betsy

As I said betsy, maybe they just allow the MP's to speak to SunMedia and National Post, would that be OK with you? Four posts in a row and you're nowhere nearer to answering or seemingly even understanding the issue. You believe the media is the enemy...that the CBC is "terribly slanted" for example. I got the latest on the Gomery inquiry day after day on CBC radio. Guess they didn't get the memo, oh well. It's not really the point anyway, and it's immature and short-sighted to focus on it. The media is the vehicle for accountability. You conveniently claim that it's "liberal" as a way of throwing support behind Harpers decisions. It doesn't stand up betsy, and I've demonstrated that by suggesting he just allow SunMedia and National Post. Throw in CanWest. We can have a pissing contest over the media if you want, but in the end there's no excuse for what Harper has done. There's no excuse for what he's done...that's according to you. You are deliberately reading far more into this memo from Harper, and of course we know why. As I've compared it to a workplace, this is about team-play. Putting myself into harper's shoes, I'd do the same thing! We are a small minority government. We had seen how the NDP and the Liberals tried to perpetuate this Emmerson thing...with the NDP going as far as to organize a rally, weeks after the incident. Radio talk guys from different parts of Canada had said that the Emmerson scandal was hardly mentioned anymore after one week! The other parties are nit-picking and fault-finding....not to mention most media who supports them! Any comment are either taken out of context or magnified or blown out of proportions! Just like that Conservative guy who criticised Emmerson (forgot how he worded his criticism of it). He was on tv and they were putting words in his mouth...and he had to fight his way to butt in to correct them "I didn't mean it that way..." Of course at the end of the segment, who had the last words??? Who managed to form a wrong or misleading impression??? Let's face it. Although media is a tool for accountability....the values had changed dramatically now that the motivating factor that drives is SELF-MOTIVATION. Only a handful can truly say that they are neutral and that partisanship has nothing to do with it! The media ought to face accountability too! Some of them had allowed themselves to become propaganda machines. Some blatanly twist facts. Just look at that famous anchorman in the US who ended up tarnishing his reputation for that false segment on Bush! It's a good thing someone did a check up on that fact and blew the whistle...otherwise, the public...in its unquestioning trust of the media...would've gobbled up that lie!

Well, as far as I know Harper didn't say they can't speak! Did he? As long as no loose canons shooting off his mouth.......which the barracudas and the piranhas along the sides are just waiting to happen. They're out there waiting for anything...any crumbs they can use to derail this small minority government. As it was reported: "Harper is determined to keep the focus on five key Tory campaign issues and any comments straying from those campaign points must be first cleared by him, the Globe reports. "Maintain a relentless focus on the five priorities from the campaign. Reduce the amount of ministerial/public events that distract from the five priority areas identified in the campaign," the Globe quotes the e-mail as saying." Just think of a football team in their dug-out having a last minute rundown on the team work before coming out to the field. You guys are griping only because you are anxiously awaiting for any ooops that's more likely to happen from this fresh batch of MPs....so unlike the veterans of duplicity who had perfectly mastered playing the media.

Excuse me? You've twisted and turned with your topic (which seem to indicate you're not really sure what it is really about). If you'll only take off that Liberal hat for a sec and be consistent, maybe we'll meet on the same page. It's hard to catch up with you flip-flopping all over the issue.

You wonder about my response when you were the one who said this: "I for one would be a little dissappointed to know that my MP cannot speak out on the issues concerning his constituents without PM approval. " Why should an MP go to the press first concerning constituents' issues? Why would he not go through the proper procedures? In every workplaces this attitude will mean this MP is not a team player!

Ah, the "liberal journalist" rightwing mantra. Like it or not the press is our vehicle to government accountability. Like the terribly slanted Liberal-leaning CBC for example? Globe and Mail?

My daughter has infant twins. She is panting after her $200/mo she expects Harper to give her. She doesn't need the money. I'd rather the money go to someone who actually does need it. If she's panting after the $200, obviously she needs it. Even if it is for a different reason. I don't begrudge folks who get a bit back from the government. After all, these folks have been contributing to the pot to help those who rely on social programs. No harm done to put a little smile on these folks faces. A little incentive helps lighten the load we carry.

