gerryhatrick

Women are so smart! So are young and urbanites:

That is a silly thing to say. It is no better than saying a man who does not hounour his marriage vows (i.e. cheats) is not fit for office. I think slandering a woman in public months after splitting with her is far worse than cheating. Doing it at all is despicable. At least in the case of cheating there was understandable motivation. Doing what he did was just being a nasty, spiteful pos.

dupe. Posted here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6886

When the Liberal mentioned his dog they were not referring to Stronach. Mackay did that. He made the choice to call her a dog, and now he makes the incredibly stupid choice to deny it. A man who cannot handle the end of a relationship without this kind of nastiness is not fit for office.

I certainly don't consider telling someone they're confused to be an insult. You are being frivolous in your personal complaints, which is not new. It's unfortunate for the forum.

End of story.

This topic isn't Federal Politics. Where is our great rule defender to wipe this scourge from our midst?

It's pretty funny to see Sandra Buckler saying they're innocent in smearing the Senate committee, and then proceed to smear the Senate committee!!! The Harper Government is like a bad cartoon. TAKE NOTE, there is also Conservative Sentator slamming the Harperites for this.

The Military didn't want them there. According to who?

Greg Weston. Who should we quote next? Helen Thomas? There are few more snake-like partisan reporters than Greg Weston.

Where did you get your idea that Ratzingers letter was targetted towards the confessional? Why have you invented this side detail?

You claim knowlege of something that you certainly don't possess.

Good grief, that's your complaint? What would you say if they'd have made it to Afghanistan? At least they're not dropping 500 bucks a night plus whatever other senate expenses there are and they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. I don't think you can accumulate expenses in Afghanistan. I've heard of guys getting canned pulling a stunt like that. So what.....if they'd had made it to Afghanistan you wouldn't have complained? Lo and behold, here is the REAL crux of your b1tching. You're ideologically opposed to the Senate. You didn't post a link to the details of this trip because you knew that your complaining wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. They went to show support for the troops and gather information for our leadership. They didn't make it due to circumstances beyond their control. You got a problem with showing support for the troops?

Well, since absolutely nothing would have been any different to this point in time if the Liberals had gotten back in power, I would say that the Conservatives should be responsible once they either seriously deviate from the mission the Liberals agreed to, or once that mission would otherwise be over but for their extension. If the Liberals had gotten back in power there would not have been a SNAP vote on such a serious issue as a two year comittment in Afghanistan. Liberals would have been more open about the current realities of the mission and without a doubt would be handling it better.

You're obviously not familiar with the details. Perhaps read the news link in the original topic post. You seem to be playing some games with me lately and getting a little laugh out of it. yuck yuck.

Daniel is confused, Harper made Martin out as being soft on pedophiles...or supportive of them. It was a fairly big splash in that election, as you probably remember. Note that when I say Daniel is "confused" in this instance, in no way do I mean that as a "PERSONAL ATTACK". The state of being confused about a particular subject is a passing one, and not reflective on the individual or their relative worth.

We have been asked to avoid the personal insults, please respect the moderator's wishes. I was referering to the debate and vote on extending the mission by two years. The Conservative motion received 24 votes from Liberals or the motion would have failed and there would have been another election. Those are the Liberals that shouldn't have voted for it. Why would the Conservatives take responsibility and give the Liberals a free ride? I didn't realize telling someone they are confused was an insult. I determined you were confused since your response to me was not related to my post. That certainly indicated confusion. There is no shame in being confused, and you should not take it as an insult. If I didn't no better I'd say you were making a frivalous complaint. How the Liberals voted has no bearing on the topic or my post. You remain confused. I pointed out that STEPHEN HARPER called the SNAP VOTE for the TWO YEAR COMITTED EXTENSION. This, in my view, was a cynical and small-minded thing to do. He should have allowed far more time for debate on such an important decision, including private hearings with Senate and opposition members. Instead he conducted the political equivalent of railroading and now that our military is complaining that they can't handle the current situation for another 1.5 years people complain about other allies who won't give us a "break". Give me a break.

Good grief, that's your complaint? What would you say if they'd have made it to Afghanistan?

Nobody forced an opposition members to vote for the mission. They made a calculated decision to support the mission. That's the foundation of democracy. If the Liberals didn't support extending the mission why did they vote for it? You're confused. I wasn't talking about the Liberals and the free vote they had after the House debate. I was talking about the SNAP debate & vote called by HARPER on the 2 YEAR COMITTMENT to Afghanistan. And I asked when the CPC will take responsibility for the mission instead of blaming it on the Liberals.

TERRA TERRA TERRA TERRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't even see the outrage? 30k for a weekend for 100 or so Senators? $300 each? Pretty good if you ask me. You don't even see the outrage? I don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm looking for a link. The poster is obviously upset and throwing out a couple of details. Is a news link too much to ask in a political forum?

Right, but squeezing through the rules and making reasonable choices are too different things. I think you could easily cut down on the thread count, and still get your points across. Your the leading thread starter in the Federal Politics forum, three topics on global warming and the current legislation at hand. It's excessive. Global Warming is a rather large issue, don't you think? As with the war in Afghanistan (another large issue) there is ongoing news that is related in terms of the larger issue but is unique in terms of news deserving of a new thread. Do you consider topics concerning assorted news/opinion on the war in Afghanistan topics to be bending the rules? I have been accused of starting too many Global Warming threads before, usually by those who think Global Warming isn't a big deal or perhaps that it's not even happening. Catch my drift? I'm not "squeezing through the rules" at all in the topics I post, and if I'm the leading thread starter in the forum then so be it. Someone has to be. My topics are usually backed up with a news item link and are relavent to our federal political discourse. You're welcome to beat me to it. This topic is not about me and my postings though. If you have a complaint you can report, but of course I have "special status" here, so it won't do you any good.

Actually many people are. And you better watch out, I told another poster to "shut it" and got jumped on by the resident rule nazi. Ever since I've been the moderators but-boy, apparently. "Special status", if you know what I mean. And if you do know tell me, because I don't know what I mean. All of the unwanted Global Warming that is happening is caused by us. This is just a simple truth. We need to act to curb and hopefully stop this unwanted warming. More simple truth. We need a leader who is willing to do that. Instead we have one that wants to set goals that are met 50-65 years from now.

Actually Martin put us in Afghanistan. Not that I'm complaining. And Stephen Harper called a snap vote to commit us for 2 years. It's time they took some responsibility for something. Anything.

If that serious allegation had any merit I suspect it would be plastered around, no? I've already looked at the garth turner links and watched the press conference and seen none of it. Can you provide a link for this allegation you have labelled as apparent?