gerryhatrick

Why is it so "dreaded"? Depends. How much do you hate women? I don't hate women at all. You give a pretense of understanding so perhaps you can answer.

Nice Try Yawn....ZZZZZZZ Nice try? In what way? What was I trying?

I want the answer in public so I know you'll abide by it. Why is a public question on the matter in the questions forum a problem for you? And we both know why you won't answer my question. You know that Mackay made the gesture and said the things he's been accused of saying (in multiple sworn affidavits). You know it's true, and you can't bring yourself to deny it because you know your credibility be entirely gone, similar to how Mackay's is.

Again that is not what i said or meant, Maybe that's not exactly what you said: But my answer is justified. I have said that our leadership must be willing, ready, and able to make changes to the mission if neccessary. Your reponse was to point out that the mission is until 2009 and asked me "WTF do we need to discuss" (watch out, profanity even in acromym form REALLY upsets a couple of posters here) I fail to understand why you would not want leadership that is flexible and able to adjust as new mission realities present.

Why is it so "dreaded"?

Or until you understand sarcasm?

The question was is it against the rules, not is it annoying to you.

An apology for any 'misinterpretation' of his actions. I have posted it before. Why won't you answer my question? I asked it politely. Do you believe him when he says he did not gesture or remark as he's been accused? I told you above to go look at the support & questions forum. Do you know what that is?

Is that you Jim Baird? The reality of that is the accoutability act is flawed and the Senate is doing it's job. If you have evidence to the contrary (other than the ranting of Jim Baird) I'd like to see it. The Senate has no right to hold up a bill passed by the democratic voice of Canada. The Senate was selected by the democratic voice of Canada to perform just this task. There are problems with this bill. It's too bad some want to treat it as a partisan issue just to bash the Senate.

Ah so you finally admit Mackay gestured and remarked as he has been accused of. I applaud your honesty.

Is that you Jim Baird? The reality of that is the accoutability act is flawed and the Senate is doing it's job. If you have evidence to the contrary (other than the ranting of Jim Baird) I'd like to see it.

I was amazed that they would filibuster a bill requiring the Kelona Accord be respected: They're digging themselves a hole on that one.

delete dupe.

It obviously isn't working then is it? If you wanna ignore him then use the ignore feature, thats what its for. It's pretty obvious that I made a choice to ignore that poster myself free of any online aids. Yes I forgot about my decision so I suppose my brain didn't work in that regard. I realize there is an ignore feature, thanks. What else would you like to talk about? The sky is blue, yes. Unless it's cloudy, uh huh.

I prefer to use my brain, bud.

Good grief. Check the support & questions section. And if you won't answer the question I will logically assume that you do not believe Mackay when he says he didn't make any gesture or remark.

Exactly. They were posted to continue spreading your hatred for Harper. I called you on it. You have no support for what you did so you laugh it off. Ironically you are the one who provides the support. Continuously you chase me around this forum and harass me for my "hate" or Harper. Each time I post a NEWS article that you don't like you accuse me of hating Harper or of being anti-Harper. Ergo, the reason for demonstrating some actual anti-Harper material. Critisize it all you want. Spend hours examining it, I don't care. Or rather, I don't give a flying....you know what! But don't pretend I support or stand behind it. Don't waste our time with that BS. I haven't even read past the first paragraph of any of it!

I'll leave that to you. They're not really to be taken seriously.

You are confused again Ricki. I explicitely said these articles were "anti-Harperism". That strongly implies that I see them as not credible. Why can you not see past your nose when it comes to this continuous rant against me of hating Stephen Harper?

Was he or was he not attempting to connect support for the mission to support for the troops in these three examples?

If he was on your ignore list then why did you respond to him??? You get the prize for dumb question of the day.

I freely admit that I am not happy with the Harper government. I do not think they take some issues seriously enough and that they are ideologically opposed to doing so. Assuch, I will post MSM articles that I run accross that expose a weakness or fault in the Government. The cry and hue is "you HATE Harper!! and you HATE the CPC! and you HATE..." This is absolute nonsense perhaps explained in that people who love something will always see hate in any critisism of what they love. As a contrast to the main stream print media articles that I post, I offer up some articles that are anti-Harper and more deserving of the outrage than stuff by AP, CanWest, CP...ect. also here: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/09/25/Afghanistan/

Again I forgot you were on my ignore list. Hard to remember little decisions like that made months back, but you do a good job of reminding me with your ignorant and insulting behavior. Thanks.

No I don't know it. You're prattling in a paranoid fashion. When did the mission move from the relatively peaceful North to the much more deadly South? I'm not lying at all. You're claim that the media based it's coverage on who was in government is just bizarre. The idea that the stories changed for any reason other than the news emitting from Afghanistan changed is bleeding ridiculous. Take a breath and do a little research.

I don't think I've met one person who has "refused to recognize" that fact, because I've never heard it claimed before. Where did you get exposed to this "fact"?