For a succinct explanation for the "conservative" party's inability to govern itself, let alone hope to govern the country, see David Brook's column in today's New York Times. It also explains much of the tone of Misfires. Government doesn't operate on ideology. Republicans will never win a national election as long as the Tea Party holds rationality and common sense hostage to its delusions and alternative facts.

Well, that's just like your opinion, man. (The Dude)

Bill, thank you for that.

Typical, subjective demonization from the sociopathic, religious, statist ideologue David Brooks. Who would expect anything else?

We'll just have to see.

Cheer up. CNN is teaming up with Jebe to rectify the situation.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015...rrativehit-job/

This is going to get interesting. How long before they go full-in and give Trump the Huey Long treatment? I'm thinking about ordering one of Jeb's $75 signature guacamole bowls before they sell out.

You write similar to how Brooks does in the column. Give me a little credit, I tried to take a look, but c'mon Bill, it all started with Rush? Speaking of delusions, why would you place so much importance on something that stirs your feelings. This is about the future of the nation, right?

I hope you're able to check back in here instead of drive by delusion folks, maybe tomorrow after the dem debate tonight. Your only political issue preference that you've been able to be somewhat specific about has been the loss of hunting access on fed land.

We have hill that the polls say only the most radical left wing base, such as yourself, still trusts. Then there's sanders, a self proclaimed socialist who has never said the collective should be entitled to gun rights let alone hunting. We also have a non invitee, biden, who clearly used the death of his son to see which way the wind is blowing.

After we get a chance to watch tonight, would you revisit here and explain what each will do for your access to lost hunting land, or any other issue that they will correct a wrong. Feel free to extrapolate, or dig up quotes, on how biden would handle similar.

David Brook's claim to fame is to link Obama's qualifications to be president with the crease in his (O's) pants.

Ben Shapiro has written a response to Brook's column. I will provide a link for your convenience to access it;

http://www.dailywire.com/news/387/nyts-conservative-columnist-conservatives-ben-shapiro

Shapiro defines Conservatism in his final paragraph, which I quote here;

"More importantly, conservatives accept democracy. But more importantly, we accept the principles that undergird democracy: principles of individual liberty and limited government that are rejected wholesale by the left. There can be no compromise on those principles. Compromise of those principles is betrayal. That’s why we’re at an impasse in the Republican Party: not because conservatives stand up for conservatism, but because non-conservatives insist that compromise and political nicety, rather than principle, lie at conservatism’s heart."

Speaking of delusions and alternate facts, I was hoping Rocky Mtn Oyster Bill Ferguson was dipping his foot in Misfires to finally address and correct the falsehoods he presented here about 11 months ago. No such luck. But Bill can always be counted upon to parrot any DNC talking points and say anything to justify increases in education spending... negative net returns be damned.

As long as we all know where you're coming from Bill. You will always support and defend the Liberal Left Socialist anti-gunners. It's what you do.

If David Brooks fails to see the ruination of civilization in our present circumstances, probably 90% of the rest of the population fails to see it too. Is it likely that only a group as perceptive as the Tea Party has it right? These are folks that don't read. They don't value learning. They deny science.They alone could be convinced by a cynical oligarchy to believe nonsense and vote consistently against their own and the country's best interests. Keith, no one responds to your absurd accusations. You wouldn't recognize a fact if it kicked you in the nuts. You're a brainwashed cultist.

Craig, as always you respond with an attack on things I never said. Did I endorse a Democrat? And yes, I am upset. If there is a ruination in store for us, it's the plutocrats, the multi-nationals, and globalism that set us up. And, yes, I blame Bill Clinton for lots of that. When I vote, I want to vote for somebody who takes science seriously. who believes in and supports conservation, who sees the threat of climate change and the need to confront it. I want to vote for someone who will set policies that bring jobs back to this country even if it means we have to pay higher prices for American=made goods. I'm sick of listening to stupid people like Ben Shapiro and the Fox "news" pundits.

In your opening comment, would you substitute dem for Tea party? If not. maybe there is something that you typed that might be questioned, if not attacked.

You know there're many things I disagree with you on, that's why I was hoping we could get some insight after this evenings 'debate'. Are you going to hear talking points or something that your grandkids can hang their future on.

Are you going to hear 'science', because I know that all you 'hear' about R's is that they are ruining the earth. Right?

Craig, I don't know what I'll hear tonight. I haven't heard it yet.

Last time you were here in Misfires Bill was approximately 11 months ago. You posted some totally inaccurate information and got called out on it. You did what Libtards so often do and pretended to ignore it. I kept rubbing your nose in your lies and you ran away. Do you recall getting confronted about it by another participant here at the Las Vegas Antique Arms Show? You told him you were done with Misfires. So tell me Mr. Bill... who wouldn't understand a kick in the nuts? If I have time after work tonite, I'll dig up the disingenuous shit you ran away from like a coward last year. Not everyone here is stupid and has a short memory like you.

Keith, I'm sure I've posted things here that were not entirely accurate. I'm only human. I'm sometimes mistaken. I do not lie, however, and I am capable of being corrected; I'm willing to learn. I work hard to make some sense of the world and my experience of it. My opinions are tentative and subject to change as the evidence appears and new arguments develop. I think my only serious quarrel with Misfires is members' refusal to consider any viewpoint but their own. My meeting with Doug was cordial. He struck me as someone I'd enjoy more talk with. But you're right. I should ignore Misfires. It raises my blood pressure. I'll try to ignore you completely.

How come every time we look at the evidence and consider different viewpoints, I always end up being incompetent.

I'm just sayin'.....thank God there is finally a new thread where the title isn't all caps, if you catch my drift.

Okay, now I've read Brook's column. Seems very much like one could substitute the word "Democrat" for the word "Republican" in that column and it would be just as accurate and make just as much sense.

Bill, it's interesting to me that you say "I think my only serious quarrel with Misfires is members' refusal to consider any viewpoint but their own".

My serious quarrel with the left is an utter refusal by the left to consider any viewpoint but their own. And worse than conservatives, the left is determined to make us all accept their viewpoint. The right just wants to be left to do their own thing. We wish the left would quit telling us how to be and quit taking our money to spend on things we viscerally disagree with.

I make both points because Brook's column is a great example of what I run into daily with the left....the pot calling the kettle black. Somehow, you guys are better, right?

Reminds me of my ex wife. Wish I could be rid of the left as easily.

I almost feel bad for Brooks. He’s part the problem and probably doesn’t realize it. He is the quintessential center-left self-identified “intellectual”. These are the people who associate intelligence and deep-thinking with positive outcomes. If only it were so...

Intelligent people don’t always make the right choices, they make the novel choices. He got tingles because Obama was the novel choice, never expecting it to work out the way it has. Now he's looking at an America that is angrier and more deeply divided than ever. We are no longer united in purpose or national identity. We don’t even agree on what it means to be an American. Now Brooks is saying, “Oh crap.”

Too late, Mr. Intellectual. You helped break it. This is what happens when the media and academia aligns itself with one political party. Now they’ve unleased a diverse coalition or bad conservatives, tea partiers, libertarians, neo-reactionaries of various bents, protectionists, nativists, etc.

The intellectual classs should be freaking out.

Ryan, are you saying you prefer stupidity and shallow thinking? I doubt you mean that, but it sounds as if you might. And Canvasback, your response the Brooks' essay would be easy to go along with if Brooks weren't himself a Republican. He's saying this about his own party. Craig, I don't think you're incompetent, but you do get carried away and lapse into a verbal tangle. And, yes, the Dems bear a good share of blame. I don't think they created the Tea Party, however.

What's your take Bill, is Brooks a thoughtful, deep thinker? Seems to me like he takes comfort knowing he'll have the support of the pc left wing mob mentality. Not going out on much of a limb, bashing on the Tea party, eh.

I see value in some verbal goofing around. If I showed up with a list of facts and figures, I doubt you'd care one bit. You like what you like. At least word play might make someone see that there are inconsistencies in a position. Maybe not.

Bill, doesn't really matter what Brooks calls himself. What I said is true. And were it a one off, just this time in just that column, than maybe I might be prepared to discount it. But in both our countries I see the left blaming the right for behaviors that are part of the left's core playbook.

I'm not talking about specific policies. I'm talking about behavior and I'm pointing out the hypocrisy.

We are having a federal election within a week in Canada. I have never seen anything like it in the last several months up here....the most vile criticisms of our current prime minister and the supporters of his party, regularly called fascists constantly by people who complain about the right "going negative". I'm not talking about some internet yahoos, I'm talking about the mainstream of people.


It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Probably the same 'environmentalists' who called a sitting US President, a moron.

I don't know much about Canadian politics, but I strongly agree that ways must be found to bridge party feuding. Compromise is the essence of governing a democracy. Nobody gets everything his way all the time. The Incompetence Caucus wants it all their way. There are only 40 of them. If it weren't for gerrymandering, they wouldn't be elected in the first place. AAAARG. PS: No American President has been subjected to more hate speech than our present one.

Except maybe the last one, Bill. I actually remember seeing bumper stickers around the Mpls area that said "F&CK Bush".
A lot of them. The press never missed an opportunity to bash Bush, when in office, and still do.

Our present president has had a hand in setting race relations back 100+ years, a disasterous economic record to put Carter, the last president of his ilk, to shame, and has made an even bigger mess in the middle east, which, most people on the street may not have thought possible 8 years ago. Former allies are now cool to us, former enemies have assumed leadership on the world stage.

He deserves most of it.


Best,
Ted

Some parties are better than others managing wide interests within their big tents. In-fighting is often more vicious than between parties. American animosities are celebrated and denigrated on the world stage because a superpower's fractious housekeeping is diminishing its ability and leadership. Canada's federal election next week may produce a conservative minority or loss because the Conservative Party couldn't balance hard right and progressives.

Ted, collapse of the victorious Arab Spring of "flowering democracy" into dozens of religious wars isn't America's fault nor is the bigger mess in the middle east except for the Iraq blunder.

Consider how many of America's allies are willing or able to fight in Syria, and American public opinion is to bring the troops home.

From what I read, allies don't see greater US involvement in Syria as an improvement at this time. Let them beat their heads out.

US is taking the long view, Russia the short to paste over its domestic problems. The US will come out looking pretty good, in my view.

Yes, the US' decisions are the US' fault. russians are specifically target US forces in syria. Is that how you define com'in up smell'in like a rose. Or, is that what you meant when they scrambled yesterday to announce all's well with the iranian 'deal', even though they tested ballistic missile delivery systems on the weekend.

What a 'partnership' eh.

What were you able to pick up on last evenings 'debate'. All the 'clear' winner was able able to signal to international observers was, she's the gal to push domestic entitlements to new highs, because she's a gal. She's not even elected yet and signalling a 'diminished ability and leadership'. I wonder who's continuing the short term vision, election time eh, cackle about the emails.

The only time the dems 'argued' a bit last night was when they disagreed about how much gun control would be just right. And a vote for the left doesn't bring along automatic ideological baggage? Clearly, if you vote left, you're for gun control, but in the interest of civility it'll be 'reasonable'.

Rocky Mtn Bull's-eye parroting of the DNC line on denigrating the Tea Party is quite typical of the typical Libtard who actually doesn't know a damned thing about the Tea Party. Any criticism of the almost unparalleled incompetence from Obama is automatically seen as racism and totally ignores the daily Bush-bashing which goes on to this day. People like Bill are all for compromise, yet conveniently forget the stonewalling done by Democrats. But they never lie. Just ask them.

No more peculiar than the West's partnerships with dictators and butchers, Craig. It's the way of the world, like the US declaring it has the right to invade arbitrarily invade any country at any time it considers it against its national interests.

As for specific targets, US is investigating how MSF hospital became a specific target for a US gunship. In the chaotic involvement of dozens of countries in Syria, it's a wonder it's not worse. Canada with Kurds is targeted by NATO ally Turkey.

Look at whose side Iran is on with ISIS.

Clear winner? Hardly.

Read my lips and hope and change: What they say politicking and do governing are two different things, not least because of the US system.

Voting left doesn't mean for gun control any more than my voting Liberal next week for the first time of my life means I support the Liberal Party.

It's the only option I have if my loyalty to Canada is more important than my loyalty to the party I favour.

My guess is Americans will think similarly if it's Trump.

(Gun control wasn't high in priorities last time I looked at national polls.)

I wasn't thinking about oopsies. I concede, the US should've gone to that 'hospital' and mirandized the whole crew, but this'll be forgotten in a microsecond compared to the fifteen minutes of inconvenience due to the 'emails'.

I was thinking of the biggest international, well except for kyoto, agreement of all time. A couple weeks ago russia tells the US to take a hike. The US says no thanks, so the russias start by attacking US 'partners'. Jean kery scrambles, so trembling in their boots, russia attack US forces. Weird eh.

Do you really suppose iran flexed its high tech long range delivery system muscle to intimidate two or three izzles cruising around in a toyota pickup with some ak's and grenade launchers? No, something says they're sending a message, and it ain't deterrence. Maybe womens rights, legal marijuana, minimum wage? Yup, they're keeping their eye on the ball.

Egad! Just kidding. I believe you told us here that you've been a hard lefty since at least around the time that castro first had his vision of building up cuba to the world's cutting edge health center.

I can't say I follow Canadian politics to the extent that you lobby for the left wing of US politics, but maybe cback has a point? Seems like you're tacitly approving of the the foulest personal attacks and demonizing by libs against their opposition in Canadian history. Yup, I can see what you envision for your motherland.

The hospital and emails won't amount to an gnat's eyelash of influence in the US or the world compared to to the Middle East and US example of not able to govern in Washington, where your citizens say a pox on both parties. Iran isn't as intractable a problem as Pakistan and surging China from Africa to Middle East and South China Sea.

Bill, are you kidding? No president subject to more hate speech?? Daily I hear Bush denigrated. Daily!! And I'm in Canada and he left office 7 years ago! This is what I'm talking about!!!

I could gather 100 people together in the town I live in, large retirement population, and ask for comments on Obama. For sure, better than 50% would be positive. Same group, ask about Bush....85-90% negative. Even lots of centre right have bought the media line....Bush is stupid. And repeat it to this day.

Let's see.

Voting for a guy who has never accomplished anything in life, who is running based on his family name and being attractive (the hubris involved is staggering....where does he get off thinking he's qualified to run the country) and who, in the short time he has been in public life, has personally demonstrated all the behaviors he so vehemently criticizes Harper for (So you are going with a clear hypocrite).

And you think THAT is in service to your country?

King, at least vote for someone who may be misguided, but at least is a competent, serious guy. Vote for Mulcair!

I've voted left and conservative as circumstances warranted, as the US does traditionally by electing Democrat and Republican governments. I grew up favouring the weak and minorities because of a certain spirituality and my experience with the consequences of endemic inequality.

