gerryhatrick

So now we're generalizing all of Quebec as wanting out of Canada? What an ignorant thread. It's insulting to many living in Quebec.

Ok... so when do we address that we unfairly compensate our lumber industry with ridiculously low stumpage fees? We got a great deal. We were trading unfairly, the US had the right IMO to impose duties. We were trading unfairly? Quite frankly, that's bullsh#t. I hardly need to list all of the decisions that came down in our favor.

Rick Mercer is a comedian, he makes fun of everyone. When Don Cherry is making disparaging remarks about French Canadians he's being quite serious. Nobody's laughing, except other people who don't like French Canadians.

Sometimes closure is a fancy work for rolling over.

It's all part of the Conservative effort to connect themselves to hockey, as they were advised by Frank Luntz. My sig has a link to a story about that very thing.

We got short-changed, without a doubt. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next election. There is legitimate critisisms to be made of Harper over this, given the court decisions.

Congratulations to our American friends for stripping power from the rightwing ideologues in their midst. It's a great day for democracy. Let the oversight begin. Now...our turn!

It's about time that Alberta quite whining about the NEP, duh?

Are you serious? Take a hint Ricki, people are SICK and TIRED of your constant accusations and forum rule citations. I am free to identify what I believe to be a political tactic of the rightwing. That is VERY mild stuff, so how about you grab some perspective and start over. thx.

Without doubt the Democrats will take the House, and the wonderful processes of oversight and accountability will begin. Praise be!!!

This is a typical tactic of the rightwing...inventing a false premise. Nobody is suggesting that the EU should "dictate" to us. Your false premise is that by attending this summit Harper would be dictated to. Just not true.

A valid complaint that the critics are not named....although it does mention "EU Leaders" and "officials", which indicates the Green Party are not the only critics. And if you treat the situation logically you cannot deny that the reason for not going is now invalid (given that Layton has offered to sideline an MP) and that Harper is in the region within two days of this summit. It still begs the question: why not go?

It is kind of funny, but at the same time it's pretty sad that our Government feels so threatened by media questions that security needs to get involved like that. I'd like to know the answer to that question, as would many Canadians. Thankyou to Marty for asking what's on some people's minds.

The latest interesting twist on this: Now his excuse is gone.

I think this has sweet nothing to do with Canadian Federal politics. I also think it's dumb to believe that the execution of a man makes it a good day for a nation that is enveloped in widespread violence with no end in sight, especially considering that the death verdict midht cause more violence.

Vote the bums out.

The reasons given by Harper & Co. for not going were two-fold: 1. He can't leave becuase if the fragility of his minority gov't. 2. The last meeting of nations was recent, so another one isn't needed. Any way it's sliced it's a snub. The thing is a Canada-EU summit, after all.

Just asking.......you seem more hostile than usual... bad hair day... not enough sleep.... or was last night just another Saturday night . You could apologies for the behavoiur. That kind of personal attack/banter is not appreciated by others on this forum. Please try to avoid such personal attacks on other posters. thx.

Complete tripe, unworthy of a response.

But was the environment on the agenda, or no? A better question is how does he know Kyoto was added to the agenda after Harper agreed to atend a Canada-EU summit. As well, that is not Harper's reason for cancelling. His reason for cancelling is quite different, as given by his people. But even IF Kyoto was added to the agenda after Harper agreed to the meeting, why would that justify cancelling?

Honesty would be nice, but I have to agree with Geoffry that in politics they're always going to give their own reasons - truthful or not - for not going someplace or doing something. I would prefer some statesmanship instead. Harper should have gone and faced whatever music he feared at the summit. I don't like to see Canada snubbing Europe, too many shades of the Bush administration.

What is an "Islam-based" terrorist attack? I've never heard of one before. Would you like to see all Muslims interned after terrorist attacks Betsy or just the brown ones? I think I'll start a new topic poll: "If Canada experiences several (hundred) child rapes by Catholic Priests, should we round up all Catholic priests and castrate them?"

Yes Gerry I am a supporter of Harper, the CPC, and its policies. I was a supporter when I joined this forum over three years ago and I still am to this day. Gerry. I want you to REALLY look at Harper and the Conservatives. Are they REALL that bad? I have taken a really close look at the Conservatives and Harper. I've followed Harper's carreer since he was in the reform party, and I've closely followed these Conservatives since they were the Alliance. It is my considered opinion that they are not good. They are primariliy ideologues, and that is never good. You say you think a topic like this one is not "benificial" to the forum, and that there's nothing to "discuss". I've mentioned that it is news, it is federal political news, and it is regarding a topic (Harper and the press) which has been much talked about. Is it really that there's "nothing to discuss", or truthfully, would you rather just not see it discussed? Initially you said and now that's changed to I have made a reasoned decision that I do not support Stephen Harper and his policies, therefore I am free to post truthful information that I feel reflects accurately on him, his government, and his policies. You are free to "ignore" my posts and label them as not "benificial", but just as you plead with me to consider Harper more I would ask you to consider that your reaction to my posts may be tainted by your support of Stephen Harper. Do YOU consider him and his government objectively as you accuse me of not doing? I hope you won't adopt the tact of some fervant Harper supporters here and start attacking me as being "hateful" towards the man. You have already accused me of attacking Harper in a "personal" fashion. That is nonsense. I make no personal comments about the man, I attack only his politics and his past actions. Anyway Cameron, I appreciate your comments. I would prefer that I not become the object of banter on this forum, so if you have more to say to me on the matter consider a PM. I also ask that you

Well thankyou very much for that Cameron. How can you say there's nothing here to discuss? This is a national news item on a topic that's been very much front and center in our national politics: Harpers relationship with the press. Can I ask you a question: Are you a Stephen Harper supporter?

Or for the person(s) who choose to harrass and harangue you to move along their merry ol way.