory tyrants, but Clinton had a nobler goal in mind that was almost achieved at Camp David in 2000. Inviting Mr. Mangey-beard to the White House on a regular basis was part of the cost of achieving that goal. 1) Your point is somewhat correct. However I stand by my claim. Paul Martin attended a Tamil Tigers fund-raising dinner. Do you think Harper would do so? With them being slapped on the banned terrorist list, obviously not. I admit that sometimes the right has had to - for political purposes - take the side of unsavory groups or individuals, but I find this much more prevalent on the left. I doubt that Paul Martin would have cut off funding to the displaced Arabs just because they elected a terrorist group to lead them in their quest to destroy Israel. The left, in general, despises Israel - they are a democracy and the displaced Arabs are "poor people who need financial help" - not withstanding that the billions the displaced Arabs receive in aid goes towards weaponry. 2) I disagree. The left almost always take the word of scumbag dictators. Look at the excuses they make for the USSR, the fawning over Castro, Chavez, and their attempt to stop Papa Hussein from being overthrown despite him ignoring every single Chapter VII (binding) UN resolution, ignoring the ceasefire he signed; promoting int'l terrorism, repeatedly shooting at US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, and his attempt to assassinate a US president. Now they are worried that the US, or Israel, might bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Why? They almost always take the word of dictators over the word of the leaders of democratic nations. Remember the left's mindset: Everyone is the same. Everyone is morally the same (except for conservatives and religious people). There is no political advantage for the US or Canada to take the side (the enemy of my enemy is my friend--for a short while) - of Chavez, Hamas, or Iran's leader (whose name I cannot spell )
  12. The economy is doing better under Bush than under Clinton, and Clinton never had to deal with a devestating hit to the economy as a result of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Clinton never had an economic policy. He didn't need one. He merely followed Ronald Reagan's economic record. In 1983, the final year that Reagan's tax cuts went into effect, the US economy started a 17 year period of economic growth, finally halting with the burst of the dotcom bubble, and then the devasting 9-11 attack on the US. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989 alone. Clinton rode along for the ride, with the exception of a massive tax hike early in his first term. The debt rose every single year that Clinton was in power. The crime rate is lower now than in the Clinton years, and there is less poverty today than in the Clinton years. Does this mean that if the economy improves under the conservative government we can thank the liberals? Bush lowered taxes after Clinton had raised taxes (once early in his 1st term). After the Republicans took control of Congress (I am assuming you know how the US govt system works), they kept Clinton in check. Do you think that if Congress was controlled by the Dems, that Clinton would have not signed Kyoto, or would not have raised taxes?
  13. As for Condi vs Hillary in 2008.... Not a chance for Condi. She is very popular among Republicans for her policies and influence on Bush's brilliant foreign policy on the War on Terror. However, she has never run for any type of office and sorely lacks experience in this area. She'd probably make dumb rookie mistakes during the primaries. Also, she is pro-abortion (remember that voters in the Repub primaries are more conservative) and is a 50-something unmarried woman. The liberal MSM would likely start dropping "lesbian" hints. Sure, she would be subjected to the racist Aunt Jemima slurs so common by the "progressive" left, but the MSM would cover that up. She is possible as a VP but she insists she is not running. Rudy Giuliani has many positives. He was very popular pre-9/11 as he cleaned up the crime that was so rampant in NYC during its rule by Democrat mayors. He has a tough-on-crime rep, performed well after 9-11, refused that $10 million check from that Saudi Prince who wanted him to blame 9-11 on the Jews, did good work for the Repubs in the 2004 election, and has charisma. However, he has many negatives. He's pro-gun control, pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage. Remember that voters in the Repub primaries are more conservative than the general population. Plus, he is an adulterer. After the embarrassment of the Clinton presidency, I can't see Repubs voting him in, although the irony of the Dems attacking him as an adulterer would be delicious. A possible VP. John McCain has no chance. He is despised by the base for his constant RINOism, and is a media hog who loves to be on all the talk shows basking in the glory of being a "maverick" - maverick for often slamming other Repubs, which is why the MSM loves him. Jeb Bush? A good conservative who has done a