gerryhatrick

They changed the policy *before* the last election. Did the Liberals break a promise beause five year ago Martin said SSM wasn't on the table? Think about it. Wait that would require the ability to think. Fu#k you and your idiotic insults Ricki! That should get your motor running. I don't care when they changed their policy, a broken promise is a broken promise.

It is true in the context that I used it.

I think we're witnessing another round of Bush rhetoric concerning the Taliban and how they're all terrorists. I think they're moderates if you're speaking about terrorism, but hardline in terms of governing their people. Big time human rights abusers. But on balance...what's preferable: a drawn out insurgency such as Iraq that ends up creating more resentment and terrorism....or some form of peace. It's intelligent to have a place at the table, to know at least who you are fighting and to be able to communicate with them. So, do I support "negotiations" with them? If that means nothing more than talking to them, yes I do. Where it leads I can't comment on. The policy of the Bush administration - which Harper seems bent on following lockstep - of never talking to your enemies has been foolish at best.

I feel your pain, and appreciate your honesty. I agree, but that kind of usage is of the mission variety. The Liberals did send the troops to Afghanistan to begin with and they were shifted to the South under them as well. I'm not referring to that kind of usage. When I complain about the "using" of the troops (and I know from your response above you already understand this) I'm complaining about those who would attempt to tie support for the troops to the mission. They are, and must always be, seperate. Ricki Bobbi and Stephen Harper wish to blur that seperation because they see a political benifit in doing so. And I will condemn any government for doing that. Everyone is worthy of our help, but we cannot help everyone. Why don't we send our troops tomorrow into North Korea to militarily cut a swath for aid to reach the starving? Why don't we invade China to bring freedom to the oppressed? I don't want to argue the "life under Saddam" vs. life in Iraq now and weigh the relative suffering of the population and judge the various attrocities. The reasons for going into Iraq were a shopping list, but the main one was BS. I'm very happy the Canadian government of the time made the decision it did, because it was quite obviously a mistake. It was quite obviously an intimidation job by an impatient US administration that was not going to be swayed from it's long held desire to topple Saddam. As for the Afghans, we're there until 2009. Let's see how much we can help. If it becomes more and more like Iraq is now then my judgement is we'll be doing more harm than good. All the platitudes about saving the world from terrorism will be so much bullsh#t if the reality on the ground starts to resemble Iraq, which is driving the war on terror bus backwards.

Uh, ok. Just pointing out a broken promise. It is a broken promise, no? If I was a social conservative I'd be outraged!!

How can you support the military but not supporting them doing their job? What Rovik has said is not how you dishonestly portrayed it. You can support the military AND support them doing their job, and still not support the mission. You need to seperate the soldiers and their capabilities and the job they do from the civilian policy they're tasked with doing. Show them some respect by not playing word games with them and using them for the political benifit of your party.

Couldn't be nitpciking. Harper and the Conservatives change their policy. Just ignore that and point to an old policy. The Canadian people are smarter than that. That's why we'll win a majority in the spring. Man, pretty pathetic stuff... really.. Individually the posts from you guys make no sense, collectively they're absolutely off all the sensibility charts Broken promises are broken promises.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58...er%22&hl=en Where is his legislation on this issue? Where is his accountability?

I didn't give away where I work, as you seemed to have done. You've already made some jacka$$ remark in the past about me having no job, for whatever reason, so this is just another piece of baiting by yourself. It's none of your business. No, I don't. I can use a mainstream media story. And what are you talking about "avoid the issue"? Don't be obtuse. I don't know, or care what you're blabbering about. Concentrate on yourself instead of yipping about what others have said.

Just like a liberal. Can't distinguish between donated money and money obtained at the point of a gun by way of the government extortion system. The reason they are in opposition. Well that makes sense. The simple fact is the Conservatives have broken election donation rules to save some campaign money. Ergo, it's simple logic that all their accounting should be looked at carefully.

GerryHatrick has asked many, many times if I work for the CPC. The answer is no. Nobody else has every asked me that question. Because you spoke of the Conservatives as "we". If I was talking about the Liberals and used the word "we" when describing Liberal actions I would not be surprised to have people accuse me of working for the Liberals. Given that little slip by you and your angry reaction to criticism of Harper it's not such a stretch.

There is no support for the *supposed* legislation other than some unnamed sources in a Globe story and the CTV stating that Toews said the legislation was in the works without an actual quote from Toews. Actually, the original Globe story is the one that states Toews confirmed that the legislation was planned. No doubt it's out the window now, given their reaction.

The Globe never claimed that Toews said it directly. No the CTV doesn't hate Toews, but you do. Hyuck Hyuck! I've labelled many people acting cowardly as a "wimp" in the past Ricki, and never hated one of them. In fact, I loved many of them. More personal nonsense, eh Ricki? The Globe and Mail said it, and the CTV used it for their story. Vic Toews confirmed it, that is the very language of the story. I know that upsets you, but take it out someplace else.

