gerryhatrick

Oh that's right, you meant it as an "expression of contempt". That makes it Ok then to suggest a machine gun be taken to an event....cause you were just sayin....well what you meant was.....not a literal machine gun, huh? You're not tuned in very well to what is acceptable and what is not.

It's unfortunate that anyone would want to call someone expressing their views on this issue a "traitor". Those people are Canadians and they make me proud, regardless of their opinions on the mission.

Funny thing about this tape: The Liberal speaker and his clerks listened carefully and they didn't hear anything. You have a link for that? All I ever heard was that the Speaker couldn't rule because it wasn't picked up on Hansard. I heard the tape on the radio and I could hear it. Now, since he wasn't willing to offer an apology and be done with it, it's being examined by an expert to make it even clearer. This will continue for some time and should serve as a valuable lesson to politicians to to open about their mistakes.

I think we're at 33,000,000 now, and there were far more than 500 rally participants accross Canada.

You won't decide if you get banned. It was an open threat. Trying to now say it was just an "expression of contempt" is silly. Is that a threat. I don't decide who is banned here. If I did you would certainly be gone for saying that a machine gun should be taken to the peaceful rallies held in Canada today.

I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link? I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link? Liberals do not speak in one homogenous voice, but some are still saying the original comment is an issue and some are saying Mackay's lie in the House last week is an issue. Your perception of an "about face" is not apparent.

You won't decide if you get banned. It was an open threat. Trying to now say it was just an "expression of contempt" is silly.

He critisized me for "going after" your "behavior", which was to suggest that a machine gun be taken to the rallies today. Making threats against peoples lives is illegal and hateful. Don't do it anymore please.

Edmonton Sun editorial: Even staunch rightwing publications are calling him out. They are right, if he had just apologized it would have all gone away pretty much right away.

Nine posts ago you chastised me for my behaviour on the board. I have admitted MacKay said that about ten times. Why attack me like you just did???? He claimed he did not call her a dog. He didn't call her a dog. Don't start a fight over it. Don't attack me over it. Just behave reasonably and I'll do the same... I just attacked you? Really? You've framed this as a "he didn't call her a dog" debate, which is to say he didn't use the word "dog". You're debating that alone, because nobody claims he did use the specific word. What he did do is gesture at Stronachs empty chair and say "you have her" in answer to the question "what about your dog". THAT is all he's ever been accused of doing, and now he is lying about having done that. If you admit that he said what he is accused of saying, then you are agreeing that he is lying about it. Hardly attacking you, simply attempting to clarify your position. Strange you would say I'm attacking you for that. You're not Peter Mackay, mayhaps?

Something tells me you only think it's fantastic because they expressed views you agree with... By your ealier post, I assume you think it's ok for someone to take a machine gun to a peace rally? I call others on unacceptable behaviour Ricki. You call people on using special characters. Slight difference. And here again you're choosing to make ME the topic instead of the news event. Why do you think I or anyone else cares what you think I think?

That's a little ignorant and hateful, and perhaps illegal. No you c'mon bmax. You don't know what they all are. You know nothing about them. What about the counter protesters? Are they "right wing radicals"?

"You already have her." Sorry, gotta explain how that is 'incredibly stupid'. So you accept that Mackay said it, ergo you believe he is lying when he claimed in the House to have made no such remark.

rest here ---> http://www.cjad.com/node/430372 I'm think it's fantastic to see people out on the street expressing their views on the matter.

Mr. Geriatric couldn't care less about any answers, nor could he be annoyed...he is what is known as 'a forum troll'. Rather than reply, I suggest the 'ignore' button. Reported.

You are with out a doubt one of the crudest posters I have enountered. I do not believe this forum is monitored at all. You are crude, rude, and dense. As in like a brick. Your brilliance is in your mind. And your wife, I am not even going there. Second that. I ignore him, which is the best option.

In the case I was privy to the Church deliberately withheld information (non-confessional) that was vital for rendering a judicial decision. Unless you've gone through this process you have no idea what goes on "behind the scenes." And the Ratzinger letter instructing to keep details of sexual abuse of children secret was not directed specifically at the confessional.

To continue to spread your hatrred for our Prime Minister. Under the pathetic ruse of showing 'real' anti-Harperism without any criticism of what you provided! Perhaps if you didn't go on continuously about anti-Harperism whenever mainstream news is posted it wouldn't be necessary for me to demonstrate actual anti-Harperism for you. No flaming Ricki. Accusing people of being anti-Harper or Harper-haters is flaming. Apparently the rules don't apply to you here though.

Because that often means leadership who care more about how many votes they can win instead of taking a principled stand. There is no logical connection there. The mission needs people looking at it with cool, lucid heads who are ready, willing, and able to make adjustments if needed. The fact that people have already died cannot influence that. The fact that people might want votes cannot influence that. The only thing that should influence it is the reality on the ground. The worrying thing I've noticed on this board is when any information about on the ground realities is posted that doesn't fit the political narrative being given to us it's condemned and rejected for POLITICAL reasons. Obviously this board isn't making mission decisions, but I hope the same type of folks aren't.

If a politician is honest with Canadian's he or she will lose the support of the country. In parliament a bold-faced lie is not acceptable. You can find other examples if you like, but lying to Parliament is not common, and it's a serious matter.

You mean wife beating related to the Sharia law which was sanctioned by the Ontario government? If you or anyone else wants to make this claim, then please back it up with some proof rather than just speculating. Exactly. Some posters don't even care about the reality of a situation....anything involving Muslims and they go find the most extreme internet link they can and start ranting about how all Muslims are all scum. The REALITY of what was being discussed in Ontario is irrelavent to them.

Not at all. I get accused of breaking the rules in the forum by a particular poster, and when he believes I've broken a rule he'll bring it up again and again and again. What I say doesn't matter to him/her, only the constant accusation. It's what forum admin has called "off topic personal banter" in the past. So, rather than argue a point on an unrelated topic, I aske the question here. No big deal, no muss, no fuss. If the admin rules that something is fine, the badgering over it will end (hopefully).

You didn't 'threaten' to send a note to Greg asking for an apology. Your avoidance of the quesiton is pretty weak and lame. Your threat was weak, you had no reason to make it. You have no credibility. You sir are an embarassment. What the #$%^ are you talking about? Seriously, I have no @#$%ing idea what you're talking about. You accused me of breaking the rules (as you do about 55 times a day) so I simply said "I'll ask Greg". How did I "threaten" you? Where was I asking for an apology? I asked the question of Greg right here Ricki: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6950 If you want to talk about this anymore or accuse me of things in regards to it take it there I suppose. You've been asked not to engage in off topoc personal banter, and that's what you're perpetuating here now.

Greg, can I trouble you for an answer to my follow up question in post 4? thx.

Nobody is asking about intentional annoyance. I am not interested in your answers. The question is for the admin of the forum, they who decide on and interpret the rules. Your unwanted answers are annoying me, so if you continue then I suppose you're breaking the rules?