gerryhatrick

No one here has been arguing that the issue doesn't need to be resolved. Gerry is blowing it completely out of proportion. If you look at my posts on this topic you will see that I agree with everything you say. Of course the Conservatives do need to comply. But there are many reasons why they may not have yet. I haven't blown anything out of proportion. I've simply stated the facts. You're the one having a meltdown over those facts and running circles around them. And if you're not a girl, why did you pick the name "Ricki bobbi"? Those are both feminine names, so I'm hardly showing "hatred for homosexuals and women" in assuming you are a girl. Talk about blowing things out of proportion.

What's interesting is you ignored my question asking if you remembered your Freudian slip which identified you as a member of the Harper government! In all honesty, I didn't see the first time you asked the question. Maybe it was buried in one of your long personal attack rants, so it was missed. Since you reminded me in such a juvenile snarky way and given that it's a pretty dumb question I think I'll just pass that one by as a waste of time. Sorry, I can tell you have an itch over it.

What do you know about it? Unless you're an insider you know nothing. The rest of your post, not surprisingly, was an long shrill attack. For a person who complains about personal attacks, that's pretty much all you do. A quick read back in this topic demonstrates that fact.

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. What a bizarre rant. Ms Ricki, you had a little fruedian slip, remember? You spoke about the Harper government as "we". As in, it is you. You are part of it, or working for it in some capacity, quite obviously. It explains why you react to legitimate criticism of Harper with shrill outrage and cries of "hate!"

Because Kingsley doesn't have them doesn't mean the CPC didn't provide them to an elections canada official. Think Gerry. Maybe before you became a geriatric you had that ability. That is stunning nonsense. Is the CPC so inept that they would provide these books to an Elections Canada official and not notify the commish? Girl, you gotta read up on these current events before you post.

What Harper is trying to do is leverage support for the mission. I agree. He should do it without putting troop support in question.

And where did that "translation" come from? That's my translation betsy. I am able to translate what people are saying in most cases, especially when it's as obvious as this is. It's not a gift or anything, most people have the talent.

Eh? You just pegged yourself as an American since you clearly don't understand the use of that word. But usually it does betsy. Unfortunately it usually does, and that's just something you're going to have to face.

My god...that is a lot of people.... Your sarcasm tells me you're not familiar with the science behind polling. It's quite accurate, within the margins. Well, if you are right, what do you think of these stats? Your post does not dispute what I said.

Guess you missed it, some NDPers seem to be morally challenged not to mention this was same riding that refused to allow the "support the troops" shirts to be sold. Ujjal Dosanjh agreed with Layton re negotiating with the Taliban. The 'dirty little lies' being spread are not by Harper but keep spinning. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...b59&k=31590 OTTAWA - Canada's troops in Afghanistan have been "acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people", according to a resolution that will be voted on by New Democrats at the party's convention in Quebec City this weekend. Those don't appear to be NDP MP's, correct? It's a resolution from a riding association...one out of 104 proposals on international affairs from riding associations. So...NDP members think our troops are terrorists? So what. I frankly don't care about some NDP riding association proposal that accused our troops of acting like terrorists. How about I throw into your face what some idiot on VampireFreaks.com has to say about the troops with the implication that you're obviously supporting that somehow? Yeah. It's confusing to me what people are trying to argue with me. Harper is using the troops in a way that undeniably leverages support for them. It's unmistakable.

Not accusing Kingsley of lying. Things get lost, people misplace things. No big conspiracy theory. Just saying there is no reason to jump the gun. Huh? What are you talking about? The situation is clear. Kingsley asked for documents/books related to the convention and they have not been provided. What are you talking about with your "lost" and "misplaced" references?

My god...that is a lot of people.... Your sarcasm tells me you're not familiar with the science behind polling. It's quite accurate, within the margins.

I take exception to being characterized as hating Harper. I don't know the man personally, I'm sure he's very nice. I do not like many things about how he is governing, obviously. Your hate for anyone critisizing Harper is going to drive YOU insane!

