Will there be a Fall 2007 election?

[WestViking]

There have been motions. What do you think the Liberal motion to end Canada's participation in 2009 was? Right wingers like you called that treason and sedition. Think those are proper debating words? There have been committee debates on detainees, debates on equipment.

Assuredly there have been motions:

Dion's Hypocrisy on Afghanistan

October 11, 2006

Today Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville) continues his hypocritical attacks on the Conservative government over Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, even going so far as to attack Liberals who support the mission: "It is very sad that some of us voted with them," said Dion. (Toronto Star, October 11, 2006). Yet despite Dion’s spin, Canadians remember that it was his Liberal government that sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan in the first place and that Dion was sitting in cabinet when the decision was made to undertake the current mission:

The facts:

• Dioin was a member of the Liberal cabinet under Jean Chretien when Canadian troops were first sent to Afghanistan. He was in the Liberal cabinet under Paul Martin when they decided to move Canadian troops from Kabul to Kandahar. How can he now criticize a mission that he endorsed as part of the Liberal cabinet?

• Dion himself keep insisting that he supports the mission: Quebec-based Stéphane Dion said his support for the mission would remain strong until there was a clear indication the troops were no longer required by the Afghan people. “There is no way that Canada will be an occupying force. I'm supporting the mission because I'm still convinced that most of the people of Afghanistan want our protection. The very moment I know that is not the case, I will not be there,” he said. (October 10, 2006)

• Mr. Dion said he still supports the mission because he believes the majority of Afghans want the protection of Canadian troops. (Globe and Mail, October 11, 2006)

• Despite the hypocrisy of Liberals like Dion, 24 Liberal MPs kept to their principles and supported the continuation of the Afghanistan mission, including interim Liberal leader Bill Graham and Liberal leadership contenders Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison

• As Scott Brison said: "I don't think Liberals ought to be seeking to differentiate themselves on a mission that we actually started. We initiated the Afghan mission. We did it for the right reasons. Those reasons have not changed. (Globe and Mail, June 27, 2006)

• As Michael Ignatieff said: "Liberals need to remember this is a Liberal mission," he said. "We're in Afghanistan because of the leadership of the two previous Liberal governments ... We, as a party, cannot abandon what is right or what we believe for political convenience." (National Post, June 17, 2006)

So, what happened to the commitment to the Afghan people and the commitment to do what is right and avoid taking a position for political convenience?

Journals Thursday, April 19, 2007

BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply.

Mr. Coderre (Bourassa), seconded by Mr. Ignatieff (Etobicoke —Lakeshore), moved, — That,

(1) whereas all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements may be about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces;

(2) whereas in May 2006, the government extended Canada's military commitment in Southern Afghanistan to February 2009;

(3) whereas it is incumbent upon Canada to provide adequate notice to the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of our intentions beyond that date;

(4) whereas by February 2009, Canada's military mission in Southern Afghanistan will represent one of the largest and longest military commitments in Canadian history; and

(5) whereas Canada's commitment to the reconstruction and security of Afghanistan is not limited to our combat operations in Southern Afghanistan;

this House call upon the government to confirm that Canada’s existing military deployment in Afghanistan will continue until February 2009, at which time Canadian combat operations in Southern Afghanistan will conclude; and call upon the government to notify NATO of this decision immediately.

Debate arose thereon.

The motion was lost Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 134 Yeas – 150 Nays

[WestViking]

There have been motions. What do you think the Liberal motion to end Canada's participation in 2009 was? Right wingers like you called that treason and sedition. Think those are proper debating words? There have been committee debates on detainees, debates on equipment.

Assuredly, there have been motions:

NDP Members vs. Jack Layton on Afghanistan

September 18, 2006

Today NDP Leader Jack Layton continued his attacks on Canada’s mission in Afghanistan and once again called for Canada to withdraw (CP, September 18, 2006). Interestingly, Layton does not even have the support of many NDP members, including two of his own MPs!.:

The facts:

• NDP MP Peter Stoffer says he doesn't agree with his leader's call for Canadian troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan. “…to do an immediate pullout, or a very quick pullout, is also wrong,” said Mr. Stoffer, his party's veterans affairs critic. (Globe and Mail, September 2, 2006)

• NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) told The Hill Times in an exclusive interview at his party's policy convention in Québec City on the weekend that he does not support his party leader on the controversial issue of Afghanistan. (The Hill Times website exclusive, September 11, 2006)

• "I'm more of a Manitoba New Democrat point of view, which [is that] we don't support the idea of the immediate withdrawal of troops. The Taliban train Al-Qaeda to bomb North America and this has been the reason for the international community to try and stop the Taliban. Therefore, it's a good reason for Canada to be part of that initiative," said Mr. Martin, referring to Manitoba Premier Gary Doer's comments also on the weekend to CTV NewsNet that, "The Taliban that we're fighting basically protected the terrorists that were involved five years ago in the 9-11 attack-which included the killing of innocent victims from Manitoba-and so I don't like any anti-military talk." (The Hill Times website exclusive, September 11, 2006)

• NDP Premier Gary Doer said pulling Canada's troops out of Afghanistan ignores the reasons we went there in the first place, and does a disservice to the men and women serving Canada in the conflict. (Winnipeg Free Press, September 7, 2006)

• Doer said the Taliban at the very least harboured and trained terrorists in Afghanistan and bringing the Taliban down remains a valid role for Canada's military. (Winnipeg Free Press, September 7, 2006)

• NDP Premier Gary Doer said pulling Canada's troops out of Afghanistan would be a mistake. "From day one I supported (the mission) and I continue to support it," said Doer. "The desire to eliminate terrorists in training and the Taliban is legitimate." (Winnipeg Free Press, September 9, 2006)

So, what does Layton do?