I don't blame you for being a cynic. 13 years of Liberal government had driven me to cynicism too! Everything is for political reasons! Decisions made by the Liberals was not for what is in the best interest of this country...but mainly for the votes and approval they will get. See how they tried to use the military in a bad way just to scare people off Harper....and kept that ad going in Quebec even after they had known how offensive and how slighted our military people were. On one side of their mouths they're so apologetic....and yet....

What childcare program? 13 years had come and gone....what childcare program??? You must mean what the Liberals had promised in the last election? Based on their record, the promise that they would not have kept anyway...so what program?

And Liberals still do not care! What was it again that Dosanjh said? They're now forced to reluctantly admit support for our troops since it does not make them look good that it was their government who commited these men and women to Afghanistan in the first place! And look who's trying to drum up and buoy up morale? The guy who inherited this commitment...and who's now trying to do the right thing by our troops!

Well I don't know about that. What I see is he's just systematically going about doing what he promised during the election. Actually, some press at Mike Duffy seem to be intrigued by this man...and awed by his unpredictable moves. They discussed him in a serious way...you could see that there is reluctant adimiration. Who knows, maybe they hadn't encountered anyone like him in a long time (golly...after 13 years of Liberals), he is refreshing! The last I heard....Chinese leaders are happy!

Speak of issues concerning constituents...to the press? Especially to mostly liberal journalists?? If there is any issue regarding constituents...would it not be the norm to talk to your PM first before mouthing off to the press? If my MP will spill his guts to journalists before he addresses any problems or concerns to proper channels, I would question his professionalism and motive for doing just that! I'd hate to think of my MP as a publicity-hungry opportunist.

I guess you just don't get it. Or you've decided you will support Harper on all things regardless of the details. What exactly don't I get? Explain yourself.

So any information other than the 5 campaign platform planks is "sensitive" in your view? The topic is about Harper muzzling his MP's...telling them no inverviews or even letters to the editor can occur without his approval. Are you in a state of denial over this? "Sensitive" information of what you seemed to be focused about: WAR-RELATED! Your first two posts were all about Afghanistan and our troops and POWs etc.., Actually most of the arguments and rebuttals on this topic are all war-related!

The sudden appointment of Emmerson that left even the media in the dark until the last minute and the ensuing unavailability of Harper for any explanations got me thinking "what's going on?" A few ministers were answering the questions regarding the "scandal". Speculations were rampant (Mike Duffy and Question Period) as to his "bizarre" attitude. That apparently it is not unlikely for Harper to disregard advices and stick to his own devices. On sober reflection, after all the hoopla had died down I end up thinking...if Harper ended up granting interviews about the matter, what are the chances things would've only dragged on....being further embellished....fueling more "controversies"? The actions of the NDP in trying to perpetuate this griping in Vancouver (whereas in other cities people hardly talked about it anymore after the first week), only proved that it was wise of Harper to just let it be. His silence is confidence in knowing he did nothing wrong. His silence may seem like arrogance to some...but imv, it is a dignified stance by a nation's leader refusing to be lumped along the likes of Tom Cruise as a form of cheap entertainment. His commitment and support of our troops is almost touching. They need it more than ever from their own people. This mission was a commitment signed by the Liberals...which Harper inherited from the previous government and which he is only trying to fulfill. But it seems unlike the Liberals, Harper does not only offer support through lip service. Ironically the Liberals never even stopped for a second to consider using and blighting the reputation and slighting the men and women they had commited to Afghanistan during the election....so why would anyone take the Liberals' lip service concern for the troops seriously? They did more damage to our troops than any terrorist so far. Imagine how a soldier must feel during that election campaign, while he's over there giving his life over a commitment made by the Liberals. And now, the mission which everyone was saying was best not only for Canada, but for the whole world, the significant importance of this mission that these soldiers are so proud to be a part of and die for is suddenly being questioned by the same people who had stood by quietly to let it happen in the first place. The ever vigilant NDP never made such a fuss then. And the Liberals...well, flip-flops about it. It isn't pleasant being in those soldiers' shoes right now. The other parties and their supporters can criticise all they want and make out of anything about Harper's visit to Kandahar. But imv, Harper was there to rally...at a time when our men and women need it most. The snub to Bardot was a real treat. Reading and hearing other ministers blasting away at the McCartneys and the Humane Society of America was awesome. And the way they blasted...boy, the Humane Society girl was speechless! Harper had signalled the way it's going to be for these busy-bodies. No more pandering and kow-towing to celebs! It's about time! So far IHarper strikes me as someone who has a firm backbone. He can't easily be intimidated by fear of losing votes. He takes his leadership seriously...and he's going to do what he is determined to do. I like that. A real leader who stands firmly.