James is accurate in the longest and most divisive election campaign in our history. Canadian, US and European media describe as "beyond the pale" the way Canada lost its values under the current conservative government. Advance polls are unprecedented, with three-hour waits to vote.

A populace wanting change is a larger factor than "demonizing" in a campaign that has become all about the prime minister.

Mulcair has been most principled and courageous leader, particularly on the Muslim issue, and arguably among the best or our best Opposition Leader in history.

I've supported the party generously but my NDP vote here this time in Peter's vacated riding could become a vote for the Conservatives with vote-splitting.

I've been able to accept election results with magnanimity because I know Canadians wouldn't collectively let anything bad happen to the country.

They got rid of the Liberals and now comes their denouement of the Conservatives for changing from their promise.

As for Trudeau, no one thought Diefenbaker had it either. None of the usual suspects would run for the party. Lawyers ran away. Dief produced the most democratic Commons in representation of the masses.

To an extent, I do mean it. Average is best.

Intellectuals make shitty leaders, which is sort of what is troubling Brooks but, he’s overthinking it. The incompetent caucus is winning the contest. Of course they are. They generally will.

The main problem with intellectual leaders is they absolutely cannot deal with any crisis. When the time comes for decisive action, a David Brooks type really will be thinking about pant creases and philosophical betrayals. It’s true in politics and it’s true in business. They think far too much, then do nothing, and someone like Putin eats them for lunch.

The second problem is ‘smarts’ rarely have any frame of reference or perspective for how the ‘others’ think or live which causes them incorrectly apply abstract logical reasoning to social and relational domains. For example, the intellectual left cannot fathom why Middle American will not give up their guns. They don’t know anything about the ‘clingers’.

I would prefer to confine the high brows to research at the universities, institutions, think tanks, and corporate backrooms. Smart people have ruined more companies and institutions than average people because their intelligence far too often overrides their common sense.

This is the irony of the left, and maybe part of what canvasback is noticing. The left is so very proud of their intellects but there is scant evidence that smarts produce good outcomes. The intellectual can convince himself of almost anything. Last night the best of the left told us climate change is the biggest threat facing America. Has any doomsday scenario ever come true? Just saying…

Ryan, I could not agree more. Too much smarts is often more of a hindrance than a benefit.

I don't quite agree. The smartest ones get the rest to follow along, counting on lack of smarts. Take for example King, he says he's voting for hope-n-change, rhetoric not facts. We know this because what politicians say and what politicians do are always different.

The top tier smart folks can trigger the feelings of the second tier smart folks to rally the lemmings. We know this because the subject title teaches us which folks to be prejudice against.

Canvasback, Of course Bush is still roundly denigrated. He is almost singly responsible for the worst foreign policy decision since Vietnam. His adventure in Iraq cost the lives of 5000 US soldiers, the maiming of tens of thousands, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Obama's worst decisions are as nothing compared to this monstrous debacle. I have raised this issue here before and no one has ever responded except to say that there were too weapons of mass destruction, a claim that only a brain- dead moron could still maintain. My hope is that the US and Canada will find the way to electing better leaders. Given our political climates, the candidates we need tend not to step up. Who can blame them?

I know why Americans won't give up their guns, and generally shouldn't do so. I also believe there are limits to "individual freedom."

On climate change, compared to the issues yapped in debates, climate change will become the biggest factor in how the world lives.

Average smart seems to make more harmonious and productive outcomes. I wouldn't ignore deep thinkers for fear of not having the full picture.

Involved in thousands of mom-and-pop private forestry operations, I've found their collective wisdom always prevails successfully providing they have as much information possible.

I'm glad you typed 'almost' singly responsible. Tiny, but a disclaimer to the hundred percent true international coalition and countless congressional dems that voted in favor of action. When exactly has bo lead and gone to congress for anything. Easy, when reid and pelosi still had rubber stamps.

Your wmd mantra is on the same level as slinging around incompetence and moron labels. Take a look at a map, the US really needs military bases in iraq to monitor our 'friends-n-partners' in the area. Same as GITMO for keeping an eye on the cubanos, oh and for free there's also room down there to lock up the worst of the worst. Our great leader at this moment is rethinking his retreat at all cost mantra for afganstan. Really ballsie eh.

Worst than me being a brain dead moron, you sling around hope-n-change buffalo chips, but won't give any indication of who that 'leader' is and what they're going to do. All will be just perfect if we could be strict kyoto pacifists.

No, Craig, I'm not saying I'm voting for hope and change. I'm voting strategically against my party to prevent vote splitting allowing the Conservative Party to continue running the country. The Liberal Party isn't my first choice. My country comes before party.

James, the rap against Bush where I come from isn't hate, more as stupid for Iraq bill for dead and treasure, entirely different things.

This, I don't understand. What makes you think the conservatives are so bad? Did they cut welfare, harm women, slash health care? Or, is their only crime that they don't trigger the hope-n-change leg tingle any more.

I recall you saying that you wanted to skew a poll that imposed a happy face on Canada. Then, you were going to flank 'em and say, see you're so happy you don't want more gun control. I also recall you saying, Canada was one of the few countries of this world practically untouched by the financial meltdown. You also said many times that your leadership has kept you out of expensive, unnecessary war. Another bad thing?

So your leadership prioritizes and steers Canada through the toughest of financial times, and as a show of gratitude, you demonize and hatefully attack them. With friends like 'you', who needs enemas.

Bill, when he made that decision he was supported by almost all the members of congress, both houses, and with an approval rating by Americans at large in the 80% range. If he's so dumb, why doesn't everyone else who was on board own up to it?

And so what if there weren't WMD's to be found. The Iraqi's had been trying to get them for years and Saddam claimed he had them. Who bluffs about shit like that?

You gotta get out and talk to more young people. Young, university educated and living in large cities. Their shit doesn't stink and they have been trained by their professors to hate Bush and to equate Bush and Harper as the same....NRA loving Republicans.

And so, with a poor grasp of the facts, they are sure of what they think.

Bizarre, isn't it?

Canvasback, yes he had the support, but he got it by fudging the intelligence. I sat a pox on every congressional member who supported him, including Hillary. She has long since admitted she was dead wrong there. Conspicuously absent from the list of supporters there is BO. He got that one right.

Bill, wasn't Bo still community activating about that time?

Show us some proof that Bush or Cheney fudged the intel which fooled your precious Democrats into supporting taking out Saddam, rocky mtn bill. Are you just parroting more DNC bullshit, or are you making another not so honest mistake?

You could pretend to just ignore me. I can see the estrogen oozing out of you. Sorry to hear that Misfires raises your blood pressure. As your fellow anti-gun gunner supporter King Brown says... if you're not having fun by ignoring someone like a female... you're not living.

CB, He was a US Senator.

He was still a community organizer at the time, didn't become a senator for a few more years. During the pres debates of the time, his national sec summary for himself was that when the news broke he ran out of his office and towards town hall to see what all the hub bub was about.

I thought so. But I'm so busy converting a 1300 pound file safe into a gun safe, I couldn't have been bothered to look it up. Thanks Craig.

Gluing the fabric liner onto the panels and fitting them into position. I can barely type my hands are so sticky with that damn spray glue! I figure since this is misfires, I can go waaayyy off topic!

All those dead young Americans and ruined lives plus many thousands of Middle Easterners just to make money. How pathetic. There is no use comparing Bush to Obama.

The poor learned when they put them with M4s next to driver from third world country delivering supplies using most dangerous roads in the world.

You will of course send us some photo's and post some here so everyone can see your handy work...............right...........????? ..... How many guns will this new safe hold James...........??

Best,

I can’t keep track of how many countries Bush and Obama have bombed but, it’s noteworthy that it wasn’t their wars that divided the country. It was the bailouts, TARP, stimulus packages, NIRP (for 7 years), QE to infinity, etc. that birthed the dreaded "incompetent" caucus.

I don’t know what Brooks’ was hoping for when he went all-in for Obama, or what Obama’s intentions were or are. It doesn’t matter. To a great extent Presidents and the culture that elects them are synergetic. Obama has been the “[censored] you dad” Presidency. Maybe that’s what he wanted, may not. Either way, it’s how it turned out.

Mea Culpa; I was in error regarding Obama's position when he opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Once I'm done watching the Jays thrash Texas, I will gladly post photos. I've finished the lining. Now I have to get the rack made.

You were also in error when you claimed Bush manipulated the intelligence which led to war in Iraq. Another honest mistake from another honest Libtard. Right? Or maybe you can provide some proof instead of parroting DNC bullshit Billy. Is this how you taught your students? How's that blood pressure?

Agreed cback. If you can, put up a picture or two. Sounds like a good size safe. Give whatever glue you use, give it a decent amount of time to set/ventilate before you lock good steel in there with it. To keep things on topic, you can hang a left wing dart board on it for the picture.

Thanks for the comment about the glue Craig. It will be at least a month before the rack is ready. And I forgot in my answer to Doug......I'm debating 20 guns and lots of room or 24 guns and just a little bit tighter.

That's okay Bill. I make mistakes too.

We conservatives try to learn from them. Lol

Keith, look up yellowcake. Look up Valerie Plaim. Look up her husband. Look up Colin Powell's presentation to the UN.

Hey Bill, look up coalition of the willing. Say what you will. Facts are that 48 countries signed on and 41 of them sent their own citizens to fight in the initial conflict, or man the later occupation. I wonder who let that slip slide away. The fellow that formed the coalition between russia and iran? Heck they did that anyway, why pay them on top of it?

Craig, Yes, when our government faked the intelligence, it caused lots of trusting people, our own and our allies, to commit to a horrendous mistake, a tragedy that should never have happened.

Can't wait till President Cruz claws back the gov check you cash every month you lying sack of $hit RMB !



http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/234626/saddams-wmds-lefts-iraq-lies-exposed-arnold-ahlert

The latest revelations on the details of Saddam's weapons stockpile, now potentially in the hands of Sunni radicals, affirm the Bush administration's characterization of Iraq as a territory situated in a hotbed of radicalism, flooded with a bevy of highly dangerous weapons and overseen by a criminal rogue regime. Indeed, the WMDs are to say nothing of the Hussein government's nuclear weapons program, also put to a stop by intervention in Iraq. In 2008, American and Iraqi officials had "completed nearly the last chapter in dismantling Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program with the removal of hundreds of tons of natural uranium from the country’s main nuclear site,” the New York Times reported. Approximately 600 tons of “yellowcake” was removed from the Tuwaitha facility, the main site for Iraq's nuclear program. According to global security.org, uranium enrichment levels of 95 percent were achieved at the Tuwaitha facility. That site was also the location of the Osirak nuclear reactor destroyed by Israel in 1981.

Put down the 'shrooms.

Plaim was a Democrat operative...who lied about everything. Her husband was another retarded liberal.

Good god man....take your meds....exactly what proof do you have of that? I know more than a thing or two about that stuff.....and not from Liberal propaganda.

There may be a lot of things that they aren't up front about, some for good reasons...but those Intelligence reports are NOT fabricated or faked.

They should have put down them 'shrooms and brass pipes when they inspired Arab Spring expecting what? Democratic rule? That borderless Army of Mayhem was created by the West to destabilize the Middle East. Does anyone believe that those new Toyota trucks and Hummers didn't come for the West? That whole story that Iraqi troops abandoned their equipment which was supposedly taken up by the Army of Mayhem is another media bullshit blitz.

OWEbama inspired the Arab Spring for his fellow Muslims...actually thinking they would behave like humans.

I always thought mushroom picking and eating should be left to Eastern Europeans like eating puffer fish should be left to the Asians. Not following this advise could truly have unwanted consequences which could apparently be worse then death.
Yep by pulling the troops out BHO really "threw some sand" into the engine of neocon dream of restructuring the Middle East. Gee, if they call upon the military to put feet on the ground again there might be revolt. You know, like if "I" trade my gas guzzling pickup or SUV for a Prius do "I" still have to go?

Rocky Mtn Bill, show us some proof that Bush or Cheney fudged the intel which fooled your precious Democrats into supporting taking out Saddam. Are you just parroting more DNC bullshit, or are you making another not so honest mistake?

You could pretend to just ignore me. I can see the estrogen oozing out of you. Sorry to hear that Misfires raises your blood pressure. As your fellow anti-gun gunner supporter King Brown says... if you're not having fun by ignoring someone like a menstruating female... you're not living.

Hey King, didn't you recently say that our desire for individual freedom has led to an acceptance of mass murder?

Why yes you did, you old anti-gunner in denial!



Do you still want to try to tell us that you are not anti-gun?

Would you care to extend this line of logic to your questionable Award Winning Wine making activities, and then link that to an acceptance of Canadian Drunk Driving fatalities? How many kids have you killed because of your greedy participation in the intoxicant industry?

Following up on some observations based on Kings comments yesterday. King has described how he is voting for Justin Trudeau and the Liberals in our upcoming election, despite not being the leader or the party of his choice. He is doing this, in what's called up here as "strategic voting" to do his best to ensure that a Conservative does not win in his local riding.

For those who say there is little media bias, as our election date has drawn near, ALL the fifth estate has been on a "strategic voting" article/news story binge!! Very few articles (none) about how in our last election they were calling, based on polls, for a Liberal win (just as they are now. But lots subtly and not so subtly instruction on the value of strategic voting.

And in other news, despite the ridiculously blatant attempt by the officials to swing the game in the Rangers favour with the most ridiculous call in the history of baseball during the 7th inning, Toronto finished their (late start) three game sweep of the Rangers to advance to the next round!

And the safe looks great!

My Rack holds 24 guns. It was an old library bookshelf I picked up for a few bucks at auction. It's one of those types that probably held magazines, much wider at the bottom. I made the butt-rack at the top so the guns are racked muzzle down.

Ken, my current safe is a Cabela's branded safe that was touted to hold 24 guns. Maybe hand guns if you piled them up! So I threw out the racking that came with it and had one made to my own design out of walnut. That was back in the day before I knew about muzzle up or muzzle down.



Hold twenty guns, sixteen SxS and 4 single barrel. Gets a bit tight if they are scoped rifles. I'm down to just one of those so no big deal at the moment.

Here's the new safe. Double doors, deeper, wider and 2.5 times as heavy. Will be installing LED lighting and a rack similar to my other rack.





I have given a lot of thought to the muzzle up or down issue. I'm sticking to muzzle up. Here's why. I have a muzzle down rack for the Cabela's safe. I have found that In the normal course of events, taking them in and out is safer muzzle up. Fewer accidental "safe kisses" Given that I don't over oil my guns, I have little fear that muzzle up will be contributing to new damage to any of my guns. But my general level of klutziness may.

And now we return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

James, talk about a punk's game! Yes, I planned to vote for Trudeau if the Liberal candidate was leading in our constituency.

