gerryhatrick

MightyAC, could you please explain for other posters what you meant by this comment? Specifically, are you referencing the topic post or some other posters post and regardless of which, what is the context of it. thx.

I can handle your posts just fine. If you are confused about another posters meaning ask them. I'm clear on it, and if I'm wrong I'll be the rist to admit it. And get a grip on your ego kj, I could care less that you've blocked my PM. Apparently you did it so you could yap about it. Let's not focus on each other, it's a waste of time and nobody cares about your shrill outrage over me or my bemused responses. Comment on the topic. If you want to comment on the topic do so. Otherwise, don't. The topic is the important thing, not me and your impressions of me.

Oh shut up gerry. You spit out a 'despicable accusation' every time you open your mouth. Bullsh#t. I call the accusation that Canadians don't support their troops despicable. You don't like it, to bad. You shut up, killjoy. And quit your BS baiting and trolling all over the forum while your at it.

Then why did he post that? It's not rocket science killjoy. Most intelligent people should be able to figure it out, unless they're purposely being contrary. The whole "you're either with us or against us" attitude is the same kind of doublespeak garbage as what Harper is exhibiting. But hey, don't take my word for it. Ask the poster yourself what he meant, stop pestering and attacking/baiting me.

But what would that have to do with "You're either with us or against us" in relation to the context of that quote. His post was without reference, therefore it's a comment relative to the topic post rather than anyone elses particular post. Given that, it is safe to say he recognizes and agrees with the issue raised in the topic post.

Some very interesting video of House Speaker Hastert on this scandel: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/02/hastert-foley-campaigns/ In fact, today thinkprogress.org has a pile of interesting video on this issue, if you're interested.

<yawn> Whatever. Ok betsy, I understand your position. Your position, simply put, is that you have decided to doubt all the media reports of this letter. Just hypothetically then....IF the letter were real as it's been described in the media and lawsuits and elsewhere, would you then condemn Ratzinger for it?

This is one man. You posted in the plural. The intollerance of one man you take and use it to brand all Muslims. What a sick display of true intollerance.

What your really saying that Canadians are scared to be labeled anarcharists or terrorists, and would much rather smile and grin and go with the flow. Rather than speak out on what they truely believe. That is a despicable accusation. Canadians support Canadian troops 100%. Are you a Canadian, may I ask? The man said, in his opinion, that only anarchists or terrorists don't support our troops. And he said much more than that in that paragraph...much that is worthy of an intelligent response instead of a twist of his words to offer such a despicable characterization of Canadians as you have done.

Looks like Foley actually met with the teen at least once, and was soliciting a meeing another time. Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego. Teen: ya I cant wait til dc Maf54: Teen: did you pick a night for dinner Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then Maf54: that will be fun The messages also show the teen is, at times, uncomfortable with Foley's aggressive approach. Maf54: I want to see you Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner Maf54: and then what happens Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night Maf54: and Teen: I dunno Maf54: dunno what Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/1...s_show_fol.html Republicans are all either going to jail for corruption or sexual predation!

What are you saying? That Harper shouldn't have extended the mission? Or he was wrong to put the extension to a vote in Parliament? I think he's saying that Harper shouldn't be making the assertion that you either support the mission or you aren't supporting the troops, as he has been doing. You know, the topic.

You mean to tell me that you can see that in Harpers words quoted in the topic post? Careful, you will be accusing you of hating Harper. I fully accept that the Taliban need to be fought and I don't want withdrawl of the troops. No, I understand that perfectly well. What some (not necessarily you) don't understand is that it's very possible we're not just fighting terrorists or even just Taliban in Afghanistan. Just as the USA has a battle in Iraq with mostly a home-grown non-terrorist insurgency, that may be the case in Afghanistan.

He has a bad habit of that doesn't he? Especially when he's trapped by his own dishonesty. Good grief. Another big baby polluting the forum with his crying.

I believe in the friggin' free market; if people want to waste their money, let them. I do agree with requiring a deposit on the bottles, though. What about the water shortages being caused by bottlers in India, impacting the population? Does the free market trump that?