I do not assume that a gay person cannot be religious. A truly religious person (Christian) would understand what the resistance is all about. And a truly religious Christian will not try to change the words of God just so to suit one's own needs. For does that not seem an arrogance towards God? Rebelling against the Head of the Church (Pope) is like going on a mutiny against God. We all have our own demons to conquer, or our own crosses to bear. I guess it is in the way we bear them that counts in God's eyes. And yes, it is the sex, isn't it? If you'll consider most of the Christian values...they all boil down to be sex-related...or about carnal pleasures. There is the abortion issue, adultery, fornication, perversions etc.., The resistance is not a matter of passing judgement on gays...but rather, a fight to preserve the true meaning of marriage as God and Christ had intended it. Obviously the union of a man and woman is significant for was not Christ a guest in a marriage where-in he performed a miracle?

Just wondering... How do women in combat deal with their monthly period...cramps? How about PMS? What about toileting? If you're hunkered down staking out or pinned down by gunfighting...how do women relieve their bladders? I know this question seem so childish...but I'm curious. And knowing the kind of enemies we are dealing with nowadays, I guess being captured alive by an enemy is worse than death for anyone...but especially for a woman? How do male soldiers really feel having women in their platoons. Of course feelings are no longer freely expressed. But setting aside the cliched sexual innuendoes.... Do the males feel a bit more ill-at-ease? Do some have this need to be gallant or chivalrous/protective (for some men, those instincts come naturally towards females).

But you gotta admit the left-winger propaganda is sooooo sickeningly tacky. Code blue?

Harper is being critisized from all sides for putting a noose on information flowing out of his cabinet. It is quite 1984-ish. I don't know what you want, a sugar-coat? Even letters to the editor need to be cleared. And you're comfortable with that? If Harper reverses his bizarre edict I will be the first to stand up and sing his praises. Is this what is being criticized? "Harper tightens leash on his ministers: report CTV.ca News Staff In an effort to appear focused, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is tightening the leash on his cabinet ministers and top bureaucrats by restricting what they can say to the public, a report says. The Globe and Mail says Harper has ordered them to say nothing to the media unless it is first cleared by the Prime Minister's Office. "PMO will have final approval for all communications products -- even Notes to Editors or Letters to the Editor," an e-mail sent to bureaucrats states. Harper is determined to keep the focus on five key Tory campaign issues and any comments straying from those campaign points must be first cleared by him, the Globe reports. "Maintain a relentless focus on the five priorities from the campaign. Reduce the amount of ministerial/public events that distract from the five priority areas identified in the campaign," the Globe quotes the e-mail as saying. CTV's David Akin said reporters "don't really have access" to cabinet ministers anymore." I don't see anything wrong. As for the letters to the editor...geez, you almost gave me a seizure! I had a mental picture of Harper checking all letters to the editors of all media print in this country. Well those letters to the editor obviously apply only to his ministers! So he's keeping a tight reign on them, preventing any loose canon....what's wrong with that? As elected MPs that had won based on those five key issues, those five key issues should be their main focus. They know the other parties will be all out trying to derail them. Actually, Harper demonstrated all the more that he is sharp-witted! That by golly, this man is determined to push for those 5 key issues! He is a true leader!

What information are you talking about? The kind of information you are griping about....the ones you say the PM is restricting his ministers to talk about. I forgot how you worded it but I'm referring from your topic title.

And then there's Bono. What is he anyway, aside from being U2???? He must be a great somebody or something since the Liberals were scrambling to get his approval.

Just read your topic description. "1984-ish. Bizarre. We saw it coming." I saw it coming too...your seeming concern I mean, upon reading your first two posts. Harper-slamming, US-bashing combo! You can't blame me for questioning the real motive of this post. It smacks of partisanship in disguise.

