gerryhatrick

Is it against the rules to use special characters in colorful ways such as asking a poster "who gives a flying #$%#"? Or perhaps even just as an expletive such as "S@#T! I can't believe that!" thx.

My opinion is you are simply here to attack Harper and the Conservatives no matter what. Forget consistency, honesty or common decency. My intelligence is insulted by your never ending attacks on the Government. I think many intelligences are insulted by your never ending attacks on me. Can you say "that's old"? Asking you "who gives a flying #$%&" is breaking the rules? Sigh. Ok, I'll ask greg. You may homogonize this board beyond recognition yet Ricki. But please, let's put your animosity towards me asside for a moment Ricki. I have a question for you: Do you believe Mackay when he says he made no remark or gesture?

The police are untrustworthy because they have power? Uh...the police require power in order to protect and serve us. I know several police and I trust them all. Police are like other people though, some are untrustworthy. We hear A LOT about them, of course, giving some the impression that a large proportion of cops are dishonest pricks.

I agree with you, so show me what has changed to warrent the change of hearts and minds in Canada. It has nothing to do with hearts and minds in Canada, it has to do with the reality of the situation. The public has injested a stream of news from a variety of sources saying things like the fight may be widening beyond just Taliban, perhaps becoming a more nationalistic and/or tribal response to the foreign presence. Perhaps that has moved polls one way or the other, but is that really the important thing? Is not keeping a realistic eye on the mission realities and being willing to adopt (and not afraid to talk about) changes? Who has changed their mind on a whim? The leadership in Canada has every right to change it's mind, although I would be surprised if it was done on a whim. The fact that an investment has been made cannot factor into lucid examination and decision making regarding the mission, even if that means ending it. Will the explanation ever be good enough for you? You are clearly of the opinion that the mission must continue as is. Stay the course is your position, and you have propped it up with dead soldiers. I have brushed nothing asside. There is just no room in the decision making for factoring what has already been spent, only what will be spent. Live for the living. Honor our dead as they deserve, but do not use them as pawns for your political demands. Would any man want his corpse used as an excuse for a bad decision that produces the wrong results which would include uneccessary death? I am not saying that it is wrong today, but you are wrong. Everything is always changing. I have read (and posted) reports that describe many things changing, including the enemy. I thought the mission was originally begun by the Liberals? And what exactly is my opinion? You claim to know, but you don't. I post information and from that you've decided to construe my opinion. My opinion is the mission can change if it needs to. Dead soldiers and false connections (mission=troops) cannot be allowed to factor into decisions concerning the mission going forward.

Must you always be so angry and belligerent? Well that's odd. I was asking myself that question about you. When I say "who gives a flying #$%#" do you interpret that as anger and belligerance? Why? Listen up Ricki, I'll put it in gentle terms for you. Who cares? Who cares about your little interpretation of everything I do? Swearing tantrum? I didn't swear you silly boy. Somehow I knew you'd make that an issue though. Go figure. Instead of spending all your time fixated on me, deal with the issues. You ignored the point I imparted to you from Charles Adler: Charles Adler and myself are in %100 agreement in this regard. What is YOUR opinion Ricki? I know the official line is "Mackay didn't call her a dog", but what Mackay is not saying is he made no remark at all or gesture. Do you believe him? Is your intelligence not just a bit insulted by that, regardless of what me or the Liberals are doing or saying?

This is such an ignorant statement. Why? Is it in anyway incorrect? Do you deny it? You know perfectly well that Canada has not had to maintain a large military b/c the US would never allow a war against one of it's neighbors without intervening. We need to beef up our military to protect us from the US.

Cross posting is simply posting the identical posting in multiple areas of the Internet or in this forum. What you are refering to is ok - so long as the new thread isn't identical to the original thread. Every attempt should be made to ensure that a thread - dealing with each topic - does not already exist. Multiple threads on the same topic just clutter up the forums. Thakyou Greg. Just to be clear, if a POST (not a thread) refers to a news event, for example, and then I start a THREAD concerning that news event, that's not cross posting? greg I'm bumping this down again so you don't miss it behind the rest of the comments that have come up. thx.

I disagree with you there because #1 the polls are by different companies and asking different questions giving different results. The Liberal leadership race looms rather large on the federal political scene at the moment, making a new poll worthy of a new topic. There is no rule that all polls need to be wrapped up into a single topic. Definitely not cross posting in my view, but if you want to solicit gregs opinion by all means....

I'd like to know what message it is that you think your sending the troops,by saying we support the troops but not the mission ? I'd like to know how Canadians, can explain to Canadian soldiers who have returned or serving in Afgan, that we like you guys but your mission... we fucked up ,wrong one sorry about that....we don't support it any more. If the reality of the situation changes that requires a withdrawal or a redeployment or a change in tactics, then that's got to happen. What are you suggesting, that the mission cannot be changed or redirected or cut short without making all the soldiers sad? And you're framing the question in a way that suggests the only option for people who don't support the mission now is that the mission was wrong from the start. Obviously that's not accurate. The situation in Afghanistan is fluid, and if the situation morphs to a point where the mission needs to change then I'd like leadership capable of making that change without fear of making the troops cry, as you seem to think they would.