Now, I must vote for Mulcair on principle because the Liberals are back to their old cronyism, which is why I never voted Liberal.

I envy your equanimity voting for Harper!

Wow, that's a lot of gymnastics just to send the message that conservatives are bad. Instead of connect the dots, all ya gotta do down here is pretend to feel guilty about something. Like me, I gotta vote for hill because she'll grant absolution for my misogynistic ways. That's easier though, I was going to vote for perot to keep that uncle tom Carson out of the big house.

I don't think of conservatives as bad, Craig. Their federal leader started here with a radical conservative rump on the prairies, proposing a firewall from the rest of Canada, sucked in progressives to form a big-tent Conservative Party of Canada, broke every promise except one: Canada would be a different place when he was finished with it---and it is, sadly. Conservatives bailing out leave the party with 25 per cent less support than when it started. That's not bad. My closest gunning buddies are true-blue Tories. One has a big $41.50 sign on his lawn: "I am a conservative but I'm voting against Harper."

Well as you may expect, I have a slightly different take on Harper's 9 years in power. But not here and now. I'm just glad you've come to your senses, King, and seen the Liberal Party for the collection of old whores and young fools that it is.

If you have any brains, you're a Tory and if you are a starry eyed dreamer, you vote NDP. I'm okay with either because many starry eyed dreamers learn over time. It is the whores and fools of the Liberal Party I worry about. Corrupt and only interested in holding power. No credo to match.

Tomorrow, because I know you all will be waiting, I may update you on the progress of my safe AND what the blue Jays are doing. BTW, if hockey players hit the golf course when they get blown out of the playoffs, what do baseball players do when off season rolls around?

Now lets get back on topic! Bill, where are you? Say something buddy!

Am I the only one or are we happy Dave K is back posting the odd note?

CB, This morning's news has the Fox channel suggesting the Tea Party break off from the Republicans and form a third party. Sounds like a good idea to me. It would be even better if they seceded from the union and formed their own country. BTW, has Kansas faired any better recently under its Tea Party governor? Perhaps Kansas could become the Tea Party homeland. That would quickly be a death blow to bird hunting there. Enough about partisanship. It's not the real trouble. The real trouble is that it doesn't matter if a party gets a majority. The shots are being called by big money, and big money has no need for government except for it not to levy taxes. That brings us full circle to the Tea Party, a group of ordinary citizens who've been duped into carrying water for the ultra rich and providing the votes for the ultra rich to further strengthen their stranglehold on the country's wealth.

Bill, forgetting the Tea Party diatribe for a moment, I think your blaming of big money is a bit simplistic. While I agree that big money is/can be a problem, I don't think the solution is big government.

I think the solution is small government that sticks to its areas of responsibility.....creating regulations that ensure all entities, big and small, corporate and human, behave within our society appropriately. I use "appropriately" on purpose. What is "appropriate" changes over time....in the sense of the regulations that are needed.

So, the problems in Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, New York, New Jearsey, Illinois, California, etc, are the doing of the Tea Party, Bill? I'd like to believe there has yet to be a sighting of a Tea Partyer in any of those places. We have tangible ideas of exactly what went wrong in those places, but, there are no Tea Partyers there.
Come up with something tangible to lay on the Tea Party, Bill. Few have been elected.
Try not to fear any boogie men, Bill.


Best,
Ted

I have suggested that the socialist party break away from the dems and form their own party. I've even suggested that they heard as a group to the ocean's edge and do as lemmings do. Bill, do you suppose that would leave more than three or four chrony big money dems in the old party.

Here's the tough part, what if the remaining big money dems made their fortunes off of mil contracts brokered by hill while she was sec-o-state. Whew to my questions, if the lemmings are doing the breast stroke, because it's gals awareness month, to iran for tollerance, is it possible for them to feel synchronized about pacifism?

Rocky mtn bill ferguson is just another in a long line of Libtards who think they can pull some bullshit out of their ass and make it stick, but then just dance away from it if they get confronted. Is that how you taught your students Bill? No doubt in my mind.

Rocky Mtn Bill, show us some proof that Bush or Cheney fudged the intel which fooled your precious Democrats into supporting taking out Saddam. Are you just parroting more DNC bullshit, or are you making another not so honest mistake?

You could pretend to just ignore me. I can see the estrogen oozing out of you. Sorry to hear that Misfires raises your blood pressure. As your fellow anti-gun gunner supporter King Brown says... if you're not having fun by ignoring someone like a menstruating female... you're not living.

Hey King Liar, aren't you the one who said Conservative is an euphemism for greed? Aren't you the one who blanket refers to Conservatives as racist, misogynist, and selfish? Are you now telling us those are not bad things, or are you telling us that you are lying once again?

Are your hunting buddies just like you too... claiming to be one thing when actually they are quite the opposite?



Does that sound like the words of a pro-gunner King? Well, I suppose it does to a compulsive liar in denial like you.

Keith,you keep demanding evidence.Why? You have no interest in evidence. Evidence is all over the landscape, but you have to remove your head from your fundament to see it. Every post of yours on Misfires points to the conclusion that you are an A** hole. Why don't you post a little evidence that you're not?

Well, well, well. There's an interesting response from rocky mtn transplant Bill Ferguson who once again told us an outright lie.

But you told us that you don't lie Bill. And you told us you are only human and sometimes make mistakes. But your little "mistakes" always seem to be identical to NEA and DNC lies and talking points, and you are always unable to provide any proof. Most importantly, you refuse to admit or retract those "mistakes" and "human errors". What does that say about you, your spine, and your integrity?

You told us that Bush manipulated the intelligence that caused many leading Democrats to support taking out Saddam. Bill and Hillary Clinton supported it. John Kerry supported it. Very many Democrat Senators and Congressmen supported it. 86% of the American public supported it.



Now you are telling us that Bush was exactly like you... that he pulled facts out of thin air to support his position. But once again, you have zero proof, this time of something that would be an impeachable offense.

Since you claim evidence is all over the landscape, it should be very easy for you to provide some. What's the problem?

Why do I keep demanding evidence Bill? Simply to illustrate who and what you really are. Who knows Bill. Maybe I will be able to go to the Las Vegas Antique Arms Show this year, and you can call me an A**hole to my face.

How's your blood pressure liar? Oh sorry, I forgot... if an obvious liar says he is not a liar, then we should all pretend we don't see his lies. King Brown Rules of Faux Civility.

Thanks CB,
been following it a bit and see Doug has been working his magic for ya on your barrels.
Busy with the great new book, perhaps that proven liar Rocky Mtn Bill BS's would enjoy:

Well, Canada elected a Liberal government. Probably not a great sign for 2016 here. Now at least we can watch our northern neighbor enjoy the fruits of hope and change as we have for the last 7 1/2 years...Geo

p.s.: And blame it all on 10 years of Harper!

There's a lesson here for the GOP, Geo. The country voted for change, period. The one-man Conservative Party had lost its moral authority. Conservative mainstream media and its most distinguished columnists said Harper had to go. His assault against Canadian values drove away millions of conservatives. All of Canada won.

There was sort of an analogy in our big traditional dinner at the end of the grape harvest on this election day (before the ballot boxes were opened). The chatter was about busier lives making fewer get-togethers of love and laughter like the old barn raising or wood splitting parties. A young picker said "We're harvesting more than grapes."

That was Canada yesterday. Conservatives got their party back. Blame rested squarely on Harper's shoulders.

You know, King I have a hard enough time stomaching US politics without having to try and keep up with Canadian. I don't know what Harper was all about, so I'll take your word for it that Canada needed a change.

If Canada has no term limits, I guess if a mistake's been made it can be rectified without having to wait for a set term to end? My concern over the liberal party election was what that vote might foretell for us in 2016. We are not so different from Canadians as I see it...Geo

I wonder if King would be crowing about a Liberal loss. Somehow, I doubt it. I do think it is ironic that King Brown would once again mention his grape harvest considering his anti-gun sentiment he expressed above. He links mass murders to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and goes so far as to say we actually accept mass murder in the name of personal freedom.

So using this twisted and disgusting line of logic and reasoning, can we conclude that King Brown and others in the wine making industry actually accept and defend the deaths and injuries and illnesses that result from alcohol abuse and drunk driving?

Or is King simply an anti-gunner in denial of his own words and rhetoric?

IS KING BROWN AN ANTI-GUNNER?

Err, I work with a Canadian expat who isn't too pleased. He says your boy’s a vapid child of privilege who will lead Canada further down the shitter. But, he had enough and moved here so…

Point being, there is no such thing as Canadian (or American) values.

First Western leader with tatts?

There's gotta be an award for this, maybe a maple leaf something or another. I thought the indigestion was coming from King's analysis, and you've bridged the divide. Maybe, some day we'll find out what ole Harper did wrong.

Harper was the best prime minister during my lifetime (of 57 years). He set out to break the political and media dominance of the Toronto/Montreal axis of power, and greatly succeeded. But in doing so, engendered the undying hatred of the elites he choose to go up against. They used his lack of charisma and uncomfortableness on the public stage (he's a policy wonk not a marketer) to frame the debate that he's a cold autocratic dictator in the making.

He undid the centralization of power in Ottawa that Trudeau's father championed, reversing decades of abuse of the regions by central Canada, in particular, the West.

Canada won for having Harper, not for getting rid of him. History will look kindly upon his time in office, as it has Harper's inspiration, Preston Manning.

As noted in my post in the other thread, this is a vapid analysis of who Trudeau Jr. is. He has thrived and succeeded by being underestimated. I know lots of vapid children of wealth and privilege. Trudeau is not one of them.

His considered analysis is hateful. It concerns throwing open the doors for Syrian and Middle Easter migrants. The Denver Post is quite fond of Trudeau.

There isn't the polarization here, Geo. My conservative friend James on another thread posted an accurate analysis of how Canadians are different from Americans when it comes to politics. I accept with equanimity the results of every election---win or lose---because I know the country wouldn't let anything bad happen to it. Liberals here always campaign on the left and government on the right anyway. Each party this election was fairly centrist, in some ways hard to tell apart.

What would pass for absurd in Canada is the notion that a vote for liberals means an anti-gun sentiment, as if a reverence or need for guns comes first in a country's priorities. Or anti-gun to mention US acceptance of mass murder, mass school executions, 438 children being hit by a bullet every month between 2004 and 2014, 13 children between one and three killed themselves with guns so far this year as the violence that defines the US trickles down to babies in diapers.

Ugly or truth or both? The unprecedented Canadian turn-out by conservatives and liberals in Canada had nothing to do with guns. They weren't an issue. Canadians wanted a change. As for your 2016, the Republican candidate promising the most change is Trump. Your populace is sick of its governance. If he's nominated, your voters may have to choose between a devil they don't really know and the deep blue sea. Seems a crapshoot to me.

King, I am disappointed. In the US, it is very difficult to distinguish the R's from the d's. Should Mr. Trump be on the general election ballot, think of him as an ethnically or gender challenged barack or hilery. Not some monster created by polarizing minds.

In case you haven't noticed, the US is a melting pot of higher priorities. Did you know that food stamps could not be used in strip clubs and pot shops during dark, in a white sort of way, days of the Bush administration? There has also been a defining of what race you have to be for your life to matter.

We are pushing to pay for all state college tuition for our young'uns, because particularly for our daughters, we are sending them of to be raped. Did you know, we are cutting the danger of high volume soda, greater than 16 ozs., by substituting for the benefits of unlimited pot smoking.

No, you keep your antigunning distractions to yourself, and leave the important stuff to the us, yes now lower case.

Trump, monster? Flavour of the GOP, darling of the airwaves, seems to me.

The important stuff is being left to the us, weakened by its own hands, overextended militarily, public saying no more overseas adventures.

Trump's only one offering change.

No polarization King? My experience with a number of close friends in rural Sask. over a number of years begs to differ. I'll stick with my premise that Canadians are not much different from people here.

Try your newly elected liberal government for a while and then report on the feelings of your Countrymen. Gun control is our peculiar axe to grind because our constitution bears upon it. Yours doesn't and you seem from your comments here not to see it as so much of of an important issue. It is different here.

Trump is a "crapshoot" all right but I am convinced that Bush will be the Republican candidate and I'm pulling for Dr. Carson as his running mate. Interesting year a'coming! You guys have made your bed, pray or whatever for us to make the right decision...Geo

I want to see Cruz get the nomination, if only to witness him mop the floor with Hillary's filthy blond nest of hair in the debate....


Best,
Ted

"I'll stick with my premise that Canadians are not much different from people here"

Canadians can easily 'pass for American' as long as we don't accidentally use metric measurements or apologize when hit by a car. Douglas Coupland


_____________________
Damn you, Joe Wood. I'm trying like hell to come up with a deep signature line and I'm failing miserably. Go fook yourself.

_____________________
My stream of consciousness is polluted.

Your gunning buddies in Saskatchewan are probably the same as mine here: left or right, friendship before politics---always.

If I'm wrong, you may have been in that radical prairie rump territory that produced Harper, who proposed cutting the West from the rest of Canada!

I believe US will make the right decision.

I know Canada made the wrong decision. Just kidding, you always get it left. Tough buffalo chips for the prairie park trash, eh.

Craig, the West is hardly prairie trash. It's where the NDP party I often support started medicare in Saskatchewan, its leader Tommy Douglas polled nationally as Canadian of the 20th Century.

The current premier of Alberta, a woman, is also leader of the provincial NDP party and Manitoba is often governed by the NDP. That's the prairies. Harper is a conservative aberration, beyond the pale for 70 per cent of Canadians.

Conservatives put their country before their party. One of my gunning buddies, an admired professional in our community, put a sign on his lawn: "I am a conservative but Harper has to go." He's admired for that, too.

Canadians differ greatly from Americans.

King, King, King!

Harper was elected in 2011 to a majority by 39.5% of the voters.

Trudeau was elected in 2015 to a majority by 39.5% of the voters.

Please explain to me how this gives Trudeau any more legitimacy than the left accorded Harper. At the time of their election they were both opposed by 60% of the electorate. Trudeau is beyond the pale TODAY for 60% of voters. Does that mean he is a Westmount aberration?

Come on man, you are becoming a punk in your own "punks game"! Calculated misdirection and outright hypocrisy designed to sway the uninformed. King, please apply the same standards across the board. Accept, as I have, that some you win and some you lose. I never mind partisanship. It's hypocrisy I don't like.

Sounds like a fair and simple question, and an accurate assessment of the little game King plays here. Usually, an honest answer will just roll off the tongue quickly and easily. Notice how King has replied to other threads since this was posted, but skated around this uncomfortable line of questioning. It takes a bit of time to craft a lie or bullshit answer or to hope someone will change the subject.