Journals Thursday, April 26, 2007

BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply.

Mr. Layton (Toronto—Danforth), seconded by Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam), moved, — Whereas,

(1) all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces;

(2) the government has admitted that the situation in Afghanistan can not be won militarily;

(3) the current counter-insurgency mission is not the right mission for Canada;

(4) the government has neither defined what ‘victory’ would be, nor developed an exit strategy from this counter-insurgency mission;

therefore this House condemns this government and calls for it to immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan; and calls for Canada to focus its efforts to assist the people of Afghanistan on a diplomatic solution, and re-double its commitment to reconstruction and development.

Debate arose thereon.

The motion was lost Monday, April 30, 2007 - 28 Yeas – 225 Nays

[jdobbin]

If you wish to counter my arguments, fair enough, but do not try to tell me what I said or what I meant. My comments in the thread above do not need your interpretation.

You have called Opposition to the mission treason and sedition. What sort of interpretation do you think one should make of that rhetoric?

[jdobbin]

Assuredly, there have been motions:

You should show your citations if you are going to quote from a site. We are to take it that you have written this all down yourself?

I suspect you have gotten it all down from the Conservative talking points site. If that is true and you have quoted the whole thing, it is a violation of forum rules and you can be banned for it.

As for the substance of what obviously was pasted from another site, It seems to me that the Liberals have supported the mission till 2009. They re-affirmed it. What exactly is your problem with that?

[Michael Bluth]

I suspect you have gotten it all down from the Conservative talking points site. If that is true and you have quoted the whole thing, it is a violation of forum rules and you can be banned for it.

What is the "Conservative talking points" site?

I think perhaps a reminder of the rules is appropriate in this case.

Threatening somebody with banning? Perhaps the worst bluff ever....

[WestViking]

Assuredly, there have been motions:

You should show your citations if you are going to quote from a site. We are to take it that you have written this all down yourself?

I suspect you have gotten it all down from the Conservative talking points site. If that is true and you have quoted the whole thing, it is a violation of forum rules and you can be banned for it.

As for the substance of what obviously was pasted from another site, It seems to me that the Liberals have supported the mission till 2009. They re-affirmed it. What exactly is your problem with that?

Citations for the points made are clearly stated naming the media and print dates.

The Journals records are readily available on the Parliament Internet site.

[Michael Bluth]

Citations for the points made are clearly stated naming the media and print dates.

The Journals records are readily available on the Parliament Internet site.

Your explanation is likely falling on deaf ears.

If you get on the wrong side of certain posters it's just like arguing with a brick wall.

[jdobbin]

Citations for the points made are clearly stated naming the media and print dates.

The Journals records are readily available on the Parliament Internet site.

Baloney. I am talking about you copying and pasting this:

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2874/52688

And this:

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2874/55290

It is a Conservative talking points site. You deny that you took it from there? This is the citation I am referring to.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17

POSTING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

Copyright infringement is illegal on these forums. Therefore, please do not post articles in their entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use the quote feature to highlight the important parts of the article and provide a thorough summary for others. You must also provide sufficient credit to the author and a link to the original article in your post. If the article cannot be found online, then at the end of the post provide an appropriate cite using any of the available citing formats, MLA, APA, etc. Find out more information on Fair Dealing in Canada. http://www.robic.ca/publications/Pdf/032E-LC.pdf

Please do not try to pass someone else’s work as your own. Anyone caught committing plagiarism will be dealt with severely.

Are you too lazy to write your own response? And if you are too lazy, do you not at least want to credit your talking points site rather than taking credit for writing it yourself?

[WestViking]

Citations for the points made are clearly stated naming the media and print dates.

The Journals records are readily available on the Parliament Internet site.

Baloney. I am talking about you copying and pasting this:

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2874/52688

And this:

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2874/55290

It is a Conservative talking points site. You deny that you took it from there? This is the citation I am referring to.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17

POSTING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

Copyright infringement is illegal on these forums. Therefore, please do not post articles in their entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use the quote feature to highlight the important parts of the article and provide a thorough summary for others. You must also provide sufficient credit to the author and a link to the original article in your post. If the article cannot be found online, then at the end of the post provide an appropriate cite using any of the available citing formats, MLA, APA, etc. Find out more information on Fair Dealing in Canada. http://www.robic.ca/publications/Pdf/032E-LC.pdf

Please do not try to pass someone else’s work as your own. Anyone caught committing plagiarism will be dealt with severely.

Are you too lazy to write your own response? And if you are too lazy, do you not at least want to credit your talking points site rather than taking credit for writing it yourself?