Just typical histrionics on your part in attacking the Conservatives. Now you don't think what MacKay said was such a big deal, at the same time the Liberal 'braintrust' changed their mind. You have changed your tune significantly since last Friday. You have no credibility on this issue because of statements like this... Here's a question for you about that RB, who gives a flying #$%#? The topic is not about me or what you believe is me changing my tune. Charles Adler said it best just now....He pointed out that the original comment/gesture was not a big deal, that it wasn't a big insult to all women. NOW though he says Mackay is insulting peoples intelligence by claiming it never happened. Is Charles Adler part of that "Liberal braintrust" you refer to?

Gerry, I always (well couple times no) disagree with you but here, you are right. Approval for the mission is not necessary to support the troops. What is necessary is to tell the troops they are doing right and doing it well all the way. Just like their government and people are expecting them to do. Then, shut the hell up until the next election, outside of party politics. So, a counter question; is Gerry doing the service guys proud by telling them he is proud of them but their mission is bullshit? I think not. Therefore, Gerry is not supporting the troops, rather, lowering their morale. I applaud you for recognizing that mission approval is not needed to support the troops. However, you go on to accuse me of calling the misison bullshit (which I have not). That's Ok, I'm used to being accused of nonsense around here. Worse though is that you contradict yourself in the next sentence. If I was calling the mission bullshit, that would be non-support for the mission which is not connected to support for the troops, as you recognized initially. There is no evidence that troop morale goes up or down depending on domestic agreement with the mission.

It's only *about the denial* now because the Liberals saw that nobody was buying their offence to women crap. The denial is a much smaller deal. Lying in Parliament is a small deal?

Yes, I ignore what is not relavent to the topic. You ignored the point about Harpers attempts to make support for the troops dependant on support of the mission, which IS relavent to the topic. Here it is again for you: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6620 Why don't you address the issue rather than spend all your precious time attacking me? Do you believe support for the troops is dependant on support for the mission as Harper is promoting, yes or no?

It's not about the insult anymore, it's about the denial. And you better steel yourself because it's going to continue now that there are affidavits and the speaker is looking at it again.

Whatever gerry, you sit there with your semantic games like it isn't transparent you have nothing but the simplest of sheer anti-Harper motivation invested here. I will be anti-anyone who uses the troops in that fashion. The troops perform the mission they are ordered to perform. That is their job, always, and the vast majority of Canadians will ALWAYS support them no matter what. To pretend that the mission and the troops are one and the same for the purpose of generating support for the mission is despicable, and it would not matter who does it I will condemn it. Maybe you should show a little concern for how the troops are being used.

I don't understand your objection. Am I not allowed to speculate on the composition of a new Liberal Government?

http://www.cjad.com/node/428844 This is a new twist to this controversy. I know there are many here who have taken the position that the comments by Mackay were not picked up on the record and so therefore they don't exist. The problem is though that they do exist. They were recorded on audio tape. I work with some staunch Conservatives, and there's a weekly group meeting I attend during which we take a litle time to shoot the sh@t on politics and issues of the day. This Mackay thing has generated a lot of discussion....and we're all in agreement on one aspect of it: he should have immediately apologized. It was foolish not to, and now that he stood in the house today and claimed not to have said anything he's really dug the hole almost too deep to climb out of. The C's I work with don't think it's a big deal calling Stronach a dog..but they recognize that it was and not politically smart. After our discussions I have to agree that it wasn't the huge insult to all women that some have made it out to be, but my feeling tonight is that standing up in the house and lying about it is a huge insult to all Canadians.

http://www.bobrae.ca/en/pressreleases.php#47 I imagine Dion will be Environment Minister in Rae's government.

I guess you won't be supporting Iggy,Rae,or Dion. Look at their environmental agenda. They all are on a 2050 plan.Same strokes,different folks. That's the date the government committee set as achieveable. Who ya gonna call....global warming busters? Well, you would have more credibility on that if your description was complete, but it's not. Rae, for one, proposes we meet the Kyoto targets of 2012 AND he sets 2020 and 2050 targets. Tell you what, I'll post his plan just for you.

This about sums it up, from your link:

Where it's an occasional lapse, that would be one thing. But often you'll see posts where all the regular practices of capitalization are carefully observed, except this one. That's confusing. You find that confusing? Do you not realize why it's done? Same reason an atheist doesn't feel required to capitalize the word God. It's done on purpose, and you've played into it. My advice to you is to ignore it.

If you have to ask then the answer is 'yes it is cross posting'. I have to ask because I've been harassed by a some posters over the matter. I have explained to them the simple logic of it, but I fear the motive is less to do with rules and more to do with partisan trolling. So if you don't mind I'll ask my question.

Cross posting is simply posting the identical posting in multiple areas of the Internet or in this forum. What you are refering to is ok - so long as the new thread isn't identical to the original thread. Every attempt should be made to ensure that a thread - dealing with each topic - does not already exist. Multiple threads on the same topic just clutter up the forums. Thakyou Greg. Just to be clear, if a POST (not a thread) refers to a news event, for example, and then I start a THREAD concerning that news event, that's not cross posting? Bump for Greg.

That's because it's a juvenile meaningless loaded question. Yes they support the troops, so what? So then support for the troops is not dependent on support for the mission, an idea Harper has consistently tried to push. As you can see, the question has a great deal of value in this regard. And in case you're not aware of this despicable behaviour by Harper I direct you to this topic, which has his actual quotes: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6620

This is truely not anti-American. I like Americans, and have nothing but good wishes for America. Canada's fate is certainly somewhat tied to America, after all. My question is this: How embarrassed are you to have Bush and the Republicans leading you at this time? Is this about the lowest point in American political history?