I'd be pretty sure this was easy enough to look up, but boy oh boy what a mandate, eh. And to think that a teeny little 48% comment could sink an entire campaign.

If we delve into these numbers, they look suspiciously contrived. The casual Canadian might figure two out'a three folks are anti lib, but the numbers don't quite add up. It looks to me like your election officials are not giving full weight to minority, lbg-mouse and the female vote.

I think cback was on to something, when you say Canada 'won', there's more to it than meets the eye, hmmm.

Still no reply from King to canvasback's questions. Figures lie and liars figure And when liars like King get caught, they figure they'd better just slip out the back door and hope no one notices.

Guess what King? Everyone notices. You're not fooling anyone anymore.




Sounds like a fair and simple question, and an accurate assessment of the little game King plays here. Usually, an honest answer will just roll off the tongue quickly and easily without even thinking about it. Notice how King has replied to other threads since this was posted, but skated around this uncomfortable line of questioning and commentary. It takes a bit of time to craft a lie or a bullshit answer... or to simply run away from it like a coward instead of facing it like a man.

Let's see if my post was "designed to sway the uninformed." Your question: "Please explain to me how this gives Trudeau any more legitimacy than the left accorded Harper." First, to declare a personal interest, I didn't vote for Trudeau; never voted Liberal. I vote NDP and Conservative, this time NDP which came third.

Numbers rarely tell the whole story. Harper was a conservative aberration. He ruled, as distinguished conservative author and celebrity Conrad Black wrote, like a "sadistic Victorian schoolmaster." His government was "rotten," editorialized the conservative owners of the Globe and Mail, Canada's flagship newspaper. Sadistic and rotten isn't the traditional Conservative Party of Canada.

Two thirds of the country may be progressive while at least two thirds of the media is conservative-owned; most endorsed Harper's re-election. (Something for Americans to consider when they blame similar " mainstream media" for their election outcomes. )

Canada voted against Harper's culture-shift away from its moderate values. Canada ended Harper's right-wing experiment in political re-engineering. Atlantic Canada's four provinces didn't give him a seat; the Liberal tide rose for first time in decades across the entire country from Atlantic to Pacific to Arctic seas.

Trudeau's astonishing victory and legitimacy is more than win-some, lose-some. The population generally restored their idea of Canada as a big tent of moderate governance. Harper's skilful cultivation of the ethnic vote collapsed as "old stock" and newcomers recognized his negativity and mean-spiritednness.

I doubt Trudeau is beyond the pale of 60 per cent of voters, as you claim. "No one, even diehard Conservatives, doubted that Stephen Harper deserved to lose," wrote the Globe's conservative columnist Margaret Wente yesterday. My Conservative friends, all progressives whom Harper swiftly marginalized from the party, are smiling and celebrating with the rest of us. Canada won a big one.

You and I haven't experienced such magnanimity in our lifetimes. I haven't heard anyone blaming or vilifying the CPC. Harper said Canada would be unrecognizable when he was finished with it. Canada said no after nine years. Trudeau's win had greater legitimacy than Harper's coming to power on a promise of greater accountability. It conformed to our national character of moderation.

Where's my hypocrisy, James?

Are you sure the numbers don't matter? You heaped a bunch of 'punks game' on your side of the balance beam. In the end, Canada retains the legitimacy of her culture of pain and violence, snatching food out of the mouths of natives, and raising taxes on the vast right wing created poverty class.

In the end, it's still only 39.6%, and you're playing to feelings. Lobbying the ole uninformed again, eh? I feel better, does anyone else.

James explained his observation of your hypocrisy King. It was clearly evident to all of us, and especially those who observed how long it took you to craft weasel words to excuse it. I notice that you carefully omitted any mention of your "calculated misdirection" which James also pointed out. But it's not at all surprising to see that you are as much in denial of your frequent hypocrisy as you are in denial of your anti-2nd Amendment sentiments. Do you really think anyone here believes that you vote Conservative? You frequently claim you never voted Liberal, but adamantly refuse to say if you've voted liberal. More of the weasel words, eh?

I'd say craig just pointed it out to you above. Again. But the whole world is wrong and you are right.

Remember the good ol' days when you had some credibility and legitimacy here King? Are you still having fun?

What a fraud.

Numbers do matter. I just noticed that about two thirds of "the Freedom Caucus" has seen the light and will back Ryan for the speaker of the house. Now if those forty or so nut jobs can stop themselves from shutting down the government and otherwise damaging the GOP over the radical ideology they hold, something may actually get done in the future. A moderate like Ryan can actually get the votes required to pass legislation, something the fringe will never accomplish. I would like to see a functioning GOP held house in the future. Time will tell.

Numbers do matter, Craig, but James questioned if Trudeau's victory has greater "legitimacy" than Harper's of nine years ago--that is, how well did it conform to a national standard in this case. Canada removed a dictator.

Let's see... when Obama dictates with a pen and a phone, and sidesteps Congress with Executive Orders, King Brown tells us that a majority elected Obama to do their bidding, so he is excused for doing it.

But the electorate that elected Harper isn't given credit (or blame) for Harper's actions as leader of Canada. In King's eyes, the Conservative Harper was a dictator and this election was almost a coup d'etat.

Are you still wondering where your hypocrisy is King? It couldn't be more evident if it was in giant neon lights on Times Square.

Heraclitus said "Character is fate." Trudeau kept hammering against negativity and division. Bring people together, don't drive wedges. Don't do politics with a billy club.

He has promised democratic reform so a party can't run the country with a low percentage of the vote as it does now, making the House of Commons representative of citizens.

I'll believe it when I see it although his father Pierre as prime minister was the principal proponent of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Dems say, 'elections matter, I win you loose' and the 'only enemies I have are the R's'. Radical left wingers or mainstream roll up your sleeves and work for Americans dem pres and dem pres wanna be?

Why keep hammering the same old line that it's the radical right wing conspiracy killing this nation, liberties taken because it's the left thing to do. The Republican House has sent a bunch of legislation over to the Republican Senate. Keep in mind that's an over ride protective dem senate that's waging the dog to pave the way for the intolerant president.

Ryan has been reluctant because he craves the political resume builder, but knows exactly how effective he'll be and better yet, for the dems, how he'll be stigmatized. Ole John was the ultimate moderate, could flip on the waterworks at will, but it wasn't enough.

What's time going to tell us, that bhusein sits down, negotiates, and extends an honest handshake. I doubt you'll like it, but Congress will magically start to function again if anyone but a dem becomes pres. Then, like clockwork, the entire left wing of the country will enjoy the support of 'moderate' r's in bashing and demonizing the work getting done by the radicals.

Political think tank time, fantasy strategizing by the Monday morning quaterbacks.

If big T was running in the US, say back three years ago, is he considered lib enough to overcome his whiteness and get away with uttering this, by the numbers truthful, thought about bo? Hmmm, two rock stars, does race trump, or Trump hold the cards?

The reason to keep bringing up the far right as the problem is what you pointed to yourself.....you have forty or so guys in the "Freedom Caucus" and they pretty much gut the effectiveness the GOP held house due to the infighting they cause. Sticking to your beliefs sounds great, up until you hobble your entire party and the nation as well just to prove a point.

No matter who wins the WH in the next election, I would happy to see Congress function as it should again. A decent Republican nominee would be a refreshing change but I'm not so sure the Donald is that guy. So who are you pulling for now Craig seeing that the good Governor Walker has pulled out? I concede Rand Paul does not have a chance, but just who may pull out to the front of the pack remains a mystery to me.

Very busy today King. I'll get back to you tomorrow. This is fun!

SKB, all Americans venerate the Constitution. Its ambiguities and encroachments are voiced here from both sides all the time. Could your wish for "Congress to function as it should again" be problematic? Could the Founders have established a fundamentally flawed system of government?

The Atlantic's October edition features an article titled Our Fragile Constitution on the book The Royalist Revolution by Harvard political theorist Eric Nelson which asks if gridlock is not a result of abandoning the Constitution but the product of flaws inherent in its design.

The book raises the disturbing possibility that it is, and that America's best hope may be to have less faith in it. Nelson says neither Congress nor president has the capacity to govern alone, but either can refuse to compromise, and prevent the other from governing. The Constitution's capacity to withstand the poor behaviour of politicians seems to me a bigger problem than choice of any nominee.

I'm up to ears, too. Take your time. Only the little one makes demands for immediate replies!

All power comes from the exercise and control of exuberance! Don't remember who said it but think Oliver Wendell Holmes. Always look forward to yours.

Where was this guy SKB when the Democrats were stone-walling George Bush at every turn? Well, in fairness, they did agree with Bush on the decision to go into Iraq long enough to change their minds and act as if they never supported the idea. Bush 46 fell victim to the same kind of Democrat back-stabbing as his father did when they convinced him to compromise on his "No New Taxes" pledge, and then accused him of breaking a campaign promise.

I wonder why they didn't hold Obama to the same standard when he violated his pledge to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year by proclaiming that ObamaCare was a tax? Let's not even mention a myriad of other tax increases that hit the middle class in the past 6.5 years, including refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts.

I'll tell you where this guy SKB was. Same place he is now... Pretending to be a Republican or Conservative, but bashing them... and only them... every chance he gets. Am I the only one who thinks it is spineless to pretend to be something you're not?

Be very careful not to point out his hypocrisy and dishonesty or he too will pretend to ignore you! What a clown.

And there's King Brown once again bashing our Constitution, and this time the whole thing... not just the 2nd Amendment. Isn't it just amazing that King spends so much time undermining the U.S. and the vision of the Framers while his own country fell under the evil clutches of a Conservative Dictator named Harper... and King did nothing to help his own country and never even mentioned the Canadian dictatorship until today?

You're up to your ears alright King. So full of shit your eyes are brown.

I'll take you off ignore just briefly lil' k, then back on for reasons others have pointed out, you are an A$$hole.

Something you may consider...The D's and GWB were opposing parties, they normally work against each. The "freedom Caucus" is working against the GOP quite often and they are in the same party. Very confusing for a simpleton such as yourself I know.

I have never claimed to a Republican or a Conservative, I am a moderate independent. Something you surely can not understand.

Back on ignore lil' k.

Amazing that you saw my post while I was on your active IGNORE list Stevie. If one didn't know better, they might think you were a liar.

The so-called Freedom Caucus is working against RINO's for the most part. For simpletons like you, that would include so-called Republicans who promised one thing to get elected, and did the exact opposite. We're talking about things like defunding ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood, and securing our southern border for example.

Call yourself a moderate independent or whatever you wish. Actions speak louder than words. You're not fooling anyone either.

Now explain to us how you saw what I said when you were ostensibly IGNORING my posts. On second thought, don't bother. You've already demonstrated just how credible you are Caitlyn. Did you happen to notice the other Libtard weenie who called me an A$$hole in this thread also got caught in a lie and ran away with his tail between his legs? You and rocky mtn transplant bill are two of a kind.

Hold on. You are all wrong.

Republicans need leadership that can work with Obama, or so say’s the Media narrative. Republicans haven’t been this strong singe Woodrow Wilson, yet they can’t seem to get anything done, or so say’s the conservative base.

No shit…

Obama’s has been exterminating democrats and electing republicans for 7 years. Again and again he marches congressional and state level Dems into the electoral machine guns. What kind of President puts his party in such a predicament? When a President’s party suffers a mid-term election ass-whopping, any other prez gets the message and moderates. Not his guy.

He created the “freedom caucus”.

I don’t know how Boehner or Ryan or anybody is supposed to work with Obama. A guy that will throw his own party to the wolves isn’t a good faith negotiator. He’s at least as stubborn that the freedom caucus people.

If we want congress to play nice we need ditch the ideological purity and go back to the old system of corruption, vote trading, and backroom deals. But, that requires a President who cares about his party. This guy only cares about himself, and that’s why he can’t work with congress: He’s a giant [censored], and he’s left the Dems in shambles. Nothing will change while O's around.

He’s going to do it again before he’s out. Any day now, he’ll come out and say something to the effect that America has too many guns and not enough Muslims. He will sign some pointless executive orders to punish law abiding sportsmen. The only thing this will accomplish is it will hurt his party even more. People at Slate, Salon, and the HuffPo will praise him for it.

Before O’s done he will probably sabotage Hillary.

My point Steve was and remains, Congress is doing their job. If the pres shows an inability to work with the opposing party, and compromise enough to enact bipartisan legislation, then the duty of congress is to apply checks and balances. My other point was and remains, we should look at how 'independent' we are, if we only buy the mantra from one side.

Honestly, right now, I think a crowded R field is a good thing. Hill, wasn't she a peach this morning, can only blame and attack a nameless, faceless, low approval rated congressional hit squad. Herself and her amazingly 'tolerant' media buddies have to keep guessing for now, rather than hammer on an anointed nominee.

Back to your freedom folks, com'on, forty out of several hundred. You think they're in charge. Why won't decent leadership throw them a few crumbs to keep 'em quiet. Nope, I don't see them as the lone renegades holding the country back.

To expand a bit, blk lives matter is nearly their own political party now. A handful of crude thugs that will disrupt any dem gathering of more than a dozen folks. Funny, dems aren't piss'in and cry'in about that handful ruining everything, but they appreciate the mantra that R's are just a bunch of useless squabblers, by the 'independents' of course. Back to hill, it should be a curiosity to independent thinkers that the black lives crew doesn't show up and pee on her march to the wh. I suppose that let's the 'loser' dem hopefuls say they went down swing'in, but out'a the way she ain't stop'in till she gets the prize.

I believe RyanF is wrong. The left accepts and welcomes attacks against itself to push the overall agenda along. Unions, universities and left wing cities/states all gladly budget in heavy monetary losses in lawsuits, so that they're directed by a court or their unilateral feelings to pc engineer society.

A quick question for you, is the benghazi and improper handling of state dept classified information investigations something that this Congress should be doing?

Craig you are terribly, terribly confused if you think the Democratic party has swayed me towards voting for them. They have not. I will not be voting for a Democrat in 2016, nor will I support the fringe element of the GOP. If a moderate Republican gets nominated they will have my vote. A Ted Cruz type will not. Throwing the Freedom Boys a bone only gives them a bigger appetite. They are such idealists that they will never be happy with legislation that can actually pass. Numbers do matter and grand standing to make a point is useless. Checks and balances is exactly what they fail to understand over on the fringe of both parties. So back to my question, who are you backing that is actually electable? And what do you make of Paul Ryan? Are you ready to brand him another useless RINO who will be unable to unite the party? I think he could be a very good speaker if the Freedom Boys do not sabotage him like they did he predecessor. Paul Ryan understands the math behind legislation. Being able to get the needed votes and getting things passed far outranks taking a stand over on the fringe.

