gerryhatrick

You just pegged yourself as an American since you clearly don't understand the use of that word. I think, if true, being an American is something to be proud of. What do you have against Americans? Ever traumatized by any? What do I have against Americans? Besides that they don't understand the usage (or the meaning) of the word "eh", nothing at all. What do you have against Canadians?

It may come as a shock to you, but I have learned from two highly reliable sources who personally know people who have spoken with Chretien privately that he could speak impeccable English. His "impediment" was an affect to promote his image as a peasant from Shawinigan as against his real identity as a scheming, sophisticated lawyer. No, that doesn't shock me at all. The rightwing is always making up crazy sh1t like that. Keep us updated on your "two highly reliable sources" who "personally know people" who have "spoken to Chretien privately". lol.

From dictionary.com astounding - capable of overwhelming with amazement; stunningly surprising I don't quite understand what is stunningly surprising about this turn of events. It's quite simple Rickie. They obviously made the decision to claim they'd complied with the CEO's request when they hadn't. For a political party to do something like that is quite amazing. Stunning. And yes, surprising. After all your stupid blathering about me being a homophobe for calling you "girl" that is pretty funny. Pathetic, but funny. That's just pathetic. You're having a meltdown Ricki.

It's only *obvious* to you Gerry... If you don't have something intelligent to say then why bother? You cannot speak to the details of my posts, so you make snide comments and post smilies. Good for you, Rickie, but the fact of Harpers words remain. They are quite clear, and B.Max and Argus are perhaps the only two righties here with enough honesty to acknowledge them. You, on the other hand, can only post shrill "you're wrong!!" posts. Well, if I'm wrong then feel free to explain his words. Tell me what they mean to you if not what I've defined them as. I'll make it simple for you and give you just one quote to comment on: In Parliament during the debate before the vote on the mission extension he said: About that I have said: If you have another translation then provide it.

You have a sexual predator of children as chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus and another guy who is chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public works who calls Global Warming a hoax. What the H is wrong with Republicans? Is it a failing of the rightwing brain?

What's your point? If it were only people like you he was refering to, his statement was 100% correct. The troops now know that they have this government's (at least) backing till 2009. That is what I call support. If you look at the quote in the OP you will notice that he refers to the government. And I don't follow your logic. Are you saying that if the mission hadn't been extended until 2009 the troops would have lost the support of this Government? You don't think much of this Government, it seems.

Ahhh the ramblings of an 'open mind'. "Those who dispute me must be partizan". lol! Sorry, but I can see no other explanation for those who are disputing the obvious. Maybe you and the other rightwingers here should take a lesson from Argus and B.Max, who are honest in admitting what Harper is doing. They have no problem with it, which I disagree with, but at least they are honest about it. Posters who argue with the obvious meaning of his words are making fools of themselves here.

A delay in filing a report is bizarre and astounding? Wow, just a little hyperbole there. You can frame it in your typical dishonest way all you like, but the facts remain. Look at the claims of compliance from the Conservatives for the last 2.5 months, followed by testimony from the CEO that they had not complied, followed by two Conservative statements on the SAME DAY - one saying they had complied and one saying they would not comply to the CEO but to some other official. Uh yeah, bizarre and astounding to say the least.

Chretien never embarrassed Canada. Or are you referencing his impediment?

It is not necessary to believe it, it is happening. The story is on the radar though, it has been reported, obviously. The reason it is not blossoming at this moment is because the Conservatives will say next to nothing about it (other than change their story every month or so) and the Electoral guy is not commenting. He isnt partisan. Wait for it Ricki....the story is bizarre and astounding and once the shoe drops it will have much more life than it would have had if Harper had just been honest and up front from the beginning.

No you're not. Not even close. Patently false. This has already come full circle about 3 times in this thread. First you contend your 'translation' of his comments amounts to 'leveraging support for him by using the troops'. You say you think it's disgusting. Others dispute that contention and your translation, Yes, and the willing blindness by those who dispute my translation of his words can only be considered partisanship. Translations are not always subjective things, and that is the case here. It is like translating "I am hungry" into "I want some food". The ONLY possible translation of Harpers comment in the House back in May regarding the troops is that if the House does not vote for his mission extension to 2009 then the troops might not have support. That is an explicit translation. How would you translate it?

