gerryhatrick

So by asking Parliament to re-affirm our support for the troops by extending the mission he threatened the troops with the loss of our support? Not making any sense... How does extending the mission re-affirm our support for the troops? You seem a little lost on that one.

Well, betsy, you're welcome to explain what you're talking about. Notice in the topic post for all three of the examples of Harper threatening the troops with non-support I provided quotes. Provide some examples of how the Liberal leadership contenders used the troops. Keep in mind there's NOTHING wrong with talking about the troops, if that was your big idea. The problem arises when the specter of the troops losing our support is threatened, as is what Harper did. Did the Libs do that?

So you think it's obvious that support for the troops hinges on supporting the mission decisions of the civilian leadership? I think perhaps people are confused about the idea of supporting the mission. We are supporting the mission, everyone. Even Jack Layton. If we're not, then Stephen Harper and his Defense Minister should be hanged. Questioning the mission, wanting a change in the mission, or wanting the mission ended has NOTHING to do with support or non-support of the mission. Supporting the mission means making sure they have everything they need to carry out the mission. If some want to argue that the Conservative Government is not handling the mission properly or taking it in the direction it should go, that is their right and it's also critical to our democracy that they exercise it (there's your answer to a subsequant question). In no way does that worthy exercise threaten our troops.

You give Harper too much credit, he does not control the terms of the debate. Niether does Layton. Layton said something, and now everyone wishes to debate it...especially Harper because he sees it as politically useful to him. But I could care less about what Layton has to say. The issue, again, is that Harper is attempting to stifle the discussion that is so critical to our democracy. He undermines the troops when he uses them in that fashion.

The truth is that you don't know why these men are pedophiles. You don't know if they're attracted to the job because it presents power and opportunity to diddle little kids, or if the job turns then in that direction. And in terms of the topic it is a tangent. You didn't answer my questions:

There are issues with where the water is being taken from. Dasani has caused water shortages in areas of India. And yes, the bottles are a huge problem. The manufacture requires oil, and also produces greenhouse gas which (as most of us know) causes global warming. The transport of bottled water also contributes to global warming. People should just drink the friggin' water from their tap, unless it's known to be harmful. The scare mongering over tap water is mostly conducted by bottled water companies or water filter companies.

I've read all replies. Rather than reply to them individually here's something in response to them all. The idea that the comments of Layton or others in Canada who want a troop withdrawl would give those attacking Canadian troops more motivation is akin to saying that George Bush yacking about terrorists all the time encourages people to become terrorists. The topic focuses on the assertion that not agreeing with the mission in some way undermines the troops. The troops will be undermined if there is no debate between all Canadian parties...whether they want a withdrawl or just some adjustments to the mission. What Harper is doing is dangerous because it's an attempt to stifle the discussion that is so critical to our democracy. He undermines the troops when he uses them in that fashion.

It is not possible to operate a government without taxation and spending. This topic is is nothing but empty rhetoric.

Harper is right. To not support the mission is to under mine it, there by undermining the troops are doing the fighting. You should be ashamed of yourself. That is nonsense, and it is despicable nonsense.

Ah, so that's your response to this? It's something you can broad-brush all Liberals with? That's an interesting take on it, and makes me wonder if any Conservatives have been invovled in this little mess up. Smells like sabotage.

Stephen Harper did it first in the House last May during the pre-vote debate on the Afghanistan mission: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." he said then. The threat: if you don't vote for this mission the troops won't have the support of Parliament. Then he did it again in August during a speech to his caucus when he said the Liberals were "divided" on "whether or not to support our troops". Quote obviously this is a reference to the May vote....so AGAIN he equates a vote against the mission as a vote against supporting the troops. The last example (I know of) was just this last Friday, during a Parliament Hill rally for Canadians to show support for the troops. While speaking there Harper said: "You cannot say you are for our military and then not stand behind the things they do". So again, you must support the mission as Harper defines it, or you are not supporting the troops. Given the venue, this last time is the most DESPICABLE. The occasion was intended specifically to support Canada's troops and recognize that they defend our freedoms when called to do so....Harper used it as an opportunity to again spread his lie that support for our troops is dependent upon support for the missions that civilian leadership dictates. Mr. Harper, our troops have the UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT of the vast majority of Canadians, and that is NEVER dependent upon agreement or disagreement on any particular mission. You need to learn that, and stop treating the troops like an election club you can swing around at will. They deserve better. EDIT NOVEMBER27 - THIS NONSENSE CONTINUES: Here was Harper in the House yesterday: The day before remembrance day he not only utilizes his old "support the troops" trick in relation to the mission, he even INVOKES the sacred day in doing so. Despicable.

Hmmm. This is an odd topic. The term "tax and spend do-gooder" can be levelled at all politicians. They all need to tax, they all need to spend, and they all presumably want to (or SHOULD want to) do good for their consituents. So, your label of Rae - obviously meant to be a slight - is a moot point. Rae must be hitting the right notes to get such an empty criticizm levelled at him. I think he's it. He will likely be our next PM, that's my prediction.