True enough when they totally control something but, Dem’s like winning the elections. They have a huge advantage in the presidential election –frankly, they don’t have to do much to win. But, the blue dog Dem went extinct under O’s watch and Dem’s have been annihilated at the state level. They lost the blue collar vote (maybe forever). What agenda can they implement now? O’s reduced to executive orders and the veto. No agenda is going to happen until the next election, freedom caucus, or not.

Maybe Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife will do better.

Steve, I'm hurt. You won't answer my question, but I'll endeavor to persevere.

If there's such a thing as a 'do nothing Congress', why grandstand and be a potential 'do nothing' voter. Not a revised position I might add, but one I've asked you about before. No, I don't discount grandstanding, it works every day of the week for dems when they come up short on substance. Speaking of 'do nothing' anythings, bo sent a military budget back to congress by way of veto today. His reasoning, it doesn't meet his vague concept of 'economic security', code for 'I want more pork in this thing for 'investing''.

I already answered your Ryan question, and sorry to sound like a broken record. If he can get 100% lockstep party support in the House, and bo vetos a bill, like my example above, will it be a 'do nothing congress' or a 'do nothing pres'.

This pres is on the extreme fringe of creative finance, and swings his pen around like it's some excaliber. But, like we've seen so often, 'independents' know this pres is always right and would never question why he obstructs the business of the nation.

So it all comes back to BO? The R's would just be a big lovey dovey group if it were not for the evil Kenyan? I have said before I do not like BO and want him gone, replaced with a moderate Republican. That is not grand standing. I will not support the far fringe of either party. I explained my view regarding my vote to you before. You just do not like my answer. No Ted Cruz or Trump types for me. Apparently you still struggle to understand our political system. Today's veto was an example of the checks and balances our founders put in place. You may not like it but you have to be able to work within the political reality of it. That was my point earlier.....you need the votes to pass legislation.

Durn Steve, I like your answers, but it wasn't about likes and dislikes.

If you really want to save the planet and fight injustice, how about a close up picture of that Gove lever on your converted rolling block muzzle loader? Is it still functional, maybe it extracts the cap?

This!

So what is the ideal climate for earth ?

The climate 200 year ago ? 2,000 years ago ? 200,000 years ago ?

200,000,000 years ago ?

"So what is the ideal climate for Earth?"

Don't know and don't care, but it sure was pleasant on the course today.

Golf Peace!



____________________
GolfNow.com Rocks! Love those HotDeals!
(still trying (not really) JoWo (pronounced joe woo)).

I am so pissed because I was almost finished typing a very long rebuttal and my computer shut down and I need to do it all over again. Piss me off!

First, how you personally voted has nothing to do with the hypocrisy I referred to. But you knew that.

Harper a conservative aberration? I think not. He is the product of a political movement, Reform, that swept 1/3 of our country and transformed the PC party of old into the CPC. That's no aberration. An aberration is much more the apparent dilettante scion of a wealthy family, who, because of his personal attractiveness and his last name, is vaulted into the big leagues without the normal proving that politics demands. THAT is an aberration. You knew that.

Conrad is reminiscing about his boarding school days, at our alma mater Trinity College School, when he uses terms like that. Harper's government rotten? Probably, at this point in time. Much like Chretien's, Mulroney's and Trudeau's after 10 years. It's not a function of Harper. It's a function of holding the levers of power for too long. Happens to them all regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. But you know that.

Media endorsements once every four years, a week before the election, are largely meaningless to the average voter. What is way more important, and influential, is the constant barrage of spin, both of the choice of story and the content, that happens every single day of the four years between elections. And the vast majority of reporters have a left leaning slant. That's just a fact. But again, you knew that.

Harper's right wing "experiment" hasn't been cut short. It's been accomplished! He reduced the power and size of the federal government, relative to our population and GDP, significantly by ceding or returning power to the provinces. That won't be able to be reversed by Trudeau. And it ends the real experiment....that one started by Trudeau Sr., gathering power to the federal level at the expense of our provinces, trying to change us from a "Confederation of Provinces" (Sound familiar King?) into a federal state ruled from Ottawa.

The Liberal tide?? Let see....the Liberals won all 30 Atlantic seats, about 40 out of Quebec from the 75 up for grabs, 80 in Ontario out of about 120. And only 20 out of 100 in Western Canada. That may be a breakthrough for his party since his father told westerners to "[censored] off" while prime minister but it's still not "sweeping the country". You knew all that.

Trudeau's victory is astonishing, I'll grant you that. He had to come from a long way back in the field. But he did it and should be congratulated for pulling it off. But the return of big tent politics? I don't think so. The hard core NDP continued to vote for the NDP, back at their historical 20% level. Jack Layton was the aberration. The CPC stayed steady with their real number of voters from the last election and scored a typical opposition percentage of 32%. The "big tent" continues to be the CPC for the time being, keeping a much more diverse and fractious group headed in the same voting direction than either of the other two parties. Harper's vote in no way "collapsed" with any segment. What happened is that 1.5 million more people voted in this election....and they voted Liberal. That's not a collapse of Harper's CPC. It's an astonishing increase for the Liberals. You knew that.

"You and I haven't experienced such magnanimity in our lifetimes." Huh? Have you read any of the on-line comments from average citizens in The Globe or The Star or even that bastion of Conservatism, The Post. The Harper/CPC/Western Canada bashing continues unabated.

As you know, I'm conservative and a supporter of the CPC, MUCH LIKE 32% OF VOTERS IN THIS MOST RECENT ELECTION!

Trudeau's stated platform DOES NOT CONFORM TO MY IDEA OF OUR NATIONAL CHARACTER OR ANY TYPE OF MODERATION.


King, please accept that your views are your views. They don't represent me. They were formed by you being part of the Laurentian axis of power in Canada. I have told you this many times. The West is different. Not an aberration... different! To describe our way of thinking as an aberration or to say our way of thinking means we are bad Canadians is so insulting and condescending you can't credit it. That, in a nutshell, is exactly WHY the West has a problem with the East. We have run out of patience for being schooled by the Eastern schoolmarms and scolds about what it means to be good Canadians.

Nine years ago Harper was elected to a MINORITY government.

Four years ago, after 5 years in power as a minority Prime Minister, Harper was elected, by an electorate that had had five years experience with him as Prime Minister, he was elected to a MAJORITY, with 39.5%, just like Trudeau.

You knew that.

His father, Pierre, was the greatest prime ministerial bully we have ever had! The War Measures Act, National Energy Program, Wage and Price Controls. Telling Westerners to [censored] off? Good God man! Listen to yourself!

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms just gave the Supreme Court the ability to bully 35 million people, that's all. Doesn't protect us in any way. Trudeau took away from us the noble traditions of the Westminster system of common law and replaced it with that French mess known as the Napoleonic Code, where the elite get to dictate. And that's progress??????

More spin!

James... canvasback, Bravo! Extremely well done.

Too bad that facts and the truth are wasted on someone like King Brown. But all is not lost because it does serve to illustrate just who and what he really is. King is not alone. He is just the most frequent practitioner here.

Earlier in this thread, rocky mtn transplant bill lied when he told you that Bush fudged the intelligence to trick us and other nations into taking out Saddam. Then he tried to tell you that Obama was a U.S. Senator at that time when he was not.

Yesterday, Caitlyn SKB magically read my post and responded while ostensibly having me on IGNORE! Then she went on to tell us she is an Independent Moderate who has no intention of voting Democrat in 2016, and hopes to vote for a Moderate Republican.

Ed Good might be stupid enough to believe her, but I doubt anyone else is. It was about as revealing and meaningful as King's oft repeated weasel-word line, "I've never voted Liberal."

I have never met you James, but I very much believe you have character, honesty, and integrity. The three Libtards I just cited above have repeatedly demonstrated they have none. It makes me proud to know how much they dislike me.

Keith, I told you I was enjoying this!

I short-cutted my endorsement of RyanF's post. I'd like to explain, briefly, what I meant.

I think Ryan is correct when he asks the question rhetorically, why does that group of 40 get the blame? Why is it their fault, automatically. Why could it not be the rest of the Republicans who have moved away from what the party is supposed to stand for? Why might it not be Obama who makes compromise impossible? Why is it incumbent upon one specific group to cave every time to the others for compromise to be reached?

This is the same as the gun rights issue writ large. There is no compromise from the other side, only incremental advancement. And the right, on any subject, is constantly criticized as being obstructionist when they don't cave to the demand of the centre and the left. Could it be the left are the obstructionists? Could it be they have bamboozled the middle?

Having been an avid observer of the game for 4 decades now and with a family background of politics so thick while growing up it was the only conversation I ever heard between my father, uncle and grandfather, what I believe I see daily now is the result of a change of tactic by the left that started 40 years ago (roughly). Change the game! Can't win? Change the game.

Society isn't "advancing". It has been being changed by a small minority with a specific agenda and a road map. Now, so many reasonable points of discussion, that should be part of the dialogue, are off the table because of Political Correctness. Male Privilege! White Privileged! Whatever is done to appease them is NEVER enough and when we have been moved some distance left as a society, they change the goalposts once again.

IMHO the issues with the Republican caucus is just part of this larger continuum.

There! Back on topic!!

Indeed James. You can only hunt ducks or grouse for a few weeks a year when they are in season. But you can bag a Libtard anytime.

I believe your observation of the Liberal Left "Change The Game" strategy is spot on. It's all over the news today as commentators question Democrat strategists and operatives about Hillary's e-mails revealing that she knew almost immediately that the Benghazi Attack was a planned terrorist rather than a response to an obscure anti-Islamic video. Yet she and the White House continued to lie to the American people about it for weeks. The response of the Democrats who so staunchly defend her are almost comically similar to what King does here on an almost daily basis.

To me, the only way to deal with such dishonest behavior is to constantly shine a light on it and keep rubbing their noses in it. They know that most people tire easily and wear down quickly. That's how they get away with moving the goal posts. The only way to beat them is to figuratively beat them relentlessly and to understand that you are dealing with an almost complete lack of morals veiled by faux civility.

As I previously posted, the yellowcake scandal is one example of fudged intelligence. Anyone who makes an honest effort can find others. Offering evidence to Keith is a waste of time. He already has all the answers he wants; he knows the Truth. What he knows boils down to referring to anyone who disagrees with him the way the Nazis referred to Jews. All the ills of the country are the fault of those who question the Tea Party doctrine.

OK Billy, so please show us proof that Bush had anything at all to do with forged or fudged yellowcake documents. Then please explain to us how and why a majority Democrat House and Senate could or would permit such High Crimes and Misdemeanors to go unpunished. Are you seriously suggesting that your Democrats just gave Bush a pass when they had evidence that he tricked us into a multi-trillion dollar war that cost thousands of lives of both American soldiers and Iraqis?

You haven't offered any evidence Billy. All you've offered is more of your DNC parroting and bullshit. You say there is evidence of Bush fudging intelligence "all over the landscape" and that "Anyone who makes an honest effort can find others."

So why won't you make that honest effort Billy? Is it because you are anything but honest? Do you really think you can turn your lie into the truth by repeating it and by denigrating me? And you call me an A$$hole, you spineless little twerp?

Tea Party Doctrine? Are you referring to the Constitution?

Good one Ken. Ninth inning grand slam game winning homer in the seventh game of the series!

But rocky mtn transplant bill is part of the King Brown school that sees the Constitution as an outdated document and a so-called "Living Tree" piece of meaningless paper no more durable or valuable than toilet paper.

Part of what I don't agree with was the other half of the post. He seems to feel that dems are being alienated by the truckload. I think the agenda folks know what buttons to push so lefty followers know which guilt feelings they need to accept. Their price to pay to feel good about themselves, regardless of the means or results.

Yellowcake. I remember that. Never understood how Colin Powel excaped blame. He’s the guy who lied to the UN. Well, he’s got the Blackshield. Anyway…

All wars start with cooked intelligence. What do you expect? Libya under Kaddafi, Egypt under Mubarak, Syria under Assad, Iraq under Saddam, and Ukraine under whoever, would all be better off–both for us and for their own people–if we had not unleashed anarchy in the name of freedom and liberation. Bush and Obama are equally responsible. Bush owns Iraq. Obama owns ISIS.

Any real centrist should admit they are both worthless fuckers.

I remember watching Powell's live un testimony. I don't think it was about 'yellowcake'. It was titled something like 'Iraq's Failure to Disarm'.

The main jist of his comments were about captured mobile bio agent labs. Overall there was more testimony about chemical and biological warfare agent, and most of the nuclear comments were about centrifuges and development of delivery systems.

Most of the evidence from on the ground was from un inspectors, not C.Rove or Bush. The un resolution was based on wmd evidence not 'yellowcake'. Again, it was a un resolution, not a US resolution. Maybe, the media gravitated towards little buzzwords that stuck?

I don't think powell's post Bush years were all about smoking gun revelations, just plain ole race stirring.

Colin Powell's testimony was a separate piece of fudged intelligence. He went to the UN and presented what he was instructed to say. It was a piece of stupid nonsense, but he is a loyal military servant of the state following the orders he was given. The yellowcake scandal has to do with faulty intelligence that the CIA told Bush was nor reliable, but he chose to treat it as if it were. That is called fudging intelligence.

This is exactly what I don’t understand. Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? And if what you’re saying is true, it and even worse condemnation of him.

I do agree with the rest of your statement. Powel used the yellowcake hoax to mollify congressional Dem’s. He told the UN a different fairy tale (with a lot of help from the Brits). People forget the Brits were full of shit on Iraq too. Seymour Hersh concluded MI6 was the source of the fakery. Either way team Bush should have known better.

I don't mean he gets the benefit of the doubt. He was Secretary of State. He worked for the Bush administration. His job was to present the administration's foreign policy to the world. I suspect he did that to his undying regret. Aside from this episode, I think his career deserves our respect.

Thanks Bill, for ignoring my point. If you get a moment, do a quick scan through the transcripts of Powell's un testimony. It's about the iraqi failure to disarm. They could've meant rocks and spears if a case could've been made.

Isn't the yellowcake 'scandal' a dem talking point. Let me repeat for emphasis. The 'evidence' was from un inspectors, with a bunch of satellite and spy plane images from the US. Please explain why you confuse a un resolution with US policy at the time? Did the US deceive the left wing un and all the forty something other countries too?

I get it, you're an anti war pacifist. Bet you're voting for hill, eh. Ryan pointed out she's sort of the 'owner' of that disastrous quagmire of a libyan regime change. I am not defending policy, but I believe you're trying to peddle left wing talking points as fact.

See if King will help out here. The un did their thing, are you saying you didn't like the sales pitch? Don't politicians play the punks game, rightfully and knowingly so? How come bhusein or hill can't be trusted with any assurance other than the comfortable feeling that libs get?

