gerryhatrick

What "media agenda"? Are you suggesting this poll would not have been published if the numbers were the other way? Ridiculous.

You are treating support for the troops and the mission as the same thing. This poll was concerning the mission in Afghanistan and specifically if people believed it could be won. That has nothing to do with the troops, who I like to think enjoy near 100% support.

Why is it a stupid game? Your Liberal bosses sent the complaint to the commissioner. The commissioner contacted the Conservative Party directly. The Conservative Party is dealing with the comissioner. The Commissioner contacted the Conservative Party directly? I didn't know that, can you show me where that was written please? Has the Conservative Party handed over the requested books to the Commissioner then? They certainly seem to have said repeadedly that they've complied with the request of the CEO, you agree? So I guess we should assume that they're not playing some silly litteral game in stating that and they've actually given the books to the Commish but the Commish just didn't bother to tell his boss about that little fact before he went in front of the Senate?

Answer the question Gerry: What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? Ricki, I already pointed out to you that your question wasn't even a question. Here is what you said before you started complaining that I wasn't answering your "question": And I have answered it with "no I would not". I think he was "despicably undemocratic" with the way he called a snap vote on such an important issue! But then, that's probably just my "hatred" of Harper, right?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home I agree with the pollsters analysis that this shows more of a spillover attitude about the Bush administration and it's war in Iraq and terror than it does with Canadian policy. Canadians have figured out that Bush and his people have nothing left but empty rhetoric and that Iraq is getting worse. They're hearing SOME of the same rhetoric from Stephen Harper and Gordon O'Conner et al and it's creating the same negative attitude over Afghanistan.

So what part of this very easy to read and understand quote, is giving you problems? Has the elections commissioner ruled otherwise? If so where? I have not seen any ruling at all in this. None of it is giving me problems. I understand all of the many comments from the CPC over the last 2.5 months, not just this one. Do you understand that prior to Sandra Buckler saying that the Chief Electoral Officer stated that they have not supplied what was asked for? I also understand that the CPC has started a new game of saying they'll answer only to the Commissioner rather than the CEO. the CEO heads Elections Canada and the commish reports to him, so it's a bit fo a silly game. I guess when people are feeling trapped they sometimes behave stupidly, and Harper has certainly done so over this issue.

Ok, so in the context of a debate over a 2 year mission extension Harper says, "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." And you don't see that as him saying the troops may not have the support of Parliament if the mission extension vote didn't go his way? It wasn't a confidence vote, if you're suggesting that a return to the Liberals would have meant a loss of support for the troops that's not applicable.

"Translation" is a bad word. Sorry for using it. It's not necessary to translate Harpers words, they are quite clear. Instead of attacking me with another long rambling paragraph, how about commenting on the topic. What do you understand from Harpers words?

I guess this needs repeating: 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.

For those genuinely interested in the topic, here's a return to it: So what we have there, undeniabley, is a claim from the CPC executive director Michael Donison telling the Senate committee that his party has turned over what Mr. Kingsley asked for. The same committee that Kingsley tells he has not received the books asked for. And after all that we have this happening: Oh, well, nah nah boo boo to Mr. Kingsley I guess. Except that: And on the same day: If they've supplied what was asked for how on earth would the commissioner of Elections Canada rule otherwise? Sounds like dishonest double-talk. Either you supplied what was asked for or you did not.

Nothing. Maybe you can tutor me on the use of the word "eh". I'll PM you on it. This topic is concerning a letter signed by Ratzinger instructing bishops to keep allegations and evidence of sexual abuse of children secret.

I know. That guy needs a new act. I've never seen someone deflect to non-relavent issues with such outrage in my life!

You go back a week to proved a false answer? Huh? That was the origin of your "you didn't answer my question" compaints. You posted that non-question, and then several posts later complained: Now you deny even this obvious reality. First you deny the obvious meaning of Harpers words, then you create a pathetic side-issue about an off-topic question that was never asked. Keep it up RB, it's quite funny to watch.

And if Harper hadn't put extending the mission to a vote in Parliament you would have started threads over and over and over again about he was being despicably undemocratic. We get your point Gerry. You don't like the Prime Minister. You just spread lies about him. Interpret everything he does as negatively as possible. Always change the topic of every thread to an attack on the man. If you don't hate him I hate to see how you treat somebody you do hate! My only boss is the one who signs my cheques. Oh I get it, you have never worked so you don't understand what a boss really is. In answer to the bolded non-question above, no I would not have. Now, can you explain how my interpretation of Harpers words is wrong, exactly? No, didn't think so. He is using the troops, and that's obviously got you running scared. Worried about losing your job perhaps. edit: I'm curious, do you feel a bit moronic for harping extensively about a question not answered now that it turns out it originally wasn't even a question?