I feel a little sick after reading your post. You've attempted to paint sexual abuse in the church as some kind of homosexual conspiracy. Do you have any condemnation for Ratzinger at all? Will you admit that his letter constituted an attempt to hide information about pedophilia/child rape?? Surely no one is suggesting he, as a head of state, not be condemned and if possible charged for his involvement in this...simply because of the religion he stands for?

They don't agree with you. Their comments are not in line with these Senlis guys you prefer. First of all, you don't speak for soldiers. Secondly, you have no idea what I believe. I've presented the findings of the Senlis Council. It's the only think tank that I know of with offices on the ground in Afghanistan. Your claim that I'm calling our soldiers liars is puzzling, as is your claim to know what I believe and what all Canadian soldiers believe.

Actually here are the rules. And as I said, you are confused. The other topic supports the argument that Harper is a wimp, so I mentioned that topic and the basic jist of it. Did I post the "same information"? Of course not. That's why I encourage people to go see the other topic to get the FULL story. Miss Bobbi, you need to have someone explain the rules to you. Perhaps a PM to greg would help you out. Ask him if what I did above was cross posting, he'll tell you.

Kick for RB. Note Michael Donison's words. http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=1050421501457 All that on the same day the PM's director of communications is quoted as saying they have turned over the books: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...05c&k=94429 Very strange. Why are they digging themselves a hole? It makes no sense. RB, can you ask your boss what the deal is? Why are they turning a simple matter into a big problem for themselves?

You aren't paying attention to current events. That the CPC has not turned over their books is an established fact. I will kick my post from the last page which you should read for confirmation of this fact. This kick for your info should be the post directly below this one...

So you are admitting breaking the rules on cross-posting? Good for you Gerry. WTF are you talking about? I think you're greatly confused about the term "cross posting". It doesn't mean you can't breath mention of a post from a different post.

Have you seen this, betsy: I realize those aren't "criminal charges" stemming from a civil court, but it's significant. No doubt many victims would love to press charges, but what North American cop shop is going to put out a warrent for the Pope?? We don't know that citizens haven't requested charges be laid. EDIT: Ah, the answer to your question, betsy, is explained in the same link: Yessir, you can conspire to keep information about child molestation a secret in America if you're a diplomat. Nice.

OMG what a HATEFUL attack on John Tory to call him a "whiner". That's worse than calling someone a "wimp"! /sarcasm

Why would we have to level the country? How do you know Afghani women agree with you? Have you asked any? You've interjected yourself into a conversation and failed to grasp the context of it. I'm calling our soldiers liars? How so?

You clearly don't understand the nature of accounting. Sure they would have kept copies of the receipts they gave out and the invioces for what they paid out. They wouldn't, and couldn't, do the reports real time. My guess would be that *all* political parties have asked for and received extensions on the 30 day time limit for the provision of reports. I've had quite a bit of exposure to accounting. When people say "the books" for an event, they're basically talking about the receipts and invoices or copies of. They don't have to write up too many statements to satisfy the requirement to "turn over the books". And it's a red herring to speak of extensions past fiscal period deadlines and how other parties may have received them in the past. 30 day deadlines and extensions are moot. The issue is that they've been asked for their convention books and have been publically claiming for 2.5 months that all requested has been provided and/or they've "fully" cooperated, YET it is now apparent that they have not turned over what's been requested of them.

Ahh, but I have one hundred and twenty nine field offices in Afghanistan. It says so on my web page. Clearly, then, I know better than these people - whoever they are. Do you know who they are? Don't be obtuse. I think my point is fairly obvious. You know nothing about this "think tank" except they have a web site. You don't know where they're coming from. You don't know who they are, how respected they might or might not be, what history they have, what motivation they have, or who is funding them and why. So why on earth would you attach any credibility to a report they issue? Why on earth would you not attach any credibility to a report they issue? Do you know something relavent? It's all very well and good to sit there and imply that they have a motivation to twist the reality in Afghanistan or that they're funded by those who may wish to do so, but if you don't know who they are then you are not saying anything other than casting empty aspersions upon them. In your last post you said that you could claim field offices in Afghanistan on your website. That implies that they could be lying about having field offices. That is ridiculous. The Fraser Institute is identified in Wikipedia in the very first sentence as being Conservative. They are partisan. The Senlis Council has no such label attached to them. If you want to attack the Senlis council go ahead. Do some research and come up with what you find.

Ahh, but I have one hundred and twenty nine field offices in Afghanistan. It says so on my web page. Clearly, then, I know better than these people - whoever they are. Do you know who they are? Don't be obtuse.

The latest twist on this bizarre situation: http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=1050421501457 All that on the same day the PM's director of communications is quoted as saying they have turned over the books: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...05c&k=94429 Very strange. Why are they digging themselves a hole? It makes no sense. RB, can you ask your boss what the deal is? Why are they turning a simple matter into a big problem for themselves?