There are a couple of tiny problems with your high dudgeon:

1) The material I posted is not under copyright, it is in the public domain;

2) You cited a ‘Liberal motion’, but could not be bothered to provide either details or a reference; and

3) The main points of the material posted all had clear citations or I would not have used it.

I suppose that getting in a snit over citations is the only alternative you have since you cannot challenge validity of the material posted. I’ll give you an “E” for effort though.

[jdobbin]

There are a couple of tiny problems with your high dudgeon:

1) The material I posted is not under copyright, it is in the public domain;

2) You cited a ‘Liberal motion’, but could not be bothered to provide either details or a reference; and

3) The main points of the material posted all had clear citations or I would not have used it.

I suppose that getting in a snit over citations is the only alternative you have since you cannot challenge validity of the material posted. I’ll give you an “E” for effort though.

I think you should look up what is public domain and what isn't. It is pure laziness on your part and dishonest. All you did was copy and paste. Can't even be bothered to write your material. You acted like it was your material that you had gathered.

To top it off you blame me for what you did. I simply responded to your claims that had been no debate or motions. I didn't know that you had reason to doubt that. I certainly didn't expect you to copy and paste an answer against forum rules and then think it is a snit. You can speak to the moderator about lifting material from other pages in whole and not citing it.

[WestViking]

I think you should look up what is public domain and what isn't. It is pure laziness on your part and dishonest. All you did was copy and paste. Can't even be bothered to write your material. You acted like it was your material that you had gathered.

To top it off you blame me for what you did. I simply responded to your claims that had been no debate or motions. I didn't know that you had reason to doubt that. I certainly didn't expect you to copy and paste an answer against forum rules and then think it is a snit. You can speak to the moderator about lifting material from other pages in whole and not citing it.

Your advice, and opinion, is noted. Have a nice day.

[jdobbin]

Your advice, and opinion, is noted. Have a nice day.

At least that appears to be your own words instead of someone else's.

[WestViking]

Your advice, and opinion, is noted. Have a nice day.

At least that appears to be your own words instead of someone else's.

Your attempts to control what I post and how makes your opinion worth exactly what I paid for it.

[jbg]

Your advice, and opinion, is noted. Have a nice day.

At least that appears to be your own words instead of someone else's.

Your attempts to control what I post and how makes your opinion worth exactly what I paid for it.

Some posters appear to have problems with being disagreed with. Some threads have become basically about what certain posters do and do not have the right to express. I do not put you in the category of Ricki Bobbi but apparently this poster does.

[jdobbin]

Some posters appear to have problems with being disagreed with. Some threads have become basically about what certain posters do and do not have the right to express. I do not put you in the category of Ricki Bobbi but apparently this poster does.

I think if he is going to copy and paste from another site, he shouldn't try to make out that it is his own work.

You have no problems with plagiarism?

[jdobbin]

Your attempts to control what I post and how makes your opinion worth exactly what I paid for it.

Stop crying about your plagiarism. You've been long enough to know that copying straight from another website is something you don't do.

[Michael Bluth]

Some posters appear to have problems with being disagreed with. Some threads have become basically about what certain posters do and do not have the right to express.

Well said.

Some posters will completely inflate the significance of any perceived "infraction" to the detriment of hearing opposing viewpoints.

Hmmmm, maybe some posters can't rationally deal with viewpoints at all.

[jdobbin]

It would appear stalker boy is up to his usual following me around.

You have something to say about plagiarism or it is okay if a Conservative is doing it?

[gc1765]

What is so wrong with pointing out to another poster that he is in violation of the rules?

[jdobbin]

What is so wrong with pointing out to another poster that he is in violation of the rules?

It didn't sound like his own writing when he posted it. It looked like it was lifted right off another site. Instead of apologizing, he thinks that someone else's citations are somehow his own.

[gc1765]

It didn't sound like his own writing when he posted it. It looked like it was lifted right off another site. Instead of apologizing, he thinks that someone else's citations are somehow his own.

I am just curious why other posters decided to jump all over you for simply reminding another poster of the rules.

[gc1765]

1) The material I posted is not under copyright, it is in the public domain;

"This website is the property of the Conservative Party of Canada and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without express written permission.

Copyright © 2006 Authorized by the Registered Agent of the Conservative Party of Canada."

Link

[Vancouver King]

1) The material I posted is not under copyright, it is in the public domain;

"This website is the property of the Conservative Party of Canada and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without express written permission.

Copyright © 2006 Authorized by the Registered Agent of the Conservative Party of Canada."

Link

hmmmm....that would appear to settle this little dust up.

[jdobbin]

hmmmm....that would appear to settle this little dust up.

I had intended to mention earlier to him not to copy and entire article like he did here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=232298

And then when I saw something that didn't appear to be his style of writing, I suspected it wasn't his. He does seem to have his defenders about plagiarizing entire articles.

[jbg]

It would appear stalker boy is up to his usual following me around.

You have something to say about plagiarism or it is okay if a Conservative is doing it?

How do you know that WestViking is a Conservative? For all you know he might be a fellow "dipper" like me.