They stated that at some point in the last 34 minutes? Because that's how long ago you accused them of lying about having handed the books over. Get your story straight. No, they stated that on the same day that they stated they had given the requested books to Kingsley. I guess you didn't read this post: And here is a link to the Conservatives lying about handing over these books: http://www.news1130.com/news/national/arti...ontent=n092049A But that commissioner reports directly to Kingsley, who stated unequivocally on behalf of Elections Canada that the information was not provided. And there have been several comments from the Government in the last 2.5 months claiming that they had complied with the CEO's request. Kingsley isn't the one confused. Get it into your in denial head: The CPC claimed several times to have handed over the books Kingsley requested. Deal with the truth RB. The truth has many fine qualities you might appreciate. Your boss, Mr. Harper, would have had a non-story on his hands if he had embraced the truth at the start of these revelations.

Um. No. You're saying that. You're calling it a threat when it isn't. Now you're going to play games because it's all laid out for you there and you can't escape it. I never said Harper was threatening anyone with a "chance to vote or debate". I said he was threatening our troops with a loss of support if his mission extension wasn't passed. His words clearly do that, and the fact that you and your pal RB can only repeat an irrelavent question and avoid the topic issue demonstrates how solid this topic is. But please, keep bumping it. Canadians need to know how their troops are being cynically used for political purposes.

No gerry. The only thing he's threatening them with is a chance to vote or debate. He supports the mission obviously. He would like to get parliaments support as well instead of going maverick which would really get you riled, right? Are you a co-worker of RB? I've never seen such blatent willful ignoring of reality over an issue. You said "he's threatening them with is a chance to vote or debate." That makes zero sense. What I'm criticizing Harper for is his cynical use of the troops. It's political manouvering, and it's despicable. All Canadians should stand up against this kind of thing. The political price of using the troops should be swift and clear.

That's *exactly* what I said might have happened. You have called it bizarre and astounding they haven't complied. I said something innocent could have happened. Kingsley said that something innocent could have happened. Where's the proof the Conservatives broke the law? You should appreciate that Kingsley is a non-partisan being as charitable as he can be. By saying that the documents MAY have been "caught up in some type of delivery system" he's being charitable. What kind of "delivery system" takes over 2 months? I didn't say there was proof they broke the law, btw. I have said it appears that way. Don't set up red herrings Ricki. And most important perhaps if you wish to keep up this line of debate: the Conservatives have now stated that they haven't given the requested books to Kingsley. Understand that? That means your point about where the books are or if there has been an honest mistake about it all is now moot.

No problem with that. It's "mission EXTENSION" actually, to be clear. The problem lies in him threatening non-support of the troops if the mission isn't extended.

The fact that Kingsley isn't sure the books were submitted is far from proving a *conscious decision* by the CPC to lie. You have provided no support for that assertion Kingsley "isn't sure the books were submitted"? Ricki, you can have different opinions than me but you cannot have your own truth. Here is a story more than a week old that clearly shows Kingsley is quite clear about whether the CPC has provided what he requested: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...758&k=38976 And here is a link to the Conservatives lying about handing over these books: http://www.news1130.com/news/national/arti...ontent=n092049A And there have been several comments from the Government in the last 2.5 months claiming that they had complied with the CEO's request. Kingsley isn't the one confused.

Several posters don't think that Harper is tying support for the troops to support for the mission with his words. The topic post had three examples of it. At his caucus retreat he called Liberals "divided" on "whether or not to support our troops". This was a reference to the mission extension vote in May, that is obvious. So there is a blatent example of Harper claiming that support for the troops hinges on support for the mission. A couple of honest folks who support Harper's words have admitted that this is what he is doing. Many others cannot, and scoff at the obvious meaning of his words without actually answering to them. Who among them will say openly that Harper's comments to his caucus were not referencing the May vote on the mission extension?

Stop trolling Ricki. You won't answer my question (which is directly related to the topic, btw) so why would I bother with yours? Oh, and I think you're cross-posting now also. Do I need to quote the rules for you?

Thanks, but no. It's a silly question and was originally asked in the midst of a raving ad hom attack. Thus, it was ignored. And now it's being used as some kind of dumb "gotcha" thing. More to the topic, why don't you take a crack at this one: In Parliament during the debate before the vote on the mission extension Harper said: 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.

Why? You're being obsuse. Purposely stupid, that is. A conscious decision by a political party to lie knowing that the truth is in full view is amazing and stunning. If you can only ask "why?" in response to that then I'm wasting my time with you. You're not worth debating if something as simple as this escapes you.

About that I have said: If you have another translation then provide it. You still haven't taken the leap to proving Harper was *using* the troops. He wanted to provide them with support. He never threatened them with loss of support as he and his caucus all voted to extend the mission. Answer this question, you have ignored seven times now. What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? Unsurprisingly, you are unable to deal with Harpers words in any specific fashion. Try some honesty Ricki, it feels good.