So what betsy? Stop wasting our time. You pounced all over a supposed hypocrisy in me and all others with fresh questions about the Afghanistan mission because you didn't realize the nature of the mission had recently changed. You object to the detainee policy being made clear, yet you cannot explain why. All you do is make petty and false accusations of hypocrisy. Address the topic without all this partisan argument for godsake. I am addressing your topic. You wrote these two statements. You said: "What I want to know is this: What happens to detainees our soldiers capture? Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?" And I've answered that there are no guarantees whatsoever no matter what is done! Why should Harper, as a PM of a nation, volunteer any sensitive information, publicly commtiing himself to something that would box him in a corner when there is no necessity to divulge such information or commit himslef in the first place? You said: "I want to hear Stephen Harper tell Canadians that detainees will be treated humanely (according to the convention we're a signatory to) and never turned over force without assurances (prefereably written) that they will be treated in the same manner by them." Again, there is no necessity to hammer that in! As I've pointed out, Canada had officially stated...and demonstrated how we view treatments of POW that go against the law! We punished those few Canadian soldiers that were responsible for the torture of that POW. Publicly stating that will not make any difference...but you bet it will easily be used by the media to make it sound as a rebuke to the US! And demanding a "written assurance" before handing a prisoner over is undiplomatic and would cause more friction between us and our ally next door. Once you've handed over a prisoner, he is out of your hands and responsibility! Let the US deal with any problems since it's their responsibility. We have no right to make such demands! Further more, we are going to strain a relationship over an impractical demand? Even if you have a thousand written assurances signed....any sicko will still pry an owwww from anyone under his/her mercy! BTW, what happens if we just so happened to capture Osama's bunk-mate?

Did you see the news today? US soldier convicted for cruel use of his dog on detainees "just for fun". Your question is pointless. People do all kinds of things that there's no good reason for. You think torture is good. Fine, write your MP asking that torture be part of the Canadian mission. Officially Canada is against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. I want that position restated, and since that's our policy there's no harm in restating it. It can only be a positive to solidify our policy in everyones mind lest some cowboy get the idea that a little torture might be fun. I am against torture. And we all know Canada is against it too. It had been publicly stated and demonstrated at the time when our own soldiers were involved in torturing a POW. Re-stating it will not make any difference.....as you said, there's a lunatic in everybody. Anyone can just crack up under pressure. The recent news regarding British soldiers beating up violent protesters....is an indication that no matter what, it is impossible to guarantee that everyone will behave properly and will follow the law. Besides, why should a PM lay it all out when it is not really necessary? Yes, restating it will make no difference for some sick people do all kinds of things that as you said, there's no good reason for. I bet some sickos are attracted to military careers. BUT who's to say that re-stating it will not cause any harm? Who knows. I am not a military psychologist...and have no knowledge of warfare techniques, rallying troops, morale boosters and all that stuff involving warriors.

Yes, I do seem to know more about this than yourself. Late in 2005 they redeployed from the Kabul area to their present deployment around Kandahar. Now you know. Okay, so they deployed from Kabul to Kandahar in 2005. But it is still the same commitment made by the Liberals, which Harper is just trying to fulfill...and taking it seriously. And the nature of their mission did not change. It is still more of a combat mission. So whether they've been redeployed in Kandahar or all over the face of Afghanistan, my question still remains the same. How come you made no mention of your fear that our troops may indulge in torturing POW? Did you voice out any question what could happen to detainees? Did you call for Martin to make Canada's position clear on where we stand regarding handling of POWs? Of course this is not a "straw man". I am questioning your motive as to how come you demand of Harper to make a public commitment...and yet you never demanded such things from Martin. Of course the question of partisanship as being behind your topic is too hard to ignore. You are making serious demands from our current PM...demands that involved undiplomatic and insulting gestures towards an ally....a move that could have serious ramifications towards our relationship with our neighbor.

Peace, Earth, and Justice News? Gee, must have taken you quite a while to dig that up! So Peace, Earth, and Justice News noted in September 2005 that our forces were being transformed to resemble the American model, and that a redeployment was on the horizen. And because I didn't notice this in Peace, Earth, and Justice News I'm now a hypocrite? More nitwittery! The redeployment has been recent. This fresh straw man of yours is a waste of your time, and more importantly a waste of my time. It wasn't you that I called hypocritical. It"s Jack and the Liberals.