gerryhatrick

The most interesting thing about this thread: Nobody tried to answer the question. Do these families not support the troops? I've since seen another article referencing different families as well. Still, it's a small minority that are represented in these stories. I'm a believer in the "where there's smoke there's fire" rule, and agree with army guy that these opinions should be respected.

Please name one assumption that I have made, thx. And btw, if you think I have to "seek out" CanWest news stories, think again. CanWest is a prevalent part of my media, and I like to read the news. But again, explain these assumption(s) and/or the twisting I've done.

Did anyone catch the Rick Mercer comedy bit on Peter Mackay this morning? Gawd it was funny!

You are making a whole pile of assumptions there. You have zero knowledge of how the story was generated.

figleaf, your posts are too long. Too many one liners.

Unless they're supporting Harper of course, then it's no problem. Soldiers families are free to say what they want. Soldiers are also, although there might be consequences.

Good grief man, the topic is about military families voicing opposition to the mission. What you bring up is irrelevant.

What relavence is it that there's ways and means for a soldier to not go to Afghanistan? That has zero relavence to the story, really.

Actually there's three families in the story, and we don't know how many they interviewed that they didn't include quotes for. The story repeats the word "families" several times. Why shouldn't this be worthy news, I wonder?

Stephen Harper and some posters here have decided that support for the mission and the troops are the same thing. According to them if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops. So my question is....are the families detailed in this story not supporting the troops? http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/st...f3-54ae2598c426

Coming from the person who thinks Global Warming is hoax perpetrated by anti-capitalist de-population advocates, that doesn't bother me in the least. Coming from the person that supports 'stronger' measures... the same measures that had emissions skyrocket over the last 13 years. The Liberals failed us, the NDP is irrelevant. We have to like the CPC plan, it's the best we've seen yet. Please do not make up sh@t about me k? thx. And if you think a target 50 years down the road is a plan you need to look again.

Where did I say that. You have said it is a hoax. Is it time to split hairs, cause if so Ill go get my sharp knife.

In what way am I being petty or do I need to get a grip or have I gone off in a "rage"? Go ahead and attack me, nobody cares what you promised and nobody cares what you think you are showing people. In the end you will claim something anyway. Just like you claim Mackay meant that the opposition should ask Stronach about his dog. Your credibility is a little...hurting after that one!

Economic treason laws, huh? What sort of penalty do you get? Yeah, you is why we economic treason. duh. What perhaps needs to be floated is the idea of criminal charges against those who purposely and dishonestly downplay the threat of Global Warming. That's like emerging from a burning basement and telling people the fire is out. Those who spew the man made global warming nonsense when there is no proof need to be put on trail. Now we have the eco nazi's attempting to silence free speech. http://www.junkscience.com/Skeptics_on_trial.htm

Why would women drop away from the Conservatives like they have? And will Mackays ignorant sexist insult to Stronach lose them even more women votes?

Because he didn't call her that. Even you had to propose some misappropriate analogy to try and make the case. You sir, are far too anti-Harper to admit how weak your analogy is. I'm putting out analogies because I thought you seriously didn't understand the situation. Your refusal to acknowledge or answer to them has demonstrated to me that you're just supporting Mackay and playing dumb on the issue for partisan reasons. Calling me anti-Harper is ironic. You won't admit the simple truth of Mackays words that all of Canada realizes for reasons of partisan bias. Be warned, an inability to embrace reality is the downfall of many governments. What Mackey and you are denying is accepted in this nation as reality. Nobody doubts that what it is reported he said. The media puts the word "alledged" in front of it becuase they're afraid of this government!

Economic treason laws, huh? What sort of penalty do you get? Yeah, you is why we economic treason. duh. What perhaps needs to be floated is the idea of criminal charges against those who purposely and dishonestly downplay the threat of Global Warming. That's like emerging from a burning basement and telling people the fire is out.

Well, people who believed in loyalty, who had a certain vision, a set of beliefs based on their desires for what kind of Canada they wanted to live in. Yes, people of loyalty like David Emerson... He was given a Cabinet position by Stephen Harper and was warmly welcomed by the other Harpercrites, Garth Turner excluded. Last year when Stronach crossed the floor, outraged Harpercrites were calling Stronach a whore and proposing legislation requiring a byelection before an MP could switch parties. What utter hypocrisy! He has proved to make a valubale contribution to the country. Belinda, was just a slutty whore who doesn't give a crap (excuse the French) about the country. And you're just an inbred idiot to dumb to figure out quote tags. Guess that makes it equal!

Because those of us responding to the cries of foul by the anti-harperistas aren't whiny little biotches. How about just admitting that he called her a dog....admitting the truth that is as plain as the nose on your face and we can all move on and forget the whole thing! Or are we to anti-harper and pro-harper to ever allow you to agree on something as plain and simple as that?

I see no evidence that California is losing business because of its environmental laws. They are afterall one of the largets economies in the world. Smoking shouldn't be a fear, right? Afterall, it is only a theory that it causes cancer and heart disease. If people went and had a look at Al Gore's movie they'd understand some of these basic economics surrounding Global Warming. Car companies threatening layoffs and profit losses are full of BS.

Well, there's slow learners, and then there's liars. You're the person attempting to tell us that instead of "you have her" Mackay said "go ask her". I called you on it and showed you the quote heard on the tape. Instead of being able to admit a simple truth you take a similar type of deceitful position as Mackay has done.

The answer was "you have her". Why can't you admit this simple fact of the matter? You insist on claiming the answer from MacKay was along the lines of "go ask her", and from that innaccuracy you're making the ridiculous claim that he meant the Liberal questioner should go ask Stronach about his dog. If you cannot admit that the words heard on the tape and the words witnesses report Mackay as having said were "you have her" then I'll have to assume you are intentionally being dishonest.

That is the heights of hypocrisy Ricki after you're generalized attacks on all Liberals. Either smarten up yourself or quit pointing your victims finger at everyone else.

Mackay's despicable comments are being picked up worldwide: He's not just Peter Mackay, he's Canada's Foreign Minister. It's embarrassing.

What lib said Mackay said "go ask her"? I hadn't heard that. He said "you have her" in reference to the dog comment. The idea you're trying to float that Mackay was indicating the questioner should go ask Stronach about his dog is quite funny! It wasn't his dog, something you're obviously not aware of. It was a photo op staged with the neighbours dog.