The details of the letter have been reported in the media, and are not in dispute. You do not need to see it or it's "whole context" to express your condemnation, if you had any. I must assume you forgive Ratzinger for ordering Bishops to keep allegations and evidence child molestation secret for 10 years past the accusers 18th birthday. You're not a homosexual, are you?

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13280 Canadians are catching on.

Read the quote from the May debate. In fact, here it is: Harper: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." Translation: if this mission extension doesn't get a passing vote the troops might not be supported. It's despicable. The next time you see your boss be sure to tell him that.

Isn't it interesting.......we have Conservatives telling us repeatedly that they've complied with all requests for documents from the chief electoral officer......and as it turns out they have not.....yet it's not even in the news. They went from claiming that the books had been turned over to saying they won't turn them over, and it garners a peep on page 9. The Volpe campaign gets saddled with an obvious stupid mistake (obviously a mistake because there's no benifit to signing up dead people) and it's 24/7 coverage!!! No doubt tomorrows papers will carry this non-story extensively, further demonstrating the lie of a Liberal media.

Does that include those NDP members who think our troops are terrorists? If there are NDP members who think our troops are terrorists then obviously it would not include them. I have not heard or heard it reported that any members do. Perhaps you could provide some quotes or a link or something? In any case, extending the mission does not re-affirm our support for the troops. That is a dirty little lie being spread by Harper, as evidenced in the quotes I provided in the topic post.

Condemnations are for those already proven guilty. The fact that he signed the letter described in the topic link is not in question. You are demonstrating your willingness to turn a blind eye when you choose. Your credibility is damaged as a result. Here's an excerpt from your link: Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent Sunday April 24, 2005 The Observer Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. ----------------- The fact that your very own link quoted the word "OBSTRUCTED" means it is not a proven fact. Furthermore, it says that he is facing CLAIMS. Claims and allegations does not necessarily mean a guilty verdict. You are deliberately turning a blind eye on the quoted word "obstructed" and the use of the word, claims....which suggests a zealousness on your part to see this man branded "guilty." So let's not speak of credibility. Anyway, I have acknowledged and I do believe that abuses are happening in the church....just because the power that comes with the job-title of being a priest is like a powerful magnet that attracts perverts. I would like to see a better screening process...and offenders should be de-frocked immediately. I like to see criminal charges being laid on the culprits. In fact, I'd like to see the law come down harder on anyone using authority and power over children and minors. These perverts not only hurt their victims and families....but also do grievous damage to the church. But, I gather, you have no problem at all with a letter from Ratzinger instructing Bishops to keep allegations and evidence of child molestation secret?

Indeed, and we have a similar pack of rightwingers at work here in Canada, apparently. This despicable game of accusing others of not supporting the troops if they don't support Conservative policy is all too familiar. Bush Republicans have been doing it for years.

Here is the original question. Where is the falsehood Gerry? The falsehood was plainly identified for you. Do not play dumb. Extending the misison does not re-affirm our support for the troops. The troops have our unconditional support regardless of a mission getting Parliamentary approval or not. How dare you threaten the troops with a loss of support.

Where does that come from? Where does what come from? Honesty, you mean?

Condemnations are for those already proven guilty. The fact that he signed the letter described in the topic link is not in question. You are demonstrating your willingness to turn a blind eye when you choose. Your credibility is damaged as a result.

If I follow that rationale.... You mean a straight guy can be turned to sodomize 14 year olds, thereby turning him into a homosexual? Homosexuality, like pedophilia, can actually be an acquired lifestyle? You're so blinded by your hatred of homosexuals you aren't even reading my post. I was responding to your assertion that they were attracted to the job because the "power and opportunity" would give them little kids to diddle. You don't know if it was that, or if the job (absolute power, opportunity over little kids, celibacy, ect.) TURNS them that way.

Answering a question with a question again Gerry? You answer the question than I'll deal with yours. Sorry, I don't answer questions based upon a falsehood. Except to point out the falsehood, which I believe I've done.