Back to your yellowcake. Did Bush, Powell or any of their buddies take a scoop of the stuff, scatter it around some iraqi warehouse, and tell some un lackey, wink, wink, why don't you check over there? Did you know there is a huge war in the US at this very moment, on women? Did you know that all cops in the US are at war with all blacks, except Doc Carson, as we type? Where's the evidence, and why do you feel good about some wars and not others?

I used to respect the military rank that he attained and his service to the country. As mentioned a bit ago, after his sec-o-state service, he's become a race pot stirrer in a stately sort of way. I could only imagine how many lives and careers he held decision over, and how tainted it was by agenda. He should've stepped down if there was the risk of not being objective for the soldier.

I think Obama’s learned a lot form Bush and Company. O certainly twisted the truth when he was trying to get congress to authorize military action in Syria but, for the most part he just bombs and doesn’t seek congressional or UN approval. This cuts down the requisite fraudulence.

I do not believe Americans or the English services fudged or forged intel info. There is only one country that would really benefit from Hussain being gone. Their wish is for USA to intervene in Iran to invade that country and generate chaos like we have in Iraq, Syria and Libya. I'm not saying that info came from there, but that would be first place to start looking for the truth.

What rocky mtn transplant bill is claiming would absolutely be an impeachable offense for Bush... if it was true.

Bill Clinton was impeached for much less. Billy the liar is trying to tell you all that the Democrats in the House and Senate who agreed with the decision to take out Saddam, and who later acted like they never supported the idea, accepted fudged intelligence.

Billy is trying to tell you that they gave Bush a pass for High Crimes and Misdemeanors that led a nation into a costly war. Billy still has not given you an ounce of proof... only his DNC talking points and his agenda driven opinion. He claims "evidence is all over the landscape", yet still has offered none. And now he is going above and beyond to show his Liberal Left stripes by making excuses for the poor black house negro, Colin Powell. The man who was a decorated General in charge of running the Iraq war, and who was also a Secretary of State did not have the brains or backbone to reject his Massah's bidding, and lied to the U.N. and the American people according to Billy.

The idiot rocky mtn transplant bill still thinks that if you repeat a lie enough time, it will become the truth.

Anybody but Keith can Google yellowcake and get the whole sorry episode explained in great detail. Of course it's an impeachable offence. All that spared him was that lots of other pols in both parties had signed on. Find your own proof. Anything I post is automatically rejected by lil K. BTW,K, have your belligerence and bombast won you a host of converts lately? Your ad hominem arguments may fly with your Tea Party cronies, but their ability to follow a rational argument is somewhat limited.

I've read the Yellowcake story in detail from multiple sources Billy. There is absolutely nothing linking George Bush to fudged intelligence that led us into war in Iraq, and there is certainly nothing linking George Bush to forged Yellowcake Uranium documents. Apologies to canvasback for borrowing his line but...

You already knew that.

And that is why you have not been able to supply the proof you claim is "all over the landscape". Will you now show us your proof that "other Pols from both Parties signed on" to this crime of fudging intelligence? You just keep digging and compounding your lies. Repeating a lie and denigrating me isn't going to make it true Billy, any more than your recent false claim that George Bush did not supply critical funding for teacher training for "No Child Left Behind"... another lie you let ride rather than having the back-bone to admit.

Anything you post is not automatically rejected by me, but it is scrutinized and fact checked because you have lied to us on numerous occasions and can not be trusted. When you are proven to be wrong or lying, you either run like a coward or attempt to shoot the messenger.

I'm not looking for converts Billy. I'm very happy to expose liars and frauds and keyboard cowards like you. Your shrill, yet vacuous response is very rewarding to me. Please tell us how a Short Bus Window Licker like you ever became a teacher.

Oh, by the way Billy, here's a link to a story from Liberal NBC News about 550 metric tons of Yellowcake Uranium that the U.S secretly removed from Iraq in 2008

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/wo...q/#.VivSHG52Vyw

Amazingly, a CBS News story on the same secret mission is virtually word-for-word identical. How is that even possible Billy? Apparently, it's only plagiarism when the Liberal Left isn't conspiring to use the same talking points. Yet neither of these very Liberal Left News sources was able to link Bush to fabricated or false "fudged" intelligence that led to war.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-secretly-takes-yellowcake-from-iraq/

Here's another take on the 550 metric tons of Yellowcake Uranium which the U.S. secretly removed from Iraq in 2008.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/07/the_550_tons_of_yellowcake.html

According to this article, "Professor Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, England, has confirmed that Saddam Hussein had more than enough yellowcake uranium to make over 100 nuclear weapons."

But we all know that rocky mtn transplant bill is smarter than a professor of theoretical physics and that George Bush was wrong to be concerned about a brutal dictator who had used chemical weapons on his own people, frequently cheated on U.N inspections and sanctions, threw out U.N Inspectors, and bragged that he had WMD.

Bill, Bush used Powell to lie for him the same way Kennedy got Stevenson to lie for him on the Bay of Pigs.

These were great humiliations of good men, and there's still doubt how much each knew of the extent of the misinformation.

I do know that Powell had as much respect for Bush as our former defence, foreign affairs and justice minister MacKay had for Harper.

Powell and MacKay, my MP, enjoyed sporting events together in Washington. MacKay loaned me Powell's gift to him of a book detailing political chicanery.

If anyone here is an expert on lying, it's King Brown. Perhaps the Liberal liar King can provide the proof that lil' Billy couldn't. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

It is interesting to see King accusing his imaginary friend J.F.K. of inciting lies.

It is also interesting to see King use the same lame argument that an adult decorated General who ran the Iraq war and who became a Secretary of State was nothing more than a poor house negro who felt compelled to do the bidding of his evil white Massah. I wonder why Colin Powell still hasn't confessed it. Probably because it's a figment of King Brown's Liberal Left lying imagination.

IS KING BROWN AN ANTI-GUNNER?

Harper did not represent the values of the Conservative Party of Canada. The election was all about him. He was saying at the end "I know I'm not perfect." He was the aberration. You know that.

None of us are perfect except King Brown who piously claims that he has never told us anything he knew to be untrue... a lie. Even when he is caught red-handed in his lies and his own lying words are reproduced verbatim, King can still proclaim perfection and honesty. Being mentally ill must have its' advantages, eh King?

So King, like rocky mtn transplant billy, will drop his load of utter bullshit about Bush without providing any evidence. If any of us did something similar... if any of us proclaimed that his precious Obama lied to us and cut a deal to cede Syria and Iraq to Putin for instance... King would be apoplectic demanding PROOF!

You really are a disgusting fraud King.

And we all knew that.

IS KING BROWN AN ANTI-GUNNER?

He double endorsed bo, what's that say about powell's judgement and character. Keeping in mind of course, powell's sensitivity to political chicanery.

Powell was a big boy, who could've walked away from Bush anytime his feelings moved him to. How many troops were forced to be subject to his 'judgement'.

Truth is all in Washington are incompetent...

The yellowcake episode that Keith references is not the same one I referred to. It is clearly established that there were forged documents purporting to show that Sadam bought the ore from Niger. Bush used these documents to show that Sadam had WMD even though he'd been advised they were not reliable. Ambassador Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, published a paper documenting their falseness. As a consequence, her identity as a CIA agent was outed by an official from Dick Cheney's office. That official was indicted and convicted. Colin Powell himself said he regrets his UN speech.

Good afternoon King. Hope you are enjoying a lovely fall afternoon as we are here in Port Hope.

"Harper did not represent the values of the Conservative Party of Canada" in just the same way that Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau Sr did not represent the values of their parties at the end. No one does! That's why after 10 years everyone is past their best before date.

It's the nature of your "punk's game". That is why you call it that. It's corruptive to all regardless of party affiliation. And it's your suggestion that Harper is somehow unique that I am saying is hypocritical.....and incorrect.

But you knew that too!

Your observation of the game is same as mine except for the last sentence. As a proponent and expander of the term punk's game, the last thing on my mind was to suggest Harper was unique.


Good day here, too, and nice to know your weather is coming our way. Flying yesterday saw 200-plus blacks behind the saltwater beach not a kilometre from the house. No one's bothering them this early, too many pinfeathers.

When the corn's off the fields in a couple weeks or so, they'll be fat and firm and prime eating. Without Jake I've switched to my smaller aluminum skiff with Honda 2 four-stroke, light and easy to drag and launch anywhere.

I bought the light 12-foot Springbok at the Ex Sportsmen's Show in 1965 and a Princecraft same length almost twice the size after capsize five years ago. I'm only half there without Jake but can't live without feathers.

Who was that "official" who was indicted and convicted for outing Plame?

We had a 12' Springbok from about 1964 on. Spent a lot of time in that boat!

Endorsing Obama over what was on offer is hardly weakness of judgement and character, Craig. The US did it twice. Administrators generally follow orders or resign. From all accounts General Powell was an honourable man. There's still doubt of how much he knew of the misinformation. Kennedy called Stevenson his official liar. Marine Lt-Col Ollie North confessed lying to Congress to cover-up Reagan's arms deal to Iran. Lying is integral to politics.

The man from Cheney's office who took the fall for outing Valerie Plame was Scooter Libby.

Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to investigators.

Once your culture starts diversifying in a downward spiral, I'm afraid there is little hope. Be proud that NS now resembles downtown chicago, by some accounts, a city bursting with character. Oh well.

But, at least you haven't lost your sense of humor, humour for you. Are you trying to tell me that everyone in misfires, regardless of political leaning, knows the minutest details about the great lie, but powell didn't? Yuck, yuck, yuck! If I told you I woke this morning feeling like I was black, would you tell Bill I'm a dem operative, and I'm starting a ground game to get libs to vote for Cruz so that we get sanders in at 38%?

No, I'm not trying to tell everyone in Misfires that they knew more about Powell's misinformation to the UN than Powell himself. He was ordered to deliver it, later regretted it and there's nothing on the public record I'm aware of that revealed how much, if any, he knew to be false. Do you?

Poor rocky mtn transplant bill. It's too bad Bush never funded a "No Teacher Left Behind" program for dim bulbs like him.

Of course the secret Yellowcake transfer of 550 metric tons from Iraq to Canada in 2008 was different than the earlier Yellowcake incident which was a small part of the reasoning to take out Saddam Hussein. I provided those links for Billy to illustrate to our little DNC parrot that Saddam absolutely had been involved in actual and attempted WMD production prior to Gulf War I and still had huge stockpiles of uranium, chemicals, biologicals, and the infrastructure and will to restart production.

Since it was well known that Saddam had engaged in past attempts to produce nuclear weapons, and since it was well known that Iraq already had huge stocks of Yellowcake, it was not much of a stretch to conclude that Saddam was pursuing more and attempting to ramp up enrichment and production in violation of U.N. Sanctions. Saddam had already thrown out U.N. Inspectors, violated other U.N. Sanctions, and bragged about having WMD.

Billy's Yellowcake incident was only a small part of Bush's sales pitch for going back into Iraq. He acts as if that was the sole premise. And the revelation about probable forged documents did not happen until well after that sales pitch. There never was even a small bit of evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration had anything to do with those forged documents. The British Parliament investigated and also exonerated Tony Blair on the same charges. It was not until 11/4/2005 that Italy's military intelligence agency SISMI identified a former Italian spy named Rocco Martino as the source of the forged documents. The F.B.I. shut down it's investigation into the source the same day. George Tenet accepted blame on behalf of the CIA for not realizing the Yellowcake documents were forgeries.

Billy is still full of shit and has accused Bush of fudged intelligence and forcing Colin Powell to lie without a shred of proof. The Valerie Plame incident happened well after the decision to go back into Iraq.



Once again, Billy is spreading false information. Nobody was ever indicted or convicted for outing Plame. Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

And Billy still has not proved his assertion that Bush fudged the intelligence. His "evidence all over the landscape" seems to be too hard for poor dumb Billy to find. If there was any proof, Bush would have been impeached. But Billy will still go on spreading lies and bullshit because he is nothing but an agenda driven DNC parrot. I've said it before... If this is how Billy taught school, his students and the taxpayers who paid him were cheated. He does not deserve his pension. This is what is wrong with our education system. More money will not correct tenured fools and Libtards with a self serving agenda.

We can take the little fella's word or the British prime minister's at the time for whether the intelligence was wrong. Tony Blair apologized yesterday on CNN for acting on wrong information and that there are "elements of truth" in the theory that the invasion helped feed the rise of ISIS.

As for fudging, he acknowledges intelligence confirming presence of WMDs was also wrong. Blair's confession and apology on US television is seen by some pundits as getting out his story before the official Chilcott Report expected next month. From The Independent:


"It is as part of a longer documentary, Long Road To Hell: America In Iraq, set to be screened on Tueday.

With the cameras rolling, Mr Zakaria asked Mr Blair: “Given that Saddam had no WMDs, was the war a mistake?”

He replied: “I apologise for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong. I also apologise, by the way, for some of the mistakes in planning, and certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime. But I find it hard to apologise for removing Saddam.”

Well, you walked right into that one and shut the door behind you. If that answer is any indication of the depth of your knowledge of the issue, we can discount anything you have to offer.

Case closed.

Are you sure he acknowledged anything, or did the 'interviewer' interject bias? Four to one apologies to a psuedo acknowledgement, If I didn't know any better, I'd think that was a black former mayor, caught on video smoking crack cocaine with a couple of hookers.

Blair's preemptive move? Seems he's not near as worried about being proactive as bo and hill will be with pardon paperwork, while bo still can, eh.

King, as you well know, there is a giant gap between acting on information that turned out to be wrong and acknowledging that when compared to acting on information you know to be incorrect or fudged.

I read that interview with Blair. I read clearly he is apologizing for acting on information that later turned out to be somewhat incorrect. In fact the article identifies the Italian agent who was the source of the incorrect intel. At no time does Blair acknowledge or accept that he knew the intel was wrong.

Or am I wrong?

Little King has a little brain, and an agenda driven brain at that James.

I personally think that has a lot to do with his exit or ejection from journalism. Too bad he wasn't entering into that career today, because agenda driven journalistic inaccuracies are more tolerated today... at least until they become a total embarrassment. Then the lying Liberal reporters get a slap on the wrist and a leave of absence. It is not surprising that little King was the only one here who made excuses for Lyin' Brian Williams.

I have said many times that some of the intelligence that led Republicans and Democrats alike to support the Iraq war turned out to be wrong. Some of it, including the existence of WMD turned out to be correct. We have discussed in the past the Polish Army's discovery of artillery shells loaded with cyclosarin which was reported in the Wall Street Journal. Little King and dishonest dunce Billy Ferguson will deny the widely reported injuries and illnesses contracted by soldiers who were exposed to stockpiles of chemicals used in weapons. Little King and dim bulb Billy choose to ignore the link Dave K provided earlier in this thread:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/234626/saddams-wmds-lefts-iraq-lies-exposed-arnold-ahlert

The State Department and other U.S. government officials have revealed that ISIS now occupies the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex which was Saddam's primary chemical complex located 50 miles from Baghdad.

