gerryhatrick

With all due respect, your view is irrelavent. You are not a scientist. The debate is over, humans cause Global Warming. Anyone still attempting to deny that simple truth is either dishonest or unable to deal with the truth.

Any woman who thinks calling a woman a dog is not sexist is an idiot, plain and simple.

I have one. Wait until the cycle turns. It always does. Don't waste your time here, you should be down at the National Academy of Sciences!!

Take your despicable attacks elsewhere. I frankly don't care about Belinda Stronach, but seeing your cowardly, sexist attacks is sickening.

Please quit trying to stir up trouble on the board. This part of your post adds nothing to the thread and could only have been intended to start a fight. Is the poster not breaking the rules, in your judgement? Personal attacks on third parties and all that?

I've been asked by the moderator to ignore your attacks. I think you mean you've been warned by the moderator. Slight difference. That would put them at about 37% or so. And before you throw the environics poll at me realize that two seperate recent polls have placed them at 32%, thus making that the more likely number. And all those polls were before Mackay decided to call his ex a dog, and one (maybe two) were before the disasterous release of their environmental white wash.

Where is our champion of the board rules to convey some shrill outrage over all of the despicable personal attacks in this post? Argus, nobody doubts it happened. Anyone still trying to hang onto that is fooling themselves. In the court of public opinion (and common sense) it's obvious that it happened as it has been described.

And you must be quivering with hate over the fact that his dream of a majority is out the window and there's a very good chance he could lose a spring election! I for one am very happy that Stephen Harper has had this stint as PM. It's allowed Canadians to see what he and the CPC are. It's been a most fortunate turn of events.

Nope, haven't been drinking Gerry. Have you? No. And even if I was, I wouldn't be attacking people as you are. I haven't attacked anyone since I told someone they were "confused" about an issue, after which you spat all over yourself with indignation. How dare I tell someone I think they're "confused"! What an awful personal attack that was, far and away worse than telling someone they're a "close-minded faux intellectual".

I thought you were the self-appointed champion defending the forum from personal attacks. You're been going off on that poster quite a bit. What's wrong, you been drinking tonight?

Not according to real women. http://www.realwomenca.com/press.htm#09_26_06 The fact that they have to qualify themselves as being "real" speaks volumes about that group.

Sure. OK. Oh, that's a mature response. Explain exactly how my analogy doesn't fit, if you can. I won't hold my breath.

How much of the warmnig is unwanted? You do know the planet goes through cycles whether we're on it or not. You seem unwilling or unable to grasp the established truths surrounding Global Warming. There is no debate on the things you are tossing out anymore. It is over and done with. The only question now is who has the courage and the morality to make something happen.

You use that analogy to illustrate the silliness of somebody else's argument? Hmmm, maybe if you didn't use the word bitch it could be remotely credible. MacKay said nothing near as offensive as that. The analogy is solid. The use of the word "bitch" takes away nothing. Essentially what we see from Mackay and some posters here is the same sort of response we see from the person saying "so is mine" in my analogy.

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.

Oh good grief. Mackay has brought this on himself by not apologizing. And to demonstrate the silliness of the position you're taking on it I offer this analogy: I point to my dog and say: "My bitch is in a bad mood today" You point at your wife and say in response to me: "So is mine" Now, how much will you protest to your wife that you didn't actually call her a "bitch" while she's righteously chewing your a$$ off?

That is the position MacKay has taken, yes. And it is true, he did not use the word dog, and nobody is saying he did actually use the word. What you need to realize and speak to if you seek to discuss this issue with any credibility is that he answered a question about his dog by gesturing to Stonachs empty seat and saying "You already have her". That is an EXPLICIT (not "inferred") labelling of Stronach as his dog. Now, you and others can play lawyer along with Mr. Mackay and keep pointing out that the word dog - in fact none of his words - were recorded by the Hansard. Such a position is a losing one though, becasue the court of public opinion has already passed a verdict that what he is described as doing and saying is accurate. And if one accepts that he said and did what is being described then one must admit that he did, for all intents and purposes, call Stronach a dog. Hiding behind the point that he never used the word is ridiculous. I have no doubt Mackay is kicking himself now for not simply apologizing immediately. THAT would have won him the respect of many. His misguided lawyer-like attempt to dodge a conviction in this situation has backfired badly.

Hmmm, there is that double standard I was referring to. How is that a double standard? I clearly said I will call any house member who refers to another female house member as a dog a pos. Maybe you think I mean any CPC member. No, ANY house member from ANY party.

This isn't about the clean air act so much as it is about "Conservatives Credibility on the Environment" going "up in smoke". That is the title of the article. Now, go post yet another Global Warming topic cyber!

Uhhh, the post I responded to was an 'anti-Harper' post. (Post #25) It directly attacked him for 'switching parties'. Are you saying that people should have free rein to attack the PM if they do it off the topic of the thread. Actually you accused the poster of being anti-Harper, not the post. And in either event, the post was not anti-Harper at all, it was making a point about belonging to different parties. Calling it an "attack", as you do is just simply ridiculous. And if that wasn't enough, the poster didn't mention Harper "switching parties", it mentioned that he has belonged to different parties. How is pointing out a fact constitute "attacking" Harper? Your empty accusations are getting more numerous by the day.

That's odd. What you wrote before was this: I wouldn't answer such a dishonest question either. The poster had never said he was "scary". And "questions" punctuated with one of those dumb happy faces are rhetorical anyway, even if they are constructed honestly. You can ask questions in that fashion, but don't start crying that they weren't answered and attacking other posters as being anti-Harper/just attacking the poor PM because they don't answer your very poor questions.

Mark this date down. We almost NEVER see anything critical of a Conservative move from Sun Media Not a good week for Steve and his crew. I wish I was able to say their "Clean Air Act" was excellent. I would give the kudos to anyone coming up with a real plan to fight global warming. Unfortunately it is not and what's worse it attempts to water down the importance of global warming by focussing mainly on other forms of pollution.

I demand you apologize for calling a cabinet minister a piece of shit. I will call any member of the house who refers to another female house member as a dog a pos. I will continue to use the acronym to avoid offending the many children who post here.

"You already have her." Is being nasty and spiteful? Wow. Very, very interesting double-standard there. Calling her a dog is. And glaring at her from accross the aisle to the point that she had to move spots is. Don't play lawyer with us. It's not working for Petey and it won't work for you.

All you conservatives keep this up. Not one single "other" person has mentioned that Harper is "scary". Why do you keep trotting it out when it means nothing? I am not "scared" of Harper. The chicken littles of the world are conservatives. Fearing terrorist attacks. Fearing gays. Fearing strong women. Fearing educating the populace. Fearing God. Conservatives are fearful creatures. Bravo.