Rae would do the best of all the Liberal candidates. That's why I agree with Paul Wells' conspiracy theory about the leaked CPC memo saying they most feared facing Iggy. I think it's a setup too. With Iggy at the helm a majority is very likely for the Conservatives. Rae at the helm and we are looking at a third straight minority government, probably Conservative... I am going to piss myself laughing when Rae forms a minority gov't with NDP balance of power.

"Hanoi Jane" did not broadcast from Iraq, unless my memory fails me. The challange for you was to cite "left-wingers" who are rooting for the US to fail in Iraq. As for Jesse Jackson visiting the area, that is not an example of a left-winger rooting for the US to fail in Iraq. This was your claim: "many left-wingers are openly rooting for the US effort in Iraq to fail." Either admit you were wallowing in anti-left wing BS rhetoric, or cough up an example of what you've spouted off about. and oh yeah, so sorry for the profanity.

Good grief. that was weird. Can ANYONE explain to me exactly how the comments by Harper are NOT leveraging the troops to create support for the Afghan mission? Some right of center posters have proudly admitted it here, and I salute them for being honest. I am interested to hear from the rest though.

To be completely fair, the topic title is not accurate in that it's only an allegation that he offered his wife money to stay quiet. It's only in her divorce papers. She's also gotten a restraining order against him. Is he a terrible, mean person, or is she a wingnut? We don't know. The words "she claims" should be part of the title.

Show me one. I can imagine why you do not understand that, because it's total bullsh1t.

Oh not at all betsy. I'm quite happy to focus on the topic. I posted it, after all. I think it's clear this Pope engaged in criminal behaviour. I can make that judgement because the letter and the contents of it are not in dispute. You have pretended that it's not an established fact, but it most certainly is. The Pope should answer for his crime.

I would agree with you, except that the Conservatives said they handed them over already. If it was a simple matter of needing more time, they should have said so, instead of claiming that they were handed over. That I could understand. Exactly. It's quite a bizarre sequence of reactions from the Conservatives. The media has been largely silent. Still giving Harper a free pass again, I guess, and probably realizing that it will eventually flesh out....at which time they can recap all the bizarreness.

Only unmistakable to you apparantly, it is confusing to me how anyone could thing that is so. This type of mindset and spin, illustrates why liberals are no longer fit to run the country. Gee, that sounded a lot like Harper and his recent melt down over Paul Martin! How about some rational discussion. You say that the three examples provided in the OP don't demonstrate Harper using the troops to leverage support for the war. What do they demonstrate then? To me it is clear, as I believe it would be to any objective observer.

I might be a little sexist, but where did you get the homophobia part from? This must be your paranoia or something because I have no idea what else it is. In any event, maybe you should give all the personal attacks a rest. It's really not contributing to the forum in any kind of positive way. See, this is what I'm talking about. What is the point of this? It's all nitwittery...absolute nonsensical garbage, punctuated with a smilee. Ricki, I truely am unhappy with the way Harper is using Canadian troops in the way I described in the topic post. Genuinely and truely, I disagree with it and I think it is worthy of contempt. Now, you can disagree with me or feel that it's perfectly OK to leverage the troops to bolster support for the mission, fine. Don't prance around here constantly accusing me of hating Harper because if my criticisms though. It's taken on a silliness that detracts from the forum.

Go ahead and do whatever you want betsy, quit acting like such a victim. And is that all being American is to you, a "label"?

Thanks Geoffrey. I'm trying not to blow this "way out of proportion", but it truely amazes me that Harper did not deal with this in a quick and transparent way and take the lumps if laws were broken - as it appears they were. This, from the OP, is all accurate:

You hate women, you hate homosexuals and you hate Stephen Harper. Whatever lil darlin'!

Your workplace. Sure Gerry. What is your main malfunction darlin'? I work in an office...cube environment. Lots of right of center types. We were talking about it today...this guy who routinely tells me there is no global warming was fuming about the softwood lumber issue after a meeting. He couldn't believe that we were winning the litigation...even just recently a major win....and yet we're letting them keep over a Billion of our cash. Sorry Ricki, your boss lost a few on that one.

1. Afthanistan is still very much in the forefront of Canadian conciousness...AND the front page. 2. The budget surplus is pretty much expected in this Country now. They've been happening for years. 3. The softwood deal is a sore spot for many Conservatives at my workplace. Many people feel like the money left on the table was a sell out. 4. The leadership campaign is not negative that I've noticed...there's a couple of anomalies that would be expected in any leadership campaign, and it's nothing that will stick in peoples minds. It's not significant after a leader is chosen. The poll reflects a general dissillusionment that's setting in on Harper, IMO.