good job, but too much Bush. 4 years of Sr and 8 years of Jr in the last 20 years. Plus with Bush acting like a liberal in his 2nd term and abandoning his base, Jeb has virtually no chance. Plus, like Condi, he insists he is not running. Bill Frist is a solid conservative but hasn't been terribly effective as Senate Majority Leader and he lacks charisma. If he hasn't done an especially good job as SML, why would be get a promotion? Perhaps a dark horse... Dick Cheney would be great, just to see liberal heads exploding. I am going to stick with my original pick from a previous thread on this topic - George Allen. He is a solid conservative and I sense the base, after having a man as conservative as Reagan in office, and after all the victories Repubs have had at the ballot box (Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote in his 2 terms), that they deserve a true conservative candidate for President - someone to the right of GW Bush. It's still early but perhaps an Allen (solid conservative)/Giuliani (moderate conservative) as VP ticket. Now the Democrats. It is difficult to say because there appears to be a civil war in the party between the moderates and the moonbats who have hijacked the party. Hillary Clinton has name recognition and excellent fund-raising ability. However she has many negatives. She is despised by Republicans and would motivate the Republican base, which at this time is decidedly not motivated due to Bush abandoning them on the immigration issue. She was part of quite possibly the most crooked administration in US history. She was behind the attempt to implement socialist healthcare in the US, the same socialist healthcare that has caused so much pain, suffering, and even death in Canada. She does not come across as warm or motherly like a Laura or Barbara Bush. She seems about as motherly as Nancy Reagan was. Her husband Bill, while having charisma, has all kinds of baggage--including Paula Jones passing a polygraph exam on Pax TV's Lie Detector show when she was asked if Slick Willie exposed himself to her in a hotel room while he was Governor. Another thing. Is the US ready for a female President? Plus this quote from June 2004 will come back to haunt her in capitalist America: "Many of you are well enough off that the [bush] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." The US does not have the same greedy entitled mindset of Europe, or even Canada for that matter (although I hope Harper can move this country away from that lazy mindset). John Kerry has come out against the SBVFT the other day in a ridiculous puff piece by the NY Times a few days ago. But he has a big problem with the way he lied about US atrocities during the Winter Soldier hearings, he lied about Christmas in Cambodia, and is a notorious flip-flopper. Despite the MSM abandoning all pretense of pretending to be fair and balanced in the last election, doing everything they could to get him elected, he still failed. A dark horse. Barack Obama? Liked by the MSM, but a critical look at his statements reveals him to be a socialist. Evan Bayedh (sp?) or Mark Warner? Possible. Both are quite popular and somewhat moderate. Wesley Clark? Unstable and almost caused WWIII in the Balkans. Loved by the moonbats in the "reality-based community" but has no chance with the general public. Which brings me to...al-Gore? Has been all over the talk shows the last little while and the MSM has been fawning all over him. The reviews by the MSM for his propaganda film have mostly been glowing. It appears, at least in the last little while, that the MSM is packaging al-Gore as a viable candidate for 2008 - despite the fact that he seems to be getting more deranged every year. It's too early to tell, plus there is a civil war going on in the Dem Party, but I would have to say it is between Hillary Clinton, al-Gore, Mark Warner and Evan Bayedh (sp?).
  14. Shoop: Don't forget that the Republican-controlled Congress kept Clinton in check. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have ran a much more leftist govt if not for that. Remember the massive tax hike early in his 1st term, before the Repubs took over Congress in 1994? As for Clinton running a far more rightwing govt than anything Harper has done to date (I"m ignoring Mulroney who was not rightwing), I must disagree. Harper is lowering the GST and I am quite sure that he is going to cut more taxes (he is saving it for the next election). Harper cut off funding to the leader of the displaced Arabs in the Palestine region of the Mid East. The most visited leader to the White House during the Clinton presidency, was the renowned terrorist - Yassir Arafat.
  15. Ever wonder why the people putting forward the idea that, to win, the Dems need to be more like Republicans are usually Republicans themselves? Hmmmm.... Just trying to help the hapless Democrats. You do realize that the US is a center-right country, don't you? If you think Howard Dean and his Deaniacs are the path to lead the Dems to the White House, then you must reside in the "reality-based community."
×
×
  • Create New...