gerryhatrick

It's not just my interpretation Ricki. Don't worry about it, we both know what happened. Figleaf & Betsy, could you please crop your quote pyramid down a bit if you're going to continue that exchange? Thanks.

W&W, you do not have your facts correct. From the Canadian Press: Now that you have the correct wording, what is your interpretation?

Yup, that court of public opinion made up of you and your fellow Harper haters. There aren't enough of you out there to prevent a majority in the spring. No Ricki, the majority of Canadians. I have yet to meet anyone who doesn't say "Yeah, looks like he said it". Your position on this is bizzarre, but perhaps not unexpected. You're defending your MP in the manner he chose to defend himself. Fine, but don't accuse people who see the obvious truth in the matter of being "Harper haters". That is...how do you say....weak and deceitful.

MacKay didn't try to deny 'the exchange'. He denied calling Stronach a dog. Actually he said this: He doesn't deny calling Stronach a dog, he denies saying anything about a dog. He is denying the exchange because if he admitted the exchange he would be admitting saying something about a dog. An MP mentioned a dog, and Mackay answered directly to that. Assuch, he is saying something about a dog in that exchange.

More deceiftfulness on your part. 1. MacKay denied calling Belinda Stronach a dog. (Proven fact.) 2. He never called her a dog in the House of Commons on Thursday, October 19th. (Proven fact.) Two separate statements of fact. Ergo your reading is deceitful and dishonest. Whatever Ricki. He called her a dog in the House of Commons. You toodle off to the law courts if you like with your Hansard, I'll go with the court of public opinion which has already delivered the correct verdict on this one.

Very good Ricki. I'm not sure what the point was, but you've succeeded in posting another cute avoidance. Remove the word "essentially" from the analogy if it's giving you problems, and then answer.. Answer the analogy Ricki. edit: I better be more specific with you. Answer the QUESTION relating to the analogy, Ricki.

Weasling dishonesty? He didn't call her a dog. Any attempts to draw the analogy are weak and strained. Tempest in a teapot. Coonservative majority in the spring! Yeah, Coonservative. Attempts to deny that MacKay called Stonach a dog are what's weak and strained. And deceitful. Nobody can explain the position you hold. It's a lawyers position apparently....because his words are not on the Hansard they didn't happen. I've heard the tape. This line of argument makes you look more than willing to ignore an obvious truth. Figleaf is absolutely correct.....it was a small transgression. It was really nothing that a quick contrite apology wouldn't have ended on the spot. It's the weaseling dishonesty that's transpired since that really makes it so much worse. Doing it was bad enough, lying about it is worse. edit: This is quite insightful Ricki. You said: That reads as if you're saying he denied it, ERGO he didn't do it.

No, no they don't Gerry. Weak and deceitful. As most of your attacks on Harper have been. Why not post that analogy again. I kinda like watching people dig themselves a hole. By all means I await your answer.

And you're unable to explain why, conveniently. He did that in answer to the question "Peter, what about your dog?" Please Ricki, what other interpretations is that open to, in your view? I know it's become a habit for you, but please try harder to refrain from personal attacks. My position that Mackay called Belinda a dog is a solid position based upon logic and common sense and evidence. It's hardly "hateful" or "close-minded" to take a position in such a way.

uh, ok. Whatever. This is like the analogies I gave which clearly show MacKay did call Stronach a dog. You can't answer them, but then you engage in a drive by smear later on with no explanation.

Ahhh, tiresome. She chaired the board of three companies owned by Daddy does not equal accomplishment! She chaired the board of three companies owned by Daddy = NEPOTISM! There is quite a bit beyond that in there, which you conveniently ignore. But it's really irrelavent to be examining what she's done. I only bring it out to put the like to these very tiresome attacks on her as being brainless etc. How are my analogies strained or deceitful? You haven't been able to answer them straight on at all. Your arguing of this point is strained and deceitful if anything is.

Demented? No, don't think so. These are your words, are they not? Brainless Belinda Coincidentally again, Belinda only has her job - not to mention the clothes on her back, because of daddy, whlie Chow Chow only has her job because of hubby. This girl hasn't accomplished anything in her life despite all the advantages, has no education, and in an age gone by (not very long ago either) she'd have been called an adulterous whore. Well, yes, they are my words .... from a different post. They are not the words you were responding to. So what gives? A moot point. Sort of like saying "I didn't actually say 'dog'". I

Read the thread. That's been dealt with about five times already. What is 'clearly' audible is ... "you already have her." Did you hear the tape? Are you telling this forum you could not hear the "what about your dog" question that was asked of MacKay immediately before he answers "you already have her"? This lawyers defense is beautiful. I hope MacKay never apologizes and keeps parroting "read the Hansard". It demonstrates to Canadians what kind of man he is and what kind of party it is that stands behind that kind of thing. If it's not on the record, they didn't do it!!