Is this the quote in which Toews *confirms* the supposed Defence of Religions Act? Could you *please* provide evdince that actually supports your statement that Toews *confirmed* that the Government will bring forward a Defence of Religions Act? Just because the CTV says he said it doesn't prove anything. I didn't say there was a quote from Toews in the article. The Globe conducted an interview with him, and for the CTV to print that Toews confirmed the government plan means they've seen the interview. This is the part that indicates his confirmation, quite obviously: The part you're asking about is clearly presented as something seperate from that confirmation. What are you suggesting? That the Globe and Mail and CTV are lying? Is this a media conspiracy to bring down Harper? Do they HATE HIM?

Shoot the messenger. Only when the message is so uninformed as this one was. She came out and blamed the Liberals for making up the story about planned CPC legislation! Does that get a pass from you? Maybe Harpers comments on Afghanistan would get some more attention if they weren't preceeded by 5 paragraphs of Liberal-bashing nonsense.

Why would you attribute what Bill Frist or what Jack Layton says to myself? I bring you the news. You deal with it. Badly, it appears. Negotiating with the Taliban is a position you've been lobbying for for weeks. I have never lobbied for that. You're spewing utter nonsense. And it appears negotiations with the Taliban are happening anyway. How does that make you feel? Have you been one of the fools lumping all the Taliban into the terrible "terrorist" heading that must either be killed or captured?

Got a source on that gerry? Probably not hey. You say please next time you need a source. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories I find it interesting that you weren't aware of this. There's a topic on the forum about the planned marriage legislation. It's just like the convention fees. First they admit it, then deny, then admit again. The CPC needs to get a better message controller.

Well, given the example of the Conservatives not reporting their convention donations, I would certainly expect the opposition to question other financial reporting from them. It's called being the opposition.

My goodness, what a smooochfest! Methinks little miss Licia has a crush on her PM. She certainly slavishly fed us whatever he had to say without question or challange. Is she the CPC communications officer? She even accused those evil Liberals of "making up" the story about the CPC preparing legislation over the marriage thing. Um, wasn't that a story broken by the Globe and Mail and confirmed by Vic Toews? Sun Media, FOX news print edition!

Whatever Ricki.

It matters not if I am insulted, it's insulting. Accusing another person of hatred is insulting. And I make the case for him being a wimp. Look, if I called him a child molester, that would be an insult...UNLESS I had evidence that he IS a child molester. Perhaps that will help you understand the validity of me calling him a wimp. I have said he is dishonestly equating support for the troops with support for the mission. That is not an insult Ricki. This is a perfect example of what makes you cry about me "breaking the rules" when all I've done is present Harpers own words and call them what they are. That is a lie. A pure lie. And it's more evidence of the emptiness of your accusations against me. I shouldn't even have to defend myself against your lies, but I will. Folks can go see my posts on the subject for themselves here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....=6718&st=75 I clearly called the legislation useless, a waste of money. The legislation DOES NOT support the rights of people with strong relitious beliefs. People with strong religious beliefs are already protected by the Charter, , therefore the legislation is useless and does not support them at all. Seeing you TWIST that into a claim that I think it's a waste of money to support the rights of people with strong religious beliefs is indicitive of your honesty, and a clear window for others into the truthfulness of your constant accusation against me.

Could you provide a little support to actually prove the govermnet acted dishonestly? There is a topic on the PM dishonestly equating support for the mission with support for the troops. I'll bump it for you. It details the example referenced above (what he said at the red Friday demonstration) as well as two other examples.

Bump for Ricki. Ricki, this is the dishonest equating of support for the troops with support for the mission I mentioned elsewhere which you asked about.

Do point out that rule about baiting? You've got to be kidding me. You have been baiting because you don't see the word in the rule book? It's synonomous with "trolling" Ricki. Note they are both fishing terms. No, by constantly invoking my name and accusing me of hatred against the PM. If any poster disagrees with me you're in there like a dirty shirt right away with something along the lines of "Don't worry [insert name], we all know Gerry hates the PM...and he gets away with breaking rules around here for some reason". It's quite funny, but it is baiting. More baiting. What insults Ricki? What insults did you undergo such pains to ignore?

Name one other poster I have complained about Gerry. You can't because I haven't. I won't waste my time Ricki. How many times do you want to go back and forth over it? Yes Ricki, your definition of the rules. When you accuse me of breaking the rules everytime I sneeze you're are defining them - translating them, if you will. For example, remember when I referenced another post in the forum from an unrelated topic? CROSS-POSTING! you screamed! You are confused about forum rules. And when it comes to accusing me of being hateful, insulting, attacking you're usually being overly-sensitive or partisan. See here is an example Ricki. You accuse me of of not following the rules, and paint yourself as the poor victim who will march bravely on pointing out my transgressions when they happen.....a poor victim with no support from the forum admin. And what are you doing next? Accusing me of "hate". Accusing me of hate is insulting Ricki? Why do you get away with it all the time? Booooohoo! You do what you want. Nobody cares. Eventually, perhaps, the forum admin will turf you for baiting and polluting. Or not, so what.