Little King is still apparently clinging to the lie that either Bush or Tony Blair "fudged intelligence", or he is using his weasel words and "craft of journalism" in a dishonest attempt to convey that notion. But neither lyin' King or brainless Billy have provided a shred of evidence. Even two Libtards working together repeating a lie will not make it true.

Another issue the Democrats always ignore was the presence of an entire division of Russian chemical troops which sanitized Iraq immediately preceding the invasion. Much of the material was shipped to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon.

If Saddam had any WMD’s, when faced with certain death, why didn’t he use them, as he had done in the past?

Because he had none. Or, the Russians sanitized Iraq. Which seems more likely?

Intentional misrepresentations or shitty intelligence, the consequences were the same. Ultimately, the “evidence” relied upon to justify that war was either false and/or inaccurate.

The depressing thing is so many members of Congress voted to authorize a war when there was so little genuine evidence to justify it. Edwards, Kerry, Biden…they all voted for it. How convenient that they now claim to have been misled. Kind of like how they don't read the bills they vote for.

I’ve tried that a few times when I’ve done something stupid but, it never works for me...

Maybe the lesson is you can’t trust anything these people say about anything. You can’t believe what they say about war, healthcare, the economy, the climate, immigration, hope and change, or anything at all. Lying liars all around.

+1

RyanF nailed it.

Even Chretien wouldn't touch it.

Wishful thinking little King. If Ryan had it correct, Democrats would have impeached Bush and crucified him too. Not necessarily in that order. And Tony Blair would not have been exonerated by Parliament after their investigation. Our Libtards act as though the intel on WMD was the only impetus for taking out Saddam. He had returned to his old ways and was blatantly violating U.N. sanctions. What good are U.N. sanctions if dictators are permitted to violate them at will?

As it stands, all the Liberal Democrats can do is have their sorry little foot-soldiers like you and little Billy continue to repeat the lie often enough that some fools and dupes may believe it. If you or Little Billy had any real proof, we'd never hear the end of it. You're both pathetic.

Sadam, knew from the first gulf go round that his military would likely get over run in days, if not hours. There's no evidence that these folks go out like righteous warriors. He returned to 'home' where friends tried to cover for him, and he would've grovled in a pig pen to avoid capture. I think at the end, he was hoping to pull a binladen and hide away watching porn. If he was in charge, which he wasn't, history shows he would use chemical based wmd's.

I really don't follow about the trust angle. The folks that trust it's right to burn Bush in effigy, will trust that all their entitlements will be provided. Apparently, it doesn't matter if it is not true, all that matters is that these 'trusting' sorts will provide their vote. I think it's a huge mistake to expect reason.

There is no point in offering information here . People point out that Scooter Libby wasn't convicted of outing Valerie Plame. They insist he was convicted of lying. So? What was it he was convicted of lying about? That Bush would use evidence he had been advised was not reliable in order to make his case for war must seem to reasonable people like fudging. If it strikes people here as a reasonable course of action from a responsible leader, then it's not such a big leap to imagine that Trump could actually be nominated.

Better look at the Iowa polls today, BIll. You are in for a surprise if you think Trump is in the lead.

It would seem that lying is OK, as long as it is a democrat doing it-remember "Mitt Romney hasn't paid his taxes in ten years" from Harry Reid? No proof, no truth, just feed it to the media and watch the frenzy.
Was Harry held accountable? Seems not.
Ditto the lie about Mitt's employee's "wife dying from cancer, because Mitt didn't provide healthcare". A falsehood, picked up by the dupes in the media, and run with.
Or how 'bout the classic "Dog tied to the roof of Mitt's station wagon" lie? The dog was in a Versa kennel, on a trailer, and if a dog traveling in a Versa kennel is reason to go to hell, I guess I'll be there, too-all my dogs have done the same thing on hunting trips over the years, and never seemed to mind.

I'm quite tired of democrat driven lies (unemployment at 3.5%, how 'bout THAT lie, Bill?) not being held to, well, any standard of truth. You did see the little nugget in the news yesterday about 51% of all Americans earning less than $30,000 dollars a year since the great recession took place, right? Factor that in with the increases built into Obama care, and let us know how that is going to work out for those people.

Shall I go on? There is a smorgasboard of them, these days, Bill.

Just open your eyes, and look.


Best,
Ted

Ted, You're right; Democrats have been caught lying. Does that suit me? No. Corruption is not a partisan issue. I'm not tired of Republican lies. I'm not tired of Democratic lies. I'm sick and tired of politicians' lies, whatever party they come from.

Trump leads nationally. Iowa ethos driving Carson. They-and-we-purer makes Misfires tiresome.

I strongly suggest that you get your facts straight. The Libby conviction was an unfortunate case of prosecutorial misconduct. For your information, this recount by the Washington Post that the conviction should be reversed. One cannot discount the WaPo as being a right wing publication.

For those who do not wish to read the entire article, this quote sums up what Libby was convicted of; "So Libby was convicted for telling the FBI he didn’t tell Russert about Plame and falsely admitted to telling Kessler about Plame—when he did not."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig...bby-conviction/

For a bonus point, perhaps you can tell us who ultimately was convicted and sentenced for outing Plame.

Today's CBS poll has Carson leading Trump nationally.

That's good news, Jim. Maybe goes to show intelligence and pleasant demeanour trumps bluster and division.

Preposterous.

Saddam was unable to either move the weapons or order their use in the Gulf War because anything that moved was attacked from the air, and their entire communications system was disrupted. Intentionally of course, but no doubt due to your vast knowledge of SIGNET and counter-communications warfare you'll be able to refute this. Considering that that was exactly what the actions during both wars were designed to prevent.

Saddam used'em on the Iranians and the Kurds because he knew he'd experience no consequences.

It's a convenient lapse of memory to forget the campaign being waged to lift the sanctions on Iraq before the last war, which was why Saddam tried to hold onto his WMDs.

Here in Iowa, evangelicals are a strong force. Even though I live here, I wouldn't put a whole amount of significance into theses polls. It's still too early, and sample manipulation is always possible. It's Trump who is being talked about the most.

Well rocky mtn transplant bill, it appears you have dug in your high heels and intend to stick to your lies and bullshit.

JC Hannum beat me to the punch in correcting you on the reason, or lack thereof, for the Scooter Libby conviction. You could have known it too if you weren't content to just go off half-cocked with your DNC bullshit talking points. I don't expect that you will ever change even though you leave a trail of false and asinine assertions every time you breathlessly post something here.

Don't come here piously proclaiming to us that you dislike Democrat lies. You yourself help spread them. You still haven't shown us your proof that Bush manipulated or "fudged" intelligence that led to war in Iraq in any way. You can't admit that you don't have any and can't find any. You and King Brown are little more than human manure spreaders. At least you don't post anti-gun rhetoric like King does... you just support and defend Liberal Left Democrat anti-gun politicians.

Then again, has Carson been running a bunch of ads and flaunting an obscene campaign war chest. I think all of the R's were given a spring board by Trump in the debates. He opened some doors that haven't been open in quite a while.

Bill already says he doesn't care about substance and character, only honed in on possible TEA party linkage. You've explain how we're supposed to vote cutesy to off set unenlightened voters.

Intelligence and pleasantness, hardly. Romney and johny mac won't ever live those attributes down in the halls of misfires. He's a com'in on strong, but hardly anywhere near that magical 39%. If he can scratch his way up to 47%, does he get the media's uncle tom award for inverted pc?

I just read this quote from Teddy Roosevelt in Drew's new thread celebrating his birthday:

Speech at the Naval War College Newport, Rhode Island June 2, 1897 as the newly appointed Asst. Secy. of the Navy
"Better a thousand times err on the side of over-readiness to fight, than to err on the side of tame submission to injury, or cold-blooded indifference to the misery of the oppressed."

Mistakes were certainly made in the second Iraq war, and we should learn from them. But they were nothing compared to the mistakes made by Obama in his rush to exit that war. There seems to be a new and recent push by the Liberal Left to blame Bush and Tony Blair for the rise of ISIS. Little King Brown has been floating that turd right here recently. But we all know it was the incompetence of Obama and the Foreign Policy failures of his administration that created the vacuum ISIS is filling and that has led to the deaths of around 250,000 people in the Middle East. Christianity is being exterminated, but atheists like King no doubt see that as a plus.

Interested parties might like to check out an interview of Michael Morell, Deputy CIA Director, and Bush's intelligence briefer on Tues, May 19, 2015, in which he says straight out that Bush misrepresented the intelligence data he'd been given. As the man whose responsibility it was to provide intelligence to the President, he's in a pretty good position to recognize when that intelligence is being fudged.

Perhaps a link would be of assistance. It would also help if you were to spell the person's name correctly, it is Morell.

Do you ever get anything right?

JC, thanks for the correction. That was a kind of Freudian slip.

I just read a transcript of the interview by the extreme Liberal Leftist Chris Matthews of MSLSD with ex-CIA Director Michael Morrell... not Moore you illiterate boob. I read this in the very Liberal Daily KOS.

Morrell... not Moore, does not say "straight out that Bush misrepresented the intelligence data he'd been given." What are you trying to pull with us little Billy? Did you really think no-one would check on what you say after you have lied to us so many times?

Chris Matthews tried repeatedly to lead Morrell... not Moore, into saying that Cheney... not Bush... gave a false presentation of what he said to them. Nowhere does Morrell... not Moore, even mention Bush misrepresenting or fudging intelligence.

You said evidence that Bush fudged the intelligence is "all over the landscape." So why can't you find it from even the most Liberal sources in the country? And why do you keep compounding one lie on top of another?

We know you are a pretty dim bulb Billy, but try to stay focused here. You claimed Bush fudged the intelligence. That's George W. Bush. Bush 46. Focus Billy... and please stop making an ass of yourself by lying to us.

Really Billy? None of us would have guessed that you have Michael Moore on your little agenda driven mind. As JCHannum notes, you have screwed up about every post you've made here. It is sad and frightening to think that people of your caliber are teaching our kids.

But you keep coming back like a retarded moth repeatedly flying into a flame. Are you trying to unseat Ed Good from his position as Official Misfires Village Idiot?

A recent Gallop poll shows 17% of Americans now supporting the Tea Party. Perhaps there's some hope after all.

Why would evangelicals support a 7th Day Adventist?

That would be Gallup, I believe. You are batting a thousand so far, keep it up.

The poll shows that those who support the "Tea Party" has declined, it also shows that those who oppose it have declined a similar amount, while those who are neither for or against have increased markedly. This would indicate an acceptance among the majority.

Polls about the "Tea Party" are relatively meaningless, since there is actually no such entity.

Why don't we save the teachers atrocious example of his inability to spell Gallup correctly. How can Billy say there is hope for us when the people who are teaching our kids are this dumb themselves?

The retarded moth returns to fly into the flame yet again. Apparently it is too stupid to have any shame or to learn from its' mistakes. If I was writing a script to show the stupidity of Libtards, nobody would believe this astonishing display.

Not surprisingly, dim-witted Billy's latest still is not evidence of George Bush fudging intelligence. The suspense is killing me.

A Rasmussen poll says only 11% of folks approve of the 'black lives matter' crew. I'll bet that's what you meant by 'hope', after all, your prez sez it's a front and center issue.

Hope you're satisfied with the extent that this administration 'downplayed' the boots on the ground isis captive rescue. Maybe you like the way bo sent a lone destroyer to irritate the chinese, after they completed their colonization of previously international waters. I bet there's a poll somewhere that sez 8 out of 10 chinese know the US has it's weakest Navy since before WWII. The polls overwhelmingly say, bo must continue military action in afghanistan. Weird, huh?

Maybe you're enjoying the lies that gave us ocare. Didn't gruber spill the beans, check that, gloat about the stupidity of the American voter. Maybe, you prefer watching reruns of the reid clip where he brags that he did lie about Romney on the floor of the senate as part of the effort to sink his campaign. Hey employment numbers look great don't they, but these lies don't fit the victim/bash the rich and corporations mantra, eh.

I don't think you care a whole bunch if the dems lie, or how they poll, just as long as it's not an R, eh.

edit to add, great news, ocare premiums are going up thirty-some percent in MT, hope-n-so little change, eh.

That's right craig, the ObamaCare premiums for 2016 for Montana are projected to increase by over 34% and 36% for Oklahoma. I sure hope Dems take Joe Biden's advice and run their campaigns touting success stories like that. But I expect they'll fall back on the old "War on Women" or "Whipping Up Racism" thing.

I'm pretty sure the Fair and Balanced Twins, Billy and Little King were probably just about to post those numbers here. I also can't wait for King to explain to us mere mortals that the little escalation of Boots on the Ground in Iraq by Obama is just some secret back-channeling that we wouldn't understand.

Sixteen million people have health insurance who previously had none.If it costs them more than projected, most would rather have it than nothing.The myth that Obama care is a total failure is what keeps that 17% cheering for Trump. Soldier on.

Since Obamacare requires a person have health insurance and prosecutes and fines those who do not, it is hardly surprising that people sign up for health insurance.

That 16 million number is fudged and does not necessarily represent those who have signed up for O-care exclusively and would not have health insurance otherwise. Included in that number is people who have gained insurance through their state's Medicare programs as well as those who have gained insurance through their employer. The number also includes those who have signed up for O-care but have not paid for their plans and will eventually be dropped from the rolls.

Whatever the numbers, America's future is universal healthcare and guaranteed annual income, not for ideological reasons but necessity to buffer widening disparity and boost consumption i.e. Ford paying workers then-preposterous $5/day. Obamacare is the beginning. No more revolutionary than the changing face of America over the last 25 years. Does anyone here imagine two black presidents in a row?

I doubt you're willing, but how about discussing the 'success' of ocare?

You like numbers. How many tens of millions of citizens of the US remain without health insurance? How about 80% for a number. Isn't that the percentage on ocare that require subsidizing? Am I lying, and because I typed that am I a card carrying Tea partier?

You're wrong about 16 million were previously uninsured. Some of them, lemme guess, 20%, were rolled into it by their employer from some other previous plan. As a retiree, are you looking forward to the rate hike, or maybe you're one of the lucky ones that have something else figured out.

Run more numbers if you will. Sixteen million fakescribers in ocare. Wouldn't the nation come out way ahead if they just paid the monthly premium and never set up all the waste fraud and abuse of ocare?

Regardless of what King says, facts are that gruber told us the ocare was sold based on the 'stupidity of the American voter'. Was he talking about you? I wouldn't be surprised, but chances are King can't vote here, so you have to understand that he's a lobbyist.