After dropping out of university she worked at a company with $20 Billion annual revenues for just seven years before becoming a Vice President. This was nepotism plain and simple. I'll post it again: Why? Because you don't think she's accomplished, therefore there's no sexism? It matters little who she is or what she's accomplished, calling her a "dog" in her workpalce REEKS of sexism as well as just a general messed up attitude towards women. What kind of man calls his ex a dog in public? Is that what you're defending here? Is that what Conservatives stand up for?

Please quit the personal insults. You set up a false analogy and I ignored it. What a joke. You didn't ignore it, you came out with some lame comment and a smilee. You didn't answer because you knew that it is true. Here it is in another form: Man1: My dog is a good hunter. Man2 (pointing at Man1's wife in the kitchen): And she can cook too! Question: Is Man2 essentially calling Man1's wife a dog or not? According to you Ricki, the answer is no.

Tim Ball has been retired for years and hadn't done a peer reviewed work for a very long time. Certianly he hasn't published anything nor researched anything. He is simply hosted by oil company money. This was well documented and not disputed. The University of Calgary through the Calgary Foundation via Barry Cooper set up a special fund that allows for anonymous contributions to the Friends of Science. The Globe and Mail in a very long expose showed all of this. The University of Calgary ordered the professor to desist from using University of Calgary letterhead on this fund. http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html You are wasting your time trying to convince Global Warming deniers. They don't care about the truth behind the Global Warming skeptic scientists. To them it's a partisan/ideological issue much more than it will ever be one based in reality and science.

A bigger waste of time was posting the garbage in the first place. It amazes me how you're silent over personal attacks from the rightwingers here, but if a leftie even accuses someone of being "confused" you're up in arms.

Blah blah blah blah. What a bunch of garbage.

I did not call your wife an idiot. Or maybe I missed something....did your wife say that calling a woman a dog is not sexist?

What he said was "you already have her." So what's your point? You didn't have the guts to give an intelligent answer to my earlier analogy. He called her a dog, that is plain and simple. He didn't have to use the word in doing so because someone else used the word and he referenced it and redirected it to Stronach.

That is one of the reasons she crossed the floor. She was used as an example of how NOT to perform in a media opportunity. Poor Belinda. Because of her bad choice she has to use Daddy's money to pay for her limo and driver instead of government money. If Stronach were a man would you and Argus be laughing about her using "daddy's money" and riding "daddy's" coattails all her life? Not likely. This is typical of rightwing Conservatives. They want women back in the kitchen having babies. Belinday is "brainless", says Argus. She's a "dear in the headlights"..."wholy inept". Just because she's a woman. In reality, she's a very talented and accomplished woman: But oh no, no woman could possibly be deserving of anything she's done. She must have been given all those awards and placed on all those boards just because of "daddy", right? Conservatives have a lot to learn about women.

Demented? No, don't think so. These are your words, are they not? You're a coward for attacking a woman anonymously on a blog, and you're sexist because you obviously (from many more posts than just these) think women are pretty much stupid.

"You already have her." Not definitive evidence of sexism against an MP in the House of Commons. The cnnections aren't obvious to anyone examining the evidence objectively. Again with the lawyer response. Nobody in the Country buys it Ricki, except partisans who would defend CPC MP's against anything short of murder, and perhaps even that. If you want to say it's not sexism, then be honest and come out and say calling her a dog was not sexism because that is what he did.

Point to where anyone said humans DON'T cause global warming. jbg called it "cyclical". And you posted this topic calling Global Warming "activists" frauds and made an attempt to claim that we just don't know if there's a real problem or not.

Any woman who thinks calling a woman a dog is not sexist is an idiot, plain and simple. Who said anything about it being sexist or not? My wife was saying that Belinda is the only one who has any right to be offended. It was a personal attack, not an attack on all women. And I demand an apology for your weak attempt at calling my wife an idiot. Sexism against women is an insult. Draw your own connections, they're pretty obvious. And sexism against an MP in the House of Commons is more than just a personal attack. And if I am to aplogize to your wife then perhaps she needs to start apologizing to the thousands of wives out there who she has labelled an idiot. What's good for the gander....