gerryhatrick

Which rule did I break Gerry? I'm not baiting anybody. If you feel that i have broken a rule point it out. For two weeks I ignored your baiting and there was no *pollution* of the board. Your choice. Walk away or keep insulting me and I will respond. I will not waste my time pointing out the obvious. I will only say that there is a rule against baiting, and you are constantly doing it to me. Now I'm "insulting" you though. It's like the twilight zone with you Ricki. BTW, I see you conveniently stripped this portion of my post away: So why were you warned Ricki? What did they warn you about?

It's quite possible Canadians have become confused due to our leadership dishonestly equating support for the mission with support for the troops. Harper even used the occasion of a red Friday support the troops demonstration to do it, for gawdsake.

Name one other poster I have complained about Gerry. You can't because I haven't. I can't because I won't waste my time. We both know the truth. As I've said before Ricki, I'm not interested in your definition of the rules. Take it to a higher power, spare the board your constant complaining.

Yup - you are right. He reports to parliament - not the media. Personally I like the fact he tells the media to screw off - they are a pack of lying hounds at the best of times. Seems he has been elected once. He may get elected again. I also like the fact the media dogs are crying like they have been hit by a car. Looks good on them. Borg The media is a "pack of lying hounds"? Hmmmm, can't see it myself. I don't like the media much either, especially when they're more focussed on murdered blond girls than thousands dying daily in non-white nations or when they don't hold politicians to account. But in general they are interested in an honest presentation of the news. That is their job. And without them who will hold politicians to account? Like it or not, the only information you get is through the media. Harper is shutting out the media because he's unable to deal with the undaunting examination. In this matter he has been a collosal wimp.

On the forum you have complained about others. There's very few here who criticise Harper, and I've seen you pull the same sh#t against others. I won't waste my time searching though, but thanks for the invite. Now you can say "you can't because I haven't!" to your hearts content! The PM is a wimp, for the reasons I provided in another topic. Uh oh, did I just "cross post" by mentioning another topic? Doh, more rule breaking! I'll bump that topic for you. If it was judged improper it would have been locked, no?

Of that I wouldn't argue, except to add that they are examples of when YOU believe I've broken the rules. How many times have you bothered the forum admin with your empty complaints about me I wonder. New meds, huh? And you wonder why you get warned. No Ricki, no warning from mods to me and no new meds. No old meds either. This back and forth that you always innitiate over how I'm supposedly so hateful and always break the rules is in itself breaking rules Ricki. Stay on topic and don't bait other posters. If you have an insatiable need to make accusations against me then go start a topic in the "support and questions" area. Your habit of constantly doing it in political topics is very polluting. Either that or limit it to reporting your concerns to the mod. Although I can't speak for others I'm sure very few posters are interested in reading your complaints.

Because you feel the legislation would be useless, you have the right to tell Canadians with strong religious beliefs they need to *get educated*? Wow. Are there any other minorities out there you want to talk down to and dictate their need to get *edcuated* to? No Ricki, it's not because I "feel" the legislation is useless. Anyone who knows anything about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms KNOWS the legislation is useless. If you wish to debate the usefullness of the legislation then explain why religion needs more protection than is afforded to it in the Charter. And it's worth noting that I did not refer my comments to "Canadians with strong religious beliefs". I'm quite sure the majority of them feel quite secure and comfortable in their religion. My invitation to get educated was to those Canadians with strong religious beliefs who feel insecure having their beliefs.

Ricki, some advice: Stop focussing on me and just debate the issues. Take whatever warning you received under advisement. Don't slander me in the name of the "vast majority of posters here", of whom you know nothing. Stop incessantly accusing me of past wrongs like "breaking the rules". I get no special treatment here. If you get banned, it will be your own fault, not because you dared to say anything back to me. Did I say that someplace? Where? When?

Another interpretation is that 57% of Canadians support the mission. Just attacking the Tories again is pretty weak, but that's self evident. I agree with your interpretation absolutely, but it isn't at odds with the possible interpretation I mentioned. If Canadians have begun to confuse support of the mission with support of the troops - as Harper has been purposely doing, then both interpretations apply. And how am I attacking the Tories? It is a demonstrated fact that Harper has been linking support for the troops with support for the mission. Given that, I am offering one possible interpretation of this poll.

Then why the big concern about the legislation? If it helps Canadians with religious beliefs feel more secure about their place in our society and doesn't hurt anybody else what is the big deal? What is the big deal with passing useless legislation? You don't mind paying MP's a salary to sit in the house debating useless legislation? Or having goodl ol' Vic Toes down there in Manitoba toiling away on our dime on some useless legislation? It's OK though, you think, becasue maybe it will help "Canadians with religious beliefs feel more secure"? If Canadians with religious beliefs feel insecure they need to either get educated or talk to a professional. We don't need some useless legislation to bring a sense of security to a paranoid minority.

Bush has been widely criticised in the US for pushing away allies. If he throws this harmless bone to Harper it will cast him as being considerate and cooperative. You still didn't explain what you meant by "warning". I have not been warned for anything, sorry to dissappoint. I'm quite sure you've complained often about me to the board admin, and I'm sure they placated you with a "we'll look into it and let him know if it's out of line". Posters familiar with you on this board know that you complain about attacks and rule breaking over absolutely nothing. That is your MO. Everyone who criticises the CPC is a HUGE rule breaker in your view, spewing hatred and all other vile forms of rule breaking hatred!