So the 36.3% of Canadian voters, who chose to vote for the Conservatives were behaving illogically? That doesn't even make sense Ricki. How does the logic of a vote cast in the last election equate to the logic of Buckler's words? Please step up your game a little bit, I shouldn't have to point out idiot stuff like that.

Ha ha! I knew you'd piss your pants if I PM'd you. All I said was that reposting a thread you got locked with all your trolling wouldn't be breaking the rules. I would have put it in the topic, but you edited you post after I'd responded to it. And I'll PM you anytime I wish to communicate privately with you, thanks. I do it to spare the board my response to any of your posts that are particularily inane. If you don't have anything to say about the topic Ricki why not just stop bumping it? EDIT: you imply I attacked you in my PM with your comment "attacking me....on the threads is one thing". I did not. Keep things honest Ricki, please.

And you are forced to interpret things in the way that makes the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada in the worst possible light. No, in the most logical way. Why do you treat logic and truth as your enemy?

As long as you continue to avoid answering the question I know that the vast majority of posters here don't think I look foolish. Soooooo.... Answer the question Gerry: What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? If I was avoiding it I wouldn't have gone back and found the original "question", which wasn't a question at all, and answered that. If I was avoiding it I wouldn't be talking about it...responding to this....what is it, the 15th time you've posted it? You don't think I've answered it, I think I have, you keep asking and I'll never answer it again. Keep trolling it, you'll come up empty. We both know that the clearly demonstrated cynical political usage of the troops that Harper has committed has got you seeing red Ricki. Not over the fact that he's using the troops like that, but over the fact that I'm pointing it out so clearly.

I answered it. Do you have any idea how foolish you look asking that over and over again? It's like an admission by you of complete defeat....you're reduced to repeating your stupid question becuase you cannot challange the facts of the topic...and of course the topic angers you so much that you also want to troll and bait and pollute it in the hopes that it will be locked. Don't worry, if this is locked I will repost it. It's an important point and I hope Harper gets clued in because I don't like seeing support for the troops used as a political bargaining chip. Do you?

Who forced you to interpret it? Who's doing is it? Don't be nonsensical please. In the absense of transparent facts we're foced to interpret things. If you're response is "who forced you to interpret it" you might as well shut off your computer because either you're tired and grumpy or had too much to drink.

They keep telling us they believe in what they are doing over there. You don't. How is that support? Who keeps telling you that? And how do you know what I believe? My cricism of Harper for leveraging the troops to ensure support or the mission has NOTHING to do with what I believe. It shows I'm against the cynical use of our troops, and that IS support.

An incredibly astute and well put distillation of the situation. Bravo.

Of course you interpreted it in the way that puts the Conservatives in the worst possible light. It's entirely up to the CPC. Don't blame me for being forced to interpret it Ricki. Given the history surrounding this particular issue it's actually the most logical interpretation. Sorry if it's the "worst" as well, but that's not my doing. They've been saying they had complied for over a month now, and since they have not it's obvious they weren't talking about the books that were asked for but rather their interpretation of what's required It's a very simple matter, and surely you have to agree that the best approach they could have employed would have been immediate cooperation.

About that I have said: You have also disagreed with that translation I believe. As I asked Rickie, who failed to address it, do you have another translation? If so, provide it. If not, I will assume ya'll are just reacting to legitimate criticism of your great leader with dishonest denial and deflection. Now, that's concerning only one of the three examples in the topic post. And yes, that is threatening a loss of support for the troops. Since making that despicable comment in Parliament Harper said the Liberals were "divided" on whether or not to "support the troops" in a reference to the May vote in Parliament. This obvious leveraging of the troops to bolster support for the mission is despicable.

Look at post #63. One of yours it appears.... You are making an assumption. From this: ''This issue is before the commissioner of Elections Canada, we have supplied what they've asked for. If the commissioner of Elections Canada rules otherwise, then we will comply with the ruling.'' You cannot assume the Commisioner contacted them. When she says "we have supplied what they've asked for" she may be referring to the CEO. Do you think they've handed over the books? Or is she referring to something completely different. I think her language is carefully chosen, and she's not referring to the books from the convention at all. Like I said, it's turned into a silly game.