Why would anyone expect Little King or Little Billy to start being truthful and factually correct now?

And who is surprised that both Liberal Left frauds are attempting to change the subject and dance away from their assertion that Bush "fudged" the intelligence to take us into war?

Even if the next Gallup poll says that 100% of the people don't like the Tea Party, Billy will still be more dense than depleted uranium. We can only hope he had as much influence on his former students as he has on us. We can well imagine what Billy and King would be saying if Bush had authored a national health care plan with as many flaws as ObamaCare, and left so many millions with no coverage.

What myth you liar Bill ?

Its done, by 2017 it will be flushed from our country like the bad nightmare it was, complete failure !
BTW it was never about providing healthcare-as proven by the falling numbers,it was a failed redistribution and government control from cradle to gave attempt.

"ObamaCare liberals pose as what-works-and-what-doesn’t technocrats. So perhaps they’d care to explain what it says about their creation that so many rational adults are willing to pay a fine of $695 or 2.5% of their earnings, whichever is higher, for the privilege of not buying an ObamaCare-compliant health plan."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-decline-of-obamacare-1445807092

Dave I bet the guy still believes in the tooth fairy....

Tooth fairy? You must be referring to Caitlyn SKB.

The math would be 1 ½ black presidents in a row but…whatever, Carson is never going to be President. Nobody from the four Christian “cult” religions (Mormon, 7th day, Jehovah Witness, Scientology) can win a national election. I’m not commenting on their dogmas, just on how our culture views them. Republicans are badly out of touch and learned nothing from Romney. A Mormon was never, ever, going to be President.

The conservative fetish with Carson is a disturbing, yet predictable, development. This is why they lose in a nutshell.

Ryan in my childhood there was doubt a Catholic could be elected President. Kennedy busted that.

In my childhood and early adult years White Southerners voted for Democrats. After busing and affirmative action became common they turned in just a few years to the Republicans.

Atheists have become more politically powerful. I believe that has made many fringe Christian faiths much more acceptable to mainstream Christians.

I think Romney's Mormonism was a non-issue in the last election.

My experience as well. And the Republicans have been forthcoming with little in return...Geo

Reflecting on the posts above, and coming back to my mantra that political partisanship here is militating against the shooting sports, it's worth considering that those who can't agree on a particular principle from being too committed to narrow ideological issues often come together later on shared pro-gun campaigns. Broadcasting the notion Democrat voters are anti-gun is self-defeating.

The rise of secularism harms, not helps, the unorthodox (heretical?) Christian sects. They have the rare ability to scare the shit out of fringes both the very religious and the very secular. It might be because the USA is obsessed with religious tolerance and the “cult” sects make us naturally uneasy. Regardless, it’s unrealistic to think a candidate’s faith will not be noticed. I believe Romney’s Mormonism was a problem in the purple states, not the red states.

They might be viable as Democrats. D’s can get away with flawed candidates because they get 240 some electoral votes by default. R’s need to run a near perfect game to win.

This Carson rise is fake anyway. The conservative media is flattering Carson in the hope that he can get rid of Trump. Then when Trump is gone they will try to pull the switcheroo and push Rubio or some other establishment tool.

King: Democrats are anti-gun. I wish they were not but they are. Look what they said about Jim Webb (who's on their team).

Can I ask, what's your agenda here?

At this moment, hill is the would be nominee, and any good lock step dem will vote for her. Am I wrong with any of these two points?

She consistently says, on this current campaign trail, that she is anti gun, and reinforced her position just a couple of days ago at a campaign stop.

Would you take a moment to answer. Are your saying, vote for hill and then later ask her to sit at the bargaining table and trust that she'll be agreeable, and then do the right thing? Of course I'll let you define 'right' in the most divisive, vile anti gun way.

It's not secularism, it's urbanization.
The numbers in urban areas grow ever greater, and their need/use/tolerance for firearms ever wanes.
More House of Representatives coming from urban areas every census. No gun love there.

Romney's Mormonism was made as small an issue as possible. It was his candor about the non-producers that sunk him.

I know of NO evangelical whatever's that chose not to vote in the last election. Additionally, I have seen no results sifting that showed any state that turned democrat because a church goer was mad.
People need to move past that notion. It's an easy one to hold on to, but it's not accurate.

Oh, and voter fraud. That one's a loser too. I wouldn't hinge my beliefs on that one either.

Good candidates, good messages, simple action plans.
Do that.
Don't force candidates to submit to 40 weird litmus tests before you'll vote for them either. It's counterproductive.

Not ALL Democrats are anti-gun King. Nor are all Liberals anti-gun. But with rhetoric like you post here on a fairly regular basis, there can be no doubt that you are anti 2nd Amendment and anti-NRA.




Then there's this little gem where King attempts to link our Constitutional RKBA to an insane allegation that we "accept" mass murder and mass school shootings:



When I posted this anti-gun rhetoric in another thread, King's immediate response was, "Evidence please."

Only King could be caught with the smoking gun in his hand and proclaim innocence. The whole exchange can be read in the "300,000,000, Yes 300,000,000" thread beginning with King's post #421751. Pathetically sick.

You are clearly not on the side of gun rights King Brown. You are no help to us whatsoever. You are here to undermine us and LULL others into complacency.

Good thoughts CZ. The only difference I think is the nominee needs to be a great, not good, candidate. Also, 'good' message, I hope means a 'resonating' message, not necessarily some farce about taking 'the high road'.

By 'weird litmus tests', I take it to mean gun right issues. Chances are the topic would come up on a double gun forum, but social and foreign policy issues the are divisive seem to follow the exact same party lines. But, regardless of who they might vote for, I'm usually not too tickled about folks who say they're above it all, so they won't vote.

Trump has good/great crossover appeal because he has a simple, if outrageous, plan on immigration that a working man can understand.

He says, " I will stop..."
Can't get clearer than that.
It translates to pocket book issues for the working people in the middle. They know their earnings, and standards of living, are diminished by unfettered immigration.

It is very likely the single most uniting element of current presidential politics. Your party doesn't matter if you feel undermined by illegal immigration. Real or imagined.

Dealing with urbanization and the second amendment is a far more difficult task than getting elected on pocketbook issues.

We don't have "illegal immigration". We have an "illegal invasion". 25% of the population of Mexico has moved, here, in the last 40 years. The very great majority of those people were not invited. What other country on the face of the planet could/would have let that happen to themselves?
Real or imagined does not enter the picture. We have 20 million uninvited foreign people, the great majority of them uneducated, and unable to speak, read, or write English, who place a huge burden on American society, in the form of entitlements, welfare and emergency services. They are involved in the justice system at rates 15-20 times that of US citizens.
They are not our neighbors, our friends, or our brothers. They are a scourge.
It needs to end, and they need to go.
I'm tired of talk of building a fence. Plant a minefield. I'll help.


Best,
Ted

I for one don't believe our constitution allows gays the right to bear arms.

Then you and your wife lil k should disarm immediately.

I think you're right CZ, and the most interesting aspect for me is how this plays on election day. A strong majority is alienated and seriously conflicted by illegals, a natural human sentiment in these circumstances, but the US has a strong ethos of compassion, to do the right thing. Eighty-two per cent of Canada favoured the governing party's anti-Islam position on immigration and refugees leading into our Oct. 19 federal election. They voted out the party.

Caitlyn SKB you should get in the Guinness World Records book as the first gAy gun'smurf

jOe, just STFU if you can't add anything.

At least when you are talking about guns, you sometimes are right and can add to the conversation. Down here in misfires you simply spew shit.

And it's okay for you to spew your stupid Canadian chit every where....

Truth is no body in the USA gives a rats azz what some Canadian bOzo thinks about our politics.

wrOng agAin, jOe.


But nobody gives a damn what you think about anything, because you are wrOng, ovEr and ovEr and ovEr.

And of course that is because you are very stUpid.

No politics involved in this, jOe. And that's the post that prompted my post.

Edit to add:

Talk politics all you want. No big deal. We'll form our own opinions as to the relative wisdom of your comments. It's the bullshit personal attacks I object to, from you and everyone else in misfires.

jOe, you used to get your shirt in a knot every time someone didn't follow the rules of the game in the "for sale" section to the letter. But now you think it's fine to regularly and openly flaunt the rules down here is misfires?

How big a hypocrite are you?

The liberal gun'smurf runs me down so in kind I do him the same...I guess you over look his crap ?

I don't miss his crap jOe, I just follow who starts it. You may notice I have the same thoughts for everyone else who is name calling here that I have for you. I just don't make a distinction based on left or right. I'm more interested in A) not having it at all and B) who starts it.

Then I guess you're too dumb to go back and see who started it.

jOe, because yOu are very stUpid, you think when someone one disagrees with you on anything; gun actions, case colors, maker, or politics, that they are insulting yOu. They aren't. But you take it personally.

So yeah, SKB started his feud with you by disagreeing with you (AND me) that, on average, Whites aren't more intelligent than Blacks.

I started our feud when I disagreed with you over the cause of the gap between the average intelligence of Blacks and the average intelligence of Whites. I believe it is because of the differences in environment, culture, and education levels of the two races. You argued that it was genetic.

But, because yOu are very stUpid, you began attempting to insult me since you thought I had insulted you by disagreeing with you.

Because yOu are very stUpid, when someone disagrees with you over some matter of fact or opinion, you think they insulted you.

stUpid is as stUpid does.

LOL

I'm just waiting for rocky mtn transplant bill and King Brown to show us their proof that George Bush manipulated or fudged the intelligence that led to war in Iraq.

I'll bet those who aren't happy with Misfires now would really enjoy it if we all just made shit up all the time.

Senate Report: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False
Huffington Post 06/13/2008 5:12 am EDT Updated: 06/04/2013 2:15 pm EDT


"More than five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.

In addition, the report on Iraq war intelligence harshly criticizes a Pentagon office for executing "inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities" without the proper knowledge of the State Department and other agencies.

In addition to judgments that could prove troublesome for the White House and make waves in the presidential race, the report also contains some stinging minority reports from Republican committee members who allege that Democrats turned the intelligence review process into a "partisan exercise."


However, when the GOP controlled the intelligence committee and steered its "Phase I" reporting on the use of Iraq war intelligence, critics complained that tough questions about the Bush administration's actions had been kicked down the road, and thus required a second round of fact finding -- dubbed "Phase II." The committee's delay in producing that full report to the public was seen by Democrats as evidence of a stonewalling campaign executed by President Bush's Republican Senate allies.

Former Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) often vacillated over whether or not the report was worth completing, first promising in 2004 that the work would be finished, and then calling it a "monumental waste of time" later in 2005. When Democrats gained control of the Senate after the 2006 midterm elections, they gained a majority of seats on the committee and set the course for the production of the final reports. Whether by partisan design or simple chance, however, the committee managed to save some of the best questions for last.

The "Phase II" report states -- in terms clearer than any previous government publication -- that there was no operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that Bush officials were not truthful about the difficulties the United States would face in post-war Iraq and that their public statements did not reflect intelligence they had at the time, and, specifically, that the intelligence community would not confirm any meeting between Iraqi officials and Mohamed Atta -- a claim that was nevertheless publicly repeated.

"Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.

"In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed. ... There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."

In a minority report authored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, Christopher Bond and Richard Burr, the Republicans accuse committee Democrats of committing a key error of governmental logic. "Intelligence informs policy. It does not dictate policy," they wrote. "Intelligence professionals are responsible for their failures in intelligence collection, analysis, counter-intelligence and covert action. Policymakers must also bear the burden of their mistakes, an entirely different order of mistakes. It is a pity this report fails to illuminate this distinction."

The key findings released by Rockefeller and his divided committee brings the five-part "Phase II" of the committee's report on prewar intelligence to completion. The investigation's first phase was released on July 2004, and two less controversial parts of "Phase II" were declassified in September 2006.

Thanks King, that settles it, you found the smoking gun. Is that the same dem senate run by reid that said he used the protection of the senate to lie about Romney in order to attack his presidential campaign?

For your next assignment, could you steer me toward some proof that President Bush was 'dumb'. I seem to read it all the time, but I can't get myself to feel that way, maybe there're some guidelines on how I should feel?

Too bad that King's smoking gun was not found in George Bush's hand as he and rocky mtn transplant bill asserted, eh craig? Even waiting patiently for a Democrat controlled Senate Intelligence Committee didn't give King, Billy, and other Libtards what they wanted... proof that "Bush lied and soldiers died."

Just think, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about a sexual dalliance with Monica... but this Democrat controlled partisan Senate Intelligence Committee could not be bothered to pursue impeachment for Bush for allegedly leading us into a multi-trillion dollar conflict that led to thousands of American soldiers being killed or wounded. How could King support politicians who are so guilty of corrupt misfeasance?

Maybe because King is once again trying to pass off Liberal Left bullshit as fact. Repeating a lie often enough only makes it become true when people are foolish enough to let it happen. Keep flailing King.

Craig, it couldn't pass my mind that Bush is dumb. Dumb people don't become presidents. Losers lose because they under-rate those around them.

I said before that I kind of like the guy. He would be more fun to be around than any of those others guys looking for his job.

Take everything you read with a grain of salt. Make up your own mind. I read all the time here I'm an idiot, fraud, liar. Poooh, pooh!

My doc says to cut back on salt. He claims the lefties get elected anyway, and has me on five times a day anti misogyny pills. He laughs when he sees me and tells his nurse that losers loose, like I'm not even in the room. If I say yabut, he looks at me funny, implies I'm a racist, and charges ocare for a counseling session just for showing me the door.

Try universal healthcare . . .

Hahaha. Now that's some funny!

The word "some." I think of its use your way peculiar to the Maritimes. Is it commonly used that way there?

No, very uncommon. Just picking up on a linguistic tic common to your neck of the woods. Didn't think you'd notice.

King King King,unbelievable,Canadian intelligence said it was a harp seal

Thanks for the reminder, mc. I paid for my school clothes from seal bounties, first $5 a snout and then $10 for a jaw, shooting a Savage or Stevens 30-30 from offshore Atlantic ledges, at a time when road workers got $35 a week. I rendered the blubber in a hardwood barrel and sold the oil for $3 a gallon. Carcasses went gratis to village pigs. (Seals are host of worms in cod.)

tell us more bout the seal, worm, cod connection...

never mind. found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisakis

sounds like any mammal ingesting raw fish could pick up the parasitic worm?

so, why the bounty on just seals? why not a bounty on whales and dolphins as well? and is there still a bounty on seals or anything else in and around ns?

Other commercial species of fish in our waters do not have worms. Pollock, mackerel, ocean perch come to mind. Many other species do but we don't hear so much about them because they are not of commercial value. There are culls/bounties on seals and coyotes from time to time on our East Coast.