Read what you just wrote. You haven't got a clue what's going on betsy. You're just here to mock Muslims.

Hey betsy, quit trying to be reasonable. Remember who you are responding to. Always attacking Harper and the Conservatives, never giving them credit no matter what they do. So niether of you have a problem with our leadership in Afghanistan negotiating with the Taliban?

Actually Gerry. I pointed out the political costs to GW. But I'll make it very clear, just because you obviously didn't catch it. The *mid-term* elections in the U.S. are the elections for the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate which take place in non-Presidential election years. As a Republican President GW Bush is considered leader of the Republican Party. So if the Republicans lose the house and/or senate that would be an example of the electorate resenting it. You didn't specify what the "potential cost" would be, at all. And now that you point to the mid-terms I'll answer in pretty much exactly the same way: you really believe the U.S. electorate will resent it? The Republicans are quite obviously poised to lose at least the House, and quite possibly the Senate. Bush throwing Harper his bone cannot hurt his party. If anything, it would help. What the h#ll are you talking about? What "warning"? And for goodness sake Ricki, who do you always want to make your posts about the poster? Do my criticisms of Harper hurt you that deeply?

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary was pulled before a Human Rights Commission (in my opinion a minority vs. reason organization) because he distributed literature on the same-sex marriage debate obviously in favour of the Catholic position. Religion is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What the Bible says is protected, and so are those who preach the Bible. That doesn't mean those who preach the Bible can stand up and call homosexuals an evil scourge that must be wiped from the earth. I'm not saying this bishop of yours said that. You provided no link, and I could not easily find any reference of your anecdote in online news. Essentially though, the legislation the Justice Minister is reported to have been working on is a pointless appeal to the religious base because there's no real need for it.

What? Canada is becoming anti-Canadian? Rightwing Canada is very much anti-Canadian, and having a rightwing PM has inflated those attitudes. You are aware of what your beloved PM has said about Canada in the past no doubt. It's quite obvious he's unhappy with quite a lot of it and wishes to remake it in a more Americanized image. "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status." That's us....socialistic. All those welfare mothers and disabled and abused minorities should just crawl away and die so we don't have to waste tax dollars on them, huh Steve?

No this isn't anti-Americanism. Harper has moved the relationship with the U.S. to the professional level it belongs to be conducted on. This means that when the Canadian PM has an issue, he calls the US President directly instead of calling press conferences or communicating via press releases. No MPs stomping on Bush dolls. etc... Don't think there is no potential cost to Bush in responding to Harper in an appetizing way to Canadians. There has always been an isolationist element to the U.S. electorate. My guess is Bush will issue an apology *after* the mid-term elections. I was kidding about the anti-Americanism. Should have made that clearer, sorry. You didn't respond to my main point, that this is a symbolic gesture designed to have the effect of making Harper appear like he's not a lapdog to GW. And I'm curious to know what potential cost you think there is to Bush if he responds in an appetizing way to Canadians? You really believe the U.S. electorate will resent it? Maybe he won't get elected again, huh?

Your right. We should just do what Bush does and call all our enemies "terrorists". That way, people will stay confused. For a while. If a terrorist plants a bomb in a market one day, and attacks a military target the next, he's still a terrorist. I agree. But what is your contention? Are you making a statement about the Taliban, or the Iraq insurgency? If there are hundreds of attacks a week in Iraq and the vast majority of them are against US troops (which is the case) then can we paint all the US enemies as terrorists? The word is losing it's meaning because it's been used as a broad brush to often.

Heard it on the radio yesterday. Sounds like a bit of vindication for Jack Layton. His call for negotiations with the Taliban was widely mocked by pretty much every right-of-center poster here and most print media editorials. The "Taliban = terrorists and we must kill them all" croud won't like this.

What "mistake"? Your post is nothing but a cheap attempt to bait another poster. Grow up. Indeed it was. Good advice for that poster. Thanks.

I have no problem with it at all. What view is that? You're being incredibly silly my boy, exposing yourself as being incapable of receiving information without becoming an emotional wreck and attacking the giver of the information. One possible interpretation of these numbers is that Harper has been successful in his dishonest linking of the mission with support of the troops.

What, this isn't anti-Americansim? Seriously though, this is purely a symbolic gesture designed to create exactly the impression you're flogging. I'm sure GWB has no problem having Harper make such demands of him, knowing that there's no political price for himself and a potential political reward for Harper. 10 to 1 odds Bush will respond back in a suitably contrite fashion...blaming some US agencies and assuring Harper it won't happen again.

Your right. We should just do what Bush does and call all our enemies "terrorists". That way, people will stay confused. For a while.

Ok, a couple of thoughts. First, since when is Bill Frist an authority on anything? American liberals consider Frist to be an idiot of the first order. Are you citing his opinion now because you think his opinion is valuable, or just that it conveniently agrees with your own? One reason for citing it is because he's a rightwing hawk. It's not rocket science. FOX News thinks it's worthy news, as does all the other networks. Now, you can say something dismissive about the media or recognize that when the Republican Senate Majority Leader says something of this nature it's news. 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.

As you can see bradco the poster is so consumed with anger against anyone who they think doubts the wisdom of the current Afghanistan policy that they cannot differentiate who they've been attacking. I would submit that there is a need for people like that to be nasty to people like me who offer contrary